It’s happening again, nurse
What IS going on at the Herald? Yesterday we highlighted a bizarre article which flatly contradicted its own headline, then agreed with it, then contradicted it again. And today another piece by the same author appears to do much the same thing.
At least the headline is a bit more circumspect this time: “Uncertainty claims over EU situation”. But the opening paragraph blares a dramatic statement which doesn’t appear to be supported anywhere in the story.
“The Scottish Government has indicated for the first time that Scotland would not automatically be able to negotiate EU membership from within the organisation if Scots vote Yes in next year’s referendum.”
…is the bold-fonted proclamation from the paper’s Political Editor. But if you read the text which follows it, you’ll struggle to locate anyone indicating any such thing.
The copy continues like this:
“Last year the Scottish Government abandoned its claim that an independent Scotland would enjoy automatic EU membership and inherit the same terms as the UK.
Ministers have since acknowledged negotiations would be required on a range of key issues, including the single currency and Scotland’s share of Britain’s cash rebate. However, they say they would not join the euro.
It would mean Scotland negotiating with Brussels while it remained part of the UK and therefore in the EU. But in a parliamentary answer to a question from Labour’s Ken Macintosh, Ms Sturgeon said she “expects Scotland’s transition from membership of the EU as part of the UK to membership as an independent member state to be negotiated from a position within the EU”.”
Perhaps it’s just us, but we can’t for the life of us see the difference betweeen “negotiating with Brussels while [Scotland] remained part of the UK and therefore in the EU”, and “Scotland’s transition from membership of the EU as part of the UK to membership as an independent member state [would] be negotiated from a position within the EU“.
Those two lines seem to us to be making identical statements – that an independent Scotland’s negotiation over EU-membership terms would be conducted while Scotland was still part of the UK (ie in the period between a Yes vote and the planned “independence day” in 2016), and therefore still within the EU. We can see no reason for there to be a “But” at the start of the last sentence, nor anything which constitutes the “indication” trumpeted in the article’s opening paragraph.
Could someone maybe check the Herald’s water tank for contaminants? Because the only other explanation is that the paper is deliberately trying to create uncertainty where none exists, and we were always taught that the objective of journalism is the exact opposite of that. Maybe it’s different now.
Their new tactic is working Stu.
It’s obviously got you F**ked. 🙂
The Herald is very, VERY quickly going downhill…
They do print occasional pro-indy comment and it is always thoughtful, reasoned and demonstrably accurate.
Their regular (daily) anti-indy and ant-SNP guff is shrill, baseless, often lies and always spin and misrepresentation.
they do appear to be in a race to the bottom with The Scotsman (although admittedly they have a bit of catching up to do).
This is just downright alarming. Something is definitely in the food or the water there too, just like at Better Together. Someone needs to check those pipes or clean out those tea caddies.
Maybe it’s all the horsemeat turning them into a bunch of bucking lunatics? They said there’d be neigh problem with it though! Either way, GG Herald. You’re the mane source of crazy-horse stories now. Certainly not looking very stable.
You can almost smell the desperation, the last gasp of empire, exhaled as a phlegm filled wheeze on the pages of the Scotsman and the Herald. Shameful and appalling, but surely an indication that they realise which way the wind is blowing.
Rev Stu,
Just as well you have your own web site. At the tail end of a previous article, messrs moujick, Black and I have been commenting on the moderation of comments on that article, if that makes any sense whatsoever!
It appears to be a newspaper industry thing. You can argue like ferrets in a sack with fellow BTL commentators but you must never question the quality of the journalism.
Sad, intit?
I blame Atos
“if you read the text which follows it”
Nobody will. Remember the exchange in “The Front Page” when Jack Lemmon is writing a story with his editor (Walter Matthau) looking over his shoulder:
Matthau: You haven’t mentioned The Bugle.
Lemmon: It’s in the second paragraph.
Matthau: [angrily] Who’s going to read the second paragraph?
Here we are, 7 minutes in:
Maybe it’s a new tactic? Just make things up. I’m surprised they haven’t thought of that tactic before.
The Herald Gets Tedious
The sun comes, and the sun goes down
The hands on the clock go round and round
The Herald prints nonsense, day after day
And its readership is increasingly just drifting away
There’s a growing gulf between the midweek Herald and the Sunday version with Messrs Bell and McWhirter. It’s a shame that the print media aren’t rising to the occasion with quality, balanced debate in these important times.
I’ve been fine-tooth-combing the article, and I think it might come down to a ludicrous piece of semantic invention. See this passage:
“A Scottish Government spokesman said: “The position remains unchanged – ie, Scotland negotiating its continued membership of the EU as an independent country from within the EU.””
Now, let’s look at how we can change that slightly ambiguous wording in two very different ways by positioning a comma in it, thereby altering the meaning of the central clause:
VERSION 1
“A Scottish Government spokesman said: “The position remains unchanged – ie, Scotland [negotiating its continued membership of the EU], as an independent country from within the EU.””
VERSION 2
“A Scottish Government spokesman said: “The position remains unchanged – ie, Scotland [negotiating its continued membership of the EU as an independent country], from within the EU.””
Of course, even if that’s the misrepresentation Gardham’s trying to pull off by taking advantage of the ambiguity, his conclusion that there’s been a change is rather shattered by the preceding “The position remains unchanged”, but Magnus isn’t known for letting the facts intrude on his scaremongering.
I can save you all further head scratching. The offending word is ‘expects’. The printed paper (seen in newsagent – didnae buy it – honest) even puts that in the strap line.
Sturgeon said she ‘expects’ Scotland to negotiate from within the EU – ergo (in the Herald and unionist mindset) ‘new uncertainty’.
More than enough to make a page lead out of, don’t you think? No?
At least with this blog nobody needs to wonder about who’s behind the writing and that’s why I’ve been happy to provide a wee bit of financial support for it. Stu doesn’t have to write or report to please big business and advertisers, nor does he have to please the establishment or the government (as does the BBC), nor megolomaniacs like Rupert Murdoch or the Barclay Brothers or Johnston Press ( like the Scotsman, the Sun, the Herald, the Daily Record, etc.) He also has no need to represent the views of American owners as may be the case with the Herald – (you’d be forgiven these days for wondering if their articles are being written elsewhere by people who really don’t understand the situation at all) and he doesn’t have to print up what is issued by the various political party machines.
No, with Stu, what you see is what you get. And that’s why we should all do as much as we can to support this blog financially – it’s not in the pay of anybody other than ourselves.
If you haven’t already donated and can spare a wee pound, please try to do so as every penny counts towards giving us a voice when others are trying to shout us down or silence us. As people have commented already, many of their posts are blocked when they try to comment on MSM articles. On this site, you can voice your opinion, largely unmoderated – (we even put up with Grahamski).
So, if you enjoy knowing precisely where your news comes from and enjoy the freedom to voice your opinion and interact with others……donate! (Please)
Heard Douglas Fraser (or was it Fraser Douglas?) Anyhoo, he asked his guest ,a scottish businessman a Mr. Boyle I believe (it was 6.15 am), that having once supported Lab then, because he believed Lab were unelectable moved to the SDP then. when they foundered went back to Lab. ” What are your politicl beliefs now?”
Mr. Boyle states that he is a Unionist, he believes in being British because: He didn’t want pasports at Gretna Green, England wouldn’t trade with us, what would the currency be, what would happen about the EU and reducing Corporation tax would increase Income Tax Blah blah blah!
Robert McNeil in the Herald today says that the Referendum question should be;
Do you want Scotland to be an Independent country or are you a nutter?
I am moving to that conclusion
@Freddie Threepwood
That’s as I read it ….basically ‘expects’ is not definite enough therefore, according to MG, there’s uncertainty, head pin dancing.
Spot on Jeannie
Buy a newspaper and then complain about the distorted articles?
Pay the BBC license and be lied to by the BBC?
Provide financial support to Wings over Scotland, access the truth, and enjoy exposure of the MSM and the BBC underhand manipulations.
Say no to Findus Lasagne Magnus.
Is it true though that the 15 countries that have joined the EU since 1995 had to wait on average nearly a decade after submitting their initial applications ?
“Is it true though that the 15 countries that have joined the EU since 1995…”
No idea, but since Scotland is already a member and wouldn’t be “joining” it doesn’t seem very relevant.
Let’s stop the hand-wringing – and face the fact that this is deliberate confusion orchestrated by the No-ists.
It’s deliberate and intended to muddy the waters and seriously reluctant as I am to offer further encouragement by acknowledging that it’s going on and with no little success – let’s drop the wicked sub-editor line and the poor wee journos suffering headlines not of their making.
This is editorial policy directed from on high and it’s only heavyweights like Bell and MacWhirter who can stealthily stand up to it. That leaves acres of misleading propaganda spewed out by toe-the-liners and the likes of Raymond Buchanan grossly misrepresenting the Irish Minister for the BBC, who then virtually applaud him for doing so by their legalese statement, screwing up context with semantics.
We then have it reiterated by a planted question again by good old auntie BBC in their flagship Question Time, never to be corrected by the chairman Dimbleby, as it went live on air. Was Dimbleby aware of the statement/question from the floor? Of course he was, he selects what’s coming up. Was he aware of the stushie and the Irish Minister’s comments that she was mis-quoted by his organisation the BBC? It would be farcical indeed to think otherwise,not to mention professionally scandalous. So, what was his agenda then by letting this question go on air?
Time to get real and face this music down. It’s getting louder and everywhere and from what I see and hear around me it’s having an effect. When do we shout foul-play?!!
Have they produced thier sales numbers yet?
@Barontorc
As one of those who occasionally cite subbing/cock-up over conspiracy, I nevertheless heartily agree with your take on the general trend in the MSM. The examples of mendacity and slant are just too numerous to be able to draw any other reasonable conclusion. However …
What can be done about it? When the Scottish government delivered a polite cough of a query on the BBC/Irish MEP business – in the form of a letter from the offended Irish politician herself – it was greeted by a howling barrage of headlines about the SNP’s ‘astonishing’ attack on the beeb and how ‘touchy Nats’ were obviously determined to censor coverage of the debate.
Of the two options it seems to me that are open to us, I would prefer we remain silently dignified in our response. At least in public. I do, though, fervently hope that somewhere in the Yes/SNP machinery someone is busy compiling a long, detailed and irrefutable list of these crimes which, when delivered to the right people at the right time in the right forum can and must then be acted upon.
For the third time on this site I must ask … WTF happened to Patten’s promise to Salmond on behalf of the BBC Trust to ensure fair and balanced reporting …?
Horsemeat + beef = Better Together
Erm… oh…
Mair cauld kail re-het. Is this all the unionists can drag up to get media attention?The suggestion that Scotland would have to reapply for membership of the EU was always ludicrous. Following Independence, I think that many of us would welcome the chance to negotiate our way out.
Freddie T – Patten was here to pat us on the head and then ignore us. Did you really expect anything else? If anything he was here to see the depth of our information/ evidence of bias like the colonial governor he is. He then went back to arrange his ‘defence’ and strategy for what was still to come up in supporting role for the union.
I do wish we would be a wee bit mair sceptical and vehement with our protests in a legal sense and let’s stop playing soft-ball like guessing-up reasons and excuses for deplorable press attacks in whatever form.
Every second person I talk to is quoting practically verbatum what the BBC and the Herald says and they ain’t gonna stop spreading lies and confusion until that fat lady sings and then they’ll go and preen themselves on a job well done and we’re truly stuffed.
Something has to be seen to be done and bloody well done at that.
@ Mosstrooper
Heard that this morning, it was on the business prog which will be repeated tomorrow morning.
I believe the Boyle in question, as he was referred tthat’s the ‘steelman’ is the guy who used to own Motherwell FC.
“Every second person I talk to is quoting practically verbatum what the BBC and the Herald says”
Indeed so, Barontorc. I am becoming increasingly concerned at the apparent reluctance of the Yes camp to go on the front foot. Let’s look at just some of what should be self-evident truths which the MSM have successfully – in the minds of some, if not many, judging by what I hear – stood on their heads:
– The normal state of affairs around the world (i.e. independence) is actually an aberrant state of affairs
– A party which was elected democratically with an astonishing majority and mandate under a system designed to prevent that majority is actually a minority clique which somehow got into power and now operates as a dictatorship
– The referendum is not about Scotland’s future but is actually about Alex Salmond and the SNP
– The oil, upon which an independent Scotland will be entirely dependent, will, far from lasting for decades to come, run out any time soon, leaving Scotland impoverished
– the EU will not welcome a respurce-rich Scotland into its arms but is instead likely to expel summarily more than 5 milllion of its citizens
I could go on. It is undoubtedly the case that some or all of the above have gained traction in the popular consciousness.
Meanwhile, I received a ‘Blairmail’ from Yes yesterday. To be fair, it does mention the ‘referendum to independence’ documents published earlier this week, but it ends with an anecdote about some woman tweeting that 3 tables adjacent to her table in a cafe were talking about independence. Well, whoop-de-doo. Apart from preaching to the already converted, is this really cause for joy? When is Yes going to reach out to the public with a mesage grounded in positivity, yes, but also a message which highlights McCrone, the consequences of voting No etc.? This context is urgently needed now.
If we allow our opponents to achieve too much of a stake in the public consciousness – as I believe we are in danger of doing – then a blitz in the last ten weeks of the campaign will be dismissed by some – perhaps a majority – as desperation and panic too late in the game. We need to challenge some of the absurdities above right now.
You’re being way too harsh. This was up for at least a couple of hours this morning, and I think it’s Magnus Gardham’s best work yet.
link to 3.bp.blogspot.com
(screengrab taken at the back of 6)
Bwahahahaha!!!!!
G Campbell, ah, so it is headline led journalism then.
Picture the bleary-eyed morning Magnus, just clocked in and handed his headline for the day’s hatchet job.
“Ok, Magnus go over to your corner and see what kinda meat you can put onto the bones of this little beauty that’s come through the back-ops advisory wire. Maybe something about a ‘sous-chef’ or kitchen porter type already embedded into this new place and along the lines that this is a direct link to the corridors of Scottish Gov power-making – you know – the usual sort of stuff your so good at.”
“Oh, ok boss, right on it, with vim, juices flowing already!”
If this was a joke it would be funny ha, ha., but, the way things are getting twisted and trashed and lies easily formed, what is the actuality?
Well spotted, G Campbell.
@Training Day
Let’s look at just some of what should be self-evident truths which the MSM have successfully – in the minds of some, if not many, judging by what I hear – stood on their heads:
The normal state of affairs around the world (i.e. independence) is actually an aberrant state of affairs.
Your first point is the most important, and is the key to winning the referendum in my opinion. How the media has been able to achieve this is sadly evidence of the success of conditioning on the people of Scotland to accept inferior status to all the other small European states. I believe they have been successful in this because of their extensive control over important institutions in Scottish life over a considerable period of time. This is now being challenged. However, the question has to be, is it too late in terms of achieving a Yes vote? The Scottish cringe has been reduced by devolution and cultural achievements to an extent. Has it been reduced enough? I am not sure.
I used to naively think that people ran down Scotland, and its ability to govern itself, because they lacked self confidence. Unfortunately, I now believe that some people, particularly those in professional professions in Scotland have done so, and still do this, because of more cynical, insidious reasons, e.g. self-preservation, self interest etc. There has been a lot of progress since the return of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, there is more confidence in Scotland in terms of governance. However, we are still faced with powerful vested interests against change, and significantly they have the power over the media, and hence control over much of the information broadcast to the voters in Scotland. I agree with Training Day’s concerns over the Yes campaign. At the moment there seems to be a non-assertive attitude towards the media, and a kind of a ‘if we are nice all the time we will win’ attitude. In summary, I think the Yes campaign are lacking a cutting edge.
Maybe we’ve all been too harsh? Maybe there is a story? We’ll find out tomorrow: link to twitpic.com (Sunday Herald front page)
@McPete: It could be true. But Scotland is already in the EU. Sure, not in the sense of signing the treaty. But in the sense of 100% compliant with the acquis communautaire? Absolutely. And that bit is what took 12 out of 15 new members so long, (re)writing thousands of laws.
The other three – Austria, Finland and Sweden – took about 3 years to join because, as long established democracies and members of EFTA, their laws were largely compliant when they started. Not 100%, but far more so than, for example, Poland.
So, if you cherry-pick true but irrelevant facts and make invalid comparisons, you prove nearly anything. Who knew?
Can I come back to my question from earlier in the day …? If even the mildest, most reasonable observation by a foreign politician that she was misrepresented by the BBC can be spun by the rest of the MSM (many of whom not previously known for their love of Aunty) as an astonishing attack by book-burning ‘nationalists’ determined to control coverage of the debate … then what exactly are our alternatives?
We’re doing our best at the moment to support this website – fuck knows we won’t be able to scrape enough up to buy a daily newspaper!
The only good news is two old guys and a dog currently read Scottish newspapers. But it’s the broadcast media we need to focus on. I say ‘we’ – I mean the Yes Campaign.
I know they are putting a great deal of faith in their ‘grassroots’ campaign. But that, I am sorry, is not going to be enough. There is an environment out there in which these grassroots will grow – or not – and that environment is dictated by television, radio … even just the billposters for the newspapers no-one would ever buy.
We’ve all heard it – half-baked, received ignorance that you have to spend half an hour fighting through before you can even get to debate what the whole referendum is actually all about. And the longer those lies and untruths are allowed to sit in fertile soil unchallenged, the more chance we have of those weeds growing – not the ‘perfect lawn of enlightened self-interest’ the Yes Campaign is pinning its hopes on.
Yes, Freddie T. – Auntie Beeb is causing us all sort of harm and this has to be officially stopped at the border so to speak.
There has to be the most damning condemnation of BBC bias, from not only the SNP /Scottish Government, but Civic Scotland and dare I say – the Electoral Commission.
This EC, has a an absolutely crucial control and legislative role in the forthcoming referendum and there is simply no question, they must have a major cause of concern with bias.
What and when, will they do what’s needed, to deal with it?
I have long accepted the fact that the EC is pro-union in its make-up and panel base and I was quite taken aback that they were fair and square with the referendum question and funding, but if the unrestrained propaganda, lies and almost rabid anti-independence msm is given open-ended funding, out-with campaign levels, it will make a mockery of the referendum’s democratic status.
As for the BBC? – There just has to be formal Scottish Government action to prevent such subversive broadcasting. Nuff said!
With either case; be it the Electoral Commission or the BBC pubic broadcasting authority there is a growing and pressing need to invoke human rights organisations over any transgression.
To anyone out there still minded to think the BBC is impartial, I commend to you this morning’s interviews on the Politics Show conducted by one Andrew Kerr. Watch the inteview with Michael Moore, then the interview with Nicola Sturgeon, and, as they say, compare and contrast..