The Sunday Herald, which enjoyed a major sales boost from being the first Scottish newspaper to officially back independence but has since seen its circulation increase partly eroded, has this morning chosen to throw a stick of dynamite onto the fire.
The paper’s front page today teases a double-page spread inside with the headline “SPECIAL REPORT: HOW INDEPENDENCE SUPPORTERS SHOULD USE THEIR SECOND VOTE”. And then things get a little strange.
Last weekend’s edition of the Sunday Times gave an article to a Green activist and party worker – not billed as such, even though until last month he was on the party’s regional candidate list for Lothian – to predict that the Greens would get 10 seats at next month’s election.
Much campaigning by the various fringe parties for the Holyrood contest has been based on “seat predictors” like the one deployed to produce the figures in the piece, purporting to show that a tactical-voting strategy on the list can deliver a large gain in numbers of pro-independence MSPs compared to using both votes for the SNP.
We’ve examined that argument in considerable depth already, both theoretical and practical. But its also worth noting that so-called “seat predictors” are a rather shaky basis for making such bold forecasts.
The Scottish press and opposition’s incandescent and somewhat vague fury at the Scottish Government working to bring billions of pounds in investment to Scotland has continued undiminished in this weekend’s newspapers. Scottish Labour in particular are getting themselves very worked up about today’s Sunday Times.
“Incredible”? Sounds exciting. Let’s find out more.
When we ran this story on Monday, some of the press got rather upset with us. Even though we’d linked to the full data tables published on the ComRes site, Scottish Daily Mail political editor Alan Roden, for example, huffily tweeted a link to a cropped table suggesting that the real sample size was higher.
Alert readers will have noticed that the Conservatives and most of the right-wing press have recently embarked on a hyperbolic campaign against the Scottish Government’s “named person” child-protection legislation. The latest assault is in today’s Daily Mail:
The shriekingly furious lead article thunders in outrage that “nearly two thirds of Scots have condemned the SNP’s state guardian scheme as an ‘unacceptable intrusion’ into family life”, which sounds like a pretty damning verdict.
It’s not until you look a little deeper that it all falls to pieces.
Even by the low, low normal arithmetical standards of the Scottish media, yesterday’s Scottish Sunday Express humiliated itself with the most stupendously factually wrong articles we’ve seen in a newspaper for some time.
The Scottish Daily Mail has been working itself into a froth this week over the idea that the Scottish Government doesn’t intend to match George Osborne’s increase in the upper-rate income tax threshold from £42,000 to £45,000.
Central to the complaint is that rejecting the increase will hurt what the Mail calls “the squeezed middle” and “middle earners”, including “nurses, teachers and police”.
There are, of course, several ways of defining “middle”.
We don’t normally ask you to watch videos as long as this, readers. (Although at 4m 22s it’s still not War And Peace.) As a rule the key part of any TV discussion can be boiled down to a few seconds, but this one needs to be taken in at a bit more length.
It happened on last night’s Question Time from Dundee, and was already 10 minutes into a discussion about whether there might be a second independence referendum and what might trigger it, in particular the prospect of Scotland voting to remain in the EU in June but the rest of the UK voting to leave, dragging Scotland out forcibly.
At that point, host David Dimbleby made an inexplicable intervention, abandoning his position as supposedly neutral moderator to pluck a “fact” out of thin air with which to attack the SNP’s John Swinney. Here’s what unfolded.
As we’ve explored many times on Wings, one of the many reasons you should never trust a newspaper’s headline is that even the ones that are technically true can be painting a highly (and deliberately) misleading picture.
For example, more than two years ago we pointed to a Scotsman story that blared “A THIRD OF SCOTS WOULD BACK EXIT FROM EU”, which is a rather curious spin to put on a poll which found a 13-point margin for staying in the EU.
A paper particularly fond of misusing stats in this way is the Daily Mail.
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: “What you write is all true, Northy, but where’s the fun in being all grown up when we can be…” Oct 23, 14:11
James Che on Faces In Sand: “North code, Regards Scotlands Constitutional position in a modern democracy it is to realise there is no requirement for Scotland…” Oct 23, 13:15
factchecker on Faces In Sand: “I know there is not an equal union. It would be both stupid and undemocratic. More importantly, nobody has been…” Oct 23, 13:09
James Che on Faces In Sand: “North Code. Again appreciate your response and keeping the debate polite and clean, They are not actually my own personal…” Oct 23, 12:37
Captain Caveman on Faces In Sand: ““Independence would bring political responsibility closer to voters, strengthen democratic legitimacy and allow Scotland to adapt its institutions over time…” Oct 23, 11:24
Northcode on Faces In Sand: “James, I haven’t replied to you. My earlier comment was a general observation about the modern independence argument, not a…” Oct 23, 11:10
James Che on Faces In Sand: “Alf Baird, I suspect that the non – treaty of union issue and Colonisation issue will merge, for they become…” Oct 23, 10:53
Lorncal on Faces In Sand: “MaryB: they also infected people already in hospitals by placing them in wards with uninfected patients. I remember the huge…” Oct 23, 10:48
James Che on Faces In Sand: “North code. Thank you for your reply, I will answer your points one by one if I may. Firstly, We…” Oct 23, 10:43
Alf Baird on Faces In Sand: ““A convincing case for independence doesn’t need the colonial frame” How else can we explain to Scots: – the ‘union’…” Oct 23, 10:20
James Chey on Faces In Sand: “Fact checker. You are entirely correct in stating that there is no equal union, What you omitted by default through…” Oct 23, 10:10
Northcode on Faces In Sand: “I’ve been thinking about why the “Scotland is a colony” argument is actually counter-productive. A convincing case for independence doesn’t…” Oct 23, 09:43
James Che on Faces In Sand: “North code, Did not have time to respond fully to you yesterday, Which and what Sovereignty works nowadays and where…” Oct 23, 09:14
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: “Humza Yousaf has a new book out – just in time for Christmas – although it’s inconceivable that could ever…” Oct 23, 08:35
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: “Robin McAlpine claims Jackdaw will add 35 million tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere that wouldn’t otherwise have got…” Oct 22, 21:02
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: “Good post, Lorncal. As I’ve often observed, we should never underestimate the popularity of a government policy that enables people…” Oct 22, 20:32
Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh on Faces In Sand: “Steven Bartlett (Diary of a CEO) extensive interview with VZ on 16 Oct 2026 www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x9dkYIRb58” Oct 22, 20:24
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: “Excellent questions, Confused. Well worth repetition. How come you’re an EXPERT ON INTERNATIONAL LAW? How come you’re an EXPERT LEVEL…” Oct 22, 20:10
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: “@Geri 1:04 I absolutely love your posts and so I’d like to help you out. Teach yourself what 24/7 actually…” Oct 22, 19:52
Lorncal on Faces In Sand: “H McH: it was noted post WW II that few people in any of the affected countries expressed pre war…” Oct 22, 18:47
agentx on Faces In Sand: “• Ultimate Competence: Under UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), the UNGA established the specific criteria for what constitutes a…” Oct 22, 18:10
Aidan on Faces In Sand: ““You could be on 100K a year for some place with a nice wine cellar” – I am thanks (more),…” Oct 22, 17:34
Dan on Faces In Sand: “AIDan says: “Modern cars are more complex and aren’t always designed well, and come with the risk of very difficult…” Oct 22, 17:29
Captain Caveman on Faces In Sand: “Yeah great analogy, Confused. Not. Stay in lane with James, there’s a good lad. This is grown up talk.” Oct 22, 17:28
Confused on Faces In Sand: “Northcode would tell us a turd is not a turd because he found a peanut in it.” Oct 22, 17:16
factchecker on Faces In Sand: “Interesting, Confused. You say ” if an equal partner in a union we can just tear the fucking thing up”.…” Oct 22, 17:08
Northcode on Faces In Sand: “Aidan — yes, exactly. That’s the core point I’ve been trying to make. Whatever people believe about historical treaties or…” Oct 22, 16:51
Confused on Faces In Sand: “it has been explained many times the nature and necessity of a multi-layered strategy for independence and the importance of…” Oct 22, 16:44
Captain Caveman on Faces In Sand: “”… and would appear to be linked more to the obsessions and eccentricities of the proponents” Not to mention self-delusion…” Oct 22, 16:42
Alf Baird on Faces In Sand: ““The SNP of 2026 has two faces” Correct Rev, one face shows the saltire, on occasion, while the other face…” Oct 22, 16:37
