BBC keeps Project Smear alive

This morning, John Humphrys and Norman Smith on the BBC Today Programme pushed to keep alive the Telegraph's smear against Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP (segment begins at 2:40:00).

Friday night, the Telegraph released a story that Sturgeon had claimed in private she would prefer Cameron remain as PM, without checking first with any of the principles involved. Within minutes, the story was categorically denied by Sturgeon, and within hours categorically denied by the French Consul General and French Ambassador who were supposedly quoted in the secret memo. Secretary of State for Scotland Alistair Carmichael (above) admitted his office was responsible for the memo, saying "these things happen". (If the story had broken a few days earlier, that last phrase would have convinced me it was all an April Fool.) Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood has ordered an inquiry into how the memo was leaked.

No mention of any of these facts in the Today Programme segment, only an argument as to how, despite the memo not being fact, it might still in essence be true. More and more, I am losing my faith in the BBC, and increasing my conviction that Scotland needs to run its own national media.

See also Zoe Williams in The Guardian, and Alex Salmond in The National.

The demonisation of the Scots

Above, a Conservative Party campaign advertisement. At bottom, a misogynistic excerpt from the English Sun on 10 March 2015. (It didn't run in the Scottish Sun; the two often run articles that are diametrically opposed.) And here, a transcript from an interview with Nicola Sturgeon on the Today Programme, 28 March 2015 (interview begins at 1:50:30). The transcript doesn't capture the way John Humphrys speaks over Sturgeon, in order to call her arrogant three times in arrow.

Humphrys: Put yourself in the position of somebody in an English constituency listening to a Scot saying we can lock the Tories out of government. It's entirely possible the Tories will win the most seats, certainly the most votes, in England, and yet here we have a Scottish leader saying we can lock them out of government even though we ourselves want to be independent of that country. It's surpassingly arrogant, isn't it?
Sturgeon: Governments at Westminster have to be able to command a majority. Firstly, it's a matter of simple arithmetic that if there are more anti-Tory MPs in the House of Commons then Tory MPs then we can choose to lock the Tories out of government.
Humphrys: I know, what I'm saying is that it looks incredibly arrogant of you.
Sturgeon: Let me come onto that in a second.
Humphrys: No, no, I take the arithmetical point. But it is breathtakingly arrogant of you. You want independence yet you're saying that we're going to deny the English people the government that they want.
Sturgeon: Let me speak to the listeners in England. You know Scotland right now, just as a matter of fact, has a Tory government when the Tories have one MP in Scotland. Now in the UK it is who can command a majority.  What I'm saying is the kind of policies that the SNP would want to pursue in the House of Commons I think would find support not just in Scotland but in the UK. But the fundamental principle here is that if you want to be the government in the House of Commons then you have to command the majority, and if the Tories can't command the majority then they don't deserve to be the government.

Am I the only one who finds Humphrys argument profoundly anti-democratic? Demon = No Dem.

Cobblers, common sense, and civil servants

Labour keeps banging on `Vote SNP, Get Tory', claiming that the party with the most seats will get first crack at forming a government. Common sense says this is cobblers, and it turns out the high-ranking civil servants agree with common sense. From Common Space.

THE civil servant who was crucial to forming the current UK government has said that a deal including the Scottish National Party is a “feasible scenario” based on current polling figures.
Sir Gus O’Donnell - whose name is abbreviated to ‘GOD’ inside the political establishment - made the comments to The Guardian when questioned on the implications of a hung parliament.

And from the Guardian.

O’Donnnell said: “The one thing we need to be aware of is people thinking that what Nick Clegg said last time constituted an iron law that only the biggest party, somehow defined either by seats or votes, gets to have the first say. That is not true.”
He added that current polls suggest the most likely government would involve a Labour-Lib Dem coalition supported by the SNP. “If you look at the numbers that looks like a feasible scenario,” he said.

59% of Scots want a second referendum within ten years

A survey by Survation shows 59% of Scots would like a second Independence referendum within ten years. Only 20% said they would never like another referendum. But the same survey shows that if another referendum was held today, it would come out No again, 52% to 48%. Surprising all those folks want another chance to vote No ...

Say no to a Scottish national ID system

The Scottish government has opened for consultation plans of that would lead to database sharing among a vast range of organisations, and could lead to the introduction of de facto ID cards via the back door. Responses to the consultation are due by 25 February 2015. ORG Scotland writes:

A minor, barely noticed consultation is not the way to make a major change to Scottish citizens’ privacy and their relationship with the state. Creating a national ID register was rejected by the SNP and the UK, and the bare minimum should be for the Scottish Executive to introduce primary legislation whereby the public and MSPs can debate the nature of these changes and whether they are acceptable.

Respond to the consultation quickly, courtesy of ORG.

ORG is planning meetings to discuss how we can stop the Scottish Government's plans in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen, and is tracking developments in their blog.

Here is the original consultation,  and a detailed response by ORG.

Fracking: No moratorium/Moratorium

On Monday 26 January, in Westminster Labour claimed a 'victory' over fracking, while in fact abstaining on a vote for a moratorium. Jim Murphy, leader of Scottish Labour, has claimed to be against fracking but didn't even show up for the vote.

On Wednesday 28 January, in Holyrood, the Scottish Government announced its support for a moratorium on fracking, following the lead of the Scottish Greens who proposed a ban last year. Keep your eye out for the consultation, and your chance to ask for the moratorium to be made permanent.

The face of Jim Murphy

This photo of Jim Murphy is courtesy of Wednesday's National. Worth more than the 50p, not counting anything else in the paper.

Murphy is a piece of work. He changes his position on major issues. Repeatedly in interviews he claims Labour voted one way when they voted the other. And his main argument to vote Labour?

“Nearly 200,000 Yes voters ... can decide whether to vote Labour to get rid of the Tories or to vote SNP and keep the status quo.”

Implicit here is the notion that no alliance between Labour and SNP will be possible, or even thinkable. It is the same bullying strategy we saw in the referendum: collaboration with Scotland is not an option, even if it is in the UK's best interest; vote our way or you will suffer the consequences.

Meanwhile, Murphy's deputy, Kezia Dugdale, has leaked the truth: “I think what we are setting out to do is to be the largest party, I have no qualms whatsoever about working with the SNP.”

I'm not looking forward to a repeat of Better Together's mistruths and bullying during the referendum. Are there no issues Labour wishes to debate?
Murphy