This week’s publication of party accounts by the Electoral Commission, along with a string of recent stories about election expenses, served as a reminder to anyone who might have forgotten that the SNP are still, despite 10 years in power, the massive underdogs in Scottish politics.
Labour and the Tories, in particular, can always rely on handouts from their UK parent parties, who are in turn funded by massive donations from trade unions and big business respectively. In 2016 Labour trousered almost £15m from donors (over and above their membership revenues of £14m), while the Tories pocketed almost £19m in donations from their rich pals.
The Nats, meanwhile, have to gather most of their money from membership fees, but have been able to stay competitive in the campaign-heavy climate of the 2010s (since the turn of the decade the SNP have had to fight three expensive UK general elections, two Holyrood elections, two council elections, a European election and two referendums – that’s ten major votes in seven and a half years) thanks largely to extra help from lottery winners Colin and Chris Weir.
And the fact that Scottish politics can be something like an even remotely fair fight still leaves Unionists raging furiously at the burning injustice of it all.
We’ll only be making a very brief comment on the story in Tuesday’s Herald, for hopefully obvious reasons. The piece by Tom Gordon has been written for maximum innuendo to allow the wildest speculations on social media – which are of course duly taking place – but the alleged events relate entirely to some tweets from our Twitter account, none of which have been deleted and all of which are still publicly visible.
Nothing more sinister or serious than some tweets has occurred, or been alleged to have occurred. None of the tweets involved are in ANY way threatening, not even in a joking sense. That’s all we’ll be saying on the subject at this time.
With this year’s GERS figures imminent, there are two stories about North Sea oil in today’s papers which are markedly different in both tone and honesty.
This, for example, is the front page of the Sunday Herald:
It’s basically a reprise of a Wings story from almost a year ago, noting that despite producing broadly similar amounts of oil to Scotland from the North Sea, Norway has generated tens of billions in pounds in government revenue from it – even during the price slump of recent years – while Scotland has actually LOST money.
The mainstream media is now, by our count, up to at least 13 sizeable articles on the Great Yes-Movement Schism Of 2017 – a minor online spat between a tiny handful of people who’ve never liked each other and most of whom the general public has never heard of – and shows no signs of tiring of gleefully revelling in the subject.
There’s nothing particularly surprising or even diabolical about that. As any reality-TV show viewer will tell you, viewers absolutely love to watch people fighting, and doubly so if it’s the summer silly season and there’s no real news. Most of the stories have attracted large responses and therefore lots of juicy and profitable clicks for tired hacks who long ago stopped having anything of any interest to say but still have to honk out 1000 words a week in order to get paid.
But the more sinister aspect of them is the way they’ve been weaponised to (further) demonise and silence the Yes movement. If someone attacks other Yes figures with a provocative, offensive and dishonest piece, the extra bonus for the media is that any legitimately angry response to it can be used as yet more proof of The Vileness Of The Cybernats: “Look! They even turn on their own if they dare disagree!”
For the Unionist press, that’s a win-win every way up, and there are some on the Yes side who seem only too willing to co-operate with the narrative.
The Scottish media this week has started to rather resemble Argentina under General Galtieri’s military junta – everywhere you look are the ghosts of the disappeared.
Here’s Daniel Sanderson in the Times in January this year, complaining that too few university students come from poor backgrounds and therefore the SNP are bad:
So he’d be chuffed if that situation improved, right?
In case you don’t know, Alan Roden is the former Scottish Daily Mail politics editor who’s now Scottish Labour’s director of communications. We haven’t edited this pic in any way, those genuinely are two consecutive tweets he posted yesterday.
Earlier today we reported on the mysterious failure of the Herald to notice that its front page lead story about supposedly poor ScotRail punctuality figures made a number of serious errors with regard to the facts, most notably confusing the excellent figures for last month with a 12-month rolling average which was significantly worse.
But as we read the rest of the papers, we noticed the oddest thing.
Today’s edition of The Times contains a textbook example of a phenomenon that we highlight regularly: how newspapers gradually unpick their own dishonest headlines to grudgingly admit a truth which is often the polar opposite of the initial claim.
The BBC’s Reporting Scotland is, in our view, directly responsible for at least 80% of Yes supporters’ belief that the UK’s state broadcaster is biased against independence. Almost all of the worst examples of unbalanced or downright dishonest coverage over the last five years come from the flagship teatime bulletin.
Hatey McHateface on How Far To Go, How Far: “Far more importantly, if the pattern on the carpet has left an indelible mark, what tartan is it? That’s the…” Dec 13, 20:26
Hatey McHateface on How Far To Go, How Far: “@Alf Baird When you write that the need for decolonisation is “absolute and urgent” I wonder how it is that…” Dec 13, 20:22
Hatey McHateface on How Far To Go, How Far: “You missed one, Northy, phallusy.” Dec 13, 20:06
Hatey McHateface on The ginger stepchild: “Multiple accounts, Bilbo? How you must wish that was true. My “stalking” of you was me pointing out the quite…” Dec 13, 19:58
Northcode on How Far To Go, How Far: “I meant to do this earlier, but forgot. Here it is now, better late than never. Correction: “through-away” in paragraph…” Dec 13, 19:05
Mark Beggan on How Far To Go, How Far: “I reckon 3-1 to St Mirren tomorrow.” Dec 13, 18:26
Andy Wiltshire on How Far To Go, How Far: “Mistakes tending to both sides of a controversial question roughly equally may well be just mistakes. If they all point…” Dec 13, 16:49
James Barr Gardner on How Far To Go, How Far: “The real problem is ye jist cannae git the staff these days !” Dec 13, 15:40
Sven on How Far To Go, How Far: “You’d know, I’m sure, I wish you well “James Cheyne”; were every independence minded Scot as single minded, determined and…” Dec 13, 14:56
Northcode on How Far To Go, How Far: “Nae bother, James. The longer you stay around here the better as far as I’m concerned. And thanks for the…” Dec 13, 14:55
Northcode on How Far To Go, How Far: ““But that flame still burns.” I’ll tell you what ‘burns’… YOUR SHITTY RHETORIC! BOOM!!! Northcode drops the “Ad Hominem”, arm…” Dec 13, 14:46
James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “robertkknight, Better together, as the prime ministers statement once said. Why not have the upper ruling class grouped with the…” Dec 13, 14:36
James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “North code. Thank for those kind words, It would appear that I could be here for as long as the…” Dec 13, 14:23
robertkknight on How Far To Go, How Far: “I don’t think that there are any depths left to which the NuSNP Govt. won’t stoop. For years they’ve been…” Dec 13, 13:55
Stu on How Far To Go, How Far: “Lomcal, I don’t think there is. Like I said, if a judge was hypothetically going to go for a specific…” Dec 13, 13:17
Rob on How Far To Go, How Far: “I normally don’t normally give much credence to conspiracy theories, basic incompetence usually explains most of the screw up. However…” Dec 13, 13:16
Jill on How Far To Go, How Far: “The most generous reading of this debacle is that the judge is incompetent. I’m inclined to be less generous. Trans…” Dec 13, 13:09
Northcode on How Far To Go, How Far: “I for one will be sorry to see you leave this place, James. Your stoical perseverance in acquiring and presenting…” Dec 13, 12:58
Mark Beggan on How Far To Go, How Far: “Is that carpet burns on Swinney’s face?” Dec 13, 12:50
James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “Thoughts for today, I will retire and make way for others after the two year long wait from DWP and…” Dec 13, 12:36
Northcode on How Far To Go, How Far: ““…I write, as always, to educate the readers on the world’s most-read Indy website.” We uneducated plebians here on “the…” Dec 13, 12:22
James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “The gender issue of how to use women and children spaces as a trademark fetish is dangerous. I suppose if…” Dec 13, 12:06
Bilbo on The ginger stepchild: “Who’s the loser? Me with the cut and paste jobs at every election or you and your multiple accounts stalking…” Dec 13, 11:35
James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “Thought of today, For nearly a year now I have been stating I will retire from the efforts of independence…” Dec 13, 11:17
David Henry on How Far To Go, How Far: “It’s clear that political interference has been involved and Judge Kemp must take responsibility for the made up quotes and…” Dec 13, 11:16
Alf Baird on How Far To Go, How Far: “” that Scotland still contains some decent, rational, balanced individuals, capable of reason and the logical development of arguments.” That…” Dec 13, 11:08
agentx on How Far To Go, How Far: ““he brother-in-law of Scotland’s former first minister Humza Yousaf has been cleared of extortion and drugs charges. Ramsay El-Nakla, 37,…” Dec 13, 11:03