Just a wee round-up.
“Plan for Ukip ‘vote swap’ with Tories to to keep Miliband out of No. 10
We’re going to assume they mean “marginal” and “constituencies” there. (Even the Telegraph can’t afford sub-editors now?) But hey, it’s a comforting thought, right?
Just a quick one, folks. Here’s a story we touched on earlier today, that appeared in today’s Scotsman and Daily Record. (It even briefly showed up in the Herald, but was deleted faster than we could save it.) At first glance it appears to be identical in both papers, but it isn’t. In fact there’s a rather substantial difference. Can you spot it?
Yesterday saw one of the odder incidents to date in the Scottish media’s coverage of the independence debate. Both the Herald and Scotsman ran almost word-for-word-identical articles reporting the findings of a Glasgow University study into the nature of the debate on Twitter, which concluded (in line with previous research) that Yes campaigners were far more active on the social network than No ones, and that the Yes campaign was far more grassroots than its “top-down” opponent.
We were pleased to get a namecheck in both pieces, but the curious aspect was the length that the articles went to in order to provide a couple of examples of “unofficial” No advocates. It’s now over a year since we first observed the death of Unionist blogging, so it’s understandable that the study had trouble digging anything up, but the representatives they settled on boggled quite a few minds.
We were a little bemused to read in today’s Herald (and also to hear on “Good Morning Scotland”) of the appointment of Professor Jim Gallagher as an official adviser to “Better Together”. Not because we’d been in any doubt about the academic’s views on independence, but because the Herald had already identified Prof. Gallagher as the No campaign’s “Director of Research” in a referendum supplement back in December.
Indeed, the Herald article goes on to note that “Mr Gallagher has been working behind the scenes for Better Together for several months”. So today seems a pertinent moment to revisit a letter we sent after reading the supplement to Ian Stewart, the editor of The Scotsman, and to which we’re still awaiting a response.
Lord McConnell got the velvet-lined kid-gloves treatment from Scotland Tonight last night over his calls for the pro- and anti-independence campaigns to have a two-week ceasefire during the Commonwealth Games. Mysteriously, the programme didn’t feel it was at all relevant to draw comparisons to how the No camp behaved during the last major sporting event that took place in the UK.
No, definitely no politicking going on there.
This wasn’t online when we wrote this morning’s piece, but it is now:
These are organisations Labour should surely be on the right side of.”
(“Record View”, the Daily Record, 8 Jan 2014.)
When we commissioned our second Panelbase poll, we asked Edinburgh University’s highly respected Professor of Public Policy, Politics and International Relations, James Mitchell, to give our questions the once-over beforehand to ensure they weren’t unfair or leading. The resulting poll’s neutrality was widely praised.
We thought it might therefore be interesting to get his expert professional opinion on the recent “Better Together” poll by YouGov, and he very kindly obliged.
Yesterday the Labour Party’s representatives in the Scottish Parliament voted against a motion to provide free school meals to all Scottish children in Primary 1 to Primary 3, and to increase childcare funding for two-year-olds. They did so barely 48 hours after angrily demanding that the Scottish Government provide better childcare – an issue which Labour had explicitly tied into the independence debate by using an opinion poll commissioned by the “Better Together” campaign.
Fortunately for Scots, Labour is a totally impotent force in the Scottish Parliament, and its opinions and actions there ultimately count for nothing. Thanks to the SNP’s majority, the motion passed and hungry children living in poverty will get at least one hot, nutritious meal a day, without the stigma of being marked out as poor.
But after the blanket media coverage of Labour’s calls over child welfare, you’d expect that the arithmetic of the vote would merit at least a passing mention when Scotland’s press reported the story. Wouldn’t you?
It should come as a surprise to nobody that yet another senior Labour figure has come out for independence. It’s more of a surprise that anyone should be surprised.
Much of the credit for that must go to the “Better Together” campaign, who with the extensive help of the Scottish media have done an excellent job of portraying the independence campaign as an SNP-only obsession. Yet that picture belies the real benefits that independence can bring the Labour Party in Scotland.
We were as perplexed as anyone by the bizarre YouGov poll commissioned by “Better Together” and released today, which reveals that the status quo they’re so strenuously campaigning for is the least popular constitutional option among Scots. As there’s no “more powers” option on the referendum ballot paper, and the official No campaign can neither define any such option nor pledge to implement one, it’s hard to understand what they get from asking a three-choice question about a two-choice vote.
Indeed, the survey’s result – 32% “more devolution”, 30% independence, 29% status quo – actually gives a higher Yes figure than some recent two-option polls. So what on Earth can the No camp be thinking?
It’s one of the weirder aspects of the independence debate that the No campaign constantly shrieks about how an independent Scotland might run a deficit, as if that was some sort of unusual and terrifying state unique to Scotland. So we thought it might be handy to keep this clip from today’s BBC Breakfast here for future reference.
“Better Together” website, May 2013:
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
