The excellent Jon Ronson has had a couple of articles published recently promoting his imminent book about the phenomenon of “internet shaming”, most recently one in yesterday’s Guardian. He talks fascinatingly with and about people who’ve had their lives ruined because they said things that weren’t illegal, but merely deemed in some way unacceptable by a self-elected mob, often led by the professionally-offended.
Some of the victims are sympathetic and others less so, according to one’s personal tastes and prejudices. But the overall picture painted is one of a world in which it’s becoming harder and harder to express opinions beyond the crushingly bland.
We saw countless examples during the independence referendum, in which comments which were often very mildly rude at worst – calling someone a “minion”, say – were inflated by press and/or social media hysteria into shock-horror scandals. (Indeed, on a few occasions this site was itself the subject of the monsterings.)
Such witch-hunts were of course done in the furtherance of a political agenda – in those cases, in the service of a No vote. But it’s interesting to see a wider version of the tactic being deployed against the SNP in the context of a UK general election.
All this year we’ve been noticing a curious re-writing of history in the Scottish and UK media. It’s spanned left-wing and right-wing press, and even Yes-friendly voices like Iain Macwhirter and the estimable Lallands Peat Worrier have been sucked in.
Yet it’s such a fundamentally bizarre misunderstanding of a political system that’s now been running in Scotland for 16 years that we’re bewildered at the way everyone’s suddenly decided that it happened.
The latest occurrence of this odd phenomenon was in yesterday’s Daily Record, and the subject is the newly-alleged “informal deal” between the minority SNP government of 2007-11 and the Scottish Conservatives.
One of the main strengths of the No campaign in the independence referendum was that it had an efficient production line for “truthiness”. Best known as a concept from the US satirical TV show The Colbert Report, the term means things that SOUND as if they’re true, and which people will therefore be inclined to believe, even though they fall apart under any factual scrutiny.
One good example is shown above. The facts on the graphic are individually true, and convey – without ever actually saying so explicitly – the message that Scotland is subsidised by the UK to the tune of £7.6bn a year.
But that message, despite being implied through exclusively true facts, ISN’T true, because the extra “spending” on Scotland is actually borrowing, which Scotland has to pay back. The real truth is that the figures on the left are accurate, and that Scotland heavily subsidises the rest of the UK.
But to walk someone through even the basic explanation of that is quite complicated and involved, whereas the original message is punchy and SOUNDS true. The simpler something is the more people want to believe it, so the implicit lie on the graphic is difficult to dislodge from their minds once it’s in there.
(It works especially well if the media is overwhelmingly on the side of those creating the misleading impression, because they can count on the fact that the mainstream press won’t run any analysis pointing out the flaws in the argument, and the only people who’ll ever encounter the explanation are those who actively seek it out.)
There’s a very strange article on the front page of the Herald website this morning. It’s an interview with Nigel Farage in which the UKIP leader insists that his party, not the SNP, will hold the balance of power in the UK parliament after May’s election.
It’s a bold assertion given that current projections put the SNP on anywhere from 30 to 56 seats with UKIP expected to struggle to get 5 to 10. But Farage’s rationale for the statement is an interesting one.
The very few readers who don’t immediately just snort and turn the page when they see the words “George Foulkes” may have noticed in yesterday’s Herald that the thirsty peer could be found gloating gleefully that had Scotland voted for independence last September it would now be “bankrupt” due to the decline in oil prices.
We can’t be bothered pointing out for the 500th time that a Yes vote wouldn’t have seen Scotland actually independent until March 2016, and that the oil price NOW is therefore about as relevant to anything as, well, Baron Foulkes himself.
But we couldn’t help noticing a couple of small arithmetical details.
There really isn’t very much of a news story in this morning’s Sun “exclusive” that some Labour MPs say they’d quit the party rather than work with the SNP should the electorate deliver such a result in May. One told the paper:
Those of us who remember the parade of furious Scottish Labour figures going on TV and openly threatening to scupper any “rainbow coalition” involving the Nats in 2010, thereby ensuring that David Cameron and George Osborne came to power, won’t be the least bit surprised at the sheer depth of hatred and jealous rage that consumes Labour’s branch office in North Britain when the SNP are mentioned.
And there’s nothing eyebrow-raisingly new in Scottish Labour’s spiteful determination that if Scots vote against the Conservatives – but not for Labour – they should be punished with Tory governments. It’s the standard policy of electoral blackmail that the party has deployed against the rise of rivals from the left for years, and which it’s now also turning against the Greens south of the border.
But there is a telling phrase in that short quote.
Independent website Political Compass has just released its 2015 graph charting the ideological positions of all the political parties of the UK. It’s a fairly predictable one.
On the image above, we’ve added, for parties active in Scotland only, striped circles indicating each party’s 2010 position. But what does it tell us about 2015?
It’s somehow fitting that the lead article on Labour Hame today is headed by a lie before it even starts – an offer to join the party for £1 that takes you to a page where it actually costs five times as much.
(We’d noticed days ago that the much-hyped £1 offer had been quietly dumped after just a month, but it appears that nobody in the Scottish branch office thought to keep poor hapless Labour Hame in the loop.)
The article below, though, is remarkably even more dishonest.
A quick rhetorical question, readers: if, as Labour endlessly claim, the Tories want the SNP to win seats in Scotland in order to stop Ed Miliband being PM, why are most of the Scottish columnists in the right-wing press calling on Scots to vote Labour?
Aidan on A Matter Of Declinature: “It’s an intemperate response Northcode, a childish response would be, for example, claiming you have won an argument you haven’t…” Jul 17, 06:13
Young Lochinvar on A Matter Of Declinature: “Powerful stuff. Quite illuminating that she calls him a “coward hiding behind Parliamentary Privilege” while she herself pays a lawyer…” Jul 17, 03:00
Cynicus on A Matter Of Declinature: ““her most evil act was stitching up Alex Salmond to hide the truth” about Murrell’s crimes.” Lying Nicola Sturgeon destroyed…” Jul 17, 01:07
Young Lochinvar on A Matter Of Declinature: “HMcH @ 6.03 Even by your standards “old boy” over in the Scotchland Office that is a particularly pointless, smug…” Jul 17, 01:01
Cynicus on A Matter Of Declinature: ““ Dug wi a bone…” ============== But NOT a Wee Ginger one” Jul 17, 00:40
James on A Matter Of Declinature: “Aw, Northy- dinna be too hard on Poor Adrian. He’s just trying to join in.” Jul 16, 22:33
James on A Matter Of Declinature: “Well said, Alf. Don’t let these plants grind you down. Their orders are divert, distract, and divide. All day, every…” Jul 16, 22:29
robertkknight on A Matter Of Declinature: “Certainly didn’t miss and hit the wall.” Jul 16, 22:24
Alf Baird on A Matter Of Declinature: ““So why don’t you fess up to what this means” It means the ‘union’ aw you folks keep floggin is…” Jul 16, 21:48
Northcode on A Matter Of Declinature: ““Right, well the fact that you can’t fucking read doesn’t stop you posting endless drivel hour after hour, day after…” Jul 16, 21:47
sarah on A Matter Of Declinature: “Thanks, Dan, for posting the link at 6.22 to David Davis in the Commons today calling Sturgeon a liar and…” Jul 16, 21:41
100%Yes on A Matter Of Declinature: “Comments are simply priceless, thank you all made me lol. Its only the start.” Jul 16, 21:33
Mark Beggan on A Matter Of Declinature: “Aberdeen university totally distancing themselves from the freak Herbert. Mr Heather Herbert is the pinnacle of Leftwing policy. The fruits…” Jul 16, 21:17
Southernbystander on A Matter Of Declinature: “Almost everyone is blaming the manager! But not because he is German. Football fans always blame the manager, for everything.…” Jul 16, 21:04
Aidan on A Matter Of Declinature: “Right, well the fact that you can’t fucking read doesn’t stop you posting endless drivel hour after hour, day after…” Jul 16, 21:02
Mark Beggan on A Matter Of Declinature: “Who’s been feeding the Leftys? They’ve all went Legal International all of a sudden. Criteria being recognised, Determination of the…” Jul 16, 20:45
Northcode on A Matter Of Declinature: ““In Robert Black’s essay, the following is all one paragraph.” Christ Almighty! Do I need to explain EVERYTHING to you…” Jul 16, 20:43
Aidan on A Matter Of Declinature: “Well DuckDuckGo AI is about as reliable as it sounds. “Scotland is recognized as meeting the criteria for Non-Self-Governing Territories…” Jul 16, 20:18
Red on A Matter Of Declinature: “I’m sure the United Nations will help us. They love white people.” Jul 16, 20:17
Aidan on A Matter Of Declinature: “In Robert Black’s essay, the following is all one paragraph: The numbering (by regnal year and chapter number in The…” Jul 16, 20:08
100%Yes on A Matter Of Declinature: “I put in “Scotland un c-24” duckduckgo.com AI stated Scotland is recognized as meeting the criteria for Non-Self-Governing Territories by…” Jul 16, 19:58
Northcode on A Matter Of Declinature: “I didn’t read your comment, AI Dan… your paragraphs are too long and I could tell just by the picture…” Jul 16, 19:42
Hatey McHateface on A Matter Of Declinature: “Fascinating stuff, Willie. Can we expect your justification for asserting that Epstein was above the law any time soon? Seriously,…” Jul 16, 19:37
Hatey McHateface on A Matter Of Declinature: “So why don’t you fess up to what this means, Alf? I’m guessing you’re pushing this line as you believe…” Jul 16, 19:31
Aidan on A Matter Of Declinature: “Does Robert Black say anywhere that the union is a constitutional impossibility and that therefore the acts of union are…” Jul 16, 19:30
Hatey McHateface on A Matter Of Declinature: “@Aidan You too have a problem. Your problem is that despite all the evidence to the contrary, you appear to…” Jul 16, 19:20
Aidan on A Matter Of Declinature: ““Dunlop is historically wrong, but ‘right’ within the UK’s legal system because the UK legal system defines its own truth.…” Jul 16, 19:13
Alf Baird on A Matter Of Declinature: “You are making things up, Aidan. Professor Black, “looking as a lawyer with fresh eyes” believes the UK ‘union’ to…” Jul 16, 19:05
Aidan on A Matter Of Declinature: “The problem is Northcode is that your lack of knowledge and analytical ability is combined with an absurd level of…” Jul 16, 18:58