Call us cynical if you will, but we were very suspicious when we saw today’s Herald.
We were a little bit surprised that Oxfam would have commissioned a report into Scotland, so we thought we better check and see exactly what it said.
Remarkably, the notoriously unreliable and yet somehow omnipresent Scottish political commentator and reality-disputer David “Davey” Torrance was still digging last night in the wake of this story from three days ago.
Never, eh? Let’s see if that’s true, shall we?
Late last night in the House Of Commons saw one of the most significant votes in the history of UK constitutional politics. A group of Scottish Tory MPs voted to oppose an amendment which would have protected the central building block of Scottish (and Welsh) devolution – the principle that any powers not explicitly reserved are devolved – from the UK government’s attempted huge power grab under the cover of Brexit.
Those very same Scottish Tory MPs had previously pledged to stand up for Scotland’s interests regardless of loyalty to their party, and had repeatedly expressed their grave disappointment at the deeply unsatisfactory condition of the Withdrawal Bill.
Last night they could have fixed it by supporting the amendment (backed by every other Scottish MP right across party lines), which would have tipped the arithmetic and ensured its success. Instead they betrayed every voter in Scotland – including their own – by waving the bill through unamended and passing the buck to the unelected House Of Lords, which has no representatives from Scotland’s most popular party.
This morning, BBC Scotland led on the fact that it snowed a bit in Scotland in January.
The past week saw the return to the public eye of the former Independent columnist Johann Hari, who vanished in disgrace a few years ago in a plagiarism scandal over claiming to have done things that he hadn’t.
It also saw the return of ubiquitous Scottish politics scribe David Torrance from a trip to San Francisco, the details of which he shared at stultifying length with the unfortunate readers of The Scottish Review.
Or at least, what he SAID were the details of where he SAID he’d been.
We’ve commented quite a few times in recent months about the Scottish media’s habit of running statistical stories rendered meaningless by the absence of any context.
The reasons for this aren’t necessarily sinister – sometimes journalists are just lazy or the full stats are hard to establish because like-for-like figures aren’t published – but usually it’s just a way to get an SNP BAD story out of isolated numbers which, if the full picture was presented, would render that impossible.
The above story from STV News today contains no furious rentaquotes from Labour or the Tories (at least not yet), so we should place it in the former category. Nevertheless, we do feel it’s our duty in a general sense to provide readers with the information that the Scottish media can’t be bothered to, so let’s do that.
Now remember, small oil-rich countries bordering the North Sea, there’s just no way you can thrive on your own.
After all, would this guy lie to you? He’s from the fair and unbiased media!
The Scottish media has been operating at what former BBC journalist Paul Mason once called “full propaganda strength” for the last few weeks, trying to inflate some pretty standard seasonal fluctuations into a “WINTER NHS CRISIS”.
One of the more egregious examples came yesterday when the state broadcaster’s Scotland editor Sarah Smith announced to the nation that 100,000 patients had waited more than four hours at A&E departments last week – a pretty impressive feat since in reality only a quarter of that number actually visited A&Es in Scotland last week, and four-fifths of those were seen in under four hours.
The 100,000 figure in fact refers to an entire year, not a week. Depending on how you look at it, Smith misrepresented the reality by either 2,000% or 5,200%. Yet at the time of writing we’re not aware of the BBC having issued any correction or apology for this, well, let’s be generous and say “error”.
The stats record the time taken for patients presenting at A&E to be dealt with (that doesn’t just mean “seen”, but seen, assessed, and then either treated, admitted or sent home). For the whole of 2017 the figures for Scotland were:
Patients dealt with in four hours or less: 93.1%
In eight hours or less: 99.2%
In 12 hours or less: 99.9%
Which doesn’t sound like too much of a crisis.
Alert observers will of course be aware that this is all entry-level basic operating mode for the media. Even if they weren’t trying to whip up politically-motivated “SNP BAD” material – and most of them are – it’s a deep journalistic instinct to exaggerate and hyperbolise everything into the worst news possible in order to drive traffic and clicks.
But does it work?
In some little-noticed news slipped out last Friday, it was revealed that Kezia Dugdale is to take up a position on the governing body of the Scottish Parliament.
Our favourite thing was her quote on the nomination:
“I’m very pleased to be Labour’s nominee for the SPCB. Having argued for gender balance, I’m glad that at least two of the five positions will now be held be women.”
…which suggested that she was unhappy exact gender balance hadn’t been achieved by placing two-and-a-half women on the board. (Unless she was getting at some sort of alternative solution, we suppose.)
But since the Herald raised the subject, it seemed a good time to take a look at voters’ opinions as to whether she might be a fit and proper person for such a role.
This is the well-known hardcore Corbynite commentator John McTernan on the radio yesterday, detailing how outrageous it would be for politicians to attempt to block a second referendum on a divisive but important issue.
No, not THAT kind of second referendum, silly!
Readers, have you ever noticed how the letters pages of Scottish newspapers are full every day of the same names, a clutch of a couple of dozen super-hardcore frothing ultra-Yoons tirelessly and reflexively raging against independence, the SNP and pretty much anything without a Union Jack on it?
Have you ever found yourself thinking it must be some sort of co-ordinated group that gets together, plans topics in advance then writes in backing each other up, to create an illusion of speaking for a wide cross-section of society, before dismissing that idea as a daft paranoid conspiracy and getting on with your day?
Because we thought that too, until an alert reader infiltrated it.
Our very favourite bit is “we must not advertise the existence of the group. It can be mentioned verbally, in safe environment, that some people share letters/encourage each other, but anything more risks editors discriminating, nationalists reacting, and this diverse group being portrayed as a monolithic campaign”.
Probably don’t put it in an email, then. But your secret’s safe with us, lads.
Our poll story yesterday was a pretty interesting piece of politics news considering it’s the Christmas dead season. We put an interesting new angle on the independence question, and posted all the poll data so that reporters had plenty to get their teeth into. And we released it at lunchtime so they had plenty of time to get it into today’s editions.
Remarkably, though, none of the Scottish media – with the honourable exception of The National, who made it their front page splash – thought that the best numbers for independence in many months merited even a dismissive passing mention. Scotland’s political hacks doggedly ignored it on social media. And then things got weird.
The tweet above appeared briefly – having been posted at 11.44am it was gone by no later than 12.10pm – on the Twitter account of the Herald. The story it linked to cannot be found through the paper’s website, though it’s still hidden away on the servers.
(Its sister paper the Evening Times carried the story, then outright deleted it.)
And the reason why provides a fascinating insight into how the press operates.
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
