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.
Cynicus on How Far To Go, How Far: “Great work again, Geoff. I highlight the points below from the journey your link led me: 1) Anya Palmer, a…” Dec 13, 03:34
James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “Dan, I hear you, though obviously the ginger news is not read by myself, but the (war) word is fast…” Dec 13, 00:08
Alastair Ewen on How Far To Go, How Far: “Is Judge Kemp a heavy drinker??” Dec 13, 00:07
James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “I will keep eye on war news to check wether propaganda or true over next few weeks, The tribunal judge…” Dec 12, 23:56
Lorncal on How Far To Go, How Far: “So, in order to let these men have everything their own way, we have to trample on women? That is…” Dec 12, 23:43
Lorncal on How Far To Go, How Far: “Yet, even ECHR agrees that men should not be in women’s spaces.” Dec 12, 23:30
Lorncal on How Far To Go, How Far: “Of course they do, Mark. That is not the point that Michael was making. The use of the words, hierarchy…” Dec 12, 23:27
Lorncal on How Far To Go, How Far: “Yes, AI does make mistakes, but all on one side? Methinks human intervention here.” Dec 12, 23:17
David McAdam on How Far To Go, How Far: “So the DG had to resign from the BBC when a programme was found to have “edited” a speech of…” Dec 12, 23:07
Geoff Anderson on How Far To Go, How Far: “Archived Times article https://archive.is/Myuvi” Dec 12, 21:39
Kate L on How Far To Go, How Far: “Much like the male judge Alexander Kemp I suppose you find women’s safety and dignity acceptable sacrifices to make on…” Dec 12, 21:37
Captain Caveman on Strike One: “Meh! Awesome Northy you made me laugh. Touche! 🙂” Dec 12, 21:18
DavidT on How Far To Go, How Far: “I have no personal stake in this matter, nor am I aware of any transgender individuals. However, Graham Linehan and…” Dec 12, 20:48
Dan on How Far To Go, How Far: “But James, according to polling in the recent Ginger Stepchild article; Only about 5% of Scots rate Defence and Security…” Dec 12, 20:33
Geoff Anderson on How Far To Go, How Far: ““Wouldn’t it be so much easier if we just did what the TransCult wanted” That is what the Judge concluded.” Dec 12, 20:31
Mark Beggan on How Far To Go, How Far: “‘Keep Rabies out of Britain’ Springs to mind, forgot about that one. What with all the other dangerous things coming…” Dec 12, 20:10
James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “Britain and France preparing for war, we have to wait and see whom the enemy is, but France informing its…” Dec 12, 20:05
James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “Public matters and private rights are entirely different laws in Scotland.” Dec 12, 19:55
James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “Tribunals in Scotland are funded by a consolidated fund by the Scottish government” Dec 12, 19:49
James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “Private Rights of biological Women to have private spaces regardless, is matter of Internal Scots law in Article XV111 and…” Dec 12, 19:39
Hatey McHateface on How Far To Go, How Far: “It’s lower in saturated fat, sure, but for Mammie’s authentic home baking, it has to be butter.” Dec 12, 19:29
James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “He iis quite an interesting site on legal matters. There are a few other Barristers that I follow for points…” Dec 12, 19:29
Hatey McHateface on How Far To Go, How Far: “Could be rabies. The precautionary principle says put them down.” Dec 12, 19:24
James Cheyne on How Far To Go, How Far: “Stu, I presume you watch BlackBeltBarrister as he states more or less the same as you. If not then he…” Dec 12, 19:19
Mark Beggan on How Far To Go, How Far: “The politically correct voice of the chattering class is foaming at the mouth!” Dec 12, 19:09
Hatey McHateface on Strike One: “Channeling your inner hatstand there, Northy.” Dec 12, 18:58
Northcode on Strike One: ““Good idea, Northy…” Yes. I thought so, too. Hey! Didn’t I just dismiss you from this place? Begone, rascal -…” Dec 12, 18:54
Mark Beggan on How Far To Go, How Far: “Children of the revolution. (TRex)” Dec 12, 18:47