The Herald, 25th January 2012 (“SNP ‘will not use new-found wealth for campaign'”):
The Herald, 22nd October 2012 (“SNP threatens to defy watchdog on vote spend”):
Hang on a minute, our heads are spinning.
The Scottish media is enthusiastically continuing to follow Labour’s agenda with regard to slashing universal services. Both of last night’s current-affairs shows led with the topic again, and it’s all over the press once more today, in particular the Scotsman and the Daily Record. The former runs one story that carries a telling quote from Scottish Labour seat-filler Richard Baker MSP:
While it’s been referenced in passing, the SNP oddly hasn’t really made much of the extraordinary hollowness of this demand, given than Scottish Labour have said their commission “investigating” the matter won’t produce a report for over two years.
We don’t know about you, readers, but our understanding of a debate is that two opposing sides both present their arguments and then there’s some sort of vote which determines who best convinced the audience that their view was the right one.
The SNP’s position is clear – universal benefits can be afforded, something that the Scottish Government has already demonstrated by balancing its budget since 2007, and it will prove its point by continuing to do so in coming years. Labour, however, want to somehow have a debate without having a position. It’s rather like demanding someone plays you at football and then not turning up for the match.
You do sometimes have to admire the sheer barefaced chutzpah of Scotland’s Labour MPs and MSPs. Take this solid-gold passage from Douglas Alexander’s speech to the Labour conference today, which he apparently delivered with a straight face:
“Just two years into Government and that’s David Cameron in a nutshell: out of touch at home; out of his depth abroad.
But what’s the Conservatives’ strategy for the EU? Nothing, it’s a blank page.
What’s the Conservatives’ strategy for the G20? Nothing, it’s a blank page.
What’s the Conservatives’ strategy for the WTO? Nothing, it’s a blank page.
What’s the Conservatives’ strategy for NATO? Nothing, it’s a blank page.”
No, you’re not imagining that, folks, it really happened – a senior figure from Scottish Labour genuinely just criticised someone else for having no policies on something, less than a week after his own supposed leader had announced that we’ve got at least two more years to wait before their party will deign let the people of Scotland know what they stand for on any subject at all.
We take our hat off to Wee Dougie. Maybe he can hide his bright red face behind it.
We noted at the autumn 2012 reopening of Parliament that Scottish Labour were again attacking the SNP for being “obsessed” with the independence referendum at the expense of other matters of more direct concern to the people of Scotland. At that week’s FMQs, Johann Lamont also bitterly criticised Alex Salmond on the grounds of secrecy, with particular regard to future EU membership.
The implication, of course, is that were Labour in control of Holyrood they would be powering ahead with a dynamic programme of openly-declared policies. Now seems as good a time as any for a recap of what Scottish Labour’s positions currently are.
Known policies are highlighted in bold.
[UPDATED: 21st July 2013]
– on the constitution: “Vote for the status quo and we’ll change things at some undetermined point in the future, in some unspecified way or ways (even though we just spent several years on the Calman Commission/Scotland Bill, supposedly coming up with a settled and lasting position on devolution).”
– on a replacement form of local taxation: “We’ll get back to you on that.“
– on the existing Council Tax: “We will either freeze, increase or cut Council Tax”
– on higher education funding: “We haven’t made a decision yet.“
– on fighting sectarianism: “We refuse to participate in the discussion.“
– on alcohol pricing: “We’re for doing something, but not this.“
– on gay marriage: “The time is right to consult on options.“
– on raising train fares above inflation: “We are both for and against this.“
– on maintaining/upgrading nuclear weapons: “the Labour Party has pledged its support for a ballistic [nuclear] missile-armed submarine platform based on continuous-at-sea deterrence.”
– on building a new generation of nuclear power stations: “We haven’t ruled new nuclear power in, but neither have we ruled it out.“
– on use of Scotland Bill taxation powers from 2016: “If you have got tax powers, you have to make a decision as to whether you would use them.“
– on maintaining universal benefits like prescriptions, personal care and bus travel for the elderly: “Once we have decided as a country what kind of public services we aspire to, then we must have an honest debate about affordability.“
If anyone has any more up-to-date information on these or any other Scottish Labour positions, please do send it in. In that event, you may wish to CC Johann Lamont.
We’re indebted to keen Wings Over Scotland reader “Holebender” for digging out this little nugget. Ian Davidson MP, chair of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, is at the forefront of Labour’s demands for the Scottish Government to hold a single-question referendum on Scottish independence, regardless of whether the Scottish electorate might want a third option. But it turns out Ian hasn’t always been quite so keen on restricting voters to straight yes/no choices.
Back in February 2008, he wrote to Nick Clegg about the Liberal Democrats’ proposed referendum on UK membership of the EU. You can find the full original text of his letter at this page on the Conservative Home website. Just for a bit of fun, though, we’ve reprinted it below with some extremely minor adjustments.
What Ian Davidson MP, chair of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee assessing the independence referendum, thinks about people with financial vested interests being consulted on political matters if one of those people is Prince Charles:
“This is a scandal and an anachronism. The idea that the Prince has a right to be consulted on legislation which might impact on his interests belongs to a bygone era.” (Daily Mail, March 2012)
What Ian Davidson MP, chair of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee assessing the independence referendum, thinks about people with financial vested interests being consulted on political matters if one of those people is Ian Davidson MP:
Something’s not quite the same, but we can’t put our finger on it. Can anyone help?
We think our brains may have been completely fused by a story in today’s Daily Record, which is based around comments by Rutherglen Labour MSP James Kelly, pictured below in a scene from the particularly bad acid headache he’s just given us.
Here’s the bit that’s been making our minds spin round and round and round in circles this morning until we’re dizzy trying to make sense of it:
“ALEX Salmond was accused of “double standards” yesterday over his efforts to woo Rupert Murdoch. Labour raised further questions about the First Minister’s links with Murdoch following claims the media mogul lobbied Tony Blair to wage war in Iraq.
Former spin doctor Alastair Campbell said in the latest volume of his memoirs that Blair “took a call from Murdoch who was pressing on timings, saying how News International would support us, etc”.
Salmond won plaudits across Scotland for his outspoken opposition to the war which he described as “the most disastrous foreign policy decision of recent times”. But it did not stop him from trying to get closer to Murdoch to win The Sun newspaper’s backing for the SNP.
Labour MSP and chief whip James Kelly said: “This could make the conversation a little uncomfortable the next time Alex Salmond has Rupert Murdoch round to Bute House for tea and biscuits. Alex Salmond was against the Iraq war but that didn’t stop him cosying up to Rupert Murdoch. This is classic double standards from Alex Salmond who is prepared to put his party’s interests ahead of any issue.””
Let’s try to talk our way through this slowly: LABOUR is attacking the SNP for not being sufficiently critical of RUPERT MURDOCH when he backed LABOUR Prime Minister TONY BLAIR over going to war in IRAQ in 2003? What, seriously?
That can’t really be it, can it? Labour, who instigated the illegal war that left hundreds of thousands dead, attacking an opposition party who voted against that war (and which actually tried to impeach Blair for it) for not being critical enough of a newspaper proprietor whose papers enthusiastically backed Labour at the time and who made Tony Blair godfather to one of his children, because when subsequently in government it had a couple of meetings with that newspaper proprietor (also one of Scotland’s largest private-sector employers) the best part of a decade later?
Are we dreaming this stuff? Please tell us we’re dreaming it.
When we started a politics website, we invested in the best equipment money could buy, because we knew we’d need to guard against double standards ourselves as well as measuring them in others. The Super HypocrisOMeter 5000 is an industrial-strength device, built to cope with the most extreme manifestations of a trait that is the stock-in-trade of all politicians. But this morning we switched it on and tried to run Labour’s reaction to a story in today’s Express through it, and look what happened:
Let’s be clear. We’re not especially fussed about the comments themselves. We’ve figuratively wished a few people dead in our time, and as we’ve recently noted, at the end of the day it’s just words on the internet. We’re deeply dismayed at the growing phenomenon where people can be prosecuted, fired from their job, or even threatened with prison just for saying unpleasant stuff that plainly isn’t meant in any threatening sense. Salmond Senior’s own admirable response strikes the perfect note of disdain.
We’re not even going to attempt to whip up any outrage about the fact that the Labour member in question chose to attack Alex Salmond’s 90-year-old father rather than the First Minister himself – that’s pathetic and despicable, rather than hypocritical. Nope, the thing that catastrophically overloaded the triple-locked shielding and emergency cutout protection of the Super HypocrisOMeter 5000 was Labour’s astonishing attempt to half-heartedly distance the party from the comments. As well as blithely and shamefully trying to insist that Mr Kelly’s views reflected a “substantive issue”, Labour’s unnamed spokesman offered the following high-handed dismissal:
“This desperate smear campaign falls at the first hurdle because this Facebook page is not owned, managed, or operated by Scottish Labour, and it will not detract from the rantings and ravings of SNP candidates – sacked or otherwise – online.
“Political parties are responsible for their candidates and officials, but members of the public must be responsible for their own behaviour.”
Those readers whose minds haven’t just boggled all the way into unconsciousness will very likely be struggling to reconcile this statement with Labour’s previous views on online extremism, at least when it’s practiced by the infamous “cybernats“:
Iain Gray has, of course, been far from alone among senior Labour figures in insisting that the “cybernats” – a disparate group of largely-anonymous individuals, of whom all, some or none might actually be SNP members – operate under the explicit instruction and control of the SNP leadership:
Ever since 2011, Labour and its tame media have ramped up the angle that the SNP leadership must “do something about the cybernats“. Prominent features are headlined with pious pleas or strident demands for the SNP to condemn their nefarious activities, even as elected Labour MPs, MSPs and councillors (rather than random internet users) freely compare Alex Salmond to Hitler, Robert Mugabe or Slobodan Milosevic or call SNP politicians and members ‘traitors” without the hysterical press opprobrium which accompanies “cybernats” doing the same thing.
The Facebook group on which Alex Salmond’s father was wished dead was not an open group populated by any old internet loonies who wandered along. It’s closed to the public and the controlled, vetted membership of 533 includes the Scottish party’s foremost and finest – as well as current “leader” Johann Lamont and her “deputy” Anas Sarwar along with Shadow Scottish Secretary Margaret Curran, former First Minister Jack McConnell, MPs Cathy Jamieson, Ian Davidson, Eric Joyce, Sarah Boyack, Tom Harris, Tom Greatrex and Tom Watson, and front-bench MSPs Jackie Baillie, Ken Macintosh and James Kelly, are all members.
(Most of the prominent online Labour activists whose names our readers will recognise also belong to the group, including John Ruddy, Aidan Skinner, Duncan Hothersall and Cllr Alex “Braveheart” Gallagher. Only the lovely Terry Kelly is unaccountably missing.)
We don’t think it’s dreadfully unreasonable to suggest that with a membership list like that, Scottish Labour has a lot more control and responsibility over what’s posted on the group than the SNP does over random anonymous Twitter users or comment-thread posters. In a world where suggesting that certain actions of rival politicians might be “anti-Scottish” generates hundreds of column inches and loud demands for resignation, we look forward to the blanket media coverage demanding that the leadership takes urgent action against this vile cyberBrit menace nestling in the very bosom of Scottish Labour. We’re certain it’ll be along any minute now.
The following is a transcript from an interview with Scottish Labour “leader” Johann Lamont on BBC Radio Scotland’s “Good Morning Scotland” on Wednesday 25th April, concerning the relationship between Alex Salmond and Rupert Murdoch. (2h12m in.)
GARY ROBERTSON: Would you, if you were First Minister, be meeting Rupert Murdoch and others to talk about jobs in Scotland?
JOHANN LAMONT: Well, you would have to meet with people to talk about jobs and so on.
GARY ROBERTSON: So you would have had the same relationship, then?
JOHANN LAMONT: I would make this point: that we have all learned a lesson about dealing with Rupert Murdoch, and that is you sup with a long spoon.
The picture below comes from the Sun, in a 2011 feature entitled “Red Ed Is Dead“:
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
