It’s becoming impossible to keep track of all the lies, disinformation, smoke and mirrors surrounding the Rangers fiasco at the moment. We’ll try to update this page with at least the more egregious ones as they arise. Let’s get started.
An alert reader recently pointed us to a story we’d missed in last week’s Sun. Headed “SICK TAUNTS FOR ‘NO’ GIRL CEILIDH WATSON”, it describes the “vile internet abuse” suffered by the 2010 Miss Inverness after she appeared at the “Better Together” campaign launch. Oddly, the worst (in fact the only) example of these attacks the paper felt able to provide was one alleged “cybernat” saying “It’s amazing how low some will stoop for 15 minutes of fame”, which is a bit unfriendly but we’re not sure it quite reaches the level of “vile abuse”, particularly when directed at someone who’s voluntarily and actively involved themselves in a heated political campaign.
The piece also referred (we presume, being unaware of any other incident that fits the description) to this blog’s own brush with infamy last week, noting that we’d “posted sick images of a funeral cortege of dead squaddies passing through Royal Wooton [sic] Bassett”, apparently in response to Ms Watson speaking of her soldier boyfriend.
We still haven’t seen the launch event – there appears to be no footage of it available on the campaign’s website – so we had, and have, no idea what Ms Watson’s boyfriend does for a living. The image in question had absolutely nothing to do with him or her or anything she may or may not have said at the No campaign launch.
As for “sick images”, though, the picture we used in our mockup poster wasn’t edited in any way (except for blurring out the numberplates of the hearses in an attempt to protect the identities of the dead men, which were then spread across the internet anyway by Labour activists), so if it constitutes a “sick image” then pretty much every newspaper in Britain – including the Sun – is guilty of the same crime.
You can see the full story below, without having to visit the Sun’s website.
We were struck by a thought this morning. Between them, measured by average attendances, Rangers and Celtic between them command more support than the other 40 clubs in senior Scottish football put together. They pull in somewhere over 100,000 paying customers at a time to their home games, (and could probably attract considerably more had they the stadium capacity to accommodate them), while the other 10 SPL clubs struggle to get half that many combined.
It’s a massive dominance, and obviously is particularly the case in Glasgow, where the vast bulk of Scotland’s media is located. So it’s weird that offhand we can’t think of a single print or broadcast journalist anywhere in the entire Scottish media that admits* to supporting either one of them. If every writer in the country who claimed to support Queen Of The South or Albion Rovers actually turned up to either of those sides’ games at once, they’d pack their stadia to the rafters rather than having crowds you can count on fingers and toes.
The question arose in our minds when pondering a couple of pieces in today’s papers.
On the few occasions we’ve bothered reading Better Nation in recent times, it’s usually been as a result of something posted by Kirsty Connell. She’s penned several thoughtful, interesting blogs since joining the editorial team, and we’ve even tweeted a few of them before now. Today’s piece, in which she explains why she’s finally lapsing her membership of the Labour Party, is unmissable.
We won’t keep you from it, but there’s one enormously telling phrase in particular in the post. Connell dates many of her doubts about Labour back to a traumatic experience when campaigning in the famous Westminster by-election in Glasgow East, a deprived area whose troubles she attributes to “a Thatcherite government [which] strangled funds to a Labour-led council”. Perhaps it’s some last remnant of tribal loyalty which prevents Kirsty from coming out and saying it: the “Thatcherite” government strangling those funds went under the banner of the Labour Party.
The Glasgow East by-election took place in 2008. By then, the “Labour” government of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had already been in power at Westminster for 11 years. Even as the party’s support reaches all-time lows in Scotland, a dogged hardcore of wilfully-blind loyalists continues to desperately gloss over the fact that Labour long ago abandoned most of the honourable socialist values and principles on which it was founded and surrendered to Thatcherite ideology in order to grab power. We rejoice that one more member, in a long and continuing line, has seen through the deception, and hope that the others will one day choose to open their eyes too.
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.
The current issue of Private Eye (which also features a fascinating full-page piece on Craig Whyte) relates news of another Labour dividend for the people of Glasgow – the decades-long neglect and imminent destruction of a much-loved green space. We’ve attached the story below for your convenience.
On the upside, though, we’re pretty sure we know where another large green space, which already comes with goalposts, is about to become available.
After all, we can’t blame a Unionist conspiracy for the borderline-criminal trousers that Alex Salmond inexplicably chose to wear to the world premiere of Brave, and also on the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson the same evening.
But we couldn’t help noticing an odd quote in The Scotsman’s report of the event, which the paper happily let end its story, forgetting to close the quotation marks as it did so. According to Kelly MacDonald, voice of the central character:
“She [Merida] is an adventurous tomboy and very happy young woman. The spell is broken when her mother says she has to get married and take on adult responsibilities. That’s when she takes things into her own hands and makes a mess of everything.“
It’s just coincidence, right?
We think our brains may have been completely fused by a story in today’s Daily Record, which is based around comments by Rutherglen Labour MSP James Kelly, pictured below in a scene from the particularly bad acid headache he’s just given us.
Here’s the bit that’s been making our minds spin round and round and round in circles this morning until we’re dizzy trying to make sense of it:
“ALEX Salmond was accused of “double standards” yesterday over his efforts to woo Rupert Murdoch. Labour raised further questions about the First Minister’s links with Murdoch following claims the media mogul lobbied Tony Blair to wage war in Iraq.
Former spin doctor Alastair Campbell said in the latest volume of his memoirs that Blair “took a call from Murdoch who was pressing on timings, saying how News International would support us, etc”.
Salmond won plaudits across Scotland for his outspoken opposition to the war which he described as “the most disastrous foreign policy decision of recent times”. But it did not stop him from trying to get closer to Murdoch to win The Sun newspaper’s backing for the SNP.
Labour MSP and chief whip James Kelly said: “This could make the conversation a little uncomfortable the next time Alex Salmond has Rupert Murdoch round to Bute House for tea and biscuits. Alex Salmond was against the Iraq war but that didn’t stop him cosying up to Rupert Murdoch. This is classic double standards from Alex Salmond who is prepared to put his party’s interests ahead of any issue.””
Let’s try to talk our way through this slowly: LABOUR is attacking the SNP for not being sufficiently critical of RUPERT MURDOCH when he backed LABOUR Prime Minister TONY BLAIR over going to war in IRAQ in 2003? What, seriously?
That can’t really be it, can it? Labour, who instigated the illegal war that left hundreds of thousands dead, attacking an opposition party who voted against that war (and which actually tried to impeach Blair for it) for not being critical enough of a newspaper proprietor whose papers enthusiastically backed Labour at the time and who made Tony Blair godfather to one of his children, because when subsequently in government it had a couple of meetings with that newspaper proprietor (also one of Scotland’s largest private-sector employers) the best part of a decade later?
Are we dreaming this stuff? Please tell us we’re dreaming it.
How’s that cross-party alliance for independence doing? Let’s ask the Scottish media!
GREENS
“Greens walk out on the Yes campaign” (Herald)
“Greens quash claims of ‘Yes Scotland’ walkout” (Holyrood magazine)
MARGO MACDONALD
“Margo MacDonald snubs ‘Yes Scotland’ campaign” (Scotsman)
“MacDonald ‘not leaving campaign’” (Herald)
SCOTTISH SOCIALISTS
“Yes Scotland heading for a right Royal bust-up as SSP break ranks” (Herald)
“As far as we are concerned we are fully part of the Yes campaign, and my attitude is that it has been a success.” (Herald)
Stay tuned for the latest developments!
We’ve been getting very confused today by the (New) Sunday Herald. Last night the paper’s “Investigations Editor” Paul Hutcheon tweeted that this morning’s edition would carry an “exclusive” on how a psychologist was telling the SNP to avoid using the word “independence”. Mr Hutcheon was clearly pretty excited about this breaking story, as he plugged it again a few hours later, and has gone on to tweet about it no fewer than 31 more times (figure correct at time of writing) during the course of the day.
But weirdly, this great “exclusive”, rather than being splashed all over the front page as you might expect, didn’t manage to make the online edition of the newspaper at all.
We were intrigued by a piece we read on the Sunday Mail’s website today. It centred on last Thursday’s session of First Minister’s Questions, when Labour MSP Michael McMahon used (rather improperly) a constituency question to make a political attack on Alex Salmond. The FM slapped the question down, angrily noting that McMahon’s allegation about Salmond calling HMRC on behalf of Sir David Murray with regard to Rangers was categorically untrue, and later issuing a statement pointing out that his only call to HMRC came eight months AFTER Murray sold the club to Craig Whyte.
In the Mail’s story McMahon’s subsequent posture was full of bravado, insisting that he wasn’t about to apologise. “I stand by my comments and Alex Salmond knows they are true, as his response showed how much the truth gets under his skin”, he retorted, but what he said next demonstrated an admirably bold and inventive redefinition of the term “standing by my comments”. See if you can spot the difference.
FIRST MINISTER’S QUESTIONS VERSION:
“The First Minister was quick to call HMRC for his friend Sir David Murray“
“I STAND BY MY COMMENTS” VERSION:
“The First Minister has shown in the past that he is happy to come running to the aid of his bigwig friends when they are in trouble. For example, the way he tried to pressurise HMRC to apply special treatment in the wake of the damage caused to Rangers by his pal Sir David Murray.”
Keen students of the English language may have spotted a subtle alteration there. In the first version, Salmond was allegedly trying to use his influence for the benefit of Sir David Murray personally, on account of their supposed close friendship. In the second, the First Minister was allegedly trying to assist Rangers Football Club, owned by Craig Whyte, to recover from damage CAUSED BY Sir David Murray.
(This would presumably imply that Salmond was also a friend of Craig Whyte, an assertion which must be sailing fairly close to defamation in the current climate. And since Murray has repeatedly publicly claimed that both he and Rangers were “duped by” Whyte, it’s rather stretching the bounds of plausibility to imagine that Salmond could have been helping Whyte at Murray’s behest or on his behalf.)
Wings Over Scotland would like to applaud Michael McMahon for his bold and courageous refusal to back down on this issue, and that furthermore we’re standing by those comments when we point out that in fact he’s a contemptible liar who even lies about his lies in an impressive illustration of the fine art of meta-lying, in order to cover up what was in reality a weasel-worded and entirely craven retraction of them. And you can, or possibly can’t, quote us on that.
When you’re a journalist, it’s not uncommon to see your work hacked to bits in the time between being emailed to the commissioning editor and appearing in print. We long ago lost count of the number of times we’ve had vital explanatory passages chopped out leaving subsequent sections orphaned and incomprehensible, or the number of abominable, remedial-level grammatical errors and typos we’ve had inserted into our immaculately-proofed copy by a hapless young sub-editor from the generation when schools gave up teaching kids how to spell.
One of the most annoying things, though, is seeing your stuff go out with a headline that bears no relation to what the piece was supposed to be saying. It happens to the great and the good as much as to cub reporters and journeyman hacks – star Guardian columnist Charlie Brooker and the Independent’s high-profile political/feminist writer Laurie Penny have both suffered in recent weeks – and it drives writers crazy.
So we were only mildly startled to be browsing this morning’s Scotsman and see this:
The article itself features the words “independent” or “independence” six times, and mentions the concept of “separation” only once, in the sentence “This isn’t exactly the separatist fanaticism painted by some opponents”. That sentence is fairly obviously a critical reference to the Unionist camp’s dogged use of the word “separation” as a pejorative, intended to imply isolation, parochialism and xenophobia.
Hassan’s piece isn’t a partisan call to arms for either side, nor even one about the language of the referendum debate, but a calm, considered plea for a much wider, non-political, mature discussion of the sort of Scotland we want to see in the future (ie the same article Gerry’s been writing over and over again for the last year or more).
We can’t say with absolute 100% certainty that the article’s headline – which takes a sledgehammer and pneumatic drill to that happy notion and smashes it to a pile of ironic rubble – is indeed the work of the Scotsman (we’ve asked Gerry and await reply) but at this point we’d be happy to have a tenner on it.
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
