English votes for Scottish laws. Why won’t he just die? The biggest lie in history. We’re going to hold off full scrutiny and analysis of the Smith Commission report on devolution until it’s actually released, rather than going on pure speculation like most Scottish newspapers this morning. But what we CAN talk about is this. The Daily Record’s front page this morning is almost certainly the most shameful, knowing, deliberate lie ever published in a newspaper in Scotland since the invention of the printed press. It is simply utterly without basis in fact, and the person writing it knows it to be so. Whether it comes from a block grant or from collecting tax itself, the “Scottish Government budget” will be changed this much by the recommendations of the Smith Commission, even if they’re implemented in full: not one single penny.
The source of some of its money will change, the amount of it will not. “Scotland’s Parliament will be responsible for billions of pounds of extra tax and welfare spending under a radical devolution package to be unveiled today.” No, it won’t. Priorities ordered. All things to all men. Following on from this morning’s post, we thought it was about time someone found a definitive quote from Jim Murphy outlining his position on the devolution of full income tax powers to the Scottish Parliament once and for all.
It turned out to be a surprisingly tricky job. The Times, November 2014: AGAINST “Jim Murphy took a major gamble in his attempt to become Scottish Labour leader by rejecting the prospect of full devolution of income tax yesterday, despite the majority of voters calling for the power to go to Holyrood.The MP said that by voting ‘no’ in the independence referendum, Scots had endorsed the Union and the cross-border tax system. His concerns about more powers echo those expressed by Gordon Brown — that full devolution of income tax would drive a wedge between Scotland and England.”
Politics Home, November 2014: AGAINST The Telegraph, November 2014: UNDECIDED The Financial Times, November 2014: FOR BBC News, November 2014: FOR. How modern journalism works. It is, in fairness, a fairly slow time for politics news at the moment. But it’s striking all the same to open this morning’s papers and see almost all of them running what’s not only basically the exact same story, but also the exact same groundless spin on it. THE SCOTSMAN: “Jim Murphy tells Scots Labour to back tax powers” DAILY RECORD: “Labour leadership frontrunner Jim Murphy set to back full income tax-raising powers for Holyrood” THE GUARDIAN: “Scotland [is] to be offered total control over income tax after Labour U-turn.
Labour’s policy shift will be confirmed on Tuesday by Jim Murphy, the favourite to become the next Scottish Labour leader.” THE HERALD: “Murphy to support handing full income tax powers to Holyrood” BBC NEWS: “Scottish Labour leadership candidate Jim Murphy is calling on his party to support the full devolution of income tax to Holyrood.” Our emphasis, there. It seems abundantly clear that none of the bylined reporters have been given the full speech. The faithful lie. Last night’s bizarre edition of Scotland 2014, in which three Scottish Labour “leadership” candidates were quizzed by the daughter of a former Labour leader in front of an audience of the candidates’ own supporters (comprising MSPs, councillors and activists), saw all three stick doggedly to what’s clearly going to be the party’s main pitch in the 2015 general election – “Vote SNP, get Tories”.
It’s a line the party has trotted out at every election for decades, and which has been getting pumped out almost daily since Johann Lamont’s resignation – former deputy “leader” Anas Sarwar (who oddly declined to stand for the actual job when it became available) penned a column for the Evening Times on Monday, for example, entitled “Every vote for an SNP candidate is a vote to help elect David Cameron”, and he said the same thing in the Commons this very afternoon. As alert readers will know, we like to check the facts on these things.
The leader who won’t lead anyone. We know some readers hate listening to audio (we do too), so here’s a full transcript of this interview from this morning, with some brief added commentary. GARY ROBERTSON: Neil Findlay joins us now, good morning to you.NEIL FINDLAY: Good morning, Gary.GR: Isn’t the truth if you did lead Labour and you opposed Trident, that the MoD just wouldn’t take any notice of you? NF: Well, we’re allowed to have an opinion, Gary, and I think the Scottish Labour Party should be able to take those decisions, or make those views known, and -GR: But that’s the point, they can’t take any decisions on this, can’t they? NF: Well I would hope that we would be able to influence [the] Labour Party across the UK, and Scottish Labour Party policy is already opposed to nuclear weapons, it has been since the conference passed that position some time ago and - Allegedly. We can still find no evidence for this assertion, and Neil Findlay himself says that he “can’t recall” when it supposedly happened.
Allegedly. Behind the mask. On last night’s Scotland Tonight, prospective Scottish Labour deputy “leader” Katy Clark MP told the nation that “it could be Scotland that lets us down”. It wasn’t a slip of the tongue. By “us” she meant Labour, and she went on to elaborate, telling the old Labour story about how UK general elections were about two parties and how it was in essence the duty of Scots to vote Labour to keep the Tories out at Westminster.
(Conveniently overlooking the fact that Scots voted overwhelmingly Labour in 2010 and got the Tories anyway, as Labour obstinately refused to consider a “rainbow coalition” because they hated the SNP too much.) The comments came just a couple of days after Holyrood Magazine editor Mandy Rhodes had penned an article about the Scottish branch’s current woes that had a very telling first paragraph. “After Labour’s shock defeat in 2007, Margaret Curran and Sarah Boyack asked me to meet them for a coffee to pick over thewhys and wherefores of why they’d lost and what to do. Labour’s twilight. We try to deploy the money that generous readers send us during our fundraisers very carefully, so we were annoyed last week when we commissioned a new opinion poll from Panelbase with a few thousand quid left over from the Wee Blue Book campaign, only to have every other pollster and his dog release the results of their own surveys the very next day.
So sadly (for us) the following figures won’t have quite the dramatic impact they’d have commanded otherwise, but they’re still pretty interesting, particularly in the context of how they relate to the findings from Ipsos MORI, YouGov and others. (Our poll also covered some ground that nobody else has done, but to add excitement and build a little suspense we’ll save that for a wee bit later on today.) Let’s get to it, then. WESTMINSTER VOTING INTENTIONS (excluding Don’t Knows) (Sample size 1000, fieldwork 30 Oct-4 Nov 2014. As ever, totals may not add up to exactly 100% due to rounding.)
With undecided voters included, the figures are: The meaning of devo-max. As the Smith Commission continues its fundamentally pointless and impossible deliberations, in which it’s expected to digest and consider many thousands of submissions (including hundreds of detailed ones from political organisations and “civic Scotland”) in around three weeks, the Scottish and UK press is still casually and inaccurately tossing around the term “devo-max”. There seem to be essentially two competing interpretations of the term – the previously-understood meaning (also known as “Full Fiscal Autonomy”) in which all powers are devolved to Holyrood except foreign affairs and defence, and a new one which simply refers to whatever devolution Westminster is prepared to grant.
(Justified semantically by the claim that it’s the maximum devolution Scotland’s going to get.) Broadly speaking, do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the relationship between Holyrood and Westminster? Agree: 61% Disagree: 20% Don’t know: 19% Agree: 68% Disagree: 13% Don’t know: 19% An acceptable answer. Earlier today we published an email from Daily Record editor Murray Foote about “The Vow”.
In it he referred to an editorial published in the paper on 8 September, attacking the “confused and shambolic” position of the three Unionist parties on further devolution to Scotland in the event of a No vote. The infamous “Vow” was their response. When publishing it on 16 September, two days before the referendum, the Record announced on its front page that “NOW SCOTS CAN MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE”, stating clearly that “The Vow” had delivered what the 8 September editorial had demanded. Readers can judge for themselves. Below is an edited summary of the piece. “Record View: Cameron, Clegg and Miliband MUST spell out credible alternative to independence“[Cameron, Miliband and Clegg] have all offered different things but, up until now, very little of substance has been forthcoming.
All emphases above are ours. That’s not “a collective Plan B on more devolved powers”. Victory’s missing fathers. Disappointingly, we haven’t received a reply from Daily Record editor Murray Foote to our email yesterday inquiring into the provenance of “The Vow”. However, an alert reader who wrote to him yesterday did. You can read it below. “Thanks for your email. The sequence of events was as follows:On Sunday September 7, numerous politicians from the main No campaign parties appeared on TV political/news programmes and told the nation that they had agreed a “timetable” to deliver more devolved powers to Holyrood in the event of a No vote in the referendum.The message came across to viewers as, at best, confused and, at worst, shambolic.The following day (Monday, September 8) the Daily Record carried a front page “Record View” opinion article that was critical of this development and of the three party leaders.
I include a link to that article below. It’s quite a strange response. For a start, as Tory MP Christopher Chope pointed out in Parliament last month: (Our emphases.) Chasing the story. A couple of things we’ve sent off this morning in relation to this. “TO: Murray Foote, Editor, the Daily RecordDear Mr Foote, I note today that you’ve sent an email to a reader of Wings Over Scotland stating that ‘The Daily Record had no involvement at any point in the wording of The Vow. The words were provided by email to the Daily Record in their finally [sic] form after being written, discussed and finally agreed by the three political party leaders.’ I’m very happy to accept your word that that’s true, but it raises as many questions as it answers. I wonder if in the interests of full disclosure and transparency you could answer just a couple of them very briefly? (1) Who instigated the production and publication of ‘The Vow’?
And to the Office of the Prime Minister, this: We’ll let you know as soon as we hear back from either. Disavowed. Below is a letter from the editor of the Daily Record sent to a Wings reader yesterday (and, we presume, to many others). We thought you might find it interesting. “Thank you for your email regarding The Vow.I believe there is a large amount of misinformation surrounding The Vow, specifically the suggestion that it was a creation of the Daily Record.This is categorically absolute nonsense.The Daily Record had no involvement at any point in the wording of The Vow.
We believe Mr Foote, if only because we find it impossible to imagine any journalist with even the tiniest shred of professional pride ever penning anything as insipid, feeble and meaningless as the empty, weasel-worded platitudes of “The Vow”. (We’ve also never suggested that there was any need for the document to exist in a physically signed form, nor made the bizarre claim that it was produced and published without the knowledge of the party leaders.)
That’s an interestingly-worded line. (All emphases in this post are ours.) Listening and learning. Keen followers of Scottish politics, and in particular Scottish Labour, have in recent days found themselves experiencing something of a deja vu overload. Leadership contender Jim Murphy has been heard recycling apologies and pledges of reform dating back up to seven years from previous leaders, but this morning readers would be forgiven for finding themselves a little confused. For a little background colour, though, we can’t help but first direct viewers to a particularly amusing slice of history from the pen of our very favourite Scottish political pundit in all the world, the never-knowingly-correct John McTernan: “There’s been a quiet revolution in Scottish politics over the last 18 months. The Labour party is back as the dominant force in the country and looks set for a convincing victory in the Scottish parliament elections this May.
Isn’t that just a schadenfreuderrific treat? Even among 2011 Labour voters, 60% back EVEL and just 25% oppose it. The song remains the same. Mission 1, Phase 2. This is how it begins. This morning’s media reports a call from First Minister-elect Nicola Sturgeon that any referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU should be subject to a veto from all four constituent nations – that is, if the UK as a whole votes to leave but either England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales vote to stay in, the result is null and void. It’s an extremely clever move. While none of the main three Westminster parties actually WANT to leave the EU and would love to go along with such a plan, public opinion in England will not allow it.
There would be a massive outcry, and quite legitimately so – Scotland, people would reasonably say, just voted that it wanted to remain part of the UK, and therefore must accept UK decisions. And with that, the die is cast and the door opens. We’ve outlined the “2017 scenario” several times on this site, starting just days after the referendum. As we always say, the “2017 scenario” has many hurdles to clear. The pooling and the sharing. Gordon Brown is expected to be up on his hind legs again in the Commons today, for a second appearance in a week that’ll almost certainly mark his busiest period of activity in Parliament since the 2010 election. He’ll be inexplicably laying out his views on devolution again, despite being an opposition backbencher with no power to implement them, and it seems reasonable to imagine that he’ll spend a fair bit of time on the contents of the infamous “vow” he brokered days before the independence referendum.
One line of that vow ran “We agree that the UK exists to ensure opportunity and security for all by sharing our resources equitably across all four nations”. And we thought it might be worthwhile taking a look at what that means. Readers of this site are probably well aware by now of the functions of the Barnett Formula, which allocates spending to the four constituent parts of the UK. Such projects are contained within the National Infrastructure Plan (NIP). Another holiday needed. The jumping-off point. Our man on the scene. If you love someone, keep them prisoner.
Don’t vote in ignorance. Us, now, or never. Fooled you twice, suckers. A distinction without a difference. Handed back on a plate. A list of nothing. Reasons to vote Yes in the Scottish Referendum | The Wee Blue Book. Brian Wilson is a liar. No lights in the window. Dear Alistair. Losing the rag. Scottish media rediscovers voice. That pesky vortex again. They will hurt us if we dare. Diving for dear life. The gold-plated grassroots. Pride and patriotism.
A pretty straightforward guy. Zero tolerance. Analysis: Wings over Scotland and changing face of Scottish media | Analysis | Scotland Decides. Why We Need Wings | A Wilderness of Peace. Don’t tell them your name, Pike. What an arsehole looks like. Newspaper forced to withdraw article after levelling false claims against pro-Yes campaigner. The growing consensus. Becoming the story. Voters less ordinary. An actual letter from America. A joke and a lie. Some sort of threat. The head and the heart. What might have and what did. The Brain Of North Britain. Why there will be a currency union. A pro journalism tip. Watch closely, students. You’ll never fool me again. Keep calm and what a carry-on. When there’s no more to be said. Untied with Labour. An embarrassment to journalism. Something fishy. Keep ‘em coming. From Bath To Scotland. Playing with fire. The cornered rats. Before the oil, the deluge. Transcription for lazy people.
Left out in the rain. Lovebombing on the cheap. Invest1. Suborned i-nation. The price of the BBC. Priorities in order. Rare Pokemon captured. Politician For Beginners. A Family Of Nations. A mixed day for Johann Lamont. This just in. The meanings of life. Interview with the vampire. Trading places. Turn and river. Personalising the debate. The ultimate weapon. Accountable to you. The Sunday papers. As bad as each other. Coming to you live from 2019. Quotes of the day. The Kings Of The South.