The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


A peek behind the curtain

Posted on June 24, 2012 by

After last weekend’s bizarre time-travelling “exclusive”, this weekend’s Sunday Herald has thrown up another little curiosity. A story in the lead section of the paper’s website today trumpets the latest positive argument from the Unionist camp – that mortgage rates will soar in an independent Scotland, as alleged by Danny Alexander.

The piece, penned by Tom Gordon, is headlined accordingly – “Alexander claims: yes to independence could mean mortgage rise”. What’s interesting, though, is a little piece of text that seems to have been left in by accident at the bottom of the page.

It appears to be a discarded alternative headline for the same article, given that the fourth paragraph cites “the SNP Government” dismissing Alexander’s claims as scare stories. (We did check by Googling to see if the headline had appeared on a completely different Herald piece, but turned up nothing.)

It’s quite instructive to see the paper’s thought processes laid bare. “Scottish Government Slam Scare Tactics” is a positive message from the SNP’s point of view, as it would portray them standing up against Unionist fearmongering.

The headline used instead is the complete opposite – it actually IS Unionist fearmongering, designed to produce an instinctively frightened reaction in the reader, by planting in his/her mind the image of a crippling rise in the cost of living and associating it with a Yes vote (no matter what the feature then goes on to say).

We just thought we’d point it out.

7 to “A peek behind the curtain”

  1. andrew_haddow says:

    I posted a reference to this on Herald website – wonder if it’ll get past moderators.

    Reply
  2. andrew_haddow says:

    Whoops! ‘Alternative’ headline has disappeared and no sign o my comment. Looks like yer no allowed tae criticise the Herald!

    Reply
  3. McHaggis says:

    Amazingly, contributors on the Herald site have begun to debate the position!

    How that is possible when the most important part of the (non)story is highlighted in bold below –
    “Alexander Claims yes to independence could mean mortgage rise”

    So what they are leading on is an unsubstantiated claim of something that may or may not happen. Wow! our so-called quality newspapers are hardly better than the red-tops these days.

    Reply
  4. Arbroath1320 says:

    Guys, isn’t it obvious?
     
    Firstly, the Dependence Brigade consider we Scots ARE “Too wee. Too poor, Too stupid”. Therefore they feel all they have to do is spread RUMOUR and SUSPICION about something, the MSM will pick up on it and run the story. Now because, according to the D.B., we are all too stupid we will all believe the story as FACT!
     
    Secondly, this piece proves, yet again, that the D.B. have absolutely NOTHING in their armoury which they can use that will provide POSITIVE proof that the union is good for Scotland.
     
    Thirdly, it is interesting that this piece is “alleged” news about something which may or more likely may NOT happen whilst the story about the Cameroon Bar attacking under 25’s is not even mentioned int this great paper of wisdom and truth!
     
    link to telegraph.co.uk

    Reply
  5. Morag says:

    Maybe I can at least clarify the headline thing.  I have the dead-tree paper in front of me.  The layout has the main “Alexander claims….” headline first, then there is a picture of Alexander with his mouth open and looking slightly glaiket, then underneath that in a smaller point size but bold capitals is the sub-heading “Scottish government slam ‘scare tactics'”.  Under that, in the same type face but in red, it reads “by Tom Gordon”.
     
    Hope that helps.

    Reply
  6. Peninsula says:

    The Herald are just as bad as all the others, from what I’ve found. Worse in some ways.

    I’ve found they will not post perfectly reasonable comments – especially responses questioning the validity of the statistics of anti-independence supporters such as Michael Mckeown

    I’ve also written legitimate comments about unionists politicians possibly being motivated by personal gain (or loss) in the event of a Yes vote.

    i.e whether their career ambitions in London are fuelling their drive against independence. These never get published by the Herald.

    e.g I posted a comment here link to heraldscotland.com on whether Darling might be thinking about a seat in the House of Lords.  

    It was never published. This happens a lot.

    Reply
  7. Morag says:

    Yes, Peninsula, that’s happened to me a lot too.  I’ve given up bothering posting there, because it’s so often just a waste of typing.
     
    The sub-headline thing seems pretty unsuspicious though.

    Reply


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.


  • About

    Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.

    Stats: 6,984 Posts, 1,252,104 Comments

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

    • Spartan 117 on In The Eyes Of The Law: “James likes to label anyone he disagrees with as “Unionist” or “Yoon”. A bit like Confused’s rantings when its necked…” Oct 2, 14:44
    • Hatey McHateface on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Cesaire wrote about “goitrous academics”. I don’t think he was being complimentary, although I do recommend that anybody interested should…” Oct 2, 13:57
    • Captain Caveman on In The Eyes Of The Law: “I’m not going anywhere, Fatty. Enjoy.” Oct 2, 13:34
    • James on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Unionist shill; **** off. There’s a good chap.” Oct 2, 13:03
    • Knuckle_Heid on In The Eyes Of The Law: “£100 donated – go get ’em Rev!” Oct 2, 12:13
    • Connor on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Why no paypal option ? Sorry I do not feel safe having to give my card details to all, paypal…” Oct 2, 11:39
    • Captain Caveman on In The Eyes Of The Law: “I respect anyone who gets up for work every morning, goes to work, pays their own way, pays their taxes…” Oct 2, 11:28
    • crisiscult on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Middle class, working class, etc have become a bit meaningless in how they are used today, the terms often being…” Oct 2, 11:09
    • Lollysmum on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Donated-keep up the good work Stu.” Oct 2, 10:55
    • Southernbystander on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Once you become a professor in this country you become middle class whether you were before or not. Alf suggests…” Oct 2, 10:30
    • Captain Caveman on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Yep, I reckon Messrs. Fanon and Césaire were early pioneers of Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V.” Oct 2, 10:18
    • Craig P on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Was a Labour MSP, Colin Smyth.” Oct 2, 09:50
    • Spartan 117 on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Alf doesn’t have any of his own opinions, he just uses the quotes of others. That Masters or PhD must’ve…” Oct 2, 09:45
    • sam on In The Eyes Of The Law: “The police would have to pay attention to the findings of the court in considering what fresh evidence there might…” Oct 2, 09:42
    • Cynicus on In The Eyes Of The Law: “I doubt if Mr Murrell is a trustee of the fund.” Oct 2, 09:32
    • Captain Caveman on In The Eyes Of The Law: “So have you donated or not, Alf? Or are you rudely derailing ANOTHER thread with your garbage?” Oct 2, 09:18
    • Hatey McHateface on In The Eyes Of The Law: ““Not every day I get to pish 600 thousand up the wall”” Oct 2, 08:59
    • 100%Yes on In The Eyes Of The Law: “The fighting pot mounting up quite nicely. The SNP needs stopping and removing how anyone can talk about working for…” Oct 2, 08:44
    • Vestas on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Done. Put a few quid extra in as I have a horrible feeling I still owe you from the Kezia…” Oct 2, 08:19
    • Northcode on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Just to add one point of clarification: when a decision is sent back for lawful reconsideration, the court doesn’t direct…” Oct 2, 08:09
    • Northcode on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Yes, the court can say the original process was unlawful and require it to be done again properly — which…” Oct 2, 07:56
    • Hatey McHateface on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Which group, oppressor or oppressed, does Fanon put Professors into?” Oct 2, 07:55
    • Minceheid on In The Eyes Of The Law: “That reminds me – who was that SNP guy that got busted for hiding a camera in the bogs or…” Oct 2, 07:18
    • sam on In The Eyes Of The Law: “You are wrong on this as well. The Court can find the decision unlawful and order a reconsideration. It can…” Oct 2, 07:11
    • sam on In The Eyes Of The Law: ““check procedure and not much else.” A judicial review of Police Scotland’s decisions might be brought on grounds that the…” Oct 2, 07:06
    • John McNab on In The Eyes Of The Law: ““This changing room’s lying empty.”” Oct 2, 06:38
    • Elmac on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Contribution made and more if required. We need justice to hold these lying corrupt sleazebags to account. If the prosecution…” Oct 1, 23:31
    • MarkerPost on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Donated. Hope the fund is ring-fenced…” Oct 1, 23:17
    • James on Whatever Can Have Happened?: ““….they smelt of pubs…. and Wormwood scrubs…. …and too many right wing meetings….” What a shower of unionist twats….” Oct 1, 22:24
    • Jamie on In The Eyes Of The Law: “I have donated. Good luck to you.” Oct 1, 22:17
  • A tall tale



↑ Top