When you’re in a hurry
Posted on
December 19, 2013 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
…and you haven’t got time to think of a misleading headline or laboriously rewrite a “Better Together” press release into something that might just about pass for actual news reporting if viewed fleetingly in poor lighting conditions, you can do nearly as good a job of distorting the truth with just a quick C-switched-for-W keypress.
It’s a real Scottish-media time-saver!
We still need a good name for the phenomenon, though.
“Unionism” ?
“talking shite”?
Remember when John Major used to say “wunt” a lot and everyone thought he meant “want”?
“cwoulding”
‘ahem’ shit,duck….lightening !
The WC effect.
So the first sentence says problems with Scotland being in a monetary union and the second sentence says problems with Scotland leaving a monetary union. Kind of sums up the Hootsman, Maddox et al.
Jabbertalky !
Ach, we all know its a load of CWap!
Anyone actually seen this Fitch report they’re all quoting from? I haven’t been able to find it online, references in quote news unquote stories just say a report. Maybe it’s a secret?
Might I suggest the phrase “lying”?
I’ve been searching for it too. No success. Not even on Fitch’s website. Very strange.
OT but… feeling some Christmas cheer after I noticed the Better Together Facebook likes are at 100k and the YES’s are at 113k.
🙂
Maddox doesn’t know journalism from a dog’s breakfast – which is what his article is. Did all these duff journos train at the same place – and where was it? Scotsman readership down again – no wonder these clueless journos since Neil’s time have destroyed what was a quality paper! Now in world status British newspapers are rated “fair”. Scottish titles must be below that unbelievably!
Oh yes, I spotted this pearl on the BBC News app a wee while ago.
Interestingly, on searching the app for it now, it seems to have vanished into the ether. Funny that. Perhaps Fitch took offence at it; wouldn’t be hard to see how. But I had the foresight to post it to Facebook, so I’ll give you the headline our ‘impartial’ national news service used.
‘Pound Unstable Under Independence.’
We pay for this. I personally wouldn’t, but the wife pays the TV Licensing and she does. I resent contributing to a service which is completely and utterly against independence, the SNP, the Scottish Government, and quite conceivably even the Scottish Parliament, because their paymasters are in London and they’re pulling the strings.
scaredy cat prime source seems to be Douglas Fraser at BBC Scotland.
Brittain means Engerland. Engerland means ENGERLAND. Anything else means we’re paying for it.
found what I believe is source material last night
https://www.fitchratings.com/web/en/dynamic/articles/Scottish-Independence-Likely-Neutral-for-Residual-UK.jsp
Thanks Iain – report is over a year old. No wonder they were reticent to mention the source of it.
Although might not be the one they are referring to as quote mentioned in papers do not appear in the one from October 2012
Instead of Rosetta how about Campbell Stone. An essential guide to filtering and translating double speak, project fear mince.
What Maddox doesn’t pass on is Fitch was talking about the rest of the UK after independence – not Scotland.
Bull Shit or Water buffalo Crap ie the WC effect?
Just checking Stu, you do have news sniffer in your armory don’t you?
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/718191/diff/0/1
O/T
This I just read in a bbc article about prisoners losing a court battle to be granted the right to vote in the referendum next year, on the grounds that it could affect their human rights, for the following reason.
“And they claimed that the blanket ban was contrary to EU law because the result of the referendum would or might lead to the loss of European Union rights”.
This is what Lord Glennie said about that:
“There is no direct link between the independence referendum and any decision as to future membership or citizenship of the EU”.
You could always try using one of these:
http://thescottishscaremonger.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/dissonace-meter.html?m=1
The Fitch report is nonsense, talking about reduced income from North Sea and unlikely that Geographical share of oil reserves, they must have been reading a IFR report.
BTW any news on that tweet last night which the Beebs Fraser said something that the IFR had revised their forecast on Scottish GDP upwards?
CWying
I wonder what tack the Unionists would take if we said OK, we will take a route other than Sterling?
OH SHIT ! – I can hear it now from the corridors of power !
Cwunts
I’d go for the CWap. Its probably a free download from the ap-store if you put the number of your “journalism” certificate in.
“Don’t be doubtful, be definite: use the CWap to make sure.”
Obviously someone at Better Together just “found that Fitch report on the internet”…good job they removed the remark about keeping the AAA rating!
How about Blatant Unionists making massively erroneous remarks syndrome, or BUMMERS for short ?
My vote cwould go to ‘cwacking‘ – conflating the c-w interchange thing with the hacks that do it.
Works as a verb (to cwack)
noun (a cwack or cwacker) and
an adjective/whatever-it’s-called (ya cwacking so and so)
If there is anyone…anyone with a shred of journalistic integrity left, might they ever ask the question why the recycling of a 14-month old report (obviously out-of-date since the UK AAA rating has since been lost) should constitute news!?
Babblepish.
What about nobbled / no-bbled
You say ‘will’, and I say ‘could’
You say ‘might’, I say ‘definitely won’t’
Will, could, might, definitely won’t
Message to Westminster: LET’S CALL THE WHOLE THING OFF!
Dividing North Sea oil geographically would leave the residual UK with only 9% of reserves, if the split were made according to the Geneva Convention’s median line rules. But direct loss of government revenue to the residual UK could be offset by a reduction in fiscal transfers to Scotland. This, and the fact that UK oil revenue is forecast to decline in any case, would make the budgetary impact marginal.
The impact on the balance of payments of a geographical oil split could be bigger, making the residual UK a net oil importer of about 2% of GDP. However, an improvement in the non-oil trade deficit of the residual UK, reflecting the higher non-oil goods and services deficit for Scotland, could partly offset the loss of energy export receipts.
A geographical division of oil is an extreme outcome, as is a per capita division that would leave the residual UK with 92% of reserves. A compromise would be probably be reached.
From the Fitch report linked above. The last paragraph is a bit of a leap… Share the continental shelf per capita…
And how they think that ” A geographical division of oil is an extreme outcome…”
Aye, right
People should not forget the role that these credit agencies, like Fitch played in the banking and Eurozone crises. They didn’t foresee these crises. There ratings prior to these events were described as “catastrophically misleading”, and when they did act they all became “essential cogs in the wheels of financial destruction”.
Babblepish, I like it. Trips off the tongue rather nicely if you don’t know your unions.
Like a previous commentator said there seems to be no official documents and news releases on this from Fitch itself.
Has anyone tracked down the original news release? Was it issued from its New York or London offices.
It all seems mysterious.
“We still need a good name for the phenomenon, though.”
Dishonest?
Mendacious?
Duplicitous?
The charms of uncertainty, captured in the old rugby song:
I like the girls who say they will
I like the girls who don’t
I hate the girls who say they will
And then they say they won’t
But best of all I love the girls – you must agree I’m right
Who say they absolutely won’t – but look as though they might.
Conlabdemious?
O/T.
Has anyone else noticed that WoS has more access blips (downtime) than usual recently? I think I have found access problems to the site at least on 5 or 6 occasions over the past month. Just had another one 10 mins ago. Not sure what the cause is. Perhaps something to look into Rev.
Swaptalk, a handy writer’s tool.
WCs
Maybe some-one could come up with an instruction book for Scots on how to interpret Unionist-speak.
Unionism for Dummies?
Yes I have noticed however its , probably due to the huge increase in traffic.
Also its not necessary WOS that’s the problem, may be your ISP has gone on a slowdown…
Many things can be the cause,
For example my WOS is ok just now but Facebook is slow as
CWisling BTrail
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9959715/North-Sea-oil-is-in-Scottish-waters-admits-Vince-Cable.html
I recently coined an Orwellesque word to describe the behaviour of the dependency tendency somewhere but I forget where. It was ‘Opspeak’ meaning to say something you know to be the opposite of reality.
Not yet, to be fair, a behavioural feature of the MSM (those residual elements from ethics lectures can still, despite their best efforts, be troublesome inhibitors can they not?)
However, it has been a noticeably growing tendency from the more deranged actors from BT and unionist politician fraternity.
cwik, as in a cwik reality check
Sounds to me like a clear cut case of punsterism
Def. The use of words that have the same sound(could would should etc) but have different meanings.
Coulda, shoulda, woulda; ifs buts and kindathings; mebbies aye mebbies naw… that pretty much sums up the Scottish MSM today. No real journalism just press releases going through the MSM filter to suit the editorial line, and that line is pro-Union.
CWunterism
CWuurency union
CWuntative easing
CWarnett formula
CWite simple really…
O/T
The Daily (drivel) Record today, see’s the Laurel and Hardy of journalism Clegg and Crichton reduced to two narrow margin columns barely four inches long (how refreshing).
First up Torcuil Chricton slams the Westminster co-alition government for jeering Margaret Curran when she speaks out about foodbanks across the UK, Crichton convienently forgets to mention though, that Curran and his Canary Wharf masters, support Westminsters power over Holyrood, albeit through a Labour led government.
Next up is Clegg who bleats on about how 36.000 Scots have had their benefits stopped by the Tory/Lib/Dem co-alition Government, Clegg even has the audacity to quote Nicola Sturgeons comments, stating that these measures are pushing the poor further into poverty.
Yet Cleggy boy can’t see past Westminsters rule over Scotland, pathetic why bleat on about poverty in Scotland Mr Clegg when its patently obvious Westminster calls the shots, agreeing with the Deputy First Minister of Scotland,whilst supporting Westminster, only enforces what people in Scotland already know, that you and and your journalistic kin at the Daily drivel, care more about the union than your fellow Scots.
Westminster?
Cessminster.
For when you’re in a hurry
Has Douglas Fraser ever written anything positive about independence? I very much doubt it, I’m sure BT will call him a highly trusted and impartial reporter. I might keep track of all the independence scare stories versus staying in the Union scare stories that feature on BBC Scotland’s website. Since yesterday its 2-0 to you know who, I’m guessing it will be a rout.
Why not call it like it is.It is propaganda.That is all.
Mind you,babblepish is funnier.
Crap, Crap and more Crap, being an economic journalist is a bit like being one of the witches from Macbeth. We are all doomed I tell you, doomed!
Is babbelpish the one you stick in your ear and everything becomes clear?
No that was the Babelfish.
So is babbelpish the one where you stick your fingers in your ears and go La La La?
No that is Scottish Labour.
So is …
Its nothing to do with your ears. Its about reading and writing.
Give us a break. I’m only 3.
That’s no way to talk to a impartial and respected journalist.
< end irony >
@Fab001
Douglas Fraser hasn’t written anything positive on any subject… ever. Just look at his mug!
Confunionism
Con-funion-ism noun \?kän-fyün-y?n,?ni-z?m’\
the principle or policy of forming or adhering to one meaning that has a completely different meaning as in
Would instead of could
Might instead of will
Should instead of shall
@G H Graham
😀
I see one of the so called trusted sources hasadmitted getting it wrong.
http://archive.is/CTdWs
Heres a few ideas Rev –
How about ‘flying’ ( sort of fly-lying as it were ) clear and simple?
Or ‘kwisting’ (kwik twisting of meanings to attain advantage whilst appearing as a minor edit error).
I haven’t read all the comments, but it’s obvious. C and W?
CodsWallop.
How about W and C-ing.
Or wancing for short.
They speak with “furcked tongue”