From the “Better Together” blog today:
“No doubt”? Now, we know that isn’t true, and what’s more we know that almost 70% of Scots don’t believe it either. So who are the No camp trying to fool?
There’s a rather horrible article by Margaret Curran in the Scotsman today. (No real news there.) It’s a combination of empty noise and ugly smears about the pursuit of independence – an attempt to engage directly with the rest of the world in our own right – being xenophobic and inward-looking and all the usual rubbish.
But we thought it might be interesting to take a look at a single paragraph, examine it forensically and see what it was actually saying. We chose one from near the end, because to be honest we’d be amazed if anyone else had actually had the fortitude to wade that far through Curran’s plodding, will-sapping prose.
Ben Riley-Smith in the Telegraph, 15 August 2013:
Our emphasis. Don’t ever say you weren’t warned, folks.
Earlier this week, mad Labour activist Ian Smart posted a tweet – now deleted – in which he referred to Labour For Independence as “fifth-columnists”. (Which caught our eye as Labour types unfailingly leap on any renegade cybernat types intemperately denouncing Unionists as “traitors” or “Quislings”.)
But the phrase reminded us of something Labour like to keep pretty quiet. Their own camp is divided into not just supporters of devolution and independence (and undecideds), but also contains a sizeable faction of prominent voices who don’t just want to freeze devolution in its current position, but demolish it entirely.
We’d never heard of this until a reader mentioned it this morning in the comments, and it seems worth bringing to wider attention. The article we’re about to (re)print below is a transcript originally created by the now-defunct www.alba.org, along with a couple of extracts from the Scottish press of the time.
The original version is still visible on www.archive.org, but we’ve tidied it up a bit and added a few notes and comments of our own in red.
You might find this an interesting read.
(No, we have no idea why his face is so shiny.)
We meant to mention this in yesterday’s post about the Future Of England Survey, but it was so hot the part of our brain holding the thought got incinerated when we foolishly went to the corner shop to buy some milk without an asbestos hat on.
52% of the good people of England believe Scotland gets “more than its fair share” of UK public spending, with only 19% thinking the distribution of cash was “pretty much fair”. Almost as many (49%) think Scotland benefits the most financially from the Union, compared to just 23% who say both nations do equally well and therefore, at most, 28% who think England gets the best deal.
(Oddly, the survey doesn’t actually put a figure to the latter.)
81%, meanwhile, think Scottish MPs should butt out of parliamentary matters that only affect England and Wales (although this neglects to consider the knock-on effect on the Barnett formula, which can impinge on devolved matters).
Why, then, do only 30% of them support Scottish independence?
Diligent readers will, we have no doubt recall, that the No campaign chairman, Alistair Darling, has made abundantly clear the conditions of any future enhanced devolution settlement for Scotland in the aftermath of a No vote in 2014:
Darling’s position couldn’t be less ambiguous – if Scotland rejects independence, any additional powers for the Scottish Parliament will be subject to the approval of the voters of the rest of the UK (chiefly England, which supplies around 90% of them).
But do we know how the good folk of South Britain are likely to view such a prospect?
We know we go on about this, but it’s pretty important. A few days ago Edinburgh University held an independence debate which was unusually mature and reasonable in its tone (probably because of the absence of any representatives from Labour).
One of the six panellists was Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie, and one of his contributions contained a couple of notable truths, one more significant than the other.
A couple of weeks ago we noted something rather curious in the Daily Record. Interpreted a certain way, it seemed as if the ultra-Unionist paper was tentatively preparing the ground for a possible seismic event. Some readers poured scorn on the assessment, but we’re not sure it’s going to be as easy to dismiss a second time.
Today’s edition carries a lengthy piece by political editor and fervent SNP-basher Torcuil Crichton, based around the “Home Rule” vision of iconic 1920s Labour MP James Maxton. You can read the whole thing here, but the key passage is hiding at the end – in fact, in the very last paragraph.
Today’s editorial leader in Scotland on Sunday is really interesting, from a language nerd’s perspective (ie very much on our turf). Entitled “A warning to No campaign”, the column – nominally on the subject of pensions under devolution – purports to criticise said group, noting that “the Better Together campaign, by repeatedly presenting the idea of change as a threat, is doing Scotland no favours.”
But lurking just barely below the surface is an entirely different agenda.
We know we’ve gone on about this subject quite a bit. But in all fairness to Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson, she’s hardly trying to conceal the constitutional reality of a post-No-vote Scotland if the Tories have anything to do with it.
What continues to mystify us, though, is why every single mainstream-media journalist keeps inaccurately reporting that the “line in the sand” leader has become a miraculous convert to the idea of devolving more power to Holyrood, when Davidson herself keeps making it absolutely clear what she’s really talking about.
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
