The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Truth and wrongs

Posted on January 25, 2016 by

Below is a 17-minute section of this afternoon’s John Beattie show on BBC Radio Scotland, featuring me and an amateur blogger with a keen interest in Pedigree Chum discussing the effect of the lower oil price on the Scottish economy.

(John Beattie Show, BBC Radio Scotland, 25 January 2016)

Happily, by the end of the show everyone on all sides was agreed that the lower oil price will actually benefit the Scottish economy overall, with the positive effects driving growth and outweighing the downside of lower corporation tax receipts.

So that’s genuine progress – next time some frothing Yoon screams “OIL PRICE! BLACK HOLE! SNP LIES! TOO WEE, TOO POOR!” at you, you can direct them here for categorical agreement from the Yes and No sides alike that actually the falling oil price makes an independent Scotland MORE economically viable, not less.

Unfortunately you’ll have to put up with a condescending, patronising arse sniggering randomly throughout, but it’s a relatively small price to pay.

JOHN BEATTIE (14m 26s): “Is Nicola Sturgeon, in your opinion, right or wrong to say that if the economy grows [due to the lower oil price] then the onshore revenue will more than make up for the loss of the offshore revenue?”

AMATEUR BLOGGER:“Well, she’s right, because it’s a statement of the blindingly obvious… [waffle waffle waffle]… yes, it’s true. You know, it’s not as wrong as the statement about oil forecasts.”

“It’s true, because it’s less wrong than something else that wasn’t actually wrong either” is a rather fascinating use of language. But as a clear admission that the First Minister’s claim was correct, it’s pleasingly unequivocal. We look forward excitedly to the gentleman in question’s frantic attempts to row back on it in the coming days.



Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 25 01 16 15:43

    Truth and wrongs | Speymouth

  2. 28 08 16 19:15

    The £15 billion black hole – Fiscal Strategy for an Independent Scotland » Yes Edinburgh West

  3. 13 01 17 18:45

    Bad for Business | Young Team For Independence

281 to “Truth and wrongs”

  1. Grouse Beater says:

    Well done, Stuart.
    I heard it on the car radio – enjoyed the last remarks where you stopped listening to his waffle.

  2. bobajock says:

    Holy cow, it must be magic. And I dont mean ‘magic’ in the gemmy sense, more the Potter sense.

  3. Bob Mack says:

    Row ,row, row your boat,
    Gently up a creek
    admission on the radio,
    but not the one you seek.

    Poor Kev.

  4. jim watson says:

    The OBR and the Institute of Fiscal Studies…say no more Guv!

  5. Gerry Burns says:

    @15s in. “from now on we’re going to try and check the facts”

    What a novel idea for a public broadcaster. I hope it catches on.
    If only they’d thought of this earlier. We should have all noticed really. We could have suggested this to them before the referendum.
    “Try and check the facts” – what a concept eh.

  6. Big Jock says:

    One thing I will predict with absolute certainty. Oil is going to go back up again to nearer the level it was. It might take a year or so but it will. If you study history these peaks and troughs have been going on every 10 years.

    When it does go back up and they start exploring new fields. They will say it’s too expensive and it’s running out anyway. Heard all this shit before from the unionists. They out stupid themselves with their logic.

  7. ClanDonald says:

    Kev had no success at all in disproving the First Minister’s claims. All he managed to do was demonstrate that out of the many organisations that produce oil predictions, only one or two were out of line with what the entire industry was saying. Poor, deluded guy was prepared to go on national radio with this to convince us that Nicola got her facts wrong. He didn’t succeed.

    I notice he managed to shove the last word in at the end despite being told over and over to stop interrupting.

    By the way, does it never occur to Kev, when he’s screaming about Scotland’s £8bn black hole that the UK has been averaging a deficit of about £120bn a year over the last few years?

  8. Bob Mack says:

    “The man who lies, and listens to his lie ,loses all respect for himself and others”—–Dostoyevsky.

    Mr Keverages’ performance illustrates this completely

  9. Johnny says:

    Is it just me or was H***e sniggering along like Muttley in the background? Dafty. Only proves that he cannot debate and lacks respect and class.

  10. Wulls says:

    Gideon has convieiantly forgotten the pat the 70,000 people who have lost their jobs in the oil industry are all fairly well paid. If you average it at £50k that’s around £12k in tax each would be paying yet there is not a stroke to support the industry despite around £840 Million loss of revenue to the exchequer.
    Well played Gideon…….Well played.

  11. galamcennalath says:

    Agreement between political blogger and dog food salesman that low oil prices are a net benefit.

    The dog food salesman highlighted (again) the ~£7bn ‘black hole’ in Scotland’s budget. Then went on to say growth would take a decade to cancel this.

    This recurrent Unionist claim of a ‘black hole’ really puzzles me. When does this apply?

    It can’t be right now because the Scottish economy, spending and tax regime is integral with the UK’s.

    It wouldn’t be after Indy because we wouldn’t be paying so much in debt repayments nor defence. Those two alone would remove half of the ‘black hole’.

    It would apply in an FFA situation, but WM will never allow this to happen.

  12. Johnny says:

    Moreover, Gala, the entire world economy is going down a black hole….

  13. Lesley-Anne says:

    Well what do you know? 😉

    Here we are being shovelled shite,kept in the dark and treated like mushrooms by MSM, BBC, STV, SKY and just about every other media source. 🙂

    Suddenly we have John Beattie actually asking some SERIOUS questions about statements made a year or so ago about oil price and its affect on Scotland.

    The chairman of the O.B.R. fan club gets a, not uncharacteristically, kicking from oor Stu. 😀

    OOH! 😉

    What a slick, and I mean SLICK, wee advertisement for Wings there Stu. 😀

    Just a wee question here. 😉

    The chairman of the O.B.R. fan club quotes on shore tax generated in Scotland as being £50 Billion (at 13:58 minutes). Now I may be wrong here but does Holyrood only receive around £30 Billion in pocket money, a GREAT deal LESS than that generated! I’m thinking the chairman of the O.B.R. fan club has just produced an ideal argument for Scottish independence right there. 😀

  14. Andy says:

    Kevin’s going to need a third stab at working out 7.9 minus 2.9

    Also got 6.8 minus 2.9 wrong.

    And this is their goto guy for the big sums?

  15. Cherry says:

    I had put this on the last thread. More relevant here.

    Well done Rev! How did you continue with what sounded like either Muttley or Hissing Sid in the background sniggering like a schoolboy…take your pick they both fit that pompous buffoon.

  16. Sandra says:

    Good job.

    All I know about that amateur blogger is he blocked me on Twitter before I’d even heard of him. Clearly not someone open to different opinions.

  17. Effijy says:

    Well Done Rev!

    I still find it shocking just how biased the BBC are while they
    claim to have turned over a new leaf.

    Could they have looked at one statement from our First Minister, and then looked at Labour’s APD Tax that Dippity Dug is going to fund global recovery with?

    Why are they giving air time to a Pedigree Chump?
    I’d say its because he fights the UK/BBC OK corner so they don’t mind him being a fruit cake.

    To square of the Rev being there, he founded and maintains one of Scotland’s most influential web sites, and operates in a very professional even handed manner who all claims made are supported by the appropriate links.

    The Chump Blogger and Reporter seemed to let the OBR’s projection adjustment from £32 Million to £2 million, and their statement to the effect that they were rubbish at projections, go over their heads.

    That shower of incompetents adjust their forecasts with great frequency, but I can’t recall them getting anything right.
    We could deliver their accuracy with a blindfold and a pin.

    The Pedigree Chump is completely Barking Made and should take time to paws his campaign as he has just been neutered.

  18. r esquierdo says:

    The arrogance of this unionist was there for all to hear

  19. Hugh Barclay says:

    So if the oil price goes down Scotland benefits, if the oil price goes up Scotland benefits, what a curse it is to be burdened with the black stuff… in the mind of a Yoon that is.

    Nice one Rev Stu.

  20. Valerie says:

    Well done, Rev.

    Lots of Muttley sniggering from Mr H, as well as interruptions.

    Fair play to Beattie for asking you on. Hope this is the start of more invites.

  21. starlaw says:

    Well done Stu. Heard it on the car radio, BUM did not expect you to have facts and figures to hand, and to know what you were talking about. Your radio career might have just ended ‘they don’t like it up em’

  22. Bob Mack says:

    Hague is an irrelevance other than highlight the depth of denial the Unionists face daily.

    My rationale is much simpler. Can we as a nation trust a partner who deliberately hid revenues from us for decade’s, and who took our sea borders away to claim the revenues coming from them?

    As Tam Jardine also discovered, they deliberately and systematically cut Scotlands budget through the denial of Barnett consequentials thus depriving Scotland of finance to improve our services. All done in secret.

    Can we trust a country whose Labour representatives up here sent back £ 1.5 billion to the Treasury with the excuse that they had nothing to spend it on?

    That brings me to the most important point. Can we trust a country that does all of our tax and revenue collections,and pays and charges money on our behalf to various departments to be honest in that assessment .Make your own mind up.I have.

  23. Dr Jim says:

    You did fine Stu and managed to get your point in
    But here’s the BUT
    You’re not used to public speaking and that can cause problems even if you’re expert on what you’re talking about
    eg: Jackie Baille talks pish but confident sounding
    Gordon Brewer will interrupt his victims mercilessly to make himself look good irrespective of facts

    There are ways to get around this,
    Before you are put in the position of public speaking find yourself a corner somewhere and shout at the top of your voice for a couple of minutes a bit like the Kings Speech stuff give yourself a good shake and it helps take out the nervous energy and makes it easier to control the rhythm of your speech (50 years of being in the entertainment business)

    On the Telly or Radio as you know it’s a bloodbath although I have to say John Beattie was as fair as he could be
    The other guy was an overconfident Dick and the sniggering shit showed him up for that

    You write great, and I for one am over the moon that you do the work you do so we don’t have to
    This is in no way a critique of your performance only a tip
    that may come in useful for next time of which I hope there are more (Good Job)

  24. K1 says:

    Condescending prick. The guy has a clear agenda: SNP Baaaaad.

  25. Donald Anderson says:

    Dash and fiddlesticks. Ah missed it.

  26. Almannysbunnet says:

    Kevin is twittering and twattering that he is surprised the BBC didn’t pull Stu up for calling him a “dog food salesman”. I’m sure he’s been called worse and most certainly will be after that sneer fest.

  27. thingy says:

    Their main yoonomics man, a childish fucking moron.

    A hamster man. 🙂

  28. K1 says:

    Aye yer right Dr Jim, people fall for those ‘confidence tricks’…really annoys me as that is why we end up wi the complete shysters that we have in many positions of power and influence: cause they can effortlessly lie, confidently.

  29. Stoker says:

    I got as far as 10min 40sec and couldn’t take any more of that ignorant whatsisname or Beatties fake pish on interruptions.

    If Beattie & Co were serious about ignorant bastards interrupting they could easily use the mic cut-off facility or tell the moron to shut his geggie or he’s oot.

    Well done CAMPBELL for leading by example!

    BTW, Beattie should let Andrew Neil know that the BBC are now going to challenge figures quoted by politicians. Maybe Beattie should get Ian Murray into the studio, invite Neil along, and both could have a bash at getting sense out of Murray’s mince.

    And get the Rev in on that one also. Big supply of pickled onion savoury’s and copious amounts of tea at the ready…BRING IT ON!

  30. John Boyes says:

    I look forward to the next episode where Kez outlines some of Labour’s promises and most importantly how, via their “back of a fag packet” calculations, they’ll be funded. It should be a blood-bath.

  31. Flower of Scotland says:

    Well done Rev. I liked your style and your knowledge.

    The other guy came over as a prat!

  32. Fred says:

    Excellent work Stu.

  33. No no no...Yes says:

    Wings 1 Ignorant Blogger 0

    In fairness to John Beattie he is at least trying to bring some debate and balance.

    However, will the BBC in London actually allow this madness to continue?

    If “fact check” does continue then the Labour Party manifesto WILL a laughing stock.

    As others have commented, surely the BBC, of all organisations, should “fact check” as a matter of course. I would be delighted if they provided balance in EVERY article they broadcast or published.

  34. Lee MacDonald says:

    Brilliant smackdown rev, particularly enjoyed “I tuned out from his ramblings”

    Sniggering little shits like him will disappear once we take back our independence & gain control of broadcasting.

    Even Beattie tried to control his arrogant unprofessionalism.

  35. Melissa Murray says:

    What a smug wee man that Kev guy is.

    I mean he clearly believes Scotland would be Greece w/o the rUK propping us up. Which begs the question why would you locate and invest in your own business in a place where you had no faith in the economy?
    Seems pretty daft.

  36. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Kevin is twittering and twattering that he is surprised the BBC didn’t pull Stu up for calling him a “dog food salesman”.”

    Why would they? He is one.

  37. yesindyref2 says:

    To be perfectly honest I thought JOHN BEATTIE was quite fair, as far as the discussion itself was concerned.

    Trying to pretend to be a neutral listener, I thought the Rev was rattled to start with perhaps because of the wrong name, which I’m sure was totally accidental. Second half, Fraser of Allander, to the Rev.

    So 1 set each?

    Not sure. Rev made the point about oil price, as opposed to revenues in that first half, and that’s one that needs to be hammered home. Nobody predicted the huge drop in oil price, nobody. Revenues depend on government policies, and how much oil is extracted, and that depends on oil price, but also incentives, and not just short term. The UK Gov for instance has reluctantly given some incentives to the oil industry, and that decreases revenue short-term, as in now.

    Haig also interrupted a few times and had a snot attack at others, I don’t think that would come across too well. Tissue, please. He also comes across as patronising, with nothing to be patronising about.

    I’d say 2-1, to the Rev.

  38. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Brilliant smackdown rev, particularly enjoyed “I tuned out from his ramblings””

    That wasn’t even snark. I really did. Between his monotone voice, which he clearly if inexplicably loves the sound of, and his determination to use 200 words where five would do, I find it really hard to not drift away.

  39. David Smith says:

    Nothing boils my pish quicker than hearing my country talked down by a patronising fud with a cultivated English accent.* Still, nice one Stu and I’m still convinced Big John is one of the Good Guys.

    *with apologies to all Yessers with cultivated English accents. 🙂

  40. Lesley-Anne says:

    Flower of Scotland says:
    25 January, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    Well done Rev. I liked your style and your knowledge.

    The other guy came over as a prat!

    Not only is the Chairman of the O.B.R. fan club a prat but he is also condescending as well.

    This is what Stu tweeted some 3 hours ago. 😀

    “He seemed very condescending”, says lady in BBC Bath studio, unprompted, of K***n H***e.

  41. heedtracker says:

    Good job! Poor old Scotland and the terrible burden of oil.

    Hard core toryboy unionists like kevrage are odd to listen to though. Oil prices, SORRY, revenues wont be this low for ever, probably and yet yoons like Kev demand Sturgeon gets his Scotland region back in the black within a few years but rants she cant do it, shock.

    Meanwhile, our toryboy chums in the south actually in charge, are running up so much debt/deficit, their BBC propagandists grab anything at all, like this toryboy triumph apparently,

    The government borrowed £7.5bn in December, £4.3bn lower than the year before, official figures show.

    The figure takes borrowing for the financial year to date to £74.2bn, £11bn lower than at this point in 2014.”

    Huzzah. No doubt its countries like oil poor Norway lending too.

    UKOK austerity for the poor, socialism for the banksters etc.

  42. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Tuned-out, aye, same here. A very boring man. Imagine getting cornered by him in the pub? 🙁

    Come to think of it, the whole BTUKOK ‘movement’ is pretty much bereft of anyone with charisma – that should not, of course, have any bearing on the level of respect they deserve, but it’s quite striking that a relatively large group of people contains so many greeting-faced whingers and/or boring fuds.

    (Yeah, okay, characters like Foulkes, Murphy, Darling, Brown, Ian Smart, Jabba etc do provide a very basic form of entertainment, but they don’t do so intentionally.)

  43. CameronB Brodie says:

    If the BBC is truthfully checking facts, why did the first two ‘experts’ they referenced, have no practical experience in, or expertise of, the topic they were discussing (i.e. oil economics)? No offense meant Rev. but I see this as an exerciser in BBC subdiffusion, to distract us from the BBC’s blatant Unionist bias.

    Time will tell.

  44. Grouse Beater says:

    Wait a minute – is Vague Hague really a dog food salesman? (Shock, horror)

  45. Roland Smith says:

    The Trident part was interesting as well. Every time John Beattie asked an expert to disagree with Nicola’s “ridiculous” comment about Jeremy’s Trident submarine bright idea they agreed with her. John Beattie could give Kaye a few pointers.

  46. frankieboy says:

    I’m not the brightest but I do have a BA(Strath) & Masters (glasgow) degree and two English teaching qualifications but I have no idea what language Muttely was speaking. It sounded English but more Alistair Darlingese or quite close to Scotty speak. Did he mention matter-anti-matter and dilithium crystals because like Stu, I tuned out too. The BBC in Scotland are actually stating that they are going to try and scrutinise and be fair. As opposed to what?

  47. alexicon says:

    Gideon has convieiantly forgotten the pat the 70,000 people who have lost their jobs in the oil industry are all fairly well paid. If you average it at £50k that’s around £12k in tax each would be paying yet there is not a stroke to support the industry despite around £840 Million loss of revenue to the exchequer.
    Well played Gideon…….Well played.

    What is also conveniently forgotten in all this is the amount of non Scots, with the loss of economic spending in our Scottish towns and cities, who are working in the O & G industry in particular the Scottish sector and Scottish sector oil platforms.
    I’m working on a large platform overseas destined for the north sea right now and up until last week I was the only Scot in my department all the rest, around 20-30, were from the north east of England.
    Just think of the cars, homes etc. they’re buying in their area building up their economy.
    It has also been said by the lead engineer that only people with certain postcodes from the north east of England would get a start, so you can see the blatant discrimination that goes on.

    Obviously I can’t give too much details because of the danger to my lively hood.

    I know of 2 other hook-ups on the go right now in the north sea where the vast majority of the workers are non Scots, but thankfully with no discrimination going on.

  48. Ian says:

    Oil price. This year, next year. Not really that important in the context of independence over the years and decades ahead. But obviously it is to Westminster. They just can’t publicly accept that Scotland has a win/win situation regarding oil.

    Why is Westminster so desperate to hang onto its power over Scotland, especially it’s oil? In 2014 it was estimated that 20 billion barrels remain in the North Sea. At $50 a barrel that’s $1 trillion. The oil industry seems confident that there is more oil offshore in the west of Scotland. According to Oil Industry News, ‘The West Coast alone could provide oil and gas for at least 100 years with an estimated value of more than £1 trillion.’

    When one of their own civil servants (McCrone) produces a report that forecasts something that Westminster doesn’t like or want generally known, it locks the report away for 30 years. In the meantime Westminster talks down how much oil is in the North Sea. When I say talk down I mean lies about. Over and over.

    Proven liars that have also almost completely wrecked the real UK economy over the past 50 years. Why anyone in Scotland would want more of the same economic incompetence is beyond me.

  49. scunner says:

    Hague just reminds me of Hothersall, and just like him a pedant nitpicker.
    Snickering all the way through with an odious self-righteousness and will never be swayed. He’ll listen to the playback and truly believe he comes across well.

  50. Chic McGregor says:

    Yes Gideon’s OBR has generally been accused of being over optimistic on the UK economy as a whole but as that suits the government there is perhaps no surprise there.

    However, specifically on oil price they were predicting a drop to $80 a barrel which should have manifested itself during the indy campaign when everyone else was predicting $100+, the oil did stay at $100+ and the OBR ‘prediction’ was later retro-altered. They were demonstrably pessimistic on oil at that time, a pessimism which was opposite to the rest of their UK economy assessment. They have not always been optimistic on oil price at all.

    The OBR’s neutrality has, of course, been called into question by former Chancellor Darling and many others.

    TBF they did predict a sharp fall in oil price for the end of 2014 onwards but the very unique nature of that prediction’s success makes you suspicious as to what insider knowledge they possessed because most of the drop has been caused by political posturing rather than genuine supply/demand balancing.

  51. yesindyref2 says:

    Condescending, that’s the word, better than patronising.

    On appeal, I did get a laugh over dog food salesman, and the “tuned out” comment was priceless. Haig did drone on and on and on. Humour wins, as we found during the Indy Ref. Especially if on a long boring drive or something.

    On appeal, 3-1 to Rev. Game, set and match!

  52. JimF says:

    I reckon the point of all that is “shit sticks”.

    Many listeners won’t take in all the facts and figures, they’ll have heard Nicola painted as a possible liar. Regardless of the detail of what was said.

    All part of the recent SLab tactic to tarnish the FM’s reputation.

    Going for the man, not the ball.

    SNP x 2

  53. call me dave says:

    Good show on the Beattie programme. Enjoyed it.

    Torrance on champagne nationalists! In the Herald.

    The tories will run the country more fairly I suppose.

    A lot of bollinger as usual!

    Not posting a link…. as usual.

  54. alexicon says:

    You should have asked the dog food salesman if oil is so unimportant then why doesn’t westminster devolve it to Holyrood.

  55. findlay farquaharson says:

    one of those guys sounds awrite the other sounds like a rite bawbag

  56. Les Wilson says:

    Och well done Rev, he did not expect such a good opposition that is why he went overboard to try and get his across. A pillock with a mouth.

    ref the £7.5mil black hole, Scotland would quickly make that up, while we would still be getting something from oil, we would not be paying for Trident, fast trains in England, the houses of Parliament, and a myriad of other infrastructure in mainly the South East of England.

    AND, we would not be getting sucked dry by Westminster in the many ways they fiddle things.
    AND, they take no account that we would do things different than they do, that would save a fortune alone.
    No illegal wars for example. There will be more, we have yet to uncover.

  57. Big Jock says:

    I listened as well Stu. The defender of the realm of her majesty,came across as bitter and unreasonable.

    I don’t know if anyone else picked up on this. While you were speaking Stu. I distinctly heard muffled mock laughter from the studio,like under the breath cynical smiling. I am not sure if it was in my head but it happened a few times.

  58. Socrates MacSorran says:

    I notice, one or two recent posters have mentioned the lack of Scottish, or Scottish-trained North Sea workers.

    When the North Sea was opening-up and expanding, the Scottish coal industry was contracting, as was Scottish ship-building and heavy industry in general. A lot of trained Coal Board engineers from around here in East Ayrshire, for instance, switched seamlessly to working off-shore.

    These guys are now either retired, or approaching retirement age, but, with the closing-down of the heavy industry sector in Scotland, the trained engineers, used to working in difficult conditions, are not coming through in Scotland to replace them; thus, English-trained guys are getting the off-shore jobs.

    Yet another Union dividend of the Blessed Margaret’s economic policies, and those of her disciples who have followed her into government at Westminster.

  59. Big Jock says:

    David 3.57. I can’t speak for John. However I know his rugby playing daughter is a proud Brit. She tweeted such after the no vote. :”Proud Scot but very British”.

  60. Jimbo says:

    Hague did himself no favours. I found his puerile, supercilious sniggering as irritating as it was condescending – hopefully all the others listeners did too.

  61. peekay says:

    galamcennalath says:
    “This recurrent Unionist claim of a ‘black hole’ really puzzles me. When does this apply?

    It can’t be right now because the Scottish economy, spending and tax regime is integral with the UK’s.

    It wouldn’t be after Indy because we wouldn’t be paying so much in debt repayments nor defence. Those two alone would remove half of the ‘black hole’.

    It would apply in an FFA situation, but WM will never allow this to happen.”

    If Scotlands per capita share of UK yearly borrowing is taken into account that more than wipes out the ‘black hole’

  62. Auld Rock says:

    Only caught first few minutes on the car radio before I had to attend an appointment with the ‘Fang Mechanic’, AKA, the dentist but what I heard sounded like you were talking to an empty vessel, you know the one that makes a lot of noise cnstant interuptions etc. What a deluded clown.

    Auld Rock

  63. Capella says:

    Kevin the Dog Food Salesman sets a lot of store by the Office of Budget Responsibility. The OBR was set up by George Osborne in 2010 to give his pronouncements a veneer of respectability. It is chaired by Robert Chote, formerly a director at the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

    Why Kevin is impressed by their ‘objectivity’ is a mystery.

    Well done Stu. A palpable hit. Poor Kevin has a nervous snigger which made him sound a bit delirious.

  64. Jimbo says:

    What the Unionist media and commentators always omit to tell us is, that an independent Scotland would have 100% of oil tax revenues, even at a lower oil price, as opposed to the 0% we get at present, regardless of how high or low the price of oil is.

  65. Stuart Thomson says:

    Wanted to strangle the guy every time he rudely sniggered when you spoke Stuart….

  66. Clapper57 says:

    A serious debate is spoilt by Hague and his constant intentional audible sniggers while Stuart is quoting figures re his references ( i.e. the correct ones), it is sooooo obvious that Hague is trying to impress on the listeners a lack of credibility in what Stuart is saying by doing this.

    However I think if you listen , and try to be objective, hard I know with Hague , it backfires on Hague and actually it is he who loses credibility through this infantile behavior.

    Also personal snide remarks re ‘Maths not being Stuart’s strong point’ is also detrimental to the debate and exposes hague as being petty and very much someone with an agenda.

    This performance by Hague does nothing other than detract from the points he tries but fails to make and to the listener it actually makes Hague very irritating and a smart arse.

    Does this type of behavior not personify SNPBAD fanatics like Hague and the other usual suspects .

    From the perspective of a ‘No’ voter listening in to Hague’s performance, or lack of , it surely reinforces the negativity ‘Yes’ voters say is endemic in the Yoon mentality.

    Stuart’s performance was calm , respectful ( no interruptions unlike Hague ) and I think to the listener he was far more credible by his professional manner on this serious subject.

    If Hague wants levity he need look no further than SLAB’s policies and the quality, sorry lack of quality, of some, sorry majority of their MSP’s , now that is something worth sniggering about.

  67. Grouse Beater says:

    Dave: Torrance on champagne nationalists! In the Herald.

    Champaign nationalists? Is that his actual phrase?

    Is that all he can come up with?

    How about…..

    Vol-au-vent cybernats?
    Pate de foie gras patriots.
    Baguette bellowing buffoons
    Crepe Suzette Scotties.
    Tartan Sartre philosophers.
    Existential ego evangelists.
    Napoleon-fixated followers.
    Existential escargot SNPers.
    Scotland’s Monet moaners.
    Garlic smelling Gaels.

  68. Marian says:

    Once the Holyrood election is over in May the SNP should call Westminster’s bluff claim that oil and gas us burden upon Scotland, and once again demand that responsibility for Scotland’s oil and gas resources be devolved to Holyrood so that it can be properly looked after for the good of the people of Scotland.

  69. Peter A Bell says:

    Apart from the inescapable conclusion that Kevin Hague is a tiresome prick who has dedicated himself to “proving” Scotland’s inferiority, one thing in particular struck me about the broadcast. At several points John Beattie talks about wanting to get at the “facts” in relation to oil price/revenue projections. This displays a quite striking failure to comprehend the subject matter under discussion. The very first thing you have to understand is that projections have absolutely nothing to do with facts.

    A projection cannot possibly be a factual statement. Not in any universe where logic applies. A projection is, by definition, a conditional statement. It makes longer term assumptions on the basis of immediate or short-term assumptions. It says, if this, then that.

    The Scottish Government’s white paper said if the relationship between price and revenue is THIS, then IF the price becomes THAT, and IF no other factors intervene, THEN the revenue will be THAT. Not a fact in sight!

    A projection can be wrong. A projection cannot be untruthful – because it makes no claim to truth. It does not pretend to be a factual statement. By being called a projection, it proclaims that it should not be regarded as a statement of fact. You can only suppose it to be such by ignoring completely the meaning of the word “projection”.

    The purpose of such a projection is not to inform debate, but to facilitate it. It’s something to refer to in discussion. The alternative would be to have a discussion based on the oil price/revenue being unknown and unknowable. How would such a discussion proceed?

    With a projection as a reference point it is possible to have a meaningful discussion about the economic effects of that assumption and variations in economic effect related to deviations from the projection.

    What you cannot sensibly have is a discussion about whether the projection is truthful. Because, as I have explained, the notion of truth is not applicable. Where there are no facts, you cannot debate whether or not those facts are, in fact, facts.

    I hear some of you protest that it is entirely possible to have a sensible discussion about whether a projection was right or wrong. NO YOU FUCKING CAN’T! Because, by the time you get to discussing a past projection you already know precisely how accurate, or inaccurate, the projection was. Once you reach the target point of the projection, it’s accuracy cannot be in dispute. At that point, you have a fact. But just the one. There is nothing to compete for that title. If the projection is shown to be wrong, you cant sensibly argue that it’s right. And vice versa.

    So, what were John and Stu and Kevin banging on about for 17 minutes? They couldn’t be arguing over whether the oil price/revenue projection was true or false. The criterion of veracity is inapplicable. The couldn’t be arguing about whether it was right or wrong. We already know that it was wrong. They couldn’t even be disputing how wrong it was. That is known as fully as it can be.

    What was the point? What was in contention? Not facts, but political implications.

    Kevin Hague says the Scottish Government/SNP published a projection that turned out to be inaccurate and this means they are dishonest and economically incompetent because the entire case for independence was crucially dependent on the projection being accurate..

    Stu Campbell tries not to scoff too loudly says the Scottish Government/SNP published a projection that turned out to be inaccurate and this means just that and no more. It can’t tell you anything about the relative competence of the Scottish Government because everybody else got it wrong as well. And it cannot reflect on the case for independence because the projection was even more incidental to that case than oil is to the Scottish economy.

    John Beattie kept asking for facts where there are none.

    Nothing was illuminated other that Kevin Hague’s bitter prejudice; Stu Campbell’s limited patience; and John Bettie’s confusion.

  70. louis.b.argyll says:

    Yes.. We need new terminology.

    Black holes don’t exist within our ‘reality’.

    A ‘financial black hole’ is a DEFICIT, with more being sucked in than can be afforded.

    The UK has a ‘Super-massive deficit’ around which Scotland orbits within its own unique reality.

    If we escape the ‘Supermassive UK debt’ the invisible forces will release Scotland from its gravity.

    We will look on as the UK EATS ITSELF.

  71. yesindyref2 says:

    Just looking at Hague’s blog (sorry misspelt as Haig earlier), and found this wee gem:

    OBR is definitive f’cast used by HMRC, IFS, NIESR et al – what’s your alternative Stu?

    “definitive f’cast

    A forecast is “definitive”.


  72. Robert Peffers says:

    @Big Jock says: 25 January, 2016 at 2:25 pm:

    ” … When it does go back up and they start exploring new fields. They will say it’s too expensive and it’s running out anyway.”

    Well, Big Jock, I’m no economist and I’m not even great manipulating the actual arithmetic, (I lost a segment of my early learning due to a serious childhood illness).

    I can, though, see the methods behind the calculations very clearly and what I’ve posted on Wings needs no complicated figures to understand.

    Without Scotland’s independence neither the price of oil nor the revenue earned from it will make a pennyworth of difference. The reason being that Scotland gets none of the revenues earned by oil & gas extraction. Scotland doesn’t even get the revenues earned from servicing the oil industry and not just those earned from Scotland but throughout the World.

    Even most of the income tax and business taxes associated with oil & gas extraction does not accrue to the Scottish budget as the company head offices and the workers earnings are dealt with from offices situated outwith Scotland.

    Much of those workers earnings also goes home with the foreign workers when their onshore/offshore stint on the rigs sees them go home taking their earnings with them.

    It is two basic facts that Scotland’s government’s sole income is from the Scottish Block Grant and oil & gas Revenues are claimed as from Extra-regio-territory that is claimed as UK income.

    Furthermore, no other revenues collected in Scotland go to the Scottish Government – it all goes to HM Treasury. The only exceptions being local taxes levied by local authorities such as business rates on office buildings, warehouses and machinery/plant buildings but that goes to the local councils – not the SG.

    The stark truth that is never mentioned by the state propaganda wing is that without Scotland’s independence it is Westminster that gets the revenue and Westminster that thus has the black holes when the revenue shrinks.

    Everything else is pie in the sky statistics and manipulated bullshit statistics published to decieve.

  73. louis.b.argyll says:

    We need mathematicians to explain how predictions differ from projections and how risk is based on probability and permutations multiplied by agreed parameters.

    Bankers/economists can’t predict social change..that is a fact.

  74. alexicon says:

    thus, English-trained guys are getting the off-shore jobs

    Not only that socrates they are making sure that only English get the job beside them.
    It also works in practice with overseas projects where there is a requirement for expats.

  75. Socrates MacSporran says:

    Big Jock @ 4.24pm

    Jennifer Beattie, John’s daughter, plays football. It is Johnnie, his son, who plays rugby, like his Dad.

    Given his upbringing – born in Borneo, educated at Cambusdoon Prep School and Glasgow Academy, I would expect John Beattie to be a No voter. However, I have always found him a more-than reasonable guy, and good company. He is fair and will, I am certain, not bend to suit BBC bias.

  76. louis.b.argyll says:

    Of course, there is always a ‘crystal ball’..throw that into the mix and we.have plain and simple GAMBLING.

  77. Capella says:

    A book about the UK duplicity on oil disadvantaging the North East of Scotland came out last September. Written by Mike Sheppard. The blurb is promising but as I haven’t read it I’m not recommending – only drawing it to your attention – smiley thing.

  78. Ali says:

    As a yes-voting SNP member I thought Haig came out on top here. Though his behaviour was disingenuous it will be met with as much positive feeling on the no side as the “tuned out” comment was here. The fact that low oil price benefits the economy but not to the degree that it displaces oil revenue is significant. If one believes that everything in the world supports his point of view then it doesn’t suggest that point of view is very well balanced. On balance we would much prefer that a significant material resource wasn’t of vanishingly small value, regardless how that plays into the independence debate. Anyone hoping oil price goes lower? No – me neither.

  79. theMadMurph says:

    once divested of the unionists main attack, interruption and deflection, he had very little of note to say indeed.

  80. Vestas says:

    You can chase the figures around all you like & try to make them dance to your tune (ask Putin how that one is going – $60/barrel+ forecast for all of 2016 less than 3 months ago) but until you have the money in the bank its all bullshit anyway.

    Fortunately Scotland is in a position where oil is not the future (it might fund the future though) as we have 5000 miles of sod all between the West Coast & Greenland/North America. Offshore wind & reliable tidal power will continue to see Scotland as a net exporter of that most precious & tradable commodity – energy.

    As far as the interview went – I was frankly utterly gobsmacked that someone from the BBC wanted to “fact-check” anything to do with the SNP 🙂

    I think you were just right at the edge of “BBC broadcast acceptability” so well done for getting a couple of digs in (dogfood salesman :D) & also well done for not interrupting. I think they’re probably running out of excuses not to have you on other discussions 😉

  81. Grouse Beater says:

    Bell: “A projection cannot possibly be a factual statement.”

    Absolutely true.

    But Campbell and Hague were invite not only because they’re at opposite ends of the Scottish political diaspora, but also unforgiving opponents. In that the researcher will have briefed her senior producer of past spats.

    I have no doubt the potential theatre of a boxing ring match first occurred to the senior producer, even if Beattie was on his guard for interruptions.

  82. If I may be allowed then to repeat my previous post in another thread …

    You can almost imagine the entire BBC Radio Shortbread team frantically wanking each other off in gleeful excitement as soon as the price of oil fell below $50 per barrel.

    Yet, they stubbornly refuse to recognise the massive economic benefit to every consumer of energy: homeowners, tenants, landlords, distributors, hauliers, moving companies, manufacturers, traders, farmers, fishermen, foresters, resellers etc.

    Every single one of them will have extra money now, that they did not forecast even six months ago. That money will be used to save for a rainy day, pay down debts, invest in capital projects, invest in financial instruments, hire staff, pay bonuses, make improvements in their businesses, grow revenues & so on.

    Who are these people that might benefit? Only the vast majority of us who live & work in Scotland of course yet whose only experience of oil exploration might have been looking for petrol station near Portree that was open on a Sunday.

    The Treasury meanwhile, will enjoy an increase in tax receipts from rising incomes, capital expenses & from increases in general economic activity.

    But BBC Radio Shortbread is having none of that. In their blinkered, BritNat worldview, this oil price collapse is a disaster & evidence enough that Scotland must remain shackled to a generous population all the way from Berwick-upon-Tweed to Truro.

  83. yesindyref2 says:

    The thing is that people who take an active interest in YES or NO might actually listen to it all. I’d say for most people “tuned out” would be the natural state to 2 minutes solid boring waffle. It’s the soundbites they might pick up on.

  84. neil allan says:

    Stuart you are pathetic as you by your express agreement towards the end of the radio interview agreed with Kevin Hague’s main point that by independence, Scotland would be worse off than England after ten years or whatever. No wonder you “tuned out” at that point, to use your own words in the broadcast.

  85. Murray McCallum says:

    Slam dunk point at the end is that Scotland’s economy is bigger than the oil industry. This is the vital point.

    I got the feeling that the blogger is oblivious to the UK’s borrowing requirement and the cost of debt. He seems to think that the UK has unlimited funding (“pooling and sharing”) that comes from some kind of national reserve.

    Sure the UK “pools” Scotland’s oil tax revenues (which go up and down) but it also shares its cost of borrowing (which have only being going up).

  86. louis.b.argyll says:

    Like you Robert P. I prefer to see ‘actual’ patterns from history, contextualise them, and ‘project typical behaviours’ WITHOUT A CALCULATOR.

  87. schrodingers cat says:

    Apart from the inescapable conclusion that Kevin Hague is a tiresome prick


    he also sells rabbit castles
    “We’d like to recommend da Animal Castle via @PetPlanetcouk as da #ProductOfTheYear – Genius! We absolutely ?? it! “

  88. Dan Huil says:

    Meanwhile Westminster’s debt continues to spiral out of control – out of projection even. The so-called united kingdom cannot afford to continue – at least according to unionist argument[!].

  89. Iain says:

    The bottom line about the price of oil is that westminster lied to the Scottish people about the quantity and worth of oil. They also stole six oil fields. Anything they say about oil is almost certainly a lie, so why believe anything they say about oil. They restricted development in the Clyde estuary because of their white elephant, trident.

  90. Bob Mack says:

    Personally speaking,I am well past the stage of worrying what the price of oil was ,is, or may be. England can have it as far as I am concerned.

    This country will still survive and thrive. Of that I am certain.

    Oil has been a curse since the first drop was extracted,and I am sure the Scotgish people would diversify as required.

  91. CameronB Brodie says:

    louis.b.argyll @ 5:00pm
    Projections are extrapolations of know values, predictions are what Mystic Meg makes a living from. 😉

  92. Socrates MacSporran says:

    Not being on Facebook or Twitter myself, I have taken to checking-out the Rev’s Twitter feed.

    Lots of tweets and re-tweets with plays on the name of various dog foods, but, as yet, nobody has used the obvious one: the dog food salesman doesn’t half spout tripe!!

  93. Dan Huil says:

    @Bob Mack 5:22pm

    Spot on. Britnats gleefully rant on about the price of oil in the vain hope Project Fear still has a significant impact. Any impact it had is disappearing quicker than Osborne’s Westminster debt projections.

  94. m says:

    Seems to me that even when the oil price was much higher there were those in the no camp going on about oil prices,and I think that they would even if it was $200 a barrel. Scotland sees none of it under the union,so even if it was $10 a barrel under independence,it is still more than we get now. There are,after all,only five million or so of us.

  95. Colin Rippey says:

    Dear dear, perhaps in the future when an SNP politician is interviewed and “can’t answer the question ’cause they’ve not been briefed” then the outpouring of angst on this website won’t be “if only we had the Rev to fight our corner, he’d have had the numbers, he’d have told them”.

    Personally I don’t think either person came out very well, The Rev was clearly unable to counter the claim that the White Paper’s oil revenue projections were wildly optimistic AND were well above other projections, and Kevin’s “background laughing” made him come across as condescending.

    Still, none of this matters now as the next referendum will be nothing to do with economics, it’ll be to do with “do we want Scotland to remain in a United Kingdom that had voted to leave the European Union”. If we think we’ve got a lot of nutcase nationalists up here just wait the EU referendum gets into full swing, the Leave campaign are already ahead and are now armed with a much bigger fear argument than the Stay campaign.

  96. Murray McCallum says:

    The blogger seems to think that Scotland has no industries outside of oil that contribute to UK taxes.

    He clearly states that an £8 billion fall in oil revenues would be absolute at the national level, i.e. they would not be offset in any way whatsoever.

    It’s as if the UK is immune to economic downturns. If Scotland’s oil revenues fall, England magically produces more tax and shares it with Scotland. Scotland is incapable of dealing with, and reacting to, downturns.

    The UK really is a land of milk and honey.

    It’s the classic unionist endless subsidy model.

  97. ScottishPsyche says:

    Well done Stu, you came over as ‘normal’ not as someone trying to win a school debate. I sympathise with ‘tuning out’ as Hague does the blitzing with figures and jargon thing to appear knowledgeable. The sniggering was the greatest ‘tell’ that man could ever have given away as to his character and thought processes.

    It is a rare skill to be able to make complicated issues accessible and Hague cannot help himself, he has to play the superiority card and try to appeal to people he considers important. As for his complaint about ‘playing the man’ is that not what he and his sniggering coterie do all the time to anyone they consider ‘not worthy’?

    It is one thing to give a general idea of your background to give context but jeez, he goes over the top. If ever there was an indication that the message itself needed padding out.

    The only message I get from him is: ‘I consider myself more successful than you lot therefore you must listen to me!’

  98. Cuilean says:

    I’d never heard of Kevin Hague until today. Ignorance is bliss. I switched off every time his droning voice began. He was clearly reading off from a handy fact sheet.

    I thought Stu came over as forthright and honest. The ‘Chappie’ chappie came over as quite the opposite. Insufferable smug & conceited was my impression. As for his Dick Dastardly & Muttley ‘heeheehee’s? Well, what a complete tit.

    BTW, a close friend of mine knows Beattie lang syne, and says he is a complete a..eho.. & thick as mince. Very telling on Beattie’s fauxpas mis-calling you Cameron. Beattie immediately blames someone else, not himself. Another tit, clearly.

    You said on twitter you only had 45 mins preparation time for this BBC interview. I would hazard ‘Chappie’ was given more time and seemed to be reading out an alleged ‘factsheet’. That was very telling when Beattie said to Hague, ‘We have to give HIM the chance’ or words to those effects. the whole impression I received from that comment and tone was that Beattie & Chappie had rehearsed their game well in advance and you were definitely the ‘away’ team to their home side.

    Didn’t Beattie leave a young wife and three wee kids while ‘enjoying’ his rugby fame lifestyle? That sounds like a complete d..k, too.

  99. Dan Huil says:

    Dear dear. Dear oh dear. Colin Rippey, britnat “nutcase”, is turning in on himself. Can only be a good sign.

  100. Iain says:

    Just got to thinking about the price of oil! Why are the Tory’s obsessed with fracking and unconventional oil, when it is so much more expensive to produce? Do they think it might go up in price?

  101. MrMac1040 says:

    What the hell was all that sniggering about? Who was that? The presenter? The other guest? That was appalling!

    And that Unionist fells’ was incredibly patronising and rude! Why do they always come across like that?

    Interviews like this are like an advert for independence.

  102. carjamtic says:

    Pedigree chump brings knife to gunfight,commits Hari-Kari.

    His narrow minded argument was skilfully de-bunked,(sometimes less is more),with the miminum of prompting he agreed the FM was correct…..blindingly obvious.

    The dogs are barking,…..the masters of the hounds are not pleased,(away team snatches defeat from the jaws of victory,spectacular last minute own goal)


    Thanks Rev 😉

  103. DerekM says:

    Oil revenue whats that,what this drop in oil prices shows along with the high prices before is that the Scottish economy is not tied to fluctuating oil prices.

    Which is a bizarre situation as our country should be affected more than it is the reason we are not is because we dont get any of the oil revenue.

    I hope it stays low for the whole year that will teach those crooks at westminster,lets see you control your precious out of control deficit without Scots oil revenue you shower of crooks never mind your spiraling debt of 1.6 trillion.

    No the only part of the UK with a squeaky bum over this is the London financial sector.

  104. Clootie says:

    What income does Scotland get from the Oil Industry? Direct – Zero / Indirect – marginal local spending hot spot around Aberdeen.

    What income does Scotland get from a low Oil price – A great deal of growth across several industries who benefit from low transportation cost.

    However the REAL prize is Independence when we receive the direct taxation of the Oil & Gas Industry to put in a fund when the price is high to buffer the low periods PLUS we still keep the upside of low oil price in the slump periods for Oil.

    Remember just how big our fund would be at present had the truth been told by McCrone and Scotland had gained Independence 30 plus years ago. Never forget where our children’s inheritance has been spent and who spent it.

  105. mogabee says:

    Did enjoy listening to the “girlie giggling”. Suits him 😀

    Personally, the low oil price is brilliant for us as we rely on LPG for heating and cooking and because we have to pay, more or less, at time of delivery our bank acc is not groaning as much as it used to!

    Stu has a lovely voice for radio..just throwing that in ;D

  106. jimnarlene says:

    If Scotland raises £50 billion, and gets back £30 billion; where’s the black hole?
    Or am I missing something?

  107. Capella says:

    Let us not forget that the oil cartels (Secrets of the Seven Sisters)and their friends in various governments can manipulate the oil price for political reasons. Westminster has failed miserably to protect the Scottish oil industry from price manipulation by Saudi Arabia.

  108. Robert Peffers says:

    @Ali says: 25 January, 2016 at 5:06 pm:

    “As a yes-voting SNP member I thought Haig came out on top here.”


    “Though his behaviour was disingenuous it will be met with as much positive feeling on the no side as the “tuned out” comment was here. The fact that low oil price benefits the economy but not to the degree that it displaces oil revenue is significant.”

    How so?

    Your bland statement that, “The fact that low oil price benefits the economy”, is a dead giveaway, Ali.

    Fact is that the economy it benefits directly is that of the United Kingdom Treasury for the entire revenues from all oil & gas in the territorial waters of Scotland goes directly into the United Kingdom Treasury and not a bent penny comes directly to the Scottish Government.

    Thus the benefit, or otherwise, from the oil and gas industry accrues to Scotland from the service companies actually based in Scotland and even that does not accrue to the Scottish Government but to the local authorities for even the company taxes are taken by the UK Treasury.

    Even the proportion of workers actually based in Scotland is much overshadowed by workers from outwith Scotland. Also, what Peter Bell has posted is smack on the button.

  109. heedtracker says:

    he also sells rabbit castles

    Made in sweat China, cheap as hell, piled high for UK pet shops. Bish Bosh Kevrage/Arthur Daily’s heaven.

    He tweeted his CV a wee while back and while it was impressive, for a pet shop supplies wholesalesman, you have to wonder the UKOK what and why he bothers.

    Its not just that his relentless Project Fear unionism is now on the way out, the BBC etc do it all for him and they get really well paid for what he does, for fcuk all.


    BBC news 24 tv is on at work and its all a complete and utter UKOK toryboy party political broadcast, on behalf of the yoons in Scotland, like kevrage and ofcourse BritEngland.

  110. Andrew Haddow says:

    Don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve bought my last tin of Pedigree Chum.

  111. TD says:

    Re the supposed £7 billion black hole, does this not just mean that Scotland, like almost every other country at present, would be running a deficit? And if we look at the UK’s current deficit, which I think is around £70 billion, and if we then allocate an approximate 10% of that to Scotland (very rough based on population) do we not get to about £7 billion as Scotland’s share of the UK deficit?

    Why is it a black hole in the context of an independent Scotland but not in the UK? And of course if we don’t pay for Trident, HS2 and all the other things that the UK government makes us pay for against our wishes, then we would either have more to spend on things we want or a lower deficit.

    It seems quite simple to me – am I over-simplifying it?

  112. Chitterinlicht says:

    Well done Stu.

    Difficult gig and all that sniggering didnae hep.

    Very juvenile whilst you were professional.

    Hats off for doing it and hats off for John Beattie for getting you on. About time

  113. Murray McCallum says:

    Another classic UK-OK trait is to look at a 1 or 2 year time scale and ignore several decades of data.

    They must be the type of people that would never dream of owning a share because there was a stock market crash in 1929.

  114. Callum says:

    You missed a bit of an open goal there Stu. Our favourite dog food salesmen made a bit of a slip up when he was talking about revenue.

    Anyone who has done 1st year economics at Uni will know that “price” is arrived at by the combination of demand and supply. So his witterings about the total revenue from supply makes little sense because it is not constant; so any figures from OBR when the got the rest completely wrong would be layering of one error on another.

  115. Marcia says:

    Hasn’t the drop in oil prices pulled the rug from under Osbourne’s feet for 2016 as he too was expecting that oil prices were over £100?

  116. Robert Louis says:

    Man, I am sick and fed up with unionists telling Scotland we are just too poor, we are subsidised etc. Do they have any idea how stupid they sound.

    Scotland currently gets NO OIL REVENUE, as it all goes to George Osborne in London, so the price is of little importance, apart from the local impact on oil jobs etc. Without the oil, Scotland’s GDP per capita is 99% of that of the UK. Scotland has a very strong diverse economy, and is not dependent upon oil, or the oil price. Any unionist telling you otherwise, is a liar.

    As regards the strange English sounding person on the recording above, he just doesn’t come across well.

  117. call me dave says:

    Sturgeon on the STV ‘Scotland tonight’ tonight talking about the upcoming elections. It gets better… an expert panel to interpret what she says and probably means. Aye right!

    More comedy gold on labour:

  118. slackshoe says:

    Wow. Pet Shop Boy is actually even more smug and insufferable that I could possibly have imagined. Good job Stu.

  119. thingy says:

    TD@ 6:17

    Not at all. It’s their curious way of calculating the fiscal status of an independent Scotland.

    Include: Expenditure we would no longer be obliged (forced) to make.

    Exclude: Revenues that would be paid to our treasury which are not currently attributed to the Scottish account.

  120. Croompenstein says:

    Stu, when did you get the nod from them to appear on the show and did they brief you on the subject matter. Did you know kevverage was going on too?

  121. ahundredthidiot says:

    Johnnie Beatie’s only charge is that he is slow to learn/change, but he was more reasonable than he would’ve been, say, a year ago.

    The writing is on the wall for BBC Scotland, JB would do well to remember the viewer/listener pays his wages and needs to continue a middle ground theme if he is to survive in the future of Scottish media.

    Good work Rev Stu, done us all proud, onwards and upwards.

  122. David Lyon says:

    I applaud the Rev for going live on air and standing his ground, but I don’t think either party covered themselves in glory during this interview.

    For every juvenile snigger, you had an equally juvenile “dog food” insult from the other side.

    It undermined the credibility of both sides.

  123. caledonia says:

    Labour lie about a thousand times

    so now we will try something new where we fact check
    but not on the labour party lets fact check on something the snp said a year ago

    tune in next week to see if labour are lying about having one MP (SORRY ITS ALL I COULD THINK OF THAT WAS NOT A LIE)
    so they can get an easy time

    this will not be a fact check just another twice weekly snpbad with the other week filled up with an easy ride for labour

  124. Papadox says:

    Scotland is very fortunate to have a lot of very clever and articulate people fighting for our independence. Not to mention their humour. I am not going to try and mention them individually because there are plenty of them and I don’t want to miss anyone out. My gratitude to you one and all,
    all you sincere wingers Thank you, you make me a very proud and humble Scot. FREEDOM!

  125. ScottishPsyche says:

    Just a comment about the ‘dog food salesman’ insult.

    Hague’s entire credibility seems to be based on his credentials and endorsements from those who sympathise with his political views. His bluster and vanity further demeans his tedious message. Also the way he treats people who disagree with him amounts to disdain for their background, educational attainment and most of all political allegiance.

    Puncturing his pomposity with a pithy remark about how he currently makes his money is, I feel, entirely reasonable.

  126. heedtracker says:

    Tory tweetsters are oddly silent on kevrage’s too small, stupid, poor UKOK sniggering today. Not even my Slovene girlfriend and greatest kevrage fanboy ever’s said anything at all.

    Bettertogether toryboys are an odd crew, red or blue.

  127. Cuilean says:

    Hague’s company ‘’ supplies pet stuff online. He doesn’t make anything, just delivers (to really lazy people who can’t walk their dog to the shops)!

    I looked up his company’s website. There are lots of really negative customer reviews about Kevin Hague’s company.It sounds dreadful.


    “I have been waiting 3 weeks for my delivery now .. I spent over £40 on an order and because one item is out of stock until 4th February I have to wait for the whole order 4 weeks . I had not realised this when I placed the order (January 3rd ) and when I rang to ask where my order was I was told it was my fault for not reading the email properly . It was not clear in my opinion .
    Most reputable companies I have used will send out the out of stock item at a later date .. I had not realised it would take so long at the time of ordering and my puppy has been waiting for his new bed as already chewed 3 and we saw good reviews on the bed we have ordered .
    Shocking customer care . I will not be using this company again”.

    And this:

    “So annoying, says 48 hours delivery on website, its misleading. I wish i’d of read reviews on here before ordering. Use cheap couriers that you only ever normally get stuff via private sellers on eBay. Joke is they charge 4.95 for the pleasure. I could maybe understand the poor service if it was free! Never again, I am an Amazon member, how these guys compare is laughable! If its gonna take a week, tell me its gonna take a week, it doen’t appear to be that hard. Never again! How am i gonna explain this to the cat?”

    Or this:

    “Order delivered to wrong address- we after waited till we were short of food for our dog. Phoned them and spent ages on the phone to be told they had to investigate further and could I phone tomorrow. No thank you – will order from an honest and competent company”.

    And This:

    “Took the money and didn’t provide the goods. Accused of lying about not receiving delivery. Promised to refund only not to be received. Wish I’d checked out their poor reviews online before ordering”.

    And this:

    “I ordered a fish tank from Petplanet last week that was on a special deal at £380,still a lot but good for what I was getting. The next day they phoned and told me the price was wrong and I will have to pay full price for it or cancel. I said I would think about it and get back. First thing I did was get their terms and conditions to see where I stood, I’m glad did. I emailed them back and told them that no where in the T&C does it say that I have to pay for their mistake. They then replied stating made up terms even after saying I had a copy of then. I replied and once again they reply with the made up terms. Now they say they have contacted the Trading Standards and they agree with petplanet because it’s obviously the wrong price, a special offer price of £380 sounds ok to me even when price was suppose to be £900 if it was £50 then it would sound wrong. I have asked them to forward me a copy of the decision from trading standards but after trying to get rid of me with untrue terms and conditions it should be interesting to see what happens. I’m really disappointed with the service, if they just said we are sorry but the price was wrong and maybe offered something else, that wouldn’t have been so bad but to lie to me on numerous occasions about T&C, that’s a disgraceful way to treat a customer”.

    The complaints go on and on. You get the idea.

    Peppered among the genuine complaints, you get reviews (always 5 stars) praising the co, like this:

    “Very competitive pricing and quality products with a great customer services team. I would highly recommend the site to any pet owners”.

    And this:

    “I can tell I will become a serial shopper with Pet Planet! All their prices are really good, they have pretty much everything I need/needed, and most importantly, their customer service is excellent. One of my items was broken (not their fault – it was a branded item and the break was hidden inside the packaging). Pet Planet replaced it without question and I didn’t have to pay any postage at all. Very impressed and will use again. Highly recommended.”

    And this beauty:

    “PetPlanet… where have you been all my pets life – the whole ten years? My, My, My what a service, what a choice and lots of offers – via e-mail. Take a look at the clean looking, easy to use website that caters for every pet. A joy to use and is very reasonable.”

    Call me cynical but I suspect the positive reviews may not be genuine.

    Just my opinion but Kevin Hague, I suspect, is a ruthless businessman who will say & do anything, to ride roughshod over ‘the little people’ or anyone who disagrees with him. What an unpleasant individual. How on earth did he end up on the BBC?

    I mean Stu, I know you publish your viewing figures for your blog but has Hague ever done the same for his blog, as until today I had never heard of the odious specimen. What exactly justifies his presence on the BBC if he is a complete political nonentity?

  128. Clydebuilt says:

    Rev. Stuart, Heard it live, well done. Why did Big John not give you your title. Bit rude, but more than made up on his part by getting you on his show……

    C’mon the Rev.

  129. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “The Rev was clearly unable to counter the claim that the White Paper’s oil revenue projections were wildly optimistic”

    Um, why would I counter that? It’s plainly true.

    AND were well above other projections”

    That, however, is bollocks. Given repeated opportunities, Needy Kev was unable to produce any figures proving that point other than the OBR’s, which were an extreme outlier compared to other forecasts.

  130. ben madigan says:

    thought you did well Rev Stu, especially at such short notice.

    Apart from losing oil revenues, Scotland may be stung for a contribution to a £6-7 billion makeover of westminster palace plus a few million for Buckingham palace. Tommy Sheppard was shocked when he heard the news.

    I suggest taking advantage of EVEL and saying it’s time for EPEP – English pounds for English palaces

  131. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “You missed a bit of an open goal there Stu. Our favourite dog food salesmen made a bit of a slip up when he was talking about revenue.”

    You never get to make all the points you want to.

  132. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “The fact that low oil price benefits the economy but not to the degree that it displaces oil revenue is significant.”

    You appear to have spectacularly misunderstood. Everyone, including the pet shop boy, agreed that it DID benefit the economy MORE than it damaged it.

  133. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Stu, when did you get the nod from them to appear on the show and did they brief you on the subject matter. Did you know kevverage was going on too?”

    They rang me around 9am to see if I’d be prepared to go on in general and explained what the “fact check” idea was about. Then they rang back at 11am and said what we’d be specifically talking about and that Hague would be on. That gave me 45 minutes to prepare before I had to leave for the studio.

  134. Ken500 says:

    UK raises £515Billion. Scotland raises £54Billion. Take £54Billion from £515Billion= £461Billiin. Divide £461Billiin by 11 = £42Billion. Scotland raises £10Billion more pro rata.

    The rest of the UK borrows £90Billion more. Estimated to fall to £78Billion the current year – (April)

    Scotland pays £4Billion of the rest of the UK debt. Scotlandgetsback £30Billion + £16Bilion UK pension/benefits. £4Billion Defence. Any deficit is caused by Westmnster policies. Trident/illegal wars, banking fraud and tax evasion. HMRC is not fit for purpose.

    Westminster has illegally and secretly taken the equivalent of £Billions from Scotland. Oil tax is 60%. With the fall in oil prices it should be 20%. Thousands of people would not be losing their jobs. The unemployment figures would be lower in Scotland.

    Trident will cost Scotland £Billion a year. Scottish economy is still doing well with lower Oil prices. Scotland would be £10Billion a year better off Independent. £1Billion Trident, £4Billion on debts not borrowed or spent in Scotland, a tax on ‘loss leading drink – £1Billion, cut Oil tax, tax evasion etc.

  135. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Rev. Stuart, Heard it live, well done. Why did Big John not give you your title”

    Hey, he was already having enough trouble trying to get my surname right 😀

    (I like Beattie, I think he’s the BBC’s best discussion moderator.)

  136. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “I mean Stu, I know you publish your viewing figures for your blog but has Hague ever done the same for his blog,”

    No. Beattie tweeted a request from someone that we both publish our readership stats today. I responded with mine, but Hague still hasn’t.

    “as until today I had never heard of the odious specimen. What exactly justifies his presence on the BBC if he is a complete political nonentity?”

    Genuinely, I think it’s to troll Nats. The BBC’s been doing a lot of that lately. A more generous interpretation would be that the Yoons simply don’t have anyone remotely comparable to Wings in terms of what we do and the size of our readership, so he has to do.

  137. caledonia says:

    well i dont have a dog so wont be boycotting his pet shop store

    I will not however buy any of his garden stuff from greenfingers as a protest to him taking his business to england in the event of a no vote

  138. Big Jock says:

    The problem with BBC Scotland, is that it’s mostly about like minded unionists talking to themselves in a studio. The exception being John Beattie.

    Shareen in particular has Clegg every Saturday. Along with Siobhan Sinnet one of the 10% of Arty folk who voted no. Katy posh Surrey Daily Mail..and the rest.

    They never disagree cause they are all unionists. They only talk to people who agree with them,and bully those that don’t. They all decided collectively one day that devolving broadcasting to their country was the worst idea since Scotland set up the Darien scheme. In other words don’t be ridiculous…. Regulate the media in Scotland… What are these Nats thinking! That Sinnet women really annoys me with her plumby accent. The BBC arts expert that wants arts and cinema run from London.

  139. Dr Jim says:

    Word in from head office

    We’re talking them down

    Don’t ask me what that means, could be trousers or other garment for all I know Nudge Nudge

    Ooh Anybody heard from Tinto Chiel

  140. JLT says:

    There are many on the Unionist side, who sit in positions of power and influence, know the truth, and yet, will lie through their teeth to protect what they perceive is the greatest nation in the world, and which all came to prominence, thanks to the Union of 1707.

    I have no doubt, that some would even sell their mothers to the devil if it meant protecting ‘Great Britain’. And yet, as this article shows, glimpses of the truth shine through now and again.

    Well, it’s another myth blown away, and another golden bullet for the ‘Yes’ side.

  141. crazycat says:

    @ Dr Jim

    Tinto Chiel decided to stop posting a while ago. I can’t remember exactly why, but I thought it was a shame; I rather liked his contributions.

  142. Colin Rippey says:

    AND were well above other projections”

    That, however, is bollocks. Given repeated opportunities, Needy Kev was unable to produce any figures proving that point other than the OBR’s, which were an extreme outlier compared to other forecasts.

    And yet Stuart during the show you had no other actual figures to offer up from other sources? It’s so much easier afterwards to say something else but for the tiny fraction of the population who (a)listened to this show and (b) don’t (like the rest of us nutters) spend our time in these pointless bouts of whatabouterry probably thought you had no answers (but would have definitely been put off by the laughing and the dog food salesman comments)

    Let’s face it, even if the White Paper had the exact same revenue projections they would still be out by over £2 billion – there’s no winners here.

  143. Kenny says:

    O/T In a way, I welcome the higher ration of rUKOK incomers voting no, because if we have indeed reached 50-50 in the opinion polls, then it means that for the first time since god knows when, a majority of native Scots want independence!

    O/T Does anyone have a favourite Burns poem? Mine is “The Death and Dying Words of Poor Mailie”. Although I think it reads even better if you pronounce the words “heid” and “deed” rather than “head” and “dead” in the last two lines.

  144. woosie says:

    Please be patient with me………….

    If Scotland pre-referendum was gaining 10% of oil revenues back from uk gov, say $10 per barrel when the price was $100, how can $30 pb when the price is $30 lead to a black hole?

  145. heedtracker says:

    Let’s face it, even if the White Paper had the exact same revenue projections they would still be out by over £2 billion – there’s no winners here.”

    Did you win today Kevin?

    The OBR’s a. self admitted hopeless at forecasts and b. a Tory outfit, but we have to use something from someone.

  146. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Typing about oil revenues makes one think of Aberdeen.

    And mentioning Aberdeen… quite a number of Wingers will be meeting at the Archibald Simpson in Aberdeen at 7pm, this coming Saturday, for the first ‘Wings Over Aberdeen’ get-together.

    If you want more info, browse ‘off-topic’ and if you’re gonna be there and want a named souvenir badge, stick a post in ‘Quarantine’.

  147. Robert Peffers says:

    @Peter A Bell says: 25 January, 2016 at 4:46 pm:

    ” … The very first thing you have to understand is that projections have absolutely nothing to do with facts.”

    Right on target as usual, Peter. You never miss the target and hit the wall.

  148. steveasaneilean says:

    Has anyone suggested to the John Beattie programme that they “fact check” Ian Murray’so unchallenged claim that increasing the top rate of tax in Scotland by 5 pence would raise £150 million.

    Surely an easy fact to check – a wee phone call to HMRC should clarify.

  149. mealer says:

    Kenny 8.51
    That’s a very good choice.I’ll throw “The Inventory” into the mix.

  150. Tam Jardine says:

    Projections.. forecasts… whose projections were more wrong and whose were less wrong…

    You could sit me down in a room with dozens of experts in the field and they could not convince me that having large reserves of oil and gas in our waters is anything but a blessing for the long term for Scotland.

    Kevin talks about the tax revenues in isolation (and petulantly berates Stuart for talking about the oil price in isolation) as if the two were completely unrelated. In his world the tax revenues to the treasury is what pays for public services. I do not get the feeling he considers there are any other revenues flowing into the treasury.

    No corporation tax, vat, income tax, stamp duty from house sales in Aberdeen… no money coming in from all the other services and all the other personnel involved in the oil and gas sectors. It is a pretty narrow minded view of the industry.

    We get the odd big job up in Aberdeen – amazingly punting a bit of flooring can generate revenue for the exchequer as a direct result of that troublesome black stuff coming out of the North Sea.

    Thank god for those broad shoulders pooling and sharing- the industry would only be safe with those broad fucking shoulders of the UK. Well that turned out to be a load of shit, didn’t it!

    And Kevin bought the message hook line and sinker- not only that he convinced others that the big lie, that Scotland is useless and only Westminster can save us from our uselessness, and that we are uniquely unable to function as an independent country.

    The way Kevin’s pals in Better Together put it, you’d think on day 1 of indy drivers would get in the passenger side of their cars and start trying to work out where the wheel is. Everyone would be using gift vouchers and travellers cheques instead of a common currency. Folk would try and shake hands but miss. Door handles would be pulled when they should be pushed and vice versa.

    And that oil, that tricky bleedin oil would give us the largest deficit in the western world, perhaps even the entire world – we would lose money hand over fist by keeping all the revenues for ourselves.

  151. Robert Peffers says:

    @Rev. Stuart Campbell says: 25 January, 2016 at 8:13 pm:

    “Um, why would I counter that? It’s plainly true.”

    I cannot understand why something quite so plainly clear could be so misunderstood.

    “That, however, is bollocks. Given repeated opportunities, Needy Kev was unable to produce any figures proving that point other than the OBR’s, which were an extreme outlier compared to other forecasts.”

    I somehow imagined that anyone familiar with the OBR’s record would have seen them for what they are but it seems their particular brand of obfuscation still fools those who really should know better.

  152. Bob Mack says:

    Just to sate my curiosity I read the actual White Paper today.

    I cannot get a handle on what the Unionists are clinging on to about the Paper. I think it is all baloney.

    The important thing is that the Paper at the end answers questions, and makes it very clear in questions 19 and 20 that oil is not an important essential to the economy.

    What the paper does make clear is that oil revenues would allow EXTRA options,on top of those planned. It looks to me as if this oil nonsense is actually insignificant in relation to the whole independence process.

    The price of oil is actually irrelevant for any purpose planned ,but seems to be the basis of the Unionist arguement why Scotland would not survive. What nonsense.

  153. Hoss Mackintosh says:

    Well done Rev Stu,

    Looking forward to the rematch. That Kevin Hague is an odious shit.
    Very condescending and arrogant.

    The yoons are wondering why he does not stand as a MSP candidate.

    Now I know why – nobody would vote for him – either as a Red or Blue Tory.

  154. Colin Rippey says:

    @heedtracker I’m willing to bet that the only people who use OBR figures are politicians and let’s face it politicians only present numbers, it’s real companies that produce the numbers by extracting and selling oil.

    It does amaze me however that there are still so many comments on here from perplexed contributors who seem to have no concept of deficits, deficit gaps, black holes etc., what do they do in their spare time?

    Oh well, the 2014-2015 GERS report will be out in a few weeks so we can have our annual round of Robert Peffers telling us “it’s pish” and Dave McEwan Hill desperately pleading that we MUST ignore the GERS report as it’s irrelevant to the economic miracle of an iScotland.

    Any “projections” you’d care to offer on how gigantic the black hole will be? I’m betting “not as big as everyone thinks” as I’m pretty sure any loss is apportioned oil revenue will be offset by spending cuts imposed by a healthy dose of UKOKNess.

  155. Brian McHugh says:

    I’ll predict confidently where oil price is going… it is going to skyrocket beyond most folks pockets.

    Simple economics of Supply & Demand, mixed with the realities of a finite resource, guarantee it.

  156. Albaman says:

    Well done Stew,
    I think we’d all agree that an hour or two to get into a frame of mind, in order to counter ANY suggestion,point, or querie put to you, cannot be easy, as you’d be aware that making a point is very time limiting.
    As for big John Beatie, I have always had time for him, I do think that he is one of the very few who does believe in being neutral, (whilst on air anyway), plus the fact that he is an ex rugby player, that’s got to stand him in good stead eh?.

  157. Robert Peffers says:

    @Colin Rippey says: 25 January, 2016 at 5:34 pm:

    ” … Personally I don’t think”

    Now THAT I agree with.

    “The Rev was clearly unable to counter the claim that the White Paper’s oil revenue projections were wildly optimistic AND were well above other projections”

    You must have been listening to a different programme to everyone else. Sheesh! The guy conceded the point for heaven’s sake, Colin. Like his initial claim you too must have been blind to the whole range of other projections.

    In any case the whole debate on the matter is utterly futile for no matter what price the oil is per barrel it is the companies that get the profits, the UK Treasury that takes 100% of the revenue and the UK Treasury that collects the tax from the companies and their employees.

    Anything Scotland gets in taxation on the entire Oil & Gas industry is in Business Rates and such like and it is NOT the Scottish Government that gets it. It is the Local Councils, Local business’ and travel companies.

    The sole income of the Scottish Government is via the Block set by the Barnett Formula.

    Still, none of this matters now as the next referendum will be nothing to do with economics, it’ll be to do with “do we want Scotland to remain in a United Kingdom that had voted to leave the European Union”. If we think we’ve got a lot of nutcase nationalists up here just wait the EU referendum gets into full swing, the Leave campaign are already ahead and are now armed with a much bigger fear argument than the Stay campaign.

  158. Callum says:

    It’s probably worth mentioning that the PetPlanet businesses are small fry compared to Endura clothing. For those that don’t know; it is an extremely successful brand with distribution worldwide of high quality and huge margin products. Our man is a significant shareholder and non-exec directory.

    Anyway, Endura also made a statement about the EU:

    To give you an example; an Endura MT500 rain jacket used by mountain bikers is around £170. I’ve probably bought a couple of grands worth of their kit – and that’s me who used to get some kit for free (me being a superstar rider and all that).

  159. Robert Louis says:

    Bob Mack at 924pm

    You are right. Unionists like to pick and choose what they discuss from the white paper, in the full knowledge that almost all on the unionist side have never read it. It is classic group think, as they tell each other it is nonsense, and full of holes, so they all refuse to read it.

    The reality is, as you point out, many of these questions and more were answered in the white paper, including the point that the oil revenue would be the icing on the cake, but no essential to Scotland’s success.

    It makes most Scots rightly angry the way unionists talk down Scotland. Then the unionists wonder why nobody is voting for them anymore. They think they are criticising the SNP, but to most ears, it is just knocking Scotland, over and over again.

    Poor wee Scotland, when we had lots of oil at high prices, we were told it would damage Scotland, so best send the money to London. Now the prices drop, we are told, Scotland is an economic basket case because of it.

    I think Scots are tired of this cr*p about oil. Isn’t it time Scotland controlled Scotland’s oil? Isn’t it time the revenues came to Scotland instead of London?

  160. McDuff says:

    In Dec `11 the BBC published an account of a Treasury Select Committee hearing the subject being the grilling of Robert Chote head of OBR and its figures for future economic growth.
    OBR was accused of “guessing“, and,“If you were so wrong in March how do we know you are right now? You are paid to forecast the future. This is not very good is it?“
    Conservative MP David Ruffley said the body had got its forecasts “terribly wrong“.
    And Pat McFadden, a former Labour cabinet minister questioned what the OBR was for. He added “these are drastic changes , these are not minimal changes, if you got it so wrong in a matter of months that time , why should we believe anything you say this time“.
    Another MP suggested its (OBR) calculations were based on “guesswork“.
    No doubt that arrogant twit on the radio would happily have OBR handle his finances for the next 10 years.
    Aye right.

  161. heedtracker says:

    Any “projections” you’d care to offer on how gigantic the black hole will be? I’m betting “not as big as everyone thinks” as I’m pretty sure any loss is apportioned oil revenue will be offset by spending cuts imposed by a healthy dose of UKOKNess.

    I do not have any Kevin. All I ever go by is UK and Scottish debt/deficit historical accounts. As you can see, forecasts are not exactly a great way to argue for the union or indy.

    I like historical stats on deficit/debt because it enables indy debate like “well, how did we get here, where did the money go, how can a red/blue tory gov borrow so much and make Scotland even more debt burdened, before enough Scots decide that they are being stiffed/saved by pooling and sharing across the yew kay etc?”

    You can make forecasts on giant infrastructure spends, ongoing in England and the south east but Scotland has to pay for them too, and then England will give Scotland a share in hand outs. I prefer they just run their own patch without Scots investment in say

    Crossrail projection, triple the multiplier, for London, who then send up some dosh for their scrounger region. No thanks.

  162. Nana says:


    I miss Tinto chiel as well. Hoping he’s ok.

  163. Ken mcneil says:

    It might help to get one thing straight. The OBR, the IFS and the Scottish government don’t make projections on the oil price or revenues. they all use other people’s figures. The OBR use the lowest of the range of 3 forecasts that the DECC produce. The IFS use the OBR figures which are the DECC figures so you are not looking at 3 different independent projections you are looking at the same one. The Scottish government base their figures on a range of figures produced by the oil and gas industry.

  164. Jeanette McCrimmon says:

    Gerry Burns says:
    25 January, 2016 at 2:24 pm
    @15s in. “from now on we’re going to try and check the facts”
    and the irony, so obviously lost on him. )

  165. Colin Rippey says:

    @Robert Peffers
    You must have been listening to a different programme to everyone else. Sheesh! The guy conceded the point for heaven’s sake, Colin. Like his initial claim you too must have been blind to the whole range of other projections.

    On the specific subject of oil revenue projections what figures other than those from the OBR were presented during the programme? None is the answer. But again that’s not really the point I was making.

    I was merely commenting that in past cases such as when Andrew Neill ambushed Angus Robertson on the Scottish Budget, or when the Scottish Government removed Donald Trump as a business ambassador (or whatever the title was) and Tasmina Ahmed Sheik “didnae know” it was Jack McConnell that made him one in the first place, the WoS community was desperate for their champion to fight against these dastardly journalists and “put the record straight”.

    It’s not that easy is it? Some arguments are difficult to spin around.

    (noticed your last comment ended abruptly, wondering what your thoughts are on the next referendum as it looked like you were pasting in my previous comment but didn’t get your reply in)

  166. nodrog says:

    Am I wrong or is it really this simple. Let’s use algebra instead of guesswork numbers.

    Tax revenue from North Sea Oil = X to HMRC

    Scotland’s share as part of “one nation” UK = X/12

    Scotland’s share as an independent country = X

    I see no “Black Hole”, I see a big bonus.

    No matter what X is Scotland ends up 12 times better off if we are Independent. Could Kevin do the arithmetic and tell me I am wrong?

    They are having a laugh and I think we are falling for it. Not to mention the 75% from Petrol and Diesel sales.

  167. Bob Mack says:

    Robert Louis,

    It makes you wonder at the sleekit way they go about their business. I wonder how Englands GDP per person would fall if they did not have oil revenues courtesy of Scotland.

    I think they would feel the effects more than us.

  168. Fireproofjim says:

    Woosie @8.52
    The problem is that fixed extraction costs on a $100 barrel may be $50, great for profits and taxes.
    However if the value of the barrel has dropped to $30 with the same fixed extraction cost of $50 then it is not worth producing and there is nothing to tax.

  169. DerekM says:

    Aye Robert it will at that i reckon ,it will be right eye opener as all the britnats wave their butchers flags and pull us out of Europe based on xenophobia rather than economics.

    It will be a dark chapter in the history of the UK and probably the end of the union,good bring it on 🙂

  170. Robert Peffers says:

    @Colin Rippey says: 25 January, 2016 at 8:43 pm:

    “And yet Stuart during the show you had no other actual figures to offer up from other sources?”

    Oh! For Heaven’s Sake, Colin, get a grip.

    When the Bitter Together crowd made their first accusations John Swinney retorted that the SG had taken the a range of projections and ran with the middle one.

    The row was featured on all radio, TV and newspaper outlets. Even the Rev Stu’s opponents conceded the point during the programme. Stop making a fool of yourself.

  171. Kev G says:

    All that stuff about endura is a bit weird. we need to be in the EU, but not in scotland…

    Did Hague ever have his ‘workings’ put up against Andrew Morrison?

    Lovatt was telling him he didnt understand hagues wonder stuff.

    did it die a death? or Did he find out who Andrew was?

  172. Bob Mack says:

    @Colin Rippey.

    Who compiles Gers?

    Is it compiled by the same people who kept the oil revenues hidden under the Official Secrets Act?

    Is it the same people who denied Scotland Barnett Formula Consequentials,but kept that hidden too?

    Is it the same people who acquired without permission large tracts of Scotlands waters?

    Oh well that’s all right then. I am sure they will be honest about GERS at least.

  173. galamcennalath says:

    I am repeating what has been said so often by so many …

    – the oil is a bonus to Scotland’s solid economy

    – Scotland has potential which isn’t realised because WM is SE focused

    – we contribute £billions to UKOK costs which we wouldn’t have with Indy

    Unionist politicians and pundits know this well. There is no positive economic case for Scotland staying in the Union, which is why they must lie or twist facts.

  174. Jeanette McCrimmon says:

    CameronB Brodie says:
    25 January, 2016 at 4:02 pm
    If the BBC is truthfully checking facts, why did the first two ‘experts’ they referenced, have no practical experience in, or expertise of, the topic they were discussing (i.e. oil economics)?

    They were discussing if the First Minister’s quotes to Marr were factual or not. The quotes they chose were on oil economics. Everything’s political.
    I agree that to have a bone a fide professor of economics, would have added to the debate.
    However, Beattie is disengaging and generally knows nothing of the subject being discussed. His big idea was obviously to bring boring, ignorant, rude man on as to deflect from his own shortcomings.

  175. James Barr Gardner says:

    Any Rabbie Burn’s tonight or did I blink and miss it?

    Aye, the BBC just love us North Britons so. By the way I noticed the Bailiwick of Jersey is getting an ITV Burns Special.

    Vote SNP X 2 for a new free, fair Scotland and to get rid of the BBC.

  176. mealer says:

    Mags Curran on BBC or Nicola on STV?

  177. heedtracker says:

    It’s not that easy is it? Some arguments are difficult to spin around.

    You should get more directly involved Kevin, stand as a list tory MSP and make your presence felt. Ruth’s a sock puppet, the rest are lazy tory dolts mostly and so on.

    Prof Tomkins is nuts and even he’s going to get in to Holyrood with the tory list.

    Your union needs you Kevin.

  178. TD says:

    The discussion about oil revenue has centred on the falling price and the resulting reduction in revenue. If we look at it the other way round, i.e if we consider what will happen when the price of oil goes up (as it surely will) it will be like this:

    1. Our economy will suffer because of the increased priced of oil and the knock on effect on transport and other costs. The negative impact on our economy is the same whether we are in or out of the UK and irrespective of our status as an oil producing nation.

    2. But, the harm done to our economy will be offset at least to some extent by the additional revenues flowing to the public purse.

    3. We can either have all of that revenue (whatever it is) if we are independent or we can get 10% of it if we are in the UK. I know which I think is better for Scotland.

    It is a mystery to me how those of us who support independence have allowed unionists to get away with the proposition that in some way oil is a problem for Scotland. We need to do better on this – Stu’s contribution today is a step in the right direction.

  179. Mark P-I says:

    The only worry about this analysis is that the extra spending power people have with low fuel prices may go to paying down debts as it is in the US. This does not help the economy but it does help protect people from the coming financial holocaust.

  180. call me dave says:

    Holding on to Aunties apron strings is on offer.

    SNP ‘will not back Scotland Bill without agreement on budget’

  181. schrodingers cat says:

    #dogfoodguy is trending


  182. Robert Peffers says:

    @woosie says: 25 January, 2016 at 8:52 pm:

    Please be patient with me………….

    If Scotland pre-referendum was gaining 10% of oil revenues back from uk gov, say $10 per barrel when the price was $100, how can $30 pb when the price is $30 lead to a black hole?”

    You state, ” … If Scotland pre-referendum was gaining 10% of oil revenues back from uk gov, say $10 per barrel”

    I have no idea where you got that wrong information from, Woosie, but Scotland doesn’t get a bent penny of Oil & Gas Revenues back from the UK Treasury.

    Scotland’s entire funding comes from the Scottish Block Grant, which is set by the Barnett Formula and has nothing whatsoever to do with oil revenues – or any other revenues for that matter.

    I’ll attempt to briefly explain what it is all about.

    First of all the UK Treasury classes all oil & Gas as coming from a source they term, “Extra-regio-Territory”.

    By which term they mean that it doesn’t come from any particular region of the United Kingdom. The UK claims every single penny of that revenue just as it claims every other source of revenue.

    Now for the way the UK is funded – previous to devolution every part of the UK was funded from United Kingdom Ministries but it was a little more complicated as the various Secretaries if State argued their case each year for funding.

    However, even then, England was treated as The UK and the other three countries as other parts of the UK.

    So when Westminster decided to spilt the two Kingdom UK up as four countries instead of two kingdom they took certain functions away from the UK Ministries in London and gave them to the other three countries but kept England as the UK funded by the UK ministries.

    However, they gave each devolved country a different level of devolved functions so each one gets a different level of funding worked out per person and based upon the per-person sum spent in England/UK.

    So while England still gets all her funding via UK Ministries the others get a Block Grant based upon English Funding.

    Northern Ireland has most devolved functions and gets the highest per capita funding, Wales has the lease devolved functions and gets the least, Scotland is between the two.

    To pay for the devolved functions the government has to also take away money from the UK ministries to give to the three devolved countries because none of them have tax raising powers yet. And that is what the Barnett Formula does.

    Except that as Westminster changes things during the year, sometimes cutting English Funds and sometimes spending extra. At the end of each year they balance the books and take money away or add extra to the block grants to bring them in line with English spending and that is what is called, “Barnett Consequentials”.

    There is no special allowance for Scotland’s 98% contribution of oil & gas revenues nor for the billions from Whisky Duty.

  183. North Chiel says:

    First Minister at very ” top of her game” on “Scotland tonight ”
    No ” pussyfooting about” with “John och aye Mackay”, she
    “cut the legs from under him” every time he tried the old
    ” interruption ploy”.
    A ” Masterclass” from Nicola.

  184. old dearie says:

    I am newish to Wings but have been reading for several months now. I go back to the Winnie Ewing days of the SNP and heard her speak at Portobello Town Hall in 1967. You can imagine my joy at the state of play now. Well done to all you present day activists for achieving a miracle.

    Well done Stu for accepting BBC’S challenge at such short notice. I am a John Beattie fan. At least he’s willing to give you a platform and he was a fantastic rugby player who took no prisoners.

    Keep up the good work all you Wingers and enjoy the get together next weekend.

  185. louis.b.argyll says:

    Yes Robert, maybe woosie should have begun with ‘EVEN IF Scotland ‘…

    But like the entire oil now / oil then / oil next week’s all it all goes to London anyway..

  186. galamcennalath says:

    call me dave says:

    ” SNP ‘will not back Scotland Bill without agreement on budget’ ”

    I have found it difficult to believe that WM could be fair and reasonable over this. Also, there are strong factions at WM who explicitly want to reduce Scotland’s block grant. It is in WM’s nature to try to shaft Scotland at every turn now.

    I expect rejection by the SG, and with good cause.

  187. ScottishPsyche says:

    Kevin should stand for Holyrood. I would love to see his finances scrutinised like the SNP, his tweets unearthed, his online associations paraded.

    Remember he has such good relations with both SLAB and Scottish Conservatives it would be hard for him to choose.

    Why does he limit himself to the blogging world?

    Does anyone else think both those statements by M8 and Endura seem almost as if written by the same person? Someone with very strong feelings about the Union? One wonders if the others directors even had a look in?

    Also does his wife not wonder what the hell he’s been doing online all this time if this is the first time she has seen his Twitter?

  188. louis.b.argyll says:

    Missed the STV thingy, haven’t been on channel 3 for years…anyone know if it’s on their app.

  189. Robert Peffers says:

    @Colin Rippey says: 25 January, 2016 at 9:26 pm:

    “It does amaze me however that there are still so many comments on here from perplexed contributors who seem to have no concept of deficits, deficit gaps, black holes etc., what do they do in their spare time?”

    First of all your strange concept that anyone here is perplexed about deficits, deficit gaps and black holes is an extremely flawed concept. As to your question. The answer is that we laugh at numpties like you who spout more utter pish than is passed at Ibrox during a Rangers vs Celtic Cup Tie when they play extra time and go to sudden death penalties.

    The basic financial situation in Scotland is that even by the cooked up Westminster figures the Scots per capita GDP is higher than either that of England alone or the UK including Scotland.

    That means the Scots, on a per capita basis, raise more per capita revenue for the UK treasury than any other country in the UK. That is even without consideration of the many scams that are inflicted upon Scotland by the Westminster Government.

    If anyone doubts that set of facts, based upon UK Government figures, they only need ask themselves one question. Why, if Scotland is claimed to be such a poor economic part of the United Kingdom are the Establishment fighting so very hard to prevent the Scots ONLY getting what revenues are generated in Scotland?

  190. Still Positive. says:

    North Chiel @ 11.11

    Do you have a link?

    galamcennalath @ 11.21

    I expect the same. Although I worry about how this will be portrayed in SCUM. Guess it will be up to us foot-soldiers to explain it to the general public.

    There will, of course, be explanations on the SNP’s FB page but those not on FB or members of the SNP will be at the mercy of the BBC and STV.

    SNP x 2 in May.

  191. ArtyHetty says:


    Sorry, but just popped over to facebook, and a post by rt about the Aussies poss ditching the queen as head of state. Comments on it bizarrely anti Scotland, they say the media there are comparing it to the Indy ref in Scotland, and so they really need the queen.

    I know they have no clue, well, a very skewed view of what is happening in UKok and of course any reporting re Scotland is I am sure, pretty damn dodgy.

    But connection between their desire to be rid of the queen, and the Scottsih referendum must be pushing it a bit! Not really relevant I know, but when you have relations there who just silently snigger if you mention Scotland and independence, we have to be aware that the propaganda is far and wide and therefore even more dangerous.

  192. Dr Jim says:

    The midwife definitely slapped Alex Massie’s face instead of his Arse
    Whit a wee soor ploom (Ah hate the SNP stamps wee feet)

    JOHN McKAY hudnae a clue what Leslie Riddoch was on about

    John’s eyes were glazing over at the thought of a debate when all John wants to do is read the damn script collect £200 and go to the Chippy wae Rhamaan then a pint in the Clansman

  193. Robert Peffers says:

    @nodrog says: 25 January, 2016 at 10:16 pm:

    “”Am I wrong”

    Yes you’re wrong. In the UK Scotland doesn’t actually get a share of her own oil & gas. Per se. Nor any other revenues either.

    All UK revenue collected in Scotland by HM Treasury belongs to the UK it is neither classed as Scottish revenue nor is it allocated by the UK as a percentage or share of the UK revenue.

    The UK decides what is the per capita sum spent on each English person and uses that figure as the basis to use in the Barnett Formula to work out what the Scottish Block Grant will be.

    Then they alter English spending throughout the year and cheat us out of funding by use of selective Barnett Consequentials. For example the London Cross-Rail system carries no Barnett Consequentials and Neither does the New London Sewerage System, nor are so called National art galleries, opera, theatre, museums, ballet and a host of other things including Olympic Games and stadium.

  194. Paula Rose says:

    Hi old dearie – lovely to see you here!

  195. call me dave says:

    Tonight’s Scotland tonight is not up yet on the player.
    But here is the link for checking later.

    Sturgeon was on but I haven’t seen it.

    Same with the BBC Scotland if you fancy Curran.

    Here’s the link for checking later

  196. call me dave says:

    @Paula Rose

    Oh! Glad you posted just before me… gave me a turn that did! 🙂

    Saw your post Old dearie good to hear from you.

  197. call me dave says:

    BBC Scotland 2016 just appeared. Typical!

    I’m off to bed catch it tomorrow.

  198. Capella says:

    @ James Barr Gardner – here’s some Burns. Lines on Stirling – written by Somebody in the window of an inn at Stirling on seeing the Royal Palace in ruins:

    “The injur’d STEWART-line are gone,
    A Race outlandish fill their throne;
    An idiot race, to honor lost;
    Who know them best despise them most.”

  199. Tam Jardine says:

    Robert Peffers

    “Why, if Scotland is claimed to be such a poor economic part of the United Kingdom are the Establishment fighting so very hard to prevent the Scots ONLY getting what revenues are generated in Scotland?”

    That, Robert, is the simply, honest question I have yet to hear a single, solitary response to from those fighting Scottish Independence.

    It cuts to the very heart of the matter. They can’t answer it because it is self evident that Westminster threw everything at keeping us. And we were told again and again we are and would be an economic basketcase.

    So you are left with either 2 conclusions- either the Westminster tories are some kind of benevolent charity doing us a good turn or they are lying to us.

    That only 45% of the population grasped this is beyond ridiculous. Just 45 percent got it. Even less if you include the don’t knows- most of whom were and are in the category of desperately needing to live in a better country.

    The trick is to dazzle people with selective stats and put the fear of God into them, wheel out some big names and subvert the strengths of the “Scottish Economy” into weaknesses. Ask people- well, what the fuck do YOU know about setting up a currency, or running the economy, or the EU?

    Best leave it to the big boys- listen to Deutsch bank. .. listen to Richard Branson. You think you ken better than Richard Branson? Who the fuck do you think you are?

  200. ArtyHetty says:

    Just watched this, Dec,2015 TED talk.

    Had to share, very interesting talk, re EU etc. I like him, he seems genuine.

  201. Almannysbunnet says:

    “Burns nicht we raise a wee libation
    Tae folk wha voted gainst being a nation
    Instead we bend in single file
    For a pack o sleekit paedophiles”

    Frankie Boyle

    I think Rabbie would approve.

  202. Tam Jardine says:

    Bob Mack

    You make a great point. Again- I have yet to hear a unionist (and there are plenty read this site) refute, acknowledge or deal with the deception of McCrone the invisible reductions to the block grant and the suspension of the bar nett formula in the 80s.

    They love talking about projections and the future because they can twist the message to suit their agenda.

    The past, the recent past is what informs us of how Scotland is to be treated in the future.

    A feeder club would be a generous comparison. The reality is: we are a colony who has been milked. The populace is fodder. No-one in Westminster wants to address why we own so little of the industries that make money be it oil, gas, whisky or the land.

    But the OBR… you think you know better than the OBR!

    A bag of pish is what it is Bob.

  203. Al-Stuart says:

    I really had trouble listening to that monotone durge from Kevin DroneOn.

    Who is Kevin Hague anyway?

    Some good soul on this thread mentioned website stats., earlier on. So had a look. I know Alexa rankings are riddled with algorithmic problems but as a very general guideline I think this monologue man Hague has recently been gifted some national media publicity which has dragged his sorry ar$$ed website ranking up 2,120,273 from a fairly miserable position of 3,737,716. Kevin’s website is so bad he has NO UK ranking

    Kevin Hague ranking…

    Worldwide was: 3,737,716. Now up by 2,120,273 to 1,617,443.

    Kevin Hague’s is too insignificant to have any UK position at all.


    At the same sample date…

    Stuart Campbell’s Wings Over Scotland ranking

    Was 50,769. Now down by 9,000 to 59,769.

    Wings Over Scotland UK ranking is: 2,357

    Now that IS IMPRESSIVE.


    Kevin Hague says on his Twitter monologues that he is “businessman, blogger, ‘a nightmare for the kind of politician who thinks .. that you can put a gloss on statistics or any economic figure'”

    No Kevin, you are just a nightmare to anyone’s sanity. 16 minutes listening to you drone on, or ignorantly snigger over Stuart’s narrative like you were a little school child – and I am fit to be sectioned. I jest not, you really are than bad. Please stick to the day job selling dog food and stop polluting the radio broadcasts like a wannabbe somebody. You ain’t anybody as far as opinion forming goes. Sorry but that’s just the way it is.

  204. Dr Jim says:

    The Yoons have lost the economic argument with the people now so what are they going to do?

    We’ve got what they need more than money, Location Location Location and if there’s to be a Brexit and we win EU entry do we think all those businesses who told us they would up sticks and run away to London if we were Independent will be telling Fat Boy Cameron to stick London up his backside because we’re off to EU Independent Scotland

    Well there will be an economic case for it (They told us)

    That’ll surely mean we get 100% of whatever revenues are derived from oil, whisky and every other damn thing we only get (Lets use the big word) Consequentials for

    Really do hope the English vote us out for spite and we get back in (For spite)

  205. Al-Stuart says:


    This Kevin Hague person has been scaremongering before. He is a serial offender, and forgive me but has a whiff of hypocrite about him.

    On the one hand his Twitter feed blames the SNPBad for upsetting his wife. Whereas the facts, as he is so fond of using this word are that Kevin likes to scare his 80 strong workforce and their indentured families into voting NO at a Scottish referendum for fear of losing their jobs.


    Pray tell those not as enlightened as you Kevin, do you think it is fair and decent to raise the Sword of Damocles above the financial heads of those “fortunate” enough to work for one of your companies?

    I would worry for the wives and families of the 80 pet food shop employees at the thought of having their jobs, incomes, homes taken off of them because their boss likes to play politics with the livelihoods of his employees.


    What an irksome, ignorant fool this man is.

  206. James Barr Gardner says:

    Ref; Capella
    26 January, 2016 at 12:20 am

    Here is something similar written Robert Burns on a window pane of the Kenmore Hotel, Loch Tay:

    Here Stewarts once in triumph reigned,
    And laws for Scotland’s weal ordained;
    But now unroofed their palace stands,
    Their sceptre’s swayed by other hands;
    Fallen, indeed, and to the earth
    Whence grovelling reptiles take their birth,
    The injured Stewart line is gone.
    A race outlandish fills their throne;
    An idiot race, to honour lost;
    Who knows them best despite them most.

    Time to raise The Appin Banner.

  207. yesindyref2 says:

    I first came across the chokka blog some months ago, a link posted on the Grun I think, followed by a few attempts on the Herald. I had a look at an article then, and it was riddled by errors. A certain poster here asked me why I didn’t post to the blog to raise my points, and my answer was why should I bother giving my time to “the other side”?

    Well, having had a look at his twitter, I see he’s pushing his FFA for Dummies articles, had a look. Within a few seconds the eyebrows were raised, and then I got into the meat of it. What did I find? The same errors as in that article months ago.

    I also think I’ve seen figures from his blog used in Unionist postings in the Herald, so perhaps he’s become the Unionist champion. With a blog based on errors – very basic ones, by the way. A bit sad for those posters who read it in good faith and quote figures from it, but hey ho, all’s fair in love and war.

    So the question is – is he a genuine Unionist – or an excellent plant?

  208. lobbey says:

    ‘Oil price is one of the most volatile things”

    Love a good engineering joke !!!!


    As for the tape, love the sniggering, did they invite Dastardly and Mutley ?

  209. jdman says:

    Andrew Haddow
    “Don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve bought my last tin of Pedigree Chum.”

    I’m stopping buying it as well,
    gives me dog breathe.

  210. jdman says:

    Al Stuart @ 2.40am

    OOHH that’ll leave a mark, its people like you that get his wife greetin. 🙂

  211. yesindyref2 says:

    Interesting article in the NYT:

    “Iran’s oil and gas fields are in dire need of infrastructure upgrades. In total, industry analysts say, Iran could spend up to $100 billion rebuilding its natural gas pipelines.”

    Now, wouldn’t it be handy if Scotland’s hard-hit oil sector could get a few £billion of that? Don’t worry though, Salmond’s on the ball, much to the dismay of the Unionists.

  212. Alastair W right says:

    A question for Kevin Hague (should any one interact with him) In the event of Brexit happening will he be moving his warehouse to England? It would only be fair to his staff to inform them.

  213. ScottieDog says:

    My main worry is that we are focusing on a single commodity and playing to the hands of the unionists.
    It’s not where the Scottish economy is at, but where it can go that matters. Being a part of a country brainwashed by monetarism (the economy is like a household bullshit) we have little chance of real growth.

  214. David MacGille-Mhuire says:

    Is Mr Kevin Hague related, beyond the blanket, to Wm “Uber Tory” Hague via the cartoon dug with the snake-like hissing snigger whose name escapes Kevo and me?

    I think Kevo should tell himself and us in a “blindingly obvious”, non-rambling fashion from where and whence his and his putative Son of Papa’s “analysis” couched in the aforesaid snigger and loud flapping of OBR (?) oracle paper comes: A BritNatGov “objective” source, perchance?

    Cheers, Kev, you tittering wag of a haute Unionista (-o) scallywag.

    What about simple constitutional, historical, and democratic basics rather than voodoo groping about in the entrails of the grassroots body politic via black arts of the dismal pseudo-science, Kev (and interlocutor, John)?

    Thank you.

  215. Petra says:

    The curse of oil (revenue), eh! Where attempts are made to make the Scots feel utterly miserable for having such oil. What a burden right enough. Such an affliction that Westminster has decided to hang onto us, the subsidy junkies, and shoulder our burden. How kind of them to do so!

    Anyway onto Mr Beattie’s programme and I have to say that I really admire you Stuart for accepting his invitation at such short notice … and didn’t you do WELL. You’ve also got a lovely Scottish accent and perfect speaking voice (enunciation, pitch and so on) … perfect for hosting your OWN radio programme or television show when we get our Independence.

    I’ve listened to the 17 minutes of the programme and notice that at the commencement Kevin Hague got nearly twice as much time (as you) to present his case. This is always crucial in a show such as this … influence the listener with opening and closing comments. He also tries to throw / undermine you (didn’t manage to) with his constant interruptions and his sneering and snorting in the background which wont go down well with listeners regardless of the stance they take.

    I noticed too that when you were asked about the White Paper figures ‘oil revenue per year for Scotland’ and couldn’t answer / didn’t have them to hand Kevin Hague jumped in immediately and said (like a big, excited wean) ”I do if it helps … on page 75” … and started quoting from page 75. Now wasn’t that VERY convenient and wouldn’t go unnoticed either. I wonder when he received his invite?

    Anyway now that you seem to have gone from being persona non grata to persona grata what about contacting Mr Beattie and asking him if you could discuss some of the ‘oil’ issues that cause Independence supporters to feel so aggrieved, issues from the past and present, such as the McCrone Report, Stolen Seas / oilfields, Scotland the only country other than Iraq to find oil and have no oil fund, what the oil revenue has been spent on / is being spent on (wars and SE England infrastructure), Westminsters current taxation and the fact that the oil revenue goes to the Treasury not Scotland at all and so on. The oil revenue ‘COVER UP’ that very few Scots are aware of.

    If he was agreeable to doing so he could invite Kevin Hague along. That might take the smirk off his face.

  216. Grouse Beater says:

    On Vague Hague quoting figures from the White paper –

    Unionists original scam was to claim the White Paper offered NO concrete figures on anything!

    “Where are the answers?’ was the hue and cry.

  217. Colin Rippey says:

    Well, having had a look at his twitter, I see he’s pushing his FFA for Dummies articles, had a look. Within a few seconds the eyebrows were raised, and then I got into the meat of it. What did I find? The same errors as in that article months ago.

    But of course you’re keeping them all to yourself.

  218. Nana @ 7.34 am, and many other occasions.

    Although I try to keep up to date with all the latest developments, I invariably miss things, so your posts are invaluable. Please keep up your good work.

  219. Ghillie says:

    Aww Rev Stu, so grateful and so proud that YOU are on our side!

  220. Iain says:

    Over and above the arguments deployed for and against independence, one thing is quite remarkable for its salience: the deeply unappealing, unattractive character of so many of those who most actively support the union – people whom you would not want to have on your side on any issue, whom you would not want to have in your house, nor to have as company.

  221. heedtracker says:

    But of course you’re keeping them all to yourself.

    Want to know why I want rid of you toryboys Kev? Its a red or blue tory world.

  222. David says:

    Ok let’s not get to caught up in the oil price/revenue issue. Let’s take a different approach. The BBC and most other MSM have put a huge effort into trying to undermine every policy, every statement and every action of the Scottish Government and its politicians. Perhaps a few in the BBC have now realised that this constant negativity approach is not working and only seems to boost the popularity of the Scottish Government and the SNP. The lets analyse the facts approach taken here has the potential to be cherry picked for nat bashing by trying to show that the big pro Indy bloggers are not competent judges of reality. This is BBC/MSM vs bloggers and Wings etc better get wise to this. When are we getting some Kezia Dugdale statements dissected in a similar manner and who will be invited to the discussion? Sorry Stu, I don’t think you did particularly well in this broadcast.

  223. heedtracker says:

    And then fast forward two decades of UKOK red/blue tory right to rein over us Kev

    Just one stat.

    Here in Scotland, BBC etc relentlessly tells Scotland its a crime racked shit hole, with a hopeless SNP Holyrood that cant run its schools or its hospitals and then unionists like you tell us Scots oil’s a worthless burden.

    Are you getting it Kev?

  224. ian says:

    I think the whole oïl myth that its the mainstay of Scotlands economy has to be dealt with.For a start many of the less well informed think the income from oil comes directly to Scotland when it does’nt.Is it correct to say that oïl accounts for 10% or less of our tax take? I’m not sure myself but it would be good to know and spread the facts.We have to show that Scotlands economy is diverse and not dependent on oïl.

  225. Petra says:


    @ Nana at 7:29 / 7:34am …. Fracking ..

    Thanks for the ‘Fracking’ links Nana and it’s a real worry don’t you think?

    ‘TOMMY SHEPPARD MP has warned that “very powerful corporations” will “move heaven and earth” to undermine any Scottish Government decision against fracking at the party’s conference in Aberdeen.’

    I’m sure that they will as there’s a massive fortune to be made (for them) and of course the crew that are dolling out the licenses all have vested interests in this field too.

    Someone down South giving them a run for their money!

    And this is VERY interesting indeed Nana ….. basically saying ”Stop Demanding a Fracking Ban in Scotland.”

    ”If the Scottish Government bans fracking, the fracking companies can then launch legal action to overturn the ban and as the UK Government has approved fracking, the ban would be overturned and Scotland would have no possibility of stopping it. If the Scottish Government bans fracking today, I guarantee that within a year fracking will be destroying our land, our water supply and our food and drink and tourism industries. Within 20 years, Scotland will be a wasteland. Not only that but the legal case would cost the Scottish Government millions of pounds to fight, which they would have to do even though they would know that the ban would be overturned by the UK Supreme Court” …………………………………………………………………………………………..
    ”In effect, the Scottish Government has skillfully sidestepped the UK Government. To ban fracking would be to play right into their hands, which begs the question: who is agitating for the Scottish Government to order a ban? Seriously, if you are still banging this drum, you are doing the establishment’s dirty work for them.”

  226. call me dave says:

    SNP bad on Call Kaye nobody voting for them except a person who hates independence but thinks the SNP are a competent lot when taking care of the piggy bank.

    A woman who doesn’t know who they voted for last time and lots who don’t know what powers are devolved and what powers are not.

    Feart to go out at night in Scotland says ex-teacher but crime figures at lowest since… go figure!

    Many have forgotten about all the mitigation put in place by the SG to buffer us against the Tories in WM

    Ah a supporter frae Glasgow… I’m off to do some shopping I’ve had ma cereal.


  227. Iain says:

    I’d like to qualify my previous post about so many active supporters of the union being deeply unappealing people.

    Insofar as this may be thought applicable to the unionist in question, we have to have some charity. He had a rotten start to life, and it’s obviously left its mark.

  228. X_Sticks says:

    Listening to british propaganda radio this morning (and watched their broadcast media last night too) and it seems to me that their strategy is to try and undermine the SNP vote at the election.

    The main thrust is that it is a foregone conclusion that the SNP will walk the election and they are hoping that this will cause a lot of the SNP vote not to bother turning out allowing the unionist parties to do better.

    Anyone doing the SNP down is given loads of airtime while any supporters are cut off quickly. We will need to work hard to keep the voters turning out on the day. We must not allow them to instil any complacency in the Yes camp.

  229. Breeks says:

    I just can’t deal with oil price bullshit. It’s like fretting about life confined to a wheelchair; you can’t stand, you can’t walk, you can’t go where you like, you have to be pushed… But all of the hectoring comes from the bastard who broke your back in the first place.
    The last people in the world to give us advice about oil prices are the Westminster muppets who can create a £3.5 trillion deficit while the Norwegians can make each one of their population Kroner millionaires. It is beyond insulting.

  230. heedtracker says:

    But I’ll focus on the “father figure” question, which I suspect is the core motivator for me. I’m a father of two and – although divorced now – I strive hard to be a good dad to them. I find it unfathomable that my biological father and both my stepfathers failed ever to properly engage or bond with me. They all seemed to simply strike me from their lives when their relationship with my mum ended. Maybe the fault lies with them, maybe with my mum … but I guess deep down I must wonder if it was my fault. Why did none of these men seem to want to be my dad?”

    You’re a rich tory unionist business man in Edinburgh Kev, sticking it to Scots vile separatists, special BBC vote NO Scotland or else guest etc , so it couldn’t have been so bad. Not a lot of people could move to another country and spend so much time and energy telling them they cant actually be one, with excel.

  231. frogesque says:

    I think nitpicking over historical who said what about the price and revenue stream of oil is a mugs game.

    Everyone got it wrong!

    Even if you believe a particular account (OBR, IFS, BBC spin, granny’s tea leaves etc.) oil is a bonus.

    Until we have our own set of books, full control over policy, taxation and expenditure Scotland will be exploited.

    The UK’s biggest black hole is Trident. closely followed by The City.


  232. Luigi says:

    X_Sticks says:

    26 January, 2016 at 9:53 am

    Listening to british propaganda radio this morning (and watched their broadcast media last night too) and it seems to me that their strategy is to try and undermine the SNP vote at the election.

    The main thrust is that it is a foregone conclusion that the SNP will walk the election and they are hoping that this will cause a lot of the SNP vote not to bother turning out allowing the unionist parties to do better.

    Anyone doing the SNP down is given loads of airtime while any supporters are cut off quickly. We will need to work hard to keep the voters turning out on the day. We must not allow them to instil any complacency in the Yes camp.

    I agree that is the sneaky BBC agenda (which they try to disguise but is so bloody obvious), although TBF they did allow the very listenable, knowledgeable and articulate “George from Inverurie” on later, to defend the SNP and debunk the usual nonsense spouted by that dwindling bunch of greetin Labour activists (which he did with great effect). He always seems to get right in there and hit the nail on the head. George from Inverurie, whoever you are, I enjoy your contributions – you are a real star! Keep up the good work.

  233. Helena Brown says:

    Ian @9.43am. Many people have difficult family situations, my birth father saw me last aged 5 before removing himself from my life, hasn’t made me less empathetic to the woes of others. Perhaps Kevin does have an unloveable trait about him, he certainly has all the hallmarks, but someone should tell him about bullying his workforce. The vote is a secret ballot, nobody should know how you vote, well least of all you employers. So I think I will still consider Kev to be a little nasty unionist of which there are so many.

  234. nodrog says:

    “Robert Peffers says:
    25 January, 2016 at 11:53 pm
    @nodrog says: 25 January, 2016 at 10:16 pm:

    “”Am I wrong”

    Yes you’re wrong. In the UK Scotland doesn’t actually get a share of her own oil & gas. Per se. Nor any other revenues either.”

    So I am not entirely wrong – you missed the point of what I said.
    Tax revenue from North Sea Oil = X to HMRC
    No matter what X is Scotland ends up “at least” 12 times better off if we are Independent.
    In other words it is not a Black Hole it is a Bonus.

  235. Nana says:

    @Alex Beveridge Thank you Alex.

    @Petra fracking is a definite worry, especially for those who may be affected. I saw a post recently on some forum stating insurance companies are going to stop insuring homes in areas where fracking will be taking place.

    Anyhow here’s another link for you into murky Westminster.

  236. Tam Jardine says:


    I was interested to read Kev’s recent piece on his blog after listening to the interview. The piece on his blog is basically the exact subject matter of the John Beattie interview: in his blog his article is a boring “fact check” on Nicola Sturgeon’s interview with Andrew Marr. John Beattie even plays the same clip Kev uses as the whole basis for his article.

    So: Sunday Kev writes a blog “fact checking” Nicola’s statement on the Andrew Marr show that day. On Monday Stu is rushed to BBC Bath at short notice to tackle Kev on the exact issue that Kev has written one of his essays on.

    Seems a wee bit fishy to me. Can you imagine the scenario happening in reverse?

    Even having been given the good fortune of spending a Sunday writing his essay (with those obligatory graphs) on his OBR case why Sturgeon is wrong- the very thrust of John Beattie’s questioning: Kev still allows his presentation to make him come across as really unappealing to the public- quick creepy in fact, and he still fails in conceding the substance of the argument!

    The irony of Kevin’s piece is that he accuses Marr of letting Nicola off with her claim on the OBR figures- giving her an easy ride in the interview. The next day (or maybe the same day- who knows) Kevin is invited onto the BBC to be pitched against his great nemesis on his chosen specialist subject: “The blog post wot I wrote yesterday”.

    Talk about being given an easy ride! Did he get a dressing room and specific coloured M&Ms?

    Everyone is saying how much they like John Beattie but the whole thing is a bleedin setup! Stu emerging unscathed reminds me of Wormold emerging from the dinner in Our Man in Havana:

    ‘I am not under the table. I have come back victorious. The dog it was that died.’

  237. Les Wilson says:

    X_Sticks says:

    You are exactly right in your comment, they have an anti SNP agenda in their attempt destroy Scottish democracy, it’s a big no no for them.

  238. Papadox says:

    Call Kay … Yip call her stuck up unionist propagandist. Just the qualifications the EBC/ESTABLISHMENT look for in their “employees”.

    What they look for in their phone in crew is much easier to determine. Any Antie Scottish moron will do the more bitter they are the better. Aye impartial, well balance honest programs fronted by unionist bigotry. Yip that’s what the EBC strives for, and succeeds with top marks.

  239. Robert Peffers says:

    @old dearie says: 25 January, 2016 at 11:11 pm:

    I am newish to Wings but have been reading for several months now. I go back to the Winnie Ewing days of the SNP and heard her speak at Portobello Town Hall in 1967. You can imagine my joy at the state of play now.

    Dinna be swear to comment, Old Dearie. We old hands have a lot of experience to pass on to the younger ones.

  240. heedtracker says:

    ‘I am not under the table. I have come back victorious. The dog it was that died.’

    Doubt anyone who cares, cant see that Kev works very closely with the BBC in Pacific Quay and that they probably coach him too, coach, discuss the how to make most damaging hits etc.

    There’s a lot of work involved in his presentation in this clip alone and he’s got that BBC #SNPout style interrupts, sneers and condescension everyone YES is so familiar with.

    Which is why Kev, you should stand for tory list Holyrood MSP greatness. You’d have no chance FPTP style but the Holyrood list is great for hard core tory unionists.

  241. Andrew McLean says:

    North Sea Oil.
    All you need to know,

    Forget OBR, think basket case, because that was what UKOK was in the 70s.
    3 day week, power cuts, rubbish rotting and the dead unburied. The Labour party threatening Military control.

    Then it happened, OIL, lovely black OIL , the UKOK couldn’t afford to develop the fields so let the oil companies take over, with UKOK just taking a little off top, It was this oil that bankrolled the unemployment caused by the destruction of manufacturing, and of coal mining, and the ensuing rush of money into London in the so called big-bang that turned it into a financial capital of global wealth and led to soar away growth in the South-East of England.
    As soon as it came on stream it turned the UK from a country begging the IMF for support into an OPEC country, an oil-exporter.

    We funded that, do you think we will get independence easily, they will use ever trick in the book, for they know now the clock is ticking.

  242. Robert Peffers says:

    @call me dave says: 26 January, 2016 at 12:08 am:

    ” … Same with the BBC Scotland if you fancy Curran.”

    That’s a rather unfortunate turn of phrase, call me dave.

    It made me feel quite unwell for a moment there.

  243. ailsa craig says:

    With workers in my home at the moment and banished to a couple of rooms without a TV I have listened to Radio Scotland for the past week. What is going on?

    On Hang on a Minute’s big debate on Friday there were 2 Tory guests on the panel. Toryboy David Torrance seems never to be off the airwaves now, and the boring Curtice is fawned over endlessly.

    This morning’s phone in had an amazing number of Conservative callers considering the percentage they register at elections; and of course, Torrance and Curtice.

    Apart from one very literate and explicit SNP guy who praised their achievements, [and named them,] to the sky, the theme was ‘ruinous’, ‘disastrous’, ‘appalling mess’ about the SNP Government. These callers could rant on whereas the few SNP voters were heard briefly and dismissed.

    No argument was offered against the ranters; no defence of all these ‘disasters’. No questions about how other parties might have done things differently. Just keep The SNPbad coming.

    One thought on the past week. Are BBC Scotland moving over to wee Ruthless’s side? It has certainly seemed that way – tho’ good for JB yesterday. Expect he will get his jotters for being ‘balanced’ and join Izzy in Siberia.

  244. Nana says:

    @Robert Peffers 10.33

    Thanks for the chuckle Robert LOL

  245. Almannysbunnet says:

    yesindyref2 says:
    26 January, 2016 at 6:28 am
    “Iran’s oil and gas fields are in dire need of infrastructure upgrades. In total, industry analysts say, Iran could spend up to $100 billion rebuilding its natural gas pipelines.”

    And as usual the UK government are doing nothing to help Scotland get it. See Alex Salmond pays for supper in Tehran – and triggers constitutional crisis

  246. yesindyref2 says:

    @Colin Rippey: “But of course you’re keeping them all to yourself.

    Yup. Annoying ain’t it?

    So whenever you quote any wrong part of that article (much of it), you’ll know I’m pissing myself laughing at your ignorance and gullibility.

  247. nodrog says:

    It is pointless complaining about the BBC. They are proud of what they are. It will only change when we have Independence and a SBC.
    However a sizable proportion of the Scottish people have become wise to them and the MSM and are now thinking for themselves.

  248. Molly says:

    Ailsa Craig, I’ve wondered that myself as Ruth Davidson seems to get praised for ? Being able to string a sentence together, looking smart, being on time ? There definitely seems to be some unwarranted cheerleading going on for her.

    Yet when does anyone ask Ruth Davidson be accountable for her Westminsters party’s policies or is she to be promoted as the face of the Union v they mad separatists?

    I actually think John Beattie has a strong hand where BBC Scotlands news/current affairs is concerned because once a week he has the most interesting and actually most credible item on his show. Stewart Cosgrove and Eamonn O Neil .

    I sometimes wonder is it because we know who Kevin Hague is or the guy McGill who used to be put up as a spokesperson or the Profs with their own agendas ?

    We’re savvy to what the BBC are up to while there’s yon poor man this morning, surrounded by DISASTER in Dundee , disaster I tell you, who actually think they’re listening to a neutral broadcaster ?

  249. Almannysbunnet says:

    @Andrew McLean says:
    26 January, 2016 at 10:31 am
    North Sea Oil.
    All you need to know,

    Absolutely spot on! I was there at the beginning. I was there when Alex Buchanan Smith, under secretary of state for Scotland, came to visit our Aberdeen workshop in 1970-71 when the first vapours of oil had barely been discovered. He was given a tour and we all had SNP badges on, none of us were members but he was a Scottish tory and we just wanted to piss him off. (I worked for a French company, they thought it was funny.) Buchanan was not amused and told us not to get excited the oil might not last 5 years. They were practicing the deception already back then. The country was a tip and canary wharf a desolate Victorian dock. Modern UKOK is bought and paid for by Scottish oil. The bankers and wankers in London must be laughing in their leather chairs when anybody in Scotland says “oil is a burden”.
    Cameron was up here with tears in his eyes during the referendum, that tells me there’s a shit load of money still left in the North Sea no matter what the current oil price. You think they are going to let it go without a fight?

  250. Marga says:

    Totally OT (apologies) but may interest some: Catalonia seeks foreign support for breakaway from Spain (Financial Times). Basically the new Catalan coalition government is using the same arguments as the SNP.

    If you put these exact words in your browser, you won’t hit the paywall, and can even comment. Curious, the FT is one of the fairest and most objective commentators on Catalan independence, don’t know how it does on Scotland.

  251. Marga says:

    Continued – yesterday you could comment, today you can’t. It seems somebody may have got at the FT – we can speculate who – the article was pulled for a while and returned, but now without comments.

  252. yesindyref2 says:

    The FT had some good articles on Independence. For some resaon they weren’t picked up on by media in Scotland.

  253. Ghost Dog Philosopher says:

    The day is coming when a very small rump of unionists with very little in the way of representation at any level will still manage to dominate the airwaves.

  254. CameronB Brodie says:

    @ Kevin Hague
    Here’s a Tory-boy analysis of the UKOK plc. economy, which is flat broke. Still think we are Better Together?

  255. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    Almannysbunnet at 11.10

    To be fair to A Buchanan Smith he came very strongly to Scottish independence before he died too young. He and John Robertson, the Labour man from the borders,and a Liberal I can’t remember had came together with Winnie Ewing to discus an all party coalition but John Robertson died also and nothing happened. There have always been honest men across the board in Scotland but they have been buried bu the unionsit parties they belonged to.

  256. yesindyref2 says:

    I commented on that thread already, then tried to post that quote up there – never got there for some reason. I’ll try again!

  257. Petra says:

    @ Iain says at 9:13 am …. ‘’Over and above the arguments deployed for and against independence, one thing is quite remarkable for its salience: the deeply unappealing, unattractive character of so many of those who most actively support the union – people whom you would not want to have on your side on any issue, whom you would not want to have in your house, nor to have as company.’’

    Spot on Iain. Every other day there’s news of the ‘outing’ of another paedophile, pervert, narcissist, war criminal or whatever, involved in running this country …. subsequently followed by the par for the course attempts to cover-up. Cover up for as long as it takes for them to be six feet under.

    More than anything …. ANY other argument however …. I just can’t fathom why anyone, for example Kezia Dugdale, Jackie Baillie, Willie Rennie, would promote such a Union to the Scots. The Union that has the worst track record in Europe / the Developed World when it comes to the rich-poor divide resulting in millions of poverty stricken children across the UK living in the most hellish of conditions, abysmal wages and pensions. This is what the Labour and Lib-dem parties in Scotland are trying to dupe people into being part of. Why? I just don’t get it. They can’t even say that things would be different if they were in power because statistics show that the divisions between the rich and the poor started to widen under Labour.

    It also absolutely infuriates me when you watch the Labour and Tory party political broadcasts: A beggar in the background (Tory) and Kezia Dugdale conning kids into thinking that the Labour Party under her leadership will ensure that all children will be equal (by gender). Picking up on every one of Nicola’s policies!

    As a by The Equal Pay Act came into being in 1970 … 46 years ago and over that period of time the Labour run Councils in Scotland did everything in their power …. employed EVERY dirty trick in the book … to ensure that anyone who took them to Court in relation to Equal Pay lost their cases ….. until very recently whereby some excellent lawyers have managed to outwit them. Kezia should just cut it out as it’s all on record.

    Anyway wages have just been highlighted on here. Some data now re. pensions.

    ‘The UK has one of the lowest average ‘replacement rate’ retirement incomes in the developed world, ahead of only Mexico and Chile, which is an individual’s net pension entitlement divided by net pre-retirement earnings.’

    @ Tam Jardine at 10:15am …. “The blog post wot I wrote yesterday”

    Interesting Tam and it doesn’t surprise me one bit, especially when Mr Hague whipped out page 75 of the White Paper before you could say ‘’thanks for priming me John.’’ They probably thought that the wee swot / cheat would outwit Stu but it backfired on them, however something for Stu to keep in mind in future …. be very suspicious of invitations sent at short notice.

  258. One_Scot says:

    I heard on the radio this morning (I think it might have been Heart), that Scotland is to get a new TV Station that only shows Scottish programmes. And they discussed various Scottish names for existing programmes like Dr Who.

    Does anyone know if this new TV station is for real.

  259. ailsa craig says:

    Tam Jardine.

    Thanks for the link

    to Hague’s blog. Yesterday he quoted from it word for word, even the little ‘chuckle’ aside. Equally boring. So he was obviously a plant for the interview and more than well prepared. My thoughts on JB not quite so favourable now. He could have been more honest – but his P45 would have been waiting!

    To heedtracker – do not beat yourself up. You are being a good dad, so concentrate on that. In another life as lecturer/teacher I had so many students who blamed themselves and it affected their whole lives.

    It might not go down well but a high percentage of men, [fewer women] can start a new life, and completely cut themselves off from their old one and children. I have a brother who did that. Fact of life – but you are doing the right thing. Good luck.

  260. HandandShrimp says:

    Yeah Wings is back

    DoS attacks are generally a sign that a site is considered worth attacking. I can’t think of a single unionist site worth the bother.

  261. galamcennalath says:

    Still Positive. says:
    at 11:35 pm

    “I expect the same. Although I worry about how this will be portrayed in SCUM. Guess it will be up to us foot-soldiers to explain it to the general public.”

    [ re SG rejecting Scotland Bill ]

    Eventually listened to NS on STVplayer.

    NS handled the questions on education and health well. Both questions were based on false premises of failing,

    To paraphrase the Scotland Bill answer … SG will try to agree, WM needs to move away from erosion of Scot budget, if SG rejects NS is willing to make the case for why, NS will fight May election on a ticket of WM fails to deliver Smith and seeking more powers.

    Much as Swinney had said, but a stronger stance from NS.

    As you say, Still Positive, the key to this approach is countering the SCUM trying to blame SG.

    If Yes voters believe WM was to blame, and No voters believe SG was to blame … nothing has been achieved.

    The messages needs to firmly planted in the minds of soft No voters that WM really doesn’t want to deliver more devolution. That is, unless that devolution contains traps and serves to weaken Scotland.

    IMO there will be no significant devolution now. That clears the table … DevoNotMuch versus Indy.

  262. call me dave says:


    Aunties apron strings is on offer. I posted this yesterday.

    Last nights STV. Sturgeon interview

  263. louis.b.argyll says:

    One of MY HISTORICAL REASONS, for supporting SCOTLANDS DIFFERENCE… Is that The English seem to like being ruled/controlled BY SICK FASCIST TORY BUMBOYS.

    I’m not saying we’re all saints but we have drawn a line/created open government.. which ensures no state sponsored cover-ups.

  264. Cuilean says:

    Beattie is a dyed in the wool ‘No’ voter, like most Scots rugby types.

    This was clearly a BBC/Beattie covert ops against Wings. Stu got 45 mins prep to discuss Muttley’s blog topic from the previous day!

    Beattie’s alleged ‘fact check’ was a mirror image of Hague’s anti NS rant, right down to same quote.

    Beattie’s true persona is well hidden. A big phoney.

    Beware Greeks bearing gifts.

  265. yesindyref2 says:

    Regards Beattie, it’s likely not him that set up the guests, and he probably got the Rev’s name wrong from some bit of paper give to him – in other words he was set up.

    On the other hand Hague was presumably in the studio with him reading directly from a printoff of his blog, by the look of it.

    @ailsa craig
    Heed was quoting from Hague’s blog.

  266. One_Scot says:

    Thanks Dave, I could not get the STV player to work, but the guy on the radio stated that Scotland is to “get a New TV station” as fact. I hope it is true, but I have leant from an old friend Alastair, that just because someone says so on national TV or radio, it may not be true.

  267. ScottishPsyche says:

    It may be that the BBC have had complaints about Hague being on so much and so engineered a puff piece showcasing his ‘work’.

    It does seem quite unfair that one side had their piece prepared and ready and the other was asked to cobble together a response in less than an hour.

    However despite that Hague, still could not think on his feet and I believe has only now formulated a response.

    The same courtesy won’t be extended to Stu as Hague has now said he won’t share a platform. Funny that.

  268. call me dave says:

    SNP’s demands over new financial deal between Holyrood and Westminster are unfair to the rest of the UK, claims academic

    I hope Swinney refuses the UK medicine even if it comes with a spoonful of sugar.

  269. starlaw says:

    Listened in to BUM’s phone in this morning, obviously rigged, just about every tory in Scotland phoned in.

  270. call me dave says:


    On-line BBC tv channel…maybees aye …maybees no!

  271. Andrew McLean says:

    North Sea Oil.

    All you need to know 2

    If you get £10 worth of goods
    sometimes its only worth £8
    Sometimes only £5

    Don’t listen to those who say its worth nothing, or future estimates based on nothing but how little its worth.

    Its your oil, if it goes up or down that’s fine its your oil. even if it bottoms out, that wont last it will rise again, its your oil, every penny belongs to you.

    Future forecasts are an irrelevance its your oil.

    Its a roller-coaster sure, but its your oil, why listen to those who only want to give it away for free, or keep it to themselves, that’s just madness.

  272. Colin Rippey says:

    So whenever you quote any wrong part of that article (much of it), you’ll know I’m pissing myself laughing at your ignorance and gullibility.

    Still nothing, still no rebuttal, still acting like a wee boy that’s too afraid to make a challenge in case his opinion get’s shown up to be wrong.

    Why even bother commenting if you have nothing to say?

    At least Stuart has the courage to voice his opinion and present his arguments, you @yesindyref2 have nothing too add other some pathetic “oh I know the other person’s wrong but I’m not going to say why he’s wrong”.

  273. Cuilean says:

    Given No voter Beattie stressed he wanted to get to the facts on what politicians said in the Indy Ref, why did Beattie & Muttley pick & choose NS’s observations, (And the NS points they laboured over were all points in Muttley’s blog piece from the day before), to the exclusion of other statements?

    In particular, Beattie plays this comment by Nicola Sturgeon,

    “I remember David Cameron coming in the final few months of the referendum campaign, and saying to people here, vote No for a two billion pound oil bonanza”.

    but then Beattie (& Muttley) pointedly ignore it?

    THis is from The Glasgow Herald’s Kate Devlin (a paper I no longer buy) on 24 February 2014: ~

    “HUNDREDS of billions of pounds worth of North Sea oil and gas revenues will be at risk if Scotland votes for independence, David Cameron will warn today as he brings the UK Cabinet north of the Border for only the third time in its history.

    At a meeting in Aberdeen, ministers will agree to fast-track proposals experts say could unlock up to £200 billion in reserves over the next 20 years.

    The Coalition Government will insist the windfall – which could see household energy bills drop – is only possible with the resources of a united UK.

    The plans will also help safeguard the 450,000 jobs in the oil and gas industry in Britain, Downing Street believes.

    Tensions were mounting last night over the meeting, which will take place just a few miles from a meeting of the Scottish Cabinet in Portlethen.

    In Aberdeen the Prime Minister will pledge backing for the North Sea oil and gas industry – which he said would be vital to the UK’s international future.

    UK governments have backed the industry for decades, he will say, adding: “I promise we will continue to use the UK’s broad shoulders to invest in this vital industry so we can attract businesses, create jobs, develop new skills in our young people and ensure we can compete.”

    Energy Secretary Ed Davey, taking a break from paternity leave to attend the Granite City meeting, said today’s announcements would be good for all of the UK, help to cut prices and ensure the lights did not go out. Mr Davey is expected to sign off the next stage of an ambitious carbon capture and storage project planned for Peterhead.

    The Coalition Cabinet meeting will back a new Scottish-based oil and gas regulator to oversee ­collaboration between investors in the North Sea, and ultimately boost the sector by £200 billion over the next 20 years. The idea is contained in a report by retired oil tycooon Sir Ian Wood to be published alongside the Cabinet meeting.

    Scottish Finance Secretary John Swinney said the Scottish Government backed full implementation of Sir Ian’s plans for a stronger, more effective regulatory body and told UK ministers to implement the idea swiftly. “Time is of the essence,” he said.

    I’ll believe Beattie & the BBC are on the level when they start to ‘fact check’ all such announcements by the UK unionists, in the same manner as they wish to nit pick over SNP oil projections. I look forward to Beattie having Kate Devlin on to ask her if she thinks Cameron’s statements to protect the oil industry were proven to be factual. (Aye, so he will).

  274. yesindyref2 says:

    @Colin Rippey
    Strategy Colin, strategy and tactics. The tactics are the Tactics of Uncertainty. Strategy is utilising assets in the most effective manner. My knowledge is an asset, and would be wasted on your pal Kevin’s blog because it has so few visitors and value.

    It would be wasted on Wings because Wingers are well enough informed to probably be aware already, and this is end of thread. It would also be wasted because FFA isn’t under discussion right now, apart from by a few Unionists, desperate to try to hold back the inevitable force of Independence for Scotland by any means, foul or foul, but mostly foul.

    You’ll have to just wait your turn. Won’t be long now.

  275. Gary45% says:

    I suggest Beattie sticks to standing in front of the bedroom mirror trying to play the guitar, as he clearly is a legend in his own head.
    He works for the EBC !!!!??, as for Kevin Vague, the name says it all.

  276. Lochside says:

    This interview and today’s phoney phone in with UKAYE are the latest tack in BBC’s plan to continue the onslaught on the SNP and all that surrounds them.

    The deliberate ‘mistaken’ intro for the REV either by Beattie or his assistants was a well known tactic to unnerve any speaker’s introduction. UKAYE’s programme a total disgrace as always of actors and known unionist dupes, sprinkled with the occasional brilliant retorts such as those (few) nats like ‘George of Inverurie’ whose list of SNP achievements was inspired and ,of course, ignored by the cynical presenter.

    As has been said many times, but never enough by SNP politicians in these media situations: Scotland receives FUCK ALL oil revenue. As Mr. P points out ad nauseum, the Britnats set up a separate account which is fed directly into the Exchequer in WM.

    However, there is some money in a £200 million fund which was agreed to be filtered out. It is in Shetland’s very own wee oil fund. Why? because their cooncill demanded it and Perefidious Albion agreed on a divide and rule basis for the future. No Scottish Office was going to over rule England and Tony Benn, who was Energy Sec at the time.

    Aberdeen and the N.E. never got this consideration, nor the rest of Scotland. And by the way, I was in the N.Sea in 1980 onwards and despite the devastation to Central Scotland’s shipbuilding and Coal and Steel by Thtcher there were more English workers , predominantly from the N.E. working on my rig than native Scots. All the scafolders were English contractors. Since then over 60% of the workforce live outwith Scotland, and a large minority of those in Aberdeen are from the South.

    We had a crew of Chileans as stewards, refugees from the coup in their country. When we moved to Norwegian waters, the Norwegian government ordered them replaced by British workers. I felt sorry for them as they were hard workers and good people. The point is Norway owned the fields, the rigs and employed their own nationals, although at first relied on foreign e.g.U.S. at the outset. Over time they trained their own countrymen so that today Norwegians are visible worldwide at the top of the industry.

    Until we get the simple message out that the Oil wealth was first of all:
    Specifically hidden from the Scottish people.
    That its wealth was sequestered and embezzled by England
    That it was then used to create the financial power base and infrastructure in the SE.of England.
    And that they have now mothballed it because of a US v Russia global price war and are using this slow down as an attack on the very viability of a free Scotland.

    If people get this truth clearly and truthfully we wont need to bother about yapping dugs.

  277. Thistle Dubh says:

    New user here and had to add something as been looking in on WOS for a while.

    Great site Stuart and well done for putting that patronising buffoon in his place.

  278. Al-Stuart says:

    jdman says:
    26 January, 2016 at 5:45 am
    Al Stuart @ 2.40am

    OOHH that’ll leave a mark, its people like you that get his wife greetin. 🙂


    Hi JD Man,

    I genuinely don’t want to upset Kevin Hague’s wife. I just want this guy to take responsibility for his own actions.

    If Kevin Hague is going to have a public rant forwarding his own partisan agenda – and despicably he threatens to put the livelihoods, jobs and homes of his workers on the line to force his employees and others to vote the way he wants and then he gets flak for doing this, he should realise it is his actions that are stimulating the public debate upsetting his other half. But then I would bet it is Kevin Hague’s intention to inflame debate in a crude attempt to rescue his statistically low ranked website from sinking without trace.

    The guy is factually an irrelevance. The statistics for his website ranking, especially compared to the Wings Over Scotland prove this…

    Saddo Chokko Bloggo Ranking:

    Compare this to…

    Wings Over Scotland Ranking:

  279. Craig Sheridan says:

    @Peter A Bell says: 25 January, 2016 at 4:46 pm:

    Brilliant post.

    All screaming yoons like Kev should be made to recite your post first thing in the morning and last thing at night. and it indeed may help lesson the tiresome prick situation

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top