Wings Over Scotland

A fairly in-depth lead piece on the "devo max" conundrum, including an interview with referendum expert Dr Matt Qvortrup who, under very determined and persistent questioning from an unhappy Glenn Campbell, offered the professional opinion that a notional two-question poll where Q1 was "Do you want more powers for the Scottish Parliament?" and Q2 was "Do you also want full independence?" would be both legitimate and fair, and also that in his view, a vote of 51% for independence in such a scenario would mean independence for Scotland, regardless of whether the "devo max" question received a higher vote.

The unambiguous clarification of Dr Qvortrup's position was welcome given the strenuous attempts by the Unionist parties to misrepresent it last week, after the First Minister gave what turned out to be an entirely accurate summary of Dr Qvortrup's views, but one based on an erroneous source. Dr Qvortrup confirmed that he'd spoken to the First Minister and accepted his "misquote" was an honest error rather than an attempt to portray his views inaccurately.

The episode also featured a piece on whether the Scottish Conservatives can recover from the divisions caused by their leadership contest, in which party donor John McGlynn called for a change in direction.

Not a great deal going on in the papers today. The Herald and Scotsman both cover a mildly interesting story about prospective Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont acknowledging – unusually for the party – that the Scottish people might vote Yes in the referendum, and talking of Labour's role in a post-independence Scotland.

Meanwhile, back on the party's more traditional ultra-Unionist wing, veteran Nat-basher Brian Wilson pontificates at length in the Scotsman on another variant of the "too wee, too poor, too stupid" line, this time focusing on issues relating to Scottish Power and whether its renewable energy would find an export market post-independence. The piece appears to concentrate mostly on the cost of transmitting electricity from the furthest extremes of the country – Orkney and Shetland – and makes no mention of that which would be generated on or closer to the mainland. It also plays heavily on the idea that England might prefer to import energy from Russia than Scotland, which seems a bit of a stretch.

The same publication offers some balance in the form of a rather rambling diatribe from SNP MSP Joan McAlpine, which is constructed mostly from suggestion and innuendo but does contain a small nugget or two for analysts to chew over with regard to the Scotland Bill, not least the writer's assertion – heavily qualified with "personal opinion" disclaimers – that given a choice between accepting the entire Scotland Bill as it stands or rejecting it outright at Holyrood, she'd opt for the latter.

And that's pretty much your lot.

A very welcome piece in the New Statesman on the much-propagated lie that Scotland is subsidised by England. Could do with linking some of its sources, but still a worthwhile non-partisan reference. Also features a comment debunking another myth, namely the one that Labour need Scottish MPs to form a majority at Westminster. (Details appended below the jump.)

Read the rest of this entry →

The Scotsman presents a deeply twisted spin on the latest Scottish constitutional poll today as their headline story. Under the headline "SNP under pressure as Scots back change", they report the TNS poll for the BBC which shows the results of a three-option either-or question asking voters to pick their favourite from the status quo, devo max and independence. The poll essentially shows a three-way tie, but the paper reports it highly misleadingly, particularly in this passage:

"…independence, support for which, according to the poll, has fallen 11 percentage points from the 39 per cent backing in a survey published in September."

The September poll being referenced, however, asked a radically different question – it offered respondents just two options, independence or the status quo, with no devo-max. It's hardly surprising that independence scored higher in a two-option poll than a three-option one (the status quo did too), and as such the Scotsman's interpretation borders on an outright lie. Even by their normal standards, it's an unusually clumsy and blatant effort at misrepresenting the reality.

In fact, as quietly noted by the Herald in the middle of a piece on new Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson, "The nearest comparison with the latest poll was a three question one by Ipsos-Mori a year ago which had 22% for independence, 44% for more powers and 32% for no change." In other words, the BBC survey represented support for independence growing significantly, at the expense of both devo max and the status quo – the exact opposite of the Scotsman's spin.

It's also interesting that a poll showing devo max as – albeit narrowly – the most popular option is described by the paper as putting the SNP under pressure. The SNP have repeatedly expressed their willingness to include a question on devo max in the forthcoming referendum, while all the opposition Unionist parties oppose one. It is they, not the SNP, who are refusing to countenance offering the people the thing they continue to favour the most, and one might imagine that it would be they rather than the nats who would therefore be placed under pressure by this poll.

Iain Macwhirter in the Herald with a much-needed skewering of the "cybernat myth" that Labour have doggedly been trying to make stick for a few years now, and which was escalated dramatically with Iain Gray's vitriolic and bitter farewell speech to the Scottish Labour conference. There is, of course, poison aplenty on both sides of the SNP-Labour divide, but the most immediately noticeable difference is that nationalist bile and trolling comes from a few anonymous nutjobs on messageboards, whereas in Labour's case it comes from elected members and official representatives. We don't recall any SNP MSP comparing the Labour leader to Hitler, Mussolini or Mugabe, nor calling the entire party "neo-fascists", yet those insults and more have all been made in full public view by taxpayer-funded Labour politicians. Gray and Labour's attempt to claim the moral high ground is an extraordinary piece of brass neck, and it's good to see a grown-up journalist calling it out.

There’s been some truly horrible stuff passing for videogames journalism in recent times. Whether it’s reviewers telling people to hand over £25 for a shoddy, lazy cash-in because it comes in a cardboard box or writers arguing with each other over the precise manner in which gamers should be gouged for more money, it’s a depressing picture. (And having the president of IGN tell MCV last week that the recipe for the future was “getting celebrities involved“ didn’t paint it any prettier.)

I’ve always believed that writers are there to serve their readers, not their subjects. But as I was bemoaning the last case in a cloud of gloom and shame-by-proxy last month, I had a bit of an epiphany, and it wasn’t a particularly cheering one. Because the truth of the matter is that readers are getting the videogames journalism (indeed, the journalism generally) that they deserve.

Read the rest of this entry →

Returning from the shops yesterday, I picked up an unexpected A4 envelope from the hallway by the door. Angry letters from debt collectors aren't usually A4, so I opened it. Inside was a short note from my mum saying "This isn't The Dandy as I know it", attached to something so odd that I instantly knew I had to scan it for posterity and share it with my beloved viewers.

Mums are always right about stuff.

Read the rest of this entry →