Cue six months of Jim Murphy droning on about the “Arc Of Inflammability”.
Bunnet-doff to alert reader Ray McRobbie.
Bless ’em, they’re getting closer. After some nagging, the Herald has now finally changed the story about jobs at Faslane that it printed a correction for earlier this week. And credit to them, the new version is a good 5% less wrong than the original.
Rather more distressingly, though, the newly-edited story still doesn’t match up even to the Herald’s own correction, never mind any kind of reality.
Perhaps we’re being overly suspicious here. But the “sex scandal” incident currently surrounding Glasgow City Council leader Gordon Matheson actually happened over a month ago – December 12th to be precise. Having evaded the attention of the press for so long, there’s no obvious reason for the story to have suddenly broken now.
Except, that is, if there was another story centred on Glasgow City Council – a much more serious one, that the Labour council wanted to deflect attention from with a juicy bit of sleaze gossip. And hey, guess what?
At the time we write this, the Herald’s inaccurate story about Faslane jobs remains uncorrected. But as we were scouring the page last night for any sign of the Herald’s “clarification” of its figures, we stumbled across a gem in the comments.
As long-term readers will probably be aware, Terry Kelly isn’t just some random comments-page troll. He is in fact an elected Labour councillor for the lucky people of Paisley North West, though such is the volume of his daily outpourings in various newspapers (he’s one of the few people the Herald appears to see fit to bless with automatic comment approval) that it’s a wonder he finds any time to represent them.
Terry’s we-wish-it-was-unique blend of arrogance, smugness and complete ignorance is pretty standard No-campaign troll fodder, but the example above is particularly fine.
A picture’s been doing the rounds on the nationalist social networks today, to a mixture of merriment and a nagging sense of injustice. It’s a retraction by the Herald of some wildly-inaccurate figures it published a couple of weeks ago about the alleged threat posed by independence to jobs at Faslane Naval Base, which we highlighted at the time. Here’s the picture. (Click for the full-size version.)
As we say, some pro-independence types have been gloating at the Herald having to apologise at all, while others have bemoaned the correction being buried in a corner of an obscure inside page when the original was a front-page lead story. But there’s something much more worrying about it than that.
Joyce McMillan in the Scotsman today, as the Scottish press is finally, after three days, shamed into acknowledging what happened on Tuesday.
“What I see at Westminster now is not an alternative politics that avoids the pitfalls of nationalism, but an instinctive, backward-looking British nationalism that is even worse: a farrago of double standards about Westminster and Holyrood, and of reactionary nonsense about the nature of national identity in the 21st century, combined with a complete vacuum of progressive policy, and an instinctive willingness – on the part of the Labour Party – to side in this debate with what is perhaps the most privileged and reactionary government the UK has seen in a century.
The truth is that the tone of the No camp’s response to the independence debate has – in too many cases – been so reactionary, so negative, and so fundamentally disrespectful of the Scottish Parliament as an institution, that I now find it hard to think of voting with them, no matter what my views on the constitution.
And this, for me, is a new experience in politics – to enter a debate with a strongish view on one side of the argument, and to find myself so repelled by the tone and attitudes of those who should be my allies that I am gradually forced into the other camp.”
We’ll have more on that subject later this morning. Don’t miss it.
Ten days ago, Scottish Labour “deputy” leader Anas Sarwar issued a press release in his capacity as head of Labour’s referendum campaign, noting that “[Nicola Sturgeon] is right to say there has been a lot of negative campaigning. We will be raising the level of debate and ensuring that Scotland gets the level of debate it deserves.”
Here are some extracts from Sarwar and his independence-fearing colleagues’ contributions to yesterday’s epic House of Commons “debate” (in which one side got a little over 10 times as long to put its case as the other) on the motion giving the Scottish Parliament the power to conduct the independence referendum.
Make your own judgement as to how they did, and the level of debate they apparently consider Scotland deserves.
We can’t even be bothered linking to Brian Wilson‘s latest load of “will-this-do?” money for old rope in The Scotsman. We also can’t be bothered refuting any of its infantile, defamatory lies, which would all embarrass any grown-up newspaper that retained a shred of pride in its content. And we’re not going to occupy any more of our valuable time demolishing the central argument, when Brian has so helpfully done it for us himself right in the middle of his own article.
HEADLINE
“Shetland has the right to go it alone”
COPY
“There is little evidence that Shetland particularly wants to be independent”
There is? That’s that all sorted out, then. We’ve got a long queue of drivelling eejits to deal with today, Brian – have a lollipop and move along, there’s a good wee lad.
Writing a site like this is in one sense an exercise in idealistic cognitive dissonance. No matter how often the opposite turns out to be the case, you always sort of hope, deep down, that if you highlight someone’s occasional failings in a calm and factual manner they’ll say “Oh well, that’s a fair cop”, and even if they don’t change their ways they’ll at least acknowledge the validity of legitimate, honest criticism.
But as we say, it rarely turns out that way. Last night we picked up on what was at heart a fairly minor semantic quibble with high-profile Scottish-politics commentator David Torrance, arising from the evening’s edition of Scotland Tonight. He got in touch with us on Twitter almost immediately to object in rather strong terms to our views, and an exchange went on until around 2am when everyone seemingly went to bed.
We thought no more of it, although we hoped this morning that there might be some answers to some questions that Mr Torrance had explicitly invited during the debate. Instead, to our surprise (we know, still) and dismay, not only were none to be found, but the entire discussion – at his end, anyway – had completely vanished.
Tory commentator* David Torrance was a little mean about us on Twitter last night, but we won’t hold it against him. As a ubiquitous cross-media Scottish pundit, though, we’re a bit more concerned about his journalistic diligence and grasp of arithmetic.
The bespectacled biographer appeared on the evening’s edition of Scotland Tonight, and tweeted a question about the preceding interview with Blair Jenkins, in which the Yes campaign chief had claimed to recall opinion polls in recent years showing a majority for independence. Helpfully, we sent over a link, annotated with details of several that fitted the criterion of a higher Yes vote than No vote.
But it turns out that according to Mr Torrance, getting more votes than the only other option in a two-choice referendum doesn’t count as a win.
In the news business, there are some advantages to being second to a story. So when Scotsman journalists were digesting the contents of an exclusive splash in their rival at the opposite end of the M8 this morning, they at least had the opportunity to learn from its mistakes with the benefit of a little distance and time.
By simply avoiding the amateurish, widely-mocked spin of the Herald’s reporting of its own poll, the ailing Johnston Press paper could have scored itself an easy open goal by presenting the facts more truthfully and even-handedly, enabling it to at a stroke look like the more fair and balanced voice in the Scottish “quality” media.
Or, of course, it could shank the golden opportunity hideously and embarrassingly wide. Do we even need to finish this article, or can we go and have a sandwich?
Sorry, readers. It’s our fault. Around teatime on Sunday we rather recklessly tweeted “Is Magnus Gardham on holiday? The Herald’s been a much more balanced paper this last week or two”, and in doing so appear to have summoned him back, Candyman-style, despite only saying his name once. It must have been retweets or something.
Gardham’s sticky fingerprints are all over the Herald’s front-page splash this morning, even though he shares the byline with the now-rarely-seen Robbie Dinwoodie. The piece reports a TNS-BMRB poll showing a rather remarkable 2.5% swing towards independence since October – despite that period being depicted uniformly across the Scottish and UK political media as a quarterium-annus horribilis for the Yes campaign, and for the SNP and Alex Salmond in particular – under the extraordinarily contrived headline “Blow to SNP as support for independence stalls”.
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
