It’s not just us
We should be grateful for the ongoing Rangers circus. With both the Scottish and UK Parliaments now off on their summer recesses, we’re entering what newspapers traditionally call the “silly season”, where there’s little for political reporters to cover and they’re reduced to fabricating copy out of nothing to fill their sections.
Even so, the Herald’s front-page splash today is a bit desperate. Watch in amazement as the dramatic headline (“Cameron under pressure to stage vote on independence“) crumbles to pieces before your very eyes in the space of a few short sentences:
“David Cameron faces a “crunch point” in the next few months, senior Coalition sources have indicated, when he may have to take the most difficult constitutional decision of his premiership – that Westminster and not Holyrood will stage a referendum on Scottish independence.
Frustration is growing in Whitehall that Alex Salmond is “dragging his feet” on sorting out key issues surrounding the 2014 poll, most notably on whether there should be one or two questions.
To be able to deliver the SNP Government’s preferred time-table, it is thought there is just a matter of months to pin down the technical details of the referendum. By next spring, if agreement has not been reached, then the Prime Minister faces a major political dilemma.
Asked if he might have to decide Westminster will legislate to hold an independence referendum in Scotland, a senior Coalition source told The Herald: “Potentially, this is a scenario he may have to face.””
So let’s break that down. “A few months” in fact means “almost a year”, while “Cameron under pressure” actually translates into “POTENTIALLY, Cameron MAY come under pressure, at some point in the fairly distant future, IF the Scottish Government’s consultation process hasn’t resolved itself in a manner everyone can live with, and IF Cameron then decides to commit electoral suicide by imposing a London-run referendum on Scotland”. Well, hold the front page.
We’re reminded of a popular Scottish phrase regarding the addition of certain physical appendages to the person of one’s grandmother in order that she might be denoted one’s grandfather. We commend the Herald on their powers of invention in a lean news period, and will now get back to our piece on what the constitutional implications will be if Michael Moore is unexpectedly revealed to be a Nazi from the moon.
Its fark all to do with him anyway.
Those unnamed “senior Coalition sources”, eh.
Oh, go on the Herald, just give us one name, just one will do fine …!
Sensationalism is the last throw of the dice of the so called ‘quality’ newspaper in Scotland. Tabloid style headlines and poorly researched (if at all) content. Silly season lasts 52 weeks of the year over at The Scotsman.
it’s been an interesting phenomenon witnessing the same old scare stories and tripe being recycled every 3 months or so (with less effect each time). Still, it keeps Darling, the positive case for the union (sic), the banks and the idiocy of Labour/LIBOR off the front pages I suppose.
I read that on my phone this morning, well skimmed it really, and did wonder on what basis anyone in their right mind could suggest that there was delay on the part of the Scottish Government. I mean the consultation responses have to be taken into account (otherwise it makes a mockery of consulting), and the Westminster parties were making a fuss about it all being biased so that is why we are waiting for it all to be independently scrutinised. So it would be a bit odd for anyone to argue that the process should be lengthened and then to whinge about it taking too long.
As you say, silly season afflicting the Herald. They’re the best of a bad lot these days mind you.
Go on, do it David, let us Scottish people respond to a Scotland friendly London Westminster Tory Government dictate to us the timetable and the historic question of our referendum and how we choose our future. To paraphrase a previous WOS response to a similar unionist place man, go f**k yourself and your shitting yourselves cronies.
What a load of bolx.
Cameron wouldn’t do that unless he wanted rid of Scotland.
Mmmmm……
This is a manufactured problem, pace the faux Jacobins – “swithering” a la LPW, Hassan, etc.
More in the historical vein of the wily, legalistic provocateur Girondists.
The Scottish Govt is playing a long, peaceful game. However, sundry other options, legally recognised internationally, remain open despite the aforesaid’s collective, literary vapours.
Numerous historical examples abound to cut their legs from outwith their poseurish scribblings – variations on Fabius Cunctator defending Rome against Hannibal by whatever subterfuge necessary: A temporary, spoiling victory that did not prevent annihilation long drawn and painfully out.
Cameron is so concerned about all of this yet hasn’t shown his face in No campaign. What a laugh. What makes them run with this rubbish anyway? Is it money or sex? Or do they just have nothing to put in their paper? It was like that story on “Stop This Sick Filth” page. You’d say “this is a lot of shite, I’m not having it in our paper as it won’t draw one sale”. But if someone was giving cash or sex in return, then you run with story.
O/T.
I hope you don’t mind Stu, but i’m going to mention NNS again.
Sometimes, being a ‘Scots Nat’ can be a hard life. You try all day to connect with fellow Scots at work and play. You try your best to open folks eyes to the truth about the reality of modern Scotland. The lies, the propoganda, etc.
If you are a member of a political party, you can offload on like minded friends. I’m not a member of any political party, so can only discuss things with a few like minded friends and family.
Resources like your good self play a big part in keeping up morale, as folk can feel connected to the bigger ‘movement’. NNS is doing harm to the nationalist movement with their posting policy. Sometimes my posts appear, sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they appear hours or days after i posted them.
As i am permanently on the naughty step, maybe folk who are ‘on side’ on NNS could make them see the harm they are causing?
Juteman, I don’t know what has gotten into NNS but they are definitely self-harming. I still pop in to read the articles, but I only visit a maximum of once per day and I refuse to post any more. That’s quite a change for me as I used to be permanently logged in and would post a dozen or more times daily.
Does anyone know who funds NNS ?
I’ve had posts mysteriously go missing and generally got messed about for months. It seems to be doing more harm than good for Independence. Psy Op ?
I see Alex Thomson of Ch4 news has ‘gone nuclear’ with a leaked SFL document showing Friday 13th’s meeting agenda. Another stitch up to get Sevco into DIV1. Reported in his latest blog post.
Alex Thomson was good on ‘Off the ball’ today.
I’m in the same position as Juteman. I used to read it every day, and post quite frequently. However, I got very cross about an article with a serious error which cost me a morning of fruitless research as I assumed the author must know what he was talking about. In fact he had committed exactly the same sin he was accusing the BBC of – misreporting the local government election results to suit his own agenda.
I posted about the error several times, hoping it would be corrected (the situation was a bit fluid at the time and the article was amended elsewhere). Apart from anything else, the error was causing major confusion among the commentators. However, no correction was made. I posted in rather more forceful terms about the double standards, and found my posts deleted with a snippy remark, and myself permanently consigned to the naughty step.
This was particularly annoying, because they were publishing articles about the Lockerbie bombing at the time, and I happen to be a bit of an expert on the subject. People were posting absolute mince, but none of my posts was published.
I found that if I posted and my post appeared, then I noticed a typo, if I used the edit facility to fix the typo, the post vanished again, sometimes permanently. I had a post appear, commenting on Sally Magnusson’s evident distress at the Labour defeat in 2011, and it disappeared again. I queried this, and was told it had been removed because it was “defamatory”. It was completely innocuous.
Then the “one post every half hour” thing began. I’d already mostly stopped visiting the site, and at that point I just gave up. However, I think they have the comments threads they want. They’re not interested in people who might want to comment, they don’t see themselves as providing a public service in this respect. They make the rules to suit themselves, and they’re quite happy I think.
The whole thing is a bit of a farce, anyway. There’s only so much mirror-image satire on the Scotsman’s “SNP accused” headlines and article slanting that I can take, to be honest.
To the posters above; I’m not including the following link to piss you off – promise! – I just happened to visit NNS before coming here!
Anyway, they have a good article by George Kerevan showing yet more Unionist fearmongering, this time regarding Scotland’s defence post-independence, and I thought it should be seen by as many people as possible.
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/affairs-scotland/5341-can-independent-scotland-pay-for-its-own-defence
Stop taking the huff at NNS, guys and gals.
They are a useful resource and many times better than our MSM sources.
OK, they piss people off a bit, myself included, but its a small price to pay for getting to our goal.
Onwards…
Seasick Dave – the thing is, if it’s pissing off folk who don’t have to be convinced of the case for independence, how is it meant to effectively reach those who are not yet convinced?
I was finding the out-Scotsman-the-Scotsman shtick tiresome at least two years ago. The good articles they have on there – like those from George Kerevan or Lesley Riddoch – aren’t reaching as far an audience as they could be because of it.
Sorry to continue the off topic NNS discussion. I had a comment misunderstood/misrepresented by another reader. My comment did contain a mild criticism of the SNP – but as a member I feel that is my right. My attempted reply was then censored into oblivion. I shall not be returning.
I don’t know what it is with Scottish blogs at the moment; I have been attempted to post on RTC for a few weeks now without success – all held in moderation. Maybe I should have a trouser rolled up when I hit the post button, maybe that’s the problem.
On a more positive note, this site appears to be going from strength to strength.
Back in the day I set up a very small standing order to NNS. I then discovered through the comments section that some guy had blown most of the money on ‘professional journalism’ without any perceivable improvement in the quality of the articles. Nor any transparency about who got the dosh. That was all around the time that someone laid claim to the NNS identity and said the site had moved. That was apparently not the whole story. I complained rather forcefully about all of this and was barred. Their latest fandango with something like pre-moderation appears to be a step too far for many.
When I get some dosh together, I will send some of it to this site, which appears altogether more interesting and inclusive. If Rev Stu wants to, he could set up a S/O facility and I’ll happily give this site what I gave them – a fiver a month. After all I have an electronic version of the Herald and that’s £35 a year. Yet this is my first port of call.
@Morag
Your own feelings towards NNS are similar to my own and just as Doug pointed out, I don’t see how they will manage to reach out to a new audience if even their preaching to the choir isn’t working.
They will end up hanging themselves on their rope.
I think the Herald article is simply bollocks and not worth the time.
As to NNS, they are more concerned about attacking the BBC (did anything acutally happen with that demo in May?). In fact, they are fixated on it. But, as a private site they are entitled to do what they wish. One thing is for certain, they are not and never will be a serious alternative to the msm.
I’ll second what Doug says in that this site is producing some good articles, and I’ve put you on my blog list. Private blogs are a better source of info, since the authors tend to write articles which they have good knowledge about.
(do I get my ten quid now?)
@douglas clark
I think the guy who blew the dosh is the chap behind the “Scottish Times”
He left NNS, set up a “fake” NNS
Then spammed everyone in the NNS mailing list
Then set uo this Scottish Times
I had given NNS a small donation – a one-off, but intended to be followed by more. I was about to give them a bit more when I was put on the naughty step. I’ve now set up a small monthly donation to WoS to help with the proposed server move. At least I know RevStu is a grown-up with a brain, and can take a joke.
Oh yes, and at least James Wilkie hasn’t appeared here, and if he ever does I have confidence he will be treated with the respect he deserves. And not lionised and shielded from criticism. This is a bonus.
NNS definitely looks like a false flag psycho ops operation.
Harvesting info on pro independence people. And spreading dissent and confusion.
We don’t know how it’s funded and anyone who queries anything is instantly barred.
How many folk knew that Nicola Sturgeon was in the Royal Box at Murray’s semi final win ?
None.
Still OT about NNS – sorry Stu! I have a similar recent experience. I used to go to NNS first, posting under the nick-name ‘Aplinal’ and also have had rather innocuous posts deleted. But I no longer bother much. Nowadays I stop here, then other blogs.
The Independence movement needs as many avenues for discussion as possible, and wider readership of articles by the likes of Kerevan and Riddoch would be a good thing – the question is how to achieve it. NNS is losing its direction, but there will be others that rise and fall in the long march to Independence.
Sorry for continuing the o/t on NNS.
I share the sense of disappointment that others above have expressed. There was a time not so long ago, when the comments on that site were, interesting, challenging, sometimes eloquent, and very up to date. I used to contribute, and had done so since very early on in the life of NNS. The comments were in most instances even more interesting and informative than the articles.
The first signs I saw that things were not quite right, was the blanket ban on the use of the word ‘("Tractor" - Ed)’, a word which has many uses, and has been used within even the MSM to represent a politician who betrays his own cause. Several times I had posts deleted for using what had become known on Newsnet as ‘the T word’.
I put up with it, and thought well, maybe they are just a bit touchy on the word. Then I noticed people complaining that their postings had been deleted. Now, on many comments forums, posts are deleted, but normally this is indicated by a text saying ‘post deleted by admin’, or similar. What started happening on NNS, was that postings were deleted with NO trace, to the extent that ONLY the author of the post would ever know. Then they did it to me. There was no offensive language or pejorative terms, nor was their anything which could have been actionable, and yet my postings were deleted, without trace.
Then for my mind, the final straw was the ‘executive’ decision taken out of the blue, with no discussion, and no request for help, that after each comment, you would not be able to post another comment for thirty minutes. I’m not sure why they did this, and to my mind it was rank stupidity – or perhaps the sign that POWER had gone to someone’s head.
I used to be a fervent defender of NNS, but sadly I think something somewhere has gone very wrong in somebody s mind.
I often see people saying things in forums elsewhere like, ‘we don’t need to worry too much about the fervent independence supporters, as they will vote YES anyway’. It is EXACTLY the same nonsense logic used by Labour in 2011, when they ASSUMED their supporters would all vote Labour regardless. They didn’t and voted SNP instead. However, the real point such flawed logic misses is the fact that those ‘fervent supporters’ will also if suitably motivated, not just vote YES, but could easily be a driving force in influencing many, many others. As such they might be responsible for ten or twenty votes. Of course those ‘fervent supporters’ will always vote YES, but to assume that is their ONLY value is absolute folly of the kind perpetrated by the likes of Iain Gray, and his ilk
I have come to the conclusion that perhaps some of that twisted logic has become the mindset at NNS, in that they do not need to worry what long term supporters such as I think, as I will support them anyway. I don’t.
Just like the folly of failed Labour and their misplaced assumptions, NNS could not be more wrong. Let us hope the same flawed logic does not become pervasive in the YES campaign, or indeed the SNP.
Morag
With you there on James Wilkie
If NNS was committed to newsthey’d do a piece of this all-encompassing SDA that is so often mentioned, but seems to be two men and a dug and, I suspect, a number of sock-puppet accounts
Paul Kavanagh is still no bad though
I don’t particularly want to get into a war, because a lot of what it does is valuable, but dissatisfaction with NNS (as well as Better Nation) was one of the prime factors in this blog being set up in the first place. There’s so much about it that seems dodgy (the heavy-handed censorship, the internal fighting, the anonymity of the editors) that I’m not entirely comfortable with it being the most-read nationalist site, so WingsLand was in part created specifically as an alternative.
As I’ve said before, there’s no point preaching to the converted. This site makes no claims of impartiality, but within the inherently and naturally biased selection of what we choose to write about I think we cover things honestly and fairly, with links to sources/evidence for all assertions – something almost no other blog OR commercial media outlet bothers to do. I don’t want anyone who comes here with an open mind to be immediately repulsed by a load of swivel-eyed partisan frothing, I want them to be aware that I’m on one side of the debate, but that I’m going to try to persuade them with facts and calm reason, not hectoring and lies.
I’m as pro-independence as it gets, and when I do read NNS I’m all too often put off rather than inspired by its dismally transparent, guileless aping of pro-Unionist media. It insults my intelligence to constantly read headlines like “Labour MSP comments spark fury” when I know perfectly well that the only “fury” the headline refers to is that of the article’s own author. As a sarcastic/satirical joke it worked okay for the first couple of months, but to be still flogging away at it now is depressing, and I don’t think it wins anyone over or serves any purpose other than reinforcing the old stereotype of nats having a chip on their shoulder.
It’s all very well saying “Ah, but that’s what the Scotsman does”, but I’m reminded of the proverb about mud-wrestling with a pig: he’ll drag you down to his level then beat you with experience. Like them or loathe them, the journalists of the MSM are professionals, and NNS’ band of sometimes barely-literate amateurs (today’s uncredited NNS piece on Rangers, for example, has the sub-editor in me weeping in pain) will never win a dirty fight with them.
I’d rather stick to the moral high ground for both ethical and practical reasons. When you’re starting from behind and you need to persuade people to change their minds, I don’t think a smear war is useful – it just turns people off the entire process, and if people don’t listen we lose by default. And in any event I don’t want to inherit the poisoned Scotland that would result from it even if we did.
That’s why I ask people to try to exercise restraint in the comments, and why I’ve turned down articles that are just anti-Unionist rants or lists of sneaky tricks the independence campaign could/should employ. Let’s talk amongst ourselves in a way that we wouldn’t be embarrassed about if an undecided voter wandered past our table in a pub or restaurant. Too often I cringe when reading NNS – and I’m talking about above the line – and I’m on the same side as them.
With Rev Stu’s permission I’d like to add a couple of points to the O/T NNS discussion.
First, perhaps Rev Stu might be able to create a a separate page for all the NNS ” naughty step” members, of which I’m a long standing member, for all members to discuss all their NNS gripes in the open and, more importantly know they are not the only member of the “naughty step” club. 😀
Secondly, for those who do not know there is another site out there where you can discuss all things Independence and non Independence related. With Rev Stu’s permission.
http://scottishindependence2014.co.uk/
Perhaps, between Wings over Scotland and the Scottish Independence site we could have the beginnings of a “core” Independence “confederation”. 😀
Arbroath 1320,
Is that Hazel Lewry there?
I haven’t seen her recently on NNS. She was a bit of an inspirational person for me….
She writes well.
D.C. Hazel has her own site, mind you there is a link at present on the Scottish Independence site to Hazel’s latest piece on her site, wittering of a weegiewarbler
http://weegiewarbler.blogspot.co.uk/
Don’t mean to continue the NNS bashing but…
I think you pretty much cover it all there, Stu. I was nodding my head at every point you made (metaphorically – I’m not some dunce that reads out loud etc…)
The whole “do not go to NNS, it is not the real NNS, come to the new NNS” thing was what did it for me. I still had a passing interest in the site at that point, but I had no idea what was going on, and the secretive way it was dealt with just highlighted how utterly amateur the whole set-up was. That’s no problem for most sites, but as they were in the process of trying to set themselves up as a genuinely credible alternative to the likes of the Scotsman, it didn’t bode well. The least they could have done was explained what happened afterwards, but they didn’t.
It’s a bit weird to crave transparency from others (e.g. the BBC) while running a site more secretive than the Freemasons. Certainly not something you can be accused of, Stu!
Sorry, O/T again. The Herald today (Monday, 9th July, 2012) has a piece by Michael Settle headlined, “Scottish support for the union hits five-year high” which states that, “… in the past year, a one-point lead for the Yes camp has turned into a 20-point lead for the No camp.”
This, it states is after a …”six-monthly survey by TNS BMRB”.
Is this assertion factually correct? It may well be, but a one-point lead for Yes turning into a twenty-point lead for No …? Really? That is one hell of a swing!
Have figures been manipulated in any way to favour a bias?
On whose behalf was the survey done?
My scepticism is based on previous ‘surveys’ done purporting to show Scots in favour of the Union.
I’ve only done a quick search, but TNS BMRB is part of the Kantar Group. The CEO is Eric Salama, who “… is an advisor to the UK Government on a variety of issues.” That sort of information right away signals a red flag.
Anyone else with any more news or information on this survey?