The rise of the SNP has so bewildered the metropolitan commentariat that even almost a decade after the party won its first Scottish election pundits still barely know which way to face to confront it. A case in point can be found in today’s Times.
It’s been quite a 24 hours for watchers of the UK media. The Sunday papers saw two of the most demented rants to have been committed to print about Scottish politics since the independence referendum.
One came from Neil Oliver in the Sunday Times – painting a blood-curdling picture of a “second hate-fest”should Scots ever choose to debate the subject again – and the other from Leo McKinstry in the Sunday Express, beside itself with unhinged rage that Scots, having voted to remain in the UK, might exercise their right as UK citizens to also vote to remain in the EU.
(As a result of which we’ve concluded that a narrow rUK vote in favour of Leave being overturned by a huge margin in Scotland for Remain would be the funniest thing that had ever happened in British politics.)
Yesterday we noted that we still hadn’t received a reply to a complaint we made to the BBC about a false assertion by David Dimbleby on Question Time over six weeks ago, despite the fact that it’s only supposed to take 10 working days.
By coincidence we got the reply today, 36 days late, and it wasn’t worth the wait.
This evening’s Question Time saw one of the most incident-packed passages on the show in recent memory. From left to right onscreen the panellists were Paul Marshall (hedge fund manager, head of a chain of academy schools and co-author of the Lib Dems’ infamous “Orange Book”), Alex Salmond, Tory minister Greg Clark, Labour’s shadow home secretary Andy Burnham and right-wing think-tanker Jill Kirby.
We’d hoped to be bringing you in-depth analysis of the Scottish Labour manifesto by now, readers, but a couple of hours after their launch event there’s still no sign of it anywhere (we’ve checked their website, Facebook page and Twitter feed, all blank).
So we’re going to nip out to the shops for a bit. In the meantime, here’s some footage we recorded of the fantastic live stream of the launch the party put out.
We’re looking forward to the publication of the Scottish Labour manifesto for next month’s election, which is due to be published on Wednesday, just eight days before the vote. We confidently anticipate that it will definitively clear up a few issues we’re still not absolutely sure of the branch office’s position on.
Considering we’re only eleven days from a general election, there’s remarkably little politics coverage in the Sunday papers today. Most of what there is is in the Sunday Herald, which has a substantial (and quite entertaining) interview with Kezia Dugdale and another two pages devoted to what’s essentially spluttering attempted justification of its shambolic front-page lead from last week.
We’re not going to go into it in depth, as James Kelly on Scot Goes Pop! has already had a close look and made a pretty fair assessment. But for want of anything more interesting to talk about, and in the wake of some depressing Twitter conversations with people who apparently STILL don’t understand either the Holyrood electoral system or basic arithmetic, we’re going to have one more wade in the list-vote debate.
You might want to see if there’s football on or something.
But note how delicately that tweet is phrased. The clear implication – while not directly stated – is that only the Tories were responsible for the promises.
We’ve noted on numerous occasions previously that one of this site’s prime functions is merely to remember things – to serve as a repository of fact which can be referred to when politicians or the media try to mislead people about what happened in the past. It was a thought we were struck by again on reading The Times this morning.
Because as we beheld Kenny Farquharson’s account of the SNP’s manifesto launch, and how its emphasis on the word “RE-ELECT” was unfamiliar and “very different” to their last Holyrood manifesto launch, we were sure that wasn’t how we recalled it.
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
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
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
Alf Baird on In The Eyes Of The Law: “As Fanon wrote, in a colonial society “The national middle class discovers its historic mission: that of intermediary”, between who…” Oct 1, 20:48
crisiscult on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Don’t post much, not on Twitter/X anymore (nothing to do with Musk, just find it unusable these days), but always…” Oct 1, 20:44
Northcode on In The Eyes Of The Law: “My understanding is that Justice Reviews are really narrow — they don’t look at the underlying merits or reopen investigations,…” Oct 1, 19:36