The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland



Who to believe? 62

Posted on March 07, 2013 by

From the Luxembourg newspaper Wort.lu on Tuesday:

“Luxembourg’s Foreign Minister has backtracked on a comment about Scotland’s independence which was quoted in the British media, saying it was misinterpreted.“

From today’s Scottish Daily Mail:

“The minister’s spokesman has made clear to the BBC that he has ‘no problems’ with our reporting of his remarks.” (column 3)

Hmm, that’s a tricky one.

Between the whines 44

Posted on February 13, 2013 by

Fans of TV panel shows will probably be aware of a regular strand on the BBC’s Mock The Week called “Between The Lines”, in which one comedian delivers lines from a speech in the persona of a public figure, while the other translates what they really mean. There’s a chucklesome example here.

blairmcdougall9

For a bit of fun we’ve decided to have our own attempt, with a letter sent out this week to the No campaign’s mailing list by the independence debate’s own Hugh Dennis: “Better Together” campaign director and creative truth interpreter Blair McDougall.

Read the rest of this entry →

Captain Darling sounds a retreat 38

Posted on November 10, 2012 by

It can be a full-time job keeping up with the many inconsistencies and contradictions in the anti-independence campaign. (Labour’s professed hatred for the Tories but willingness to let them govern Scotland when Scottish voters reject them, and the Conservatives’ belief in the UK Union but deep-seated antipathy to the European one, leap out as two of the more obvious examples.) Today’s is a corker, though.

Attentive readers will recall that the “Better Together” camp has spent the five months since its launch constantly warning Scots that independence would be “irrevocable”. Here’s figurehead Alistair Darling being reported in the Telegraph as saying just that at the No campaign’s launch in June of this year (our emphasis, as usual):

“This is not about picking a government for the next five years. If we decide to go down the independence route it is an irrevocable step – you’re talking about a completely different constitutional relationship, maybe for the next 200 or 300 years.”

Pretty unequivocal, then – independence is forever, no going back in our lifetime, or that of our children, or their children, or their children. But wait. Fast-forward to last night and the former Chancellor appears to have had a radical change of heart, in a BBC story headlined “Darling predicts independent Scotland would rejoin UK”:

“Speaking as he delivered this year’s John P Mackintosh Memorial Lecture in Prestonpans, East Lothian, on Friday evening, [Darling] said the ‘most obvious problem’ with a common currency was that ‘sooner or later it takes you to economic and then political union. So Scotland would leave the UK only to end up in the same place as it began, with all the trauma that would entail.'”

Of course, if you’re a Wings Over Scotland reader you already knew the “irrevocable” line was a load of rubbish that could only be true if the core claim – and indeed, the very name – of “Better Together” was a cynical lie. But it’s nice to see Mr Darling admit it this early in the day. Which strident assertion, we wonder, will he recant next?

Happy happy joy joy 24

Posted on September 08, 2012 by

As penance for our sins, yesterday we went for a bit of a wade through the Better Together campaign’s official Facebook page, where we played a fun game of “watching dissenting comments vanish” for a while. As we browsed, though, we particularly enjoyed the upbeat entry for August 21st:

And the entry just two days later showed the campaign was as good as its word.

Read the rest of this entry →

Johann Lamont’s faulty hearing aid 8

Posted on April 11, 2012 by

We were going to write about something else today, but we have a touch of the flu and we're not quite up to a hefty post. As we bravely ploughed through some research, though, we stumbled across another example of something we've noted before on this blog – Labour's curious (some might say outright untruthful) habit of presenting the SNP's position on things as the precise opposite of what they actually are. The latest accidental misunderstanding came from Johann Lamont's speech to the Scottish Labour conference last month. Here's what Johann claims the SNP say:

"The SNP want to sell a skewed vision of where Scotland is at. They want you to believe that Scotland is somehow oppressed."

Here, on the other hand, is what the SNP actually say, from two months earlier:

"Scotland is not oppressed and we have no need to be liberated."

How odd. In the interests of fair and honest political discourse, should we all perhaps club together and offer to buy the leader of Scotland's opposition some new batteries? We'll throw in 50p to get things started. Pledge the amount of your support in the comments below and let's see if we can make the world a better place.

RUNNING TOTAL: £0.50

Does Alex Salmond need a translator? 10

Posted on March 09, 2012 by

We're a bit confused, readers. We live in the online age, where almost everything that happens is recorded for posterity – whether by a full TV crew or someone with a mobile phone. There can be almost no concerted misrepresentation of events, because no matter how hard spin doctors or biased media sources might try to push a dishonest line, someone somewhere will have what really happened on video.

So we're somewhat bemused as to how there can be such a polarised difference of opinion on whether the SNP wants one or two questions on the ballot paper for its proposed referendum on Scottish independence in 2014. The facts, as presented by the SNP in front of a watching nation and preserved forever on tape and digital memory by a hundred news channels of every and no political colour, seem extremely clear.

"On a historic day in Edinburgh, as the Scottish Government published its detailed proposals for a referendum to determine the country’s future, the First Minister announced his intention to put a simple question to voters in the autumn of 2014: Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? Mr Salmond’s single question on independence was supported by constitutional experts last night. The UK government also welcomed the clarity of the question he proposes." (Eddie Barnes, The Scotsman)

"Alex Salmond has revealed plans for a single-question independence referendum in 2014, offering voters a straight 'yes' or 'no' choice."
(Andrew Nicoll, The Sun)

"Selkirk’s Tory MSP John Lamont has welcomed Alex Salmond’s preference for a single question in Scotland’s independence referendum"
(Selkirk Weekend Advertiser)

"Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond has unveiled the question he wants to ask Scots in a referendum on independence. He said it should be: "Do you agree Scotland should be an independent country?" In a statement to the Scottish Parliament to launch his party's public consultation on the referendum, he told MSP's Scots will be given a "straightforward" and "clear" choice." (James Matthews, Sky News)

"The document will also see Salmond confirm his preference for a single yes-no question on independence in a 2014 referendum."
(Tom Gordon, The Herald)

"As Mr Salmond launched the Scottish Government’s consultation paper on the independence referendum, the document’s centrepiece was the question Scots will be asked in 2014: “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?” The document, launched on Burns Night, even contains a mock-up of how a single-question ballot paper would appear, with two boxes, marked Yes or No." (Paul Kilbride, the Daily Express)

"Salmond reiterated his Scottish National Party's formal preference for a single question." (Keith Albert, Public Finance)

"Mr. Salmond wants only one question on the ballot paper: Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"
(Neal Ascherson, the New York Times)

"It is interesting, when you look at the public utterances of people like the Deputy First Minister and the Finance Secretary, Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney, that they have said, clearly, that they prefer a single question themselves. Indeed, the Scottish Government’s own consultation makes that their preference." (Michael Moore, Secretary of State for Scotland)

"The Government has made it clear, as it always has done, that its preference is for a single question on independence."
(John Swinney, Finance Secretary)

"Scots Tory leader Ruth Davidson said she was glad that Mr Salmond had set out his preference for a single question on independence."
(Sanya Khetani, Business Insider)

"Our preference is to have a single question."
(Alex Salmond, quoted in Holyrood magazine)

So that all seems pretty straightforward and unambiguous. The First Minister and the SNP have made it clear that their preference is for a single-question referendum with a straight Yes/No answer, and while they're willing to listen to other opinions and consider any alternative, a single question is what they prefer and that's what they're proposing. Right? But wait – what's this?

Read the rest of this entry →

Listening and learning, Labour-style 1

Posted on November 14, 2011 by

"Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon said minimum pricing was not a magic bullet, but a part of the solution."
(BBC, 1 Nov 2011)

"Sturgeon said a minimum price was 'not a magic bullet'"
(Alcohol Policy UK, 1 Nov 2011)

"Minimum pricing is not a magic bullet, but it is a huge step in the right direction."
(Nicola Sturgeon, Evening Times, 8 Sep 2011)

"[Nicola Sturgeon] doesn’t and never has believed that minimum pricing is the magic bullet solution."
(Holyrood magazine, 15 Oct 2010)

"We should not see any particular initiative as a magic bullet — we need a strong package of measures. That initiative was simply another tool in the box."
(Nicola Sturgeon, Findlaw UK, 30 Sep 2010)

"While [minimum pricing] is not a magic bullet, it would effectively target problem drinkers and help them reduce their alcohol consumption."
(Nicola Sturgeon, STV News, 31 Aug 2010)

"While it's not a magic bullet, we believe that minimum pricing would effectively target problem drinkers."
(Nicola Sturgeon, Newsnet Scotland, 9 June 2010)

 

"The SNP seem to think that minimum unit pricing is some sort of silver bullet."
(Richard Simpson, Labour Shadow Health Minister, 14 Nov 2011)

 

Sigh.

  • About

    Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.

    Stats: 6,984 Posts, 1,252,131 Comments

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

    • Northcode on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Judicial review is often misunderstood and I think it’s important that folk understand what it can actually do so they…” Oct 3, 10:27
    • sam on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Bullshit from you. As usual you never check anything, you just say whatever shit comes into the brain cell. This…” Oct 3, 09:47
    • Hatey McHateface on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Sure, Alf. It’s not enough just to be independent. Year Zero has to be enacted too. Mass re-education for those…” Oct 3, 08:41
    • Colin Alexander on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Roddy Dunlop KC is very highly respected for his legal acumen, intellect and professional integrity. So, if Roddy Dunlop KC…” Oct 3, 08:29
    • James on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Tried to depose German Geordie and replace him with the rightful heir to the throne. There, fixed that for ye.…” Oct 3, 00:02
    • willie on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Great support for this absolutely essential court action. It is an outrage that £700k can be solicited to be ring…” Oct 2, 22:58
    • daibloandco on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Donated and keep ’em worried!” Oct 2, 21:43
    • Frank Gillougley on In The Eyes Of The Law: “50 in with pleasure and appreciation.” Oct 2, 21:11
    • Alf Baird on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Yes Hatey, dealing effectively with the colonial ‘condition’ requires difficult treatment; liberation is the only remedy and takes effect through…” Oct 2, 20:38
    • Hatey McHateface on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Sell some of your tea towels and you could donate more.” Oct 2, 20:07
    • Hatey McHateface on In The Eyes Of The Law: “How come you’re immune to the pathology then, Alf? The vaccinations aren’t available on the SNHS. Did you pay to…” Oct 2, 19:50
    • Alf Baird on In The Eyes Of The Law: ““Those of us with an open, questioning and independent mind” That’s perhaps a rather theoretical assumption, Spartan, especially for a…” Oct 2, 18:50
    • Hatey McHateface on In The Eyes Of The Law: “BS, sam. 1715 and 1745 were dynastic and sectarian uprisings. Attempts to depose the Protestant Hanoverian royal line and replace…” Oct 2, 18:50
    • sam on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Not so sure about this claim, Alf. There were many armed uprisings in colonial Ireland against English rule. The 1715…” Oct 2, 17:21
    • Dave on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Wow, the fund is filling up fast, excellent news! I, for one, cannot wait to see the miscreants sweating on…” Oct 2, 17:18
    • agentx on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Why it is considered secure • Direct Lawyer Payouts: Funds do not go to the individual starting the page. Money…” Oct 2, 17:16
    • Spartan 117 on In The Eyes Of The Law: “@Alf – No, those of us who learn read the theory then use it to put it into practice and…” Oct 2, 16:54
    • James on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Keep ’em coming, ‘Confused’. Larry, curly and Moe bite every time. Speaking of stooges I wonder when the fragrant ‘Adrian’…” Oct 2, 16:53
    • Captain Caveman on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Who had Freire on their Bingo card?” Oct 2, 16:39
    • Spartan 117 on In The Eyes Of The Law: “I’m assuming “sparky” refers to “Spartan”, if I can read correctly through your blurry alcohol-fuelled stupor, 8 Ace. “tell (sic…” Oct 2, 16:30
    • Alf Baird on In The Eyes Of The Law: ““uses the quotes of others” This is nothing new for academics who logically base their research first on the available…” Oct 2, 16:17
    • Captain Caveman on In The Eyes Of The Law: “You are right Confused! Your unhinged idiocy is truly legendary., even here. Very conversation-worthy, personally I find it incredible. Always…” Oct 2, 16:04
    • sarah on In The Eyes Of The Law: “@ douglas – you can reduce the tip, even to zero.” Oct 2, 16:01
    • douglas on In The Eyes Of The Law: “happy to contribute, not happy with crowdjustice. Imposing an extra 20% and calling it a tip is taking the p.…” Oct 2, 15:44
    • lothianlad on The Turning Point: “The SNP leadership have actively working FOR the british state. Sturgeon is the greatest traitor to Scotland in the modern…” Oct 2, 15:22
    • lothianlad on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Well done Stu! They are rattled! Only those with integrity should be allowed power.” Oct 2, 15:20
    • Confused on In The Eyes Of The Law: “The only thing worse than being talked about, is NOT being talked about … I seem to have the WORST…” Oct 2, 15:13
    • Spartan 117 on In The Eyes Of The Law: “James likes to label anyone he disagrees with as “Unionist” or “Yoon”. A bit like Confused’s rantings when its necked…” Oct 2, 14:44
    • Hatey McHateface on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Cesaire wrote about “goitrous academics”. I don’t think he was being complimentary, although I do recommend that anybody interested should…” Oct 2, 13:57
    • Captain Caveman on In The Eyes Of The Law: “I’m not going anywhere, Fatty. Enjoy.” Oct 2, 13:34
  • A tall tale



↑ Top