The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Scot The Difference

Posted on April 01, 2012 by

Can any alert readers pick out the interesting contradiction from this page in today’s Scotland On Sunday? (Specifically the absurd piece of drivel by Tom Peterkin the paper has chosen to manufacture some embarrassing fake outrage over.) If you don’t have the eyes of a hawk, click on the image to see it full size.

First to spot it wins dinner with Tom Harris. Losers get two dinners with Tom Harris.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

23 to “Scot The Difference”

  1. steven luby says:

    I'm actually getting fed up with thinking this but,you can't make this up !
    Don't they realise how this makes 'them' look ? Then I think 'just how gullable they must take us all' !
    Secretly though,love it !

  2. Peter A Bell says:

    I too have found myself moved to comment on this article as well as Kevin McKenna's little gobbet of nastiness – No decency in the name of the union. I am increasingly perplexed and disgusted by the tactics of the anti-independence campaign.

  3. TYRAN says:

    As per your own "the sounds of silence" page.

  4. seven says:

    The article says 70% want to bring it forward with 22% against.
    However the poll to the right shows the ratios as 39% for and 61% against.?

  5. RevStu says:

    You win!

  6. seven says:

    But it's those damned cybernats again, their everywhere I tell you! Everywhere! Voting multiple times! Everywhere! wheres my vallies! LOL

  7. An Duine Gruamach says:

    It is a well known fact that nationalists are the only people in Scotland who have computers.

  8. Butchered by Campbell's says:

    One shouldn't allow oneself to be distracted by such a trivial issue when discussing the major issue of the Scottish Government's discredited consultation.  It's clear that this 'consultation' is open to widespread abuse and that the huge response – significantly greater than the response to the Scotland Office's own consultation – has only been garnered thanks to the ability of respondents to post multiple, anonymous submissions.
    The Scotland Office have rightly and responsibly avoided this scenario by forcing respondents to leave an email address, and only after doing so can the respondent choose to protect their privacy.  The difference is striking and shame on anyone who can't see this.
    I feel so strongly about this travesty that I almost want to create a new email address just so I can return to this blog and write a second post reiterating my strong feelings about this travesty.  I reserve the right to use a different name since the site administrator – clearly an authoritarian – has not given me the opportunity to maintain my privacy.  In fact, I feel SO strongly I almost want to create TWO new email addresses.  I say almost but, in fact, I can't be arsed.  But, if I could be, that's what I might have done.

  9. RevStu says:

    You make an excellent point, Butchered. The security and identifiability provided by an email address is probably why internet debate is so famously moderate, reasoned and sober. I too urge the SNP to abandon this discredited consultation now, and immediately place Ian Davidson MP – whose integrity, impartiality and probity has been repeatedly proven to be beyond reproach – in charge of the entire referendum process.

  10. Peter A Bell says:

    Roll on April 2!

  11. Butchered by Campbell's says:

    It's high time we ended the farce that is the secret ballot too.  To restore credit to the electoral process, everyone should have to write their email address on the ballot paper.  

  12. Kenny Campbell says:

    Did Labour supporters not get caught doing the cut and paste thing earlier in the consultation process ? Or am I going mad.

  13. MajorBloodnok says:

    I think it was that the Labour site had already filled in their responses and it was hoped that any passing Labour supporters would have the wit to know to press the 'send' button.  Optimistic, I know.
    I have no doubt that this will back-fire on Labour once the truth gets out.

  14. Peter A Bell says:

    The truth about "Scottish" Labour's pre-filled forms scam is out. But the mainstream media choose to ignore it.

  15. MajorBloodnok says:

    I should have written "when the truth gets out – again"… One can always hope, but with the BBC and Scottish MSM stubbornly 'on message' it will be difficult.  Mind you, I bought the Sunday Times for the first (and only) time this weekend just for the Cruddas stories.  They're really pushing it and I doubt that this will be the last of the revelations that will be drip fed out for maximum damage to Cameron.  Labour can't keep covering up for them with their silly diversionary tactics though… can they?

  16. Peter A Bell says:

    Labour can't keep covering up for them with their silly diversionary tactics though… can they?

    We should never underestimate the anti-independence coalition. As has already become all too evident, they will do absolutely anything in an effort to preserve the union. And they genuinely believe that nothing they do, no matter how despicable in the eyes of the world, can possibly be wrong if it is done in defence of the British state.

  17. Doug Daniel says:

    Butchered makes an excellent point, which I've made elsewhere myself (hence why I think it's an excellent point).
    I have at least 5 personal email accounts, and my work email account has numerous psuedonyms, which I think is pretty standard for any company of a certain size, especially one which is owned by a larger company. If I had wanted to, I could have spammed the life out of that Westminster consultation. I only wish I could have been bothered.
    It's looking increasingly to be the case that nationalists have to pre-empt every line of attack by unionists, and disprove them beforehand. It shouldn't really be the case as it's extremely petty, but this is what happens when you're dealing with idiots who drag a debate down to its most base level.
    Sawar Junior's comments on Sunday were completely out of line, and I find it quite depressing that a politician can actually accuse another party of vote-rigging with such impunity, despite a complete lack of evidence. He's an utter disgrace. Clearly the apple did not fall far from the tree.

  18. Peter A Bell says:

    If there was some "cybernat" conspiracy, why wasn't the UK referendum consultation flooded with pro-Scottish Government responses? So many questions. So few answers.

  19. Butchered by Campbell's says:

    I know I should know better by now but the behaviour of the print and broadcast media over the past couple of days has left me feeling truly depressed, particularly that of the Herald.  I had vague hopes that it was the on the verge of becoming the sole voice of impartiality within the print media but, alas, no.
    We've seen what should have been a monumental story i.e. the Cruddas revelations, consigned to the shadows while a clear and obvious distortion of the facts has been peddled as truth. We're not simply talking about bias here.  We're talking about a massive conspiracy to mislead the electorate, and the sad truth is that it will be believed in many quarters, particularly amongst those who rely on the print and broadcast media for information.  
    I'm at a loss as to how this can be effectively countered.  The facts can easily be established but, outwith the blog community, they simply aren't reported.   
    I should know better, but still I find myself amazed to discover just how low the opposition parties and, more so, our media are willing to go to protect the status quo.

  20. Morag says:

    I still get the Herald, delivered by the proverbial schoolboy to my door.  I've been reading it since I was at the school.  I lived in England for many years, and tried (often without success) to get it delivered there.  When I moved back home, one of the stipulations when house-hunting was that the property should be near enough to civilisation to allow me to read the Herald over my breakfast, without me having to go fetch.
    I've never been so close to cancelling it as I was this morning, when I saw that headline.  It is absolutely unconscionable.

  21. Longshanker says:

    There's nothing to suggest that the poll results printed on the right have anything to do with the Scotland Office Poll referred to in the highlighted text – assuming that's what you're attempting to highlight here.
    If it isn't put me in my deserved place for being a thicko.
    If it is. This piece makes you look either a) stupidly presumptuous or b) as disingenuous as you constantly claim the Unionists to be.
    Which is it?
    Your readers have a right to know.

  22. RevStu says:

    You're a thicko. The point is merely the Scottish Secretary claiming "overwhelming public support" for an early referendum on the basis of a couple of thousand responses, even as a poll with twice as many shows the exact opposite.

    Or of course, it USED to:

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top