Wings Over Scotland

Whoah! We were starting to think SoS had lost its touch. But neigh chance.

Astonishingly, this really is the mane article on the paper’s front page today. Some hack must have noticed there were no “SNP accused” stories in this week’s edition and made something up on the hoof, in an attempt to give those beastly Nats a shoeing and stirrup a shocking tail out of nothing. What a load of old pony.

It’d give anyone who believes in a balanced Scottish media a really long face.

Remember when some of us made a bit of a fuss about the epically tasteless plans for the 100th anniversary of the start of World War 1, and were angrily told by various indignant British nationalists that the planned events were a “commemoration, not a celebration”? Turns out you can’t keep the truth down for long.

Astonishingly, the government even wheeled out some unbelievable numbnuts of a defence minister who offered up the following quote to describe this great sporting showpiece in which we will again be encouraged to see the Germans as our enemies:

“A no-brainer in terms of an event that is going to reach part of the community that perhaps might not get terribly entrenched into this”

Yep. He really said “entrenched”. Still, we agree with the first three words.

For those who haven’t already seen it on Twitter, we’ve been trying to follow up a recent comment made by James Kelly of the splendid Scot Goes Pop! blog, and we’ve drawn a blank. So: does anyone know when the UK Labour Party gave up its full membership of the Socialist International?

The party’s website still claims to be a member, and the Wikipedia entry concurs, so the change of status is likely quite recent*. But the SI’s own site is clear that the party is no longer a participating member, merely an observer. Yet we’ve turned Google upside down searching for any sort of news story about it anywhere.

(And since UK Labour has been an active member for the entire period of the international group’s existence – joining it when it took its present form in 1951 – you’d think someone somewhere would have seen fit to mention an event as significant as it leaving “the worldwide organisation of social democratic, socialist and labour parties”.)

Anyone?

.

*[EDIT @ 13.12: An alert reader uncovers an entry on archive.org still listing the party as a full member as recently as December 27th of last year.)

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.

Read the rest of this entry →

This splendid BBC news piece from 1975 about the Glasgow Underground appears to have been shot in some sort of awful, nightmarish post-apocalyptic wasteland. Or, put another way, a large and once-prosperous city run by Scottish Labour for 50 years.

Read the rest of this entry →

We checked with a few people on this one to make sure it wasn’t just us. Today’s Herald carries a story – by Magnus Gardham, no less – that on first glance sounds like good news for supporters of independence. But on closer inspection, it’s an incoherent jumble of word-noise that contradicts itself almost every paragraph. We honestly don’t have a clue what they’re up to over there.

Read the rest of this entry →

We’re not going to link to the Brian Wilson article which the Guardian unaccountably lowered itself to publishing yesterday. It’s embarrassing to see a still-widely-respected newspaper debasing its pages with the sort of swivel-eyed ranting you’d normally expect from a drunk shouting at a skip at 7am, which we can only assume the paper paid money for after LabourHame rejected it as being just too bitter and deranged.

One ugly little piece of innuendo is worth picking up on, though. With what’s the closest thing to subtlety in the piece, Wilson grudgingly concedes the SNP’s mandate to hold an independence referendum:

“The difference is that Scotland now has to answer a question which only a minority want to ask: ‘Should Scotland become an independent country?’ This is because, two years ago, 21% of Scots voted nationalist in the Holyrood elections, giving them an overall majority.”

Even in that tiny snippet there are several nasty little lies (nobody voted “nationalist”, for example – they voted for the SNP, which stands for Scottish National Party rather than Nationalist, and many did so despite opposing independence, just as tens of thousands of “nationalists” voted for other parties). But we’ll focus on the “21%” thing.

Read the rest of this entry →

After The Referendum, No.1 – Ken Macintosh.

Deputy Assistant Manager, Eastwood Matalan.

FAO John McCormick

Dear Mr McCormick,

Last week you were widely quoted in the press on the subject of voters being informed in advance by both parties in the independence debate of the repercussions of their respective positions winning the vote. For example, your press release stated:

“The Commission has therefore recommended that the UK and Scottish Governments should clarify what process will follow the referendum, for either outcome, so that people have that information before they vote.”

Although your words seem clear to me, they seem not to have been understood by the No campaign. Ruth Davidson and Alistair Darling, for example, have both in recent days indicated their refusal to detail any proposed new devolution settlement, should Scotland reject independence, until AFTER the referendum.

Ms Davidson went so far as to suggest in one TV interview that she thought your comments meant people were unsure whether there would still be a UK Prime Minister after a No vote, and whether UK laws would still apply. As it appears extremely obvious that the “default” position in the event of a No vote would be that everything stayed the same as it is now, it seems unlikely that those were in fact the questions your respondents were asking.

But as we were not privy to your testing, we don’t know specifically which information voters were requesting be made available to them. I wonder, then, if it might be possible for you to issue some clarification on the matter, at least in broad terms.

A great many members of both the UK and Scottish Parliaments were extremely vociferous before the publication of your report in insisting that its recommendations be followed in full by all sides. It would perhaps therefore be valuable if you could be more specific about what sort of information your quote above referred to.

Thanking you in advance,

Rev. Stuart Campbell

Read the rest of this entry →

Read the rest of this entry →

So, wow. Last month we decided to kick on a little bit as an experiment and put more of our time into the site, and the results were dramatic. But the truth of the matter is that we can’t keep up that level every month, because we have to earn a living. And if a job’s worth doing, it’s worth doing properly.

But here’s a thing: supporters of independence constantly and loudly bemoan the lack of a pro-independence Scottish newspaper, or even just a balanced one committed to the simple old-fashioned goals of fair-minded and truthful reporting.

The last attempt to make a print one crashed and burned a long time ago – as pointedly noted in the image above by Kerry Gill, current political editor of the Scottish Daily Express. And the online Caledonian Mercury, despite being staffed by proper experienced journalists, died (though technically its corpse still twitches faintly once in a while) through a failed funding model, having not found a high enough readership to generate sufficient advertising revenue.

The thing is, it doesn’t have to be that way.

Read the rest of this entry →