To be caught lying once
…is unfortunate, twice is careless, and three times in quick succession starts to look like a trend. Sober viewers may recall a post from a few days ago, in which we noted the latest example of the Herald’s increasingly-frequent habit of telling outright lies. It turns out that the formerly-respectable publication was being even more economical with the truth than we knew, as a tiny piece in a corner of today’s edition reveals*:
Still, it was nothing too serious. The original piece only exaggerated the number of turbines by around 400%, and the potential area to be covered by the new development by a trifling 3,300%. (In addition to suggesting that the land was to be sold off to private industry whereas in fact it was remaining in public ownership.) Apart from those few minor issues, the story was almost entirely accurate.
The Herald is currently circling the drain. We can’t imagine why.
.
*We’re indebted to keen-eyed reader “McHaggis” for pointing out the correction to us.
Does no one check facts anymore – or do they just hit the ‘enter’ button as they have a scoopgasm?
Then again, maybe no lie is too big to discredit the SNP and that enemy of democracy Salmond.
Will they correct the actual number that did walk last Saturday on the Independence march?
What is, perhaps, more appalling even than brazen dishonesty is that fact that absolutely nobody will be held to account for this. They just move on to the next lie. And most people will be totally unaware that they are being lied to by the people they should be able to trust. Is it any wonder that journalists are now held in the same contempt as bankers?
The nub of the matter is that the lie was splashed over the front page while the retraction is tucked away in the corner of an inside page. How many people read the lie and how many read the retraction? How many believe the lie still stands?
I am furious. They are competing directly with this fine institution:
link to bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk
Don’t hold your breath Marcia, and there is even LESS of a chance of ever seeing a “correction” tucked away on an inside page!
The trouble is that when you have nothing clean to fight with, you have to fight dirty.
So, as they seem to have been unable to find one genuine problem with either the SNP or with the Independence movement in general, we must expect two years of lies.
It is so disheartening.
On a slightly different matter that got me wondering, Ms Lamont got personal with Ms Sturgeon at today’s First Ministers Questions, when she decided to point out how much income Ms Sturgeon’s household made a year.
I don’t know if I’m right or wrong, and I don’t know if Ms Sturgeon does the same as Mr Salmond, but am I not right that the First Minister doesn’t take a wage, but instead passes it on to Charity.
I’m sure I’ve read that Ms Sturgeon does the same. In that sense, does that not make Ms Lamont’s accusation a bit of a mockery, because if it is correct, then I think it goes to show a real sense of morality by some of the MSP’s if they are donating their wages to a greater cause.
Something that Labour seems to have forgotten about, considering it is one of the main cornerstones of the Labour Party; to look after the helpless, the elderly, and to show compassion to those who needed it most.
I could be wrong, and if I am. I apologise.
“the First Minister doesn’t take a wage, but instead passes it on to Charity”
As far as I’m aware that ISN’T the case. I believe when Alex Salmond was both FM and a Westminster MP he gave away one of those salaries, but I don’t think he does any more, since he no longer holds a seat in both Parliaments. I’ve never heard anyone suggest that the Deputy FM does such a thing, though of course if anyone can supply a definitive answer for either I’m all ears.
EDIT: Salmond gave his Holyrood salary to a charitable trust when also a Westminster MP.
link to pressandjournal.co.uk
The basic issue here really is, if 2 sides in a debate both believe passionately in their position, and both use sound fact based arguments to back that up then that is a perfectly acceptable position. People will weigh up the issues and make a decision which side to support.
now imagine one side decides that the truth alone is not enough to sway the argument so begins fabricating and telling lies. What does that tell you?
It tells you that one side is actually weaker than the other and knows it. They have resorted to lies to support what is effectively in truth alone, an untenable position.
In the current debate, the unionists have very little other than lies and spin to support their view. They are fully aware that on a full exposure of just the truth they would lose the vote by a landslide.
the deceits just have to keep being exposed as best we can. It is unfortunate we don’t really have a single MSM outlet in our corner.
Why fact check when all you need to do is copy stories from corporate and party political press releases and newswire re-writes?
The Scottish media is awful. It’s one of the biggest millstones around the Scottish people’s necks.
No probs, RevStu
I just remember vaguely that some of the MSP’s did surrender their salaries (or part of) to charities (which is a very commendable thing to do).
I did a bit of digging myself, and did find just like yourself, a piece on Alex Salmond donating to charity, as well as another SNP MSP and 2 of the Labour MSP’s.
I hung back to see if anyone else could clarify, but it appears that you maybe correct. I have, however, just watched First Ministers questions, and from the look on Ms Sturgeon’s face when the £200,000 statement was read seemed to indicate either (a) the info was wrong, or (b) that Ms Sturgeon (possibly) uses her ‘salary’ in another way (possible donations, I’ve no idea).
One thing I was taught by my Father. You never discuss another man’s wages in front of other’s, nor do you discuss, or brag your own. I thought it was shot below the belt by Ms Lamont. If she wanted to discuss someone else’s salary, then it shoule be between the 2 individuals, and doen behind closed doors. For me personally, I was not impressed with this line of argument.
But, I’ll say this much…Ms Sturgeon is no fool, and does not appear to tolerate fools. From what I saw today, Ms Lamont is out of her depth, and I’m seriously wondering if she was told by ‘London’ Labour to read out that bizarre statement that she did the other day. I cannot believe that someone like Ms Lamont, who comes from a working background, and a 4th / 5th generation Labour Family…that she agrees with the New Labour policies coming out of London. I look at her and Miliband, and it is most definitely chalk and cheese. I just cannot believe for a second that she agreed with what she put out on Tuesday. I just can’t. It stinks, if I was to be really honest !!
O/T for those on Facebook the organisers of the 2013 march have their Facebook page up and running.
link to scottish2013.com
James T, doesn’t it make Ms. Lamont’s “crime” all the worse if she doesn’t actually believe what she’s saying? Do you think she’s only in it for the money?
Oh wait… she’s Labour. I think I just answered my own question.
I know politics is a dirty business, but I think McMaggie was right out of order mentioning the income of the Sturgeon household. Just another wee indication of how desperate the unionists are becoming.
Hi Holebender,
Just read your entry. What I’m rather concerned about is not what she told the nation, (even if she didn’t really believe it herself), but rather, that she may have been coerced into saying it! What is triggering alarm bells in my head is that ‘London’ Labour told her to take this line of ‘New Labour’ thought, or else suffer the possible consequences if she didn’t agree to partaking in it (is there a threat of being isolated by London Labour, or the possibility of a whispering witch hunt that would have her ousted, and then driven totally into the political wilderness).
I actually feel sorry for Johann. I’ve never voted for Labour (and I never will), and I couldn’t stick Iain Grey, or Bendy Wendy (their arrogance really annoyed the hell out of me). But, I honestly feel sorry for Johann. I think she is just out of her depth, and I think she is being hounded into doing and saying things by the ‘Big Boys’ from London. I cannot believe that this is the best leader that Scottish Labour can come up with. I’ve no doubt that Johann is a decent person if you take her away from politics, but what she is up to her neck in…I just think it stinks. Something’s not right here. I really wonder if ‘New Tory’ Labour in London are also just wanting rid of Scotland, and the best way seems to be to hack the Scots off any way possible.
James T you are a humanitarian, anyone who actually feels sorry Mc Maggie deserves a medal, I wish I had your compassion! Scottish Skier seems to think that there is something afoot and the big idea is to “hack the Scots off”. I think there is some merit in the theory, certainly hope so anyway.
James T
I think there is a c) Nicola just couldn’t believe that a Labour party leader would resort to such an open personal attack – for that is what it was – in public, on live Scottish TV. (I saw the exchange on Holyrood TV, so have no idea if the BBC covered it uninterrupted.)
I agree that Ms L is out of her depth, and if she is sensible enough to realise it, she should resign. If she isn’t … well, then more fool those behind her.
But, I honestly feel sorry for Johann. I think she is just out of her depth, and I think she is being hounded into doing and saying things by the ‘Big Boys’ from London.
Thing is James you have to remember she was Ian Gray’s DEPUTY for four years. I think, so it’s not as if she DIDN’T know what would be expected of her as Labour leader.
Alpinal, there is full coverage over on the BBC website here.
link to bbc.co.uk
I couldn’t believe the level that Lamont sunk to today. I know we often talk about embarrassing moments for M.S.P.’s but really today must have been the embarrassing moment to end all embarrassing moments!
I agree with others that Lamont MUST have thought she would have an easy day today against Nicola Sturgeon. IF that was what was going through her mind as she stood up at the start of F.M.Q.’s then she has CLEARLY not learned ANYTHING over the last FIVE years!
@ Peter A Bell
If you think the average punter in the street holds journos in low esteem, you might want to listen to the views of print production staff.
Regarding Lamont’s personal attack today, it should be remembered that she dragged someone else in by discussing “the Sturgeon household”, so obviously she was referring to Nicola’s husband too in discussing their income. Very low.
James T, regarding feeling sorry for Lamont, personally I don’t. She’s never apologised for bringing up that fictional rape story in the Evening Times (coming from an MSP with a long association with domestic violence issues, it would be astounding if she had been oblivious of the background on that one); she’s married to the Deputy Leader of Glasgow Council; she’s the MSP for a constituency with a long history of infighting and the hard left; a constituency which overlaps the Westminster one of Labour’s vilest, most misogynistic and ignorant character.
Coming from that background, she can only be either a) spectacularly dim, or b) all too aware and well versed in the gutter tactics she appears to be deploying.
I don’t know what they’re playing at. I wonder if it’s an all-or-nothing strategy? Force a straight yes/no vote with no promises, and just hope the voters chicken out?
I don’t really think it’ll work.
You know, I’d be worried if the opinion polls were moving markedly in our favour at the moment. It’s too early. I don’t really expect it until 2014. It’s all about positioning and laying out the pieces before then. If the polls were showing 60% for independence, the unionists would be panicking for real, and a cornered, wounded, terrified Westminster can still be very dangerous. But right now, they look at these polls and think it’ll all be OK.
And then they do silly things.
Amen to that Morag!
Regarding household salaries, it would be interesting to find out what the Lamont household’s joint income might be, given that she’s an MSP, leader of a party, and her husband’s the deputy leader of GCC… no doubt with a few “arm’s length” directorships of Council owned companies to keep him busy. Cynical? Moi?
MajorBloodnok I have just tried searching that but I must be phrasing the question wrong as my results are blank.
Major, that had occurred to me too. Surely Johann wouldn’t have said such a thing if her own circumstances had been comparable? Except, common sense says it’s very probable they are.
I think Nicola was genuinely shocked by Johann, and is probably too much of a lady to turn it round on her.
C.H. I think you’ll find the information your looking for over on these sites.
link to scottish.parliament.uk
link to glasgow.gov.uk
Hope the sites work O.K. and you are able to extract the relevant information.
Mr Lamont (Archie Graham) pocketed just over £37,396 last year from his council job.
Ms Lamont’s Holyrood expenses last year were £9,703.
Why did the Herald actually own up to this particular lie amongst all the others that they and their cohorts in the MSM spout daily? Anyone know?
Oops!
Pair wee diddums!
link to telegraph.co.uk
The Westminster MPs have always had ‘generous’ terms and conditions of employment (but austerity for others), do MSPs have similar pensions etc? I genuinely don’t know,
a the best
charlie
@ Dal
almost certainly following a complaint from the forestry commission or some other official body who presented them with the facts. The paper has no choice in those circumstances if it wants to retain relations with certain PR firms who feed them daily stories.
James T
The two labour MSP’s who donated their wages to charity were C.Jamieson and M.Curran. This was after their promotion to the big hoose but were still MSP’s and entitled to two salaries.They had condemned A.Salmond so really had no option but to do as he had done C.Jamieson immediately announced she was doing this and named the charities who would benefit Ms Curran was more reticent and took some time it seemed at the time she was less enthusiastic about being benevolent
I assume that both Nicola Sturgeon and Johann Lamont will receive the basic MSP salary, which is about 58k, plus an additional income for their respective positions? I can not find a reference to what these additional payments are, as there is a short list of positions (e.g. First Ministry, Presiding officer etc.) in which it only refers to “ministers” who have an additional 27k. I assume both Nicola and Johann would receive this? So in all probability they are paid the same from Holyrood.
Maybe Ms Lamont is envious that Nicola’s husband (I have to confess I have NO idea who he is!) must earn more than a Glasgow City Councillor!
I asked on another blog why Ms Lamont thought it appropriate to repeat the 200,000 figure THREE times in her diatribe, and of course got the answer in the Scotsman the next day. Under the headline “Should 200,000-a-year Sturgeons get free prescriptions, asks Johann Lamont” they repeat ALL THREE of her 200k statements!
Talk about a return to the politics of envy.
For those with a gentle disposition, I recommend you don’t read the comments! link to scotsman.com
Nicola’s married to Peter Murrell, isn’t she? Isn’t he an SNP wonk? He used to be, back in the day.
and on household incomes it is quite possible that a former teacher may have accessed her pension pot, often after a period of ‘ill-health’ on full pay……
As we have seen over recent elections, personal attacks on politicians fail unless they have genuinely done something heinous. Hence all that anti-Salmond stuff has singularly failed to stop the SNP making good gains time and time again. ‘Accused’ is no good without ‘clearly found guilty’ and just makes you look petty.
So what does Johann do? Attacks/smears Nicola Sturgeon. Actually, no, hold on, she made a bigger mistake. She attacked Mr Sturgeon. She a man who is not a politician there to defend himself. Nicola Sturgeon reacted in the best way possible; i.e. to not lower herself into the gutter alongside Johann.
fully agree S_S. My ‘take’ on Nicola’s stunned expression was exactly that. She probably couldn’t believe that Lamont would lower the ‘discussion’ so far. Thankfully she did not respond in kind – not sure I could have kept my temper (probably why I am not as politician!).
It can only get better for the referendum if this is the level of debate we can expect in the net two years.
I’m sure Mr. Murrell is pretty used, by now, to answering to “Mr. Sturgeon”…!
@ Morag.
LOL. Oops. But aye, probably. Will dae whit he’s telt.
I wouldnae argue with Nicola Sturgeon. She’d have me for breakfast.
And I seriously wouldn’t describe the Chief Executive of the SNP as “not a politician”.
I do wonder how she knows what Peter is paid, though. I had to check he was still working for the party, because I wondered if he might now be in a job where his salary would be public knowledge, that Johann was able to make that statement. But my memory didn’t fail me. He’s not just Alex Salmond’s fixer in Peterhead any more, as I knew him in the early 1990s, he’s heid bummer at SNP HQ. I have no idea what they pay him. How does Johann know?
Much as I detest the lying rag, Rab McNeill’s piece on the march is a good wee read:
link to heraldscotland.com
@Morag
If he’s not elected, then he’s not a politician. It is fair to question an elected representative’s financial situation if the concern is that they are taking too much from the public purse (lavish expenses, huge sums for a couple of hours work on a committee etc) or e.g. getting huge sums from a business they work for if it appears they are prioritising that over their role as an elected public servant or being hypocritical by criticising others for earning a lot when they do themselves, but that is not the case here.
I’d imagine a lot of people do not even know who Nicola Sturgeon’s husband is. I didn’t, hence my ‘Mr Sturgeon’ mistake; I’d never given her family life any thought. There has been a tendency recently in British politics to make it all about the image of the leader, hence rolling out the family for the cameras. The fact that members of the Scottish government generally don’t do this I feel is a good thing. Johann broke that by essentially smearing Nicola Sturgeons family; that’s UK/USA style politics and it’s ugly.
Nicola and Peter’s wedding was all over the papers two years ago. They’d been bidie-ins for a long time before that of course. I don’t recall much else about the couple ever being made public. I only remembered because I met Peter briefly in about 1994 when I was helping with the Euro-election campaign in Peterhead which he was organising – he was the one who jollied us into getting out there with another run of leaflets before it got dark (in Aberdeenshire in mid-June….). He ran Alex Salmond’s Westminster constituency office at the time. Nice chap. Nicola was convener of the Young Nationalists then I think, and a trainee lawyer.
We can quibble about the defenition of “politician”, but he’s been an employee of the SNP since the Year of the Short Corn. I have no idea how Johann knows what his salary is.
If you’re digging around trying to compare MSPs’ incomes, don’t forget to check the register of interests for things like public speaking and newspaper column fees.
Ms lamont and public speaking fees? – come on, I’m about to have lunch!
Archie Graham is on the board for Glasgow2014. I wonder what the remuneration for that is? Was trying to track down other ‘interests’ too…. the GCC website isn’t helpful.
Had a look at Lamonts household income late last night. I reckoned on about £130,000 – £160,000. Looking at Revs Twitter feed at the back of 7am this morning backed this up.
Glasgow council site is not very transparent. I did find this with a google search regarding Archie Graham, but then came to a dead end.
link to localnewsglasgow.co.uk
@McHaggis at 7.43am
Thanks for your response!
@Adrian
Try here. I am trying to understand it myself!
link to glasgow.gov.uk
SAOR ALBA!!!