Why we should abort The Scotsman
Without setting out deliberately to be so, a site like Wings Over Scotland is inherently cynical. If you set yourself up to monitor the media, it’s implicit that you think the media needs monitoring. And as a professional journalist, both staff and freelance, for over 20 years, I’ve seen enough shady goings-on not to be shocked very often.
But today, for perhaps the first time since starting the site, I find myself genuinely filled with anger, disgust and contempt for the people plying my trade in Scotland.
Today’s Scotland On Sunday lead story isn’t even remotely close to the first time we’ve seen a Scottish newspaper cross the line from spin and smear into outright lie. It is, however, by a very considerable distance the most despicable.
Firstly, let’s be clear. The main purpose of the article, beyond even attacking Alex Neil himself, is to throw a hand-grenade into the nationalist camp. What SoS hopes to achieve is to set nationalists against each other over what may well be the single most bitterly divisive subject in society, by raising the issue and then waiting for them to start fighting with each other over it. So we won’t be falling for that by expressing our own views on abortion. They’re not very controversial and nor are they particularly strongly held, but more importantly they’re nothing to do with politics.
So let’s instead focus on what we’re here for – shining a light on media lies. The SoS’ headline is Health Secretary Alex Neil signals abortion law ‘change after independence’. It packs an awful lot of lying into a small number of words.
Since we first saw the story eight hours ago, we’ve been trying to think of a reason why the last three words are in inverted commas. We haven’t come up with one. There is simply no grammatical or semantic justification whatsoever for the use of the inverted commas, which can only be intended to imply that Alex Neil said the words. But in fact, nobody anywhere in the story says that phrase or anything close to it.
Even if the quote marks weren’t there, the headline would still be a lie. Alex Neil signalled no such thing. All he does in the piece is express a personal opinion, making it absolutely explicit that that’s what he’s doing.
“I do think there is a case for looking to bring down the number of weeks, but that is a personal opinion.”
And the newspaper knows that it’s lying, because just a few paragraphs later it quietly and reluctantly admits the truth (our emphasis):
“Post-independence, any decision on abortion law would be taken by the Scottish Parliament with MSPs being given a free vote in recognition of the serious ethical questions and deeply held views on the issue.”
In other words, even if there was to be a Scottish Government bill on changing abortion law it would not be a party political matter, but a vote of conscience. No party, so far as we’re aware, has an official manifesto position on abortion and none whip votes on the subject, leaving the matter to the views of individual MSPs. So the opinion of Alex Neil carries no more weight than any other member of the Parliament, therefore even as Health Secretary he has no authority to “signal” what might happen in the future. He might as well be Secretary For Tunnock’s Teacakes in such a scenario.
The only nugget of truth in the entire story is that if Scotland became independent it would of course control ALL of its laws, and therefore it’s possible that it could change abortion law. But only in the same sense that it could change or introduce any law about anything. An independent Scottish Government could make whistling illegal if it wanted to, or force ginger people to wear hats, or paint the entire country purple, or decide to ethnically cleanse everyone from Dundee.
But more to the point, the UK Government could also do those things tomorrow if it wanted, and Scotland On Sunday doesn’t write front-page splashes warning that “the Tay could run red with blood” if we vote to stay in the Union.
Indeed, given Jeremy Hunt’s recent intervention, staying in the UK would seem to be a course of action considerably more fraught with danger for anyone fearing a cut in the abortion limit. Yet when he made his announcement on Friday the Conservative-leaning Scotsman didn’t run the headline Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt signals abortion law ‘change if we stay in the Union’, despite having exactly the same (lack of) grounds for doing so as it does with Alex Neil.
So why has it done so with Alex Neil’s far less inflammatory comment? That’s a rhetorical question, obviously.
Tom Peterkin is one of the lower forms of life at Scotsman Publications Limited. But this appalling and disgraceful article is far below even his usual level of faeces-slinging hackery. Scotland On Sunday should – must, in any decent world – immediately retract and apologise for the headline, because it’s an empirical lie.
It won’t, of course, because it’s becoming ever clearer that there’s no murky depth the Unionist media won’t sink to in its abject, all-consuming terror that Scotland might choose to manage its own affairs. If you ever doubted that, or doubt it in the future, remember today. And if you still contribute any of your money (directly or indirectly) to keeping the Scotsman alive, perhaps now is the time to finally pull the plug.
Very well put.
For my own part, I purchased this paper for years (up until about 5 or 6 years ago)
I then took the opportunity to read it as my workplace purchases it.
I used and contributed to the online comments from the day they started.
I now (as of about 3 or 4 months ago) no longer read it in paper format at work, no longer view it online, let alone send comments or even have shortcuts to it on my browser.
It is a disgusting Tory rag that courts Labour for the moment, given it will side with any party against Scotland, independence and the SNP.
Far be it from me to defend any journalist who works on that rag, but it’s a bit rich to blame the author of the piece for the headline. Headlines are usually added by sub-editors after the piece is written, as any fule kno!
And all across Scotland, another load of readers decide they’ve had enough of the Scotsman and won’t be buying it anymore.
“it’s a bit rich to blame the author of the piece for the headline”
No excuse there: the body copy says the same.
“But Neil’s intervention in the debate raises the prospect of lower limit being introduced north of the Border, should Alex Salmond win the independence referendum.”
Your anger is matched only by mine & other balanced readers of these pages.
And naturally many of us would frequently respond to such disgraceful reporting by contributing with reasoned arguments on the pages of The Scotsman, Scotland on Sunday, The Herald, Herald on Sunday & my favourite cat litter liner, The Daily Record.
Of course, readers’ opinions have been a feature of newspapers for decades made in one sense better by technologies of the internet to allow such feedback to become almost instantaneous.
However, the opportunity provided to reply just minutes after an article has been published can be counterproductive; in our rush to express our opinion, we often neglect to construct a solid argument & convincing conclusion, allowing our emotions to get the upper hand.
It is this emotional irritation which editors such as Magnus Gardham & Ian Stewart, the Scotsman’s 11th editor in 17 years by the way, (Stewart vaccuously claimed in June this year that “These are momentous times for Scotland and The Scotsman will continue to play a central part in the debate as Scotland decides its future.”) seek to raise the on line click rate, a measure used to help determine advertising rates.
And which better mechanism to elevate the emotional response from the readership than to tell lies? Those blinded by party dogma feel obliged to support the position while those who know the story to be false, fight back with the only tool they feel they have to address the epidemic of Scottish editorial imbalance.
But since no title in Scotland has yet been able to make a profit from this underhand behaviour, they all still rely on a dwindling volume print sales.
So my recommendation is one that many readers of these pages will find difficult to accept; do not under any circumstance respond anymore to any of these papers’s on line forums. Read their rubbish if you can’t help yourself but instead of helping to preserve these tired, corrupt titles, spread your opinion here, on other on line forums & most importantly of all amongst friends, family & colleagues.
I would be much surprised to discover that the core group of undecideds all happen to be faithful to these rags. They are more likely to be found immediately around you. It is on the bus, at the petrol station, at work, during a sporting fixture where your influence will have the greatest effect.
Despite what we might think about party political conferences, there’s a bloddy good reason why they are held; nothing beats hearing the words coming out of someone’s mouth with your own ears.
Have your own party political broadcast at least once a day.
And remember folks, it’s not just about buying the paper, it’s about visiting their website. Circulation was down again this year, but advertising and such like from the website was up by 11%.
Every time you visit their website a little clock ticks up and for them to show another visitor to advertisers makes it all the more attractive.
I would suggest now, this may be a little controversial, but the hootsman will soon get to the tipping point where it has to focus energy completely on the website, which means that stories will become even more ridiculous because they WANT to anger you so much that you visit the site to post a comment.
Like the BBC, their headline manipulation is absolutely horrendous.
The headline is targeted at Woman – to discredit Alex Neil and the SNP in the eyes of woman. Unionists are in blind panic – so make up a lie – attribute it to someone – attack the someone – not the lie. And this passes for informed, objective journalism. There should be an award – the unionist rouge award – then we could have the annual parcel of rouges awards ceromony for those lies bought and sold for “Unionist/Westminster Gold” This article / writer should be nominated.
Can the SoS be sued for defamation. I think it might be worth it on this occason. One can ignore some things as gardhamesque BS but this appears to be a bridge too far.
I think a legal case stating that no apology will be accepted on such a serious and emotive matter, and damages of millions are claimed for the stress and damaged cauused will have a major effect.
Even the beeb would be forced to cover it; saying Government sues Scotsman for lies and deceit. The implication being if the beeb does similar they will be next in line.
The Scotsman is merely a glorified internet troll these days, nothing more. So don’t feed the troll.
Surely a time for a boycott of all SMS and BBC/STV as I have done for 4 years.Believe me it also helps your sanity
@redcliffe – it could only be sued if it had made the whole story up – I think this was a brainfart on Alex Neil who should have known better when approached for a comment. It was clearly an attempt to get something they could use to cause embarrassment and drive a wedge between women and the Indy movement. One can only hope that people will notice the hypocrisy as UK-Gov decides to reduce time limit & Scottish Labour always on queue to put foot firmly in mouth decides to join in.
as there is no SNP friendly media apart from sites like this, its down to us whenever we can to put the record straight.
I wrote occasional freelance pieces for the Hootsmon from late 70s until early 90s. It was quite a reputable paper then, with a circulation of around 90 000. The arrival of Andrew Neil put the kybosh on my contributions. I was soon horrified to see what was happening. Now it is real gutter-trash.
@Ayemachrihanish
If this headline is targeted at women, then it probably won’t have the desired effect. More women want a reduction in the cut-off than want the cut-off maintained or increased, and women are twice as likely to support a reduction as men are.
link to cdn.yougov.com
It would be nice to think it was true.The thought of a little more protection for defenceless unborn children raised my spirits considerably this morning. What a magnificent reason to vote ‘yes’.
I agree with Ayemachrihanish , We should start up an annual rouges award .
Perhaps the Rev Stu could organise a vote on this once a year .
Someone over on N.N.S used to have a list of people on what was called the white feather club . Some of us who visit or used to visit n.n.s will know more about it than me .
I’m not surprised by anything anymore.
I haven’t bought any newspapers for a couple of years, and stopped my BBC tax about 6 months ago. Would folk have bought German newspapers during WW2? And the BBC is just 24 hours of Lord Haw Haw.
BM says:
‘@Ayemachrihanish
If this headline is targeted at women, then it probably won’t have the desired effect.’
Good point, discussed here: link to tinyurl.com
What’s almost as depressing is Scotland’s reputable (sic) press rushing to ape whatever’s going on down south, ending up as just a diddy facsimile of the big boys of the UK media. Fortunately they seemed to have a tin ear for how their stories resonate with the greater public hence their shrivelling circulation. Someone chucking out random hand grenades and either forgetting to pull the pin or not throwing them far enough from their own sorry arses comes to mind.
Make-up wearing rogues. Nice image.
My wife went out this morning to purchase some milk. As she was leaving she asked me if I wanted a Sunday paper. I said ‘No thanks!’
I wouldn’t even pee in the front door of the Scotsman or any of the rest of them if they were on fire. The sooner these rags, particularly the Scotsman and Scotland on Sunday, go down the drain the better it will be for all of us. So please, everyone, no matter how you are tempted, DO NOT BUY A SUNDAY NEWSPAPER. They are a blight on our society. Starve them out. We don’t need them. We can get our news from the Internet.
Believe me, you will feel the better of it. You won’t spend half a Sunday gnashing your teeth at their lies and propaganda and you will have a much more relaxing day.
As some folk would say, ” do not feed the creature for it will grow up and devour you.”
This story is part of a very worrying but expected trend. As the referendum gets nearer, the desperation of the unionist camp will increase to fever pitch. The dirty tricks brigade of the British establishment have not even warmed up yet. Anyone or any organisation who threatens the present constitutional arrangement in the UK will be regarded as fair game. Nationalists must be aware that as the YES vote grows, so too will the smears, innuendos, threats and downright lies. I have been a nationalist all of my adult life and have first hand experience of just how dirty the British establishment can play. Nationalists should not be under any illusions the struggle for Scottish independence will hopefully be won in the ballot box, however, unionism will use very dirty trick in the book and then some, to thwart the democratic will of the Scottish people.
scotsmannomore might still be available
vote labour – get nothing-for-something; one nation, nothing-for-something
Isobel Fraser was quick to point this article out, and Patrick Harvie didn’t help!
“however, unionism will use very dirty trick in the book and then some”
Which favours a yes vote. It was not the SNP win/guarantee of a referendum that will lead to independence, but the reaction to it that we are witnessing. The majority of people in Scotland are not strong unionists. Unpleasantness from the small group of hardcore unionists that does exist will not endear them more to it; quite the opposite in fact.
Stu,
Can I point out that every time you add a link in your blog to the scotsman or herald or any other pile-o-shite website, you’re increasing their google ranking, making their site appear higher in google (or other search engines) searches. Thus increasing their ability to get advertising revenue.
Maybe a better thing for you to do would be to copy and paste the text from their pile-o-shite story on to a page on your own site or link to the google cache page.
We don’t really want to be helping the ****s.
I don’t go near the Scotsman but do check the Herald and note the vast majority of posts come from the pro-independence side. I’ve posted there myself because I thought it was one of the ways to counter some of the ridiculous stories that were appearing. Early on, after Gardham’s appointment, I pointed out that his articles were to do with getting clicks in order to impress advertisers and that was perhaps why he had been hired. A Labour poster immediately agreed with me. Within 5 minutes, both our posts were deleted.
I’m now inclined to think it would be better just to stay away from the Herald, too and that probably includes the Sunday Herald.
By the way, just saw the Sunday Politics Show. Totally biased again. They even had Susan Deacon on……who’s her partner again?
Stuart,
I share your contempt for the Scottish press. Clearly, they were not just fishing for a story here but were fishing for any material to advance their agenda of undermining the Yes campaign. Just like Scottish Labour, that’s their purpose in politics. For them, everything else is secondary to that. What troubles me here is that this would seem to be news to Alex Neil.
I see that, after this story broke last night, our old friend Ian Smart tweeted, i.e. taunted, Patrick Harvie with the words:
“Proud of your allies tonight? Look like you’ve been played for mugs”.
I think that you let off Alex Neil very lightly in this piece. After all, he isn’t some unknown backbencher who’s shooting off at the mouth. He’s the Scottish Health Secretary. Where has Alex Neil been for the last 48 hours after the Jeremy Hunt story broke? Doesn’t he, or any of his advisors, read the papers? Don’t they know that since Jeremy Hunt stated his “personal opinion”, the TV studios and radio airwaves have been full of ‘pro-lifers’ demanding that Westminster re-visit the abortion debate, declaring that Jeremy Hunt is speaking for the ‘silent majority’, and that Cameron himself has been forced to distance himself from Hunt’s comments?
I can’t believe that, in this environment, Alex Neil would be so naive – dumb would be a better word – as to repeat the same mistake as Jeremy Hunt to a reporter from The Scotsman. But most of all, the thought that occurs to me is this: would Nicola Sturgeon, when she was Health Secretary, have made the same mistake? Clearly, this isn’t a resignation matter as some of the knuckle-draggers in Scottish Labour will no doubt claim, but I hope that someone at the SNP kicks Alex Neils’s arse over this.
Hopefully, Alex Salmond will also arrange for someone to buy Alex Neil a copy of the ‘Idiot’s Guide to Media Management’ just so that, next time, he knows that, when you’re Scottish Health Secretary and your enemies come fishing for material to discredit you, your party and your referendum campaign in the after-burn of a still-hot story down south, he’ll know to keep his big personal opinions to himself.
Rev Stu, there is a world of difference between Health Secretary Alex Neil signals abortion law ‘change after independence’ and
But Neil’s intervention in the debate raises the prospect of lower limit being introduced north of the Border, should Alex Salmond win the independence referendum.
The headline strongly suggests a direct quote from our Health Secretary that there is an agenda to change the abortion limit as soon as Holyrood has the power to do so. The text from the article is far more speculative as is merely “raises the prospect” of a change being introduced. I have many problems with the article, such as asking the Cabinet Secretary for a comment and then turning that around to become an “intervention” by the minister, but I cannot see an equivalence between the shoddy article and the outright lie of a headline.
Hi SS, always interested in your comments and you are right Scots will recoil from “hardcore unionists”. I take it you are referring to the OO, SDL, BNP etc? However, the members of these organisations are racist idiots and have little or no strategy other than blind hatred. The “dirty tricks brigade” I refer to are much more intelligent, much more organised and much more professional. Some in fact, are intelligence organisations within the British security forces. The SNP leadership has been aware for many years that professional security organisations are only too willing and able to discredit the nationalist cause. We should all be aware that we are not playing on a level field.
This is a clear attempt to a) Alienate women further from the SNP and Independence. b)Link the SNP to Jeremy Hunts comments on abortion and c) cause division amongst nationalists in the same way they are trying with NATO/monarchy.
@Megz
There was a female journalist on the Sunday Politics Show on BBC this morning, who was clearl and deliberately spinning it that way.
I missed it today but i can believe it. Its no different to when us women are told by the media that we dont like Alex Salmond and are wary of independence. IMH they are using psychological manipulation.
And things will only get worse now that Gary Robertson has replaced Brian Taylor
link to bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk
Some are missing my point – Alex Neil say’s nothing about changing abortion law one way or the other! It’s a lie! But the lie puts Alex Neil firmly in a feminine topic zone – purporting to have a top down government view. A lie! Some of the undecided female referendum voters will therefore be turned off Mr Neil/ SNP not because of his referendum position but his He Man Position on Abortion – that’s what’s ( quite rightly) upsetting the Rev.
Over the past 20 years I’ve seen at first hand the sorry decline of journalism and the quality of newspapers all over Scotland and the UK. Print journalism, as far as I see it, is now dead and will be buried in this decade. The contributing factors for this are, in my opinion, the growth of publishing houses that hoover up titles by the hundred then cut staff and pay. Those publishing houses are only concerned about the bottom line to the shareholders, not the quality of the product. All of the publishing houses are politically aligned with the Tories or Labour and thus editors and regional editors (now group editors) must reflect that support leading to bias. As circulation and income drops the larger national newspapers have resorted to skewed sensationalism to sell newspapers. Once this was the territory only inhabited by the hokey Sunday Sport and National Enquirer.
In Scotland it is more apparent to see, simply because we don’t have many newspapers that report exclusively on Scottish national issues. Thus, we have maybe three or four publishing houses that own 99 per cent of all newspapers in Scotland. Quite frankly we are not much better off than Eastern Block countries under communism 25 years ago. The damage being caused is not only to quality impartial journalism, which is more and more replaced by opinion, but at some point over the past 20 years publishing houses have placed the emphasis on income chiefly on advertising rather than growing circulation, which has been left to fester, despite population increases. People buy newspapers to read the journalistic content, not for the advertising. So readers have been shovelled sensationalist rubbish passing as journalism. But now newspaper owners have a common enemy, the SNP, so in true to current form their newspapers produce sensationalist garbage because that is the only way many journalists know how to write to be read.
Go and have a look at the Johnstone Press website (owners of The Scotsman and Scotland on Sunday). Their share price is down to 9p. Under ‘Investors’ you will see how badly the company has been doing over the last five years, it’s over £360 million in debt. Their answer is to shift emphasis from print to online income as quickly as possible, however, I feel it’s too little too late. I think they’ll reduce operations considerably or fold in 2013.
link to johnstonpress.co.uk
People are turning away from newspapers and heading more online. Newspaper circulation is now down 10% each year. Sites such as this one, Newsnet Scotland and others are going to play a very important part in the Independence Campaign over the next two years as people will want to seek out more information that the MSM will not provide.
At the risk of placing my head firmly in the sand, I really don’t think persons of an independence bent should dissipate our energies too much in worrying about the likes of Scotland on Sunday. Those who work there gave up the right – voluntarily – to call themselves journalists a long time ago. These publications will continue with the tactic of publishing and disseminating the lie, and retracting it (if they do so at all) in their ‘clarifications and corrections’ column on page 27 the next day. Job done, as far as they are concerned, and that won’t change. I think the best way to deal with the paid propagandists is to refuse to buy their papers and refuse to go on their sites – without exception.
The only function these papers now serve is as a reinforcement technique to BBC Scotland’s bilious output (which is in my view of more concern than all the Gardhams and Peterkins put together). These papers have zilch to do with journalism. Let them die.
Good on you for not going into the abortion topic. It’s too emotive to ever really be dealt with in a rational matter.
I disagree with you concerning your prognosis however.
If a politician says anything, personal or professional, which has anything to do with his political remit, then it will always be taken as a signal on that remit.
And that’s where I disagree with you. Whether it’s personal or not, Alex Neil saying what he said is news and worth reporting.
It’s maybe stretching credibility to say that that’s what Neil would do post-independence, but the fact he said it at all, puts it firmly in the index of possibilities.
In your twenty years of professional journalism, what type of journalism are you actually talking about?
The SOS piece is highly newsworthy – particularly given the cack handedness of Jeremy Hunt earlier in the week.
Can you really claim, in all honesty, that you’re being objective here?
“The SOS piece is highly newsworthy – particularly given the cack handedness of Jeremy Hunt earlier in the week.”
It’s not newsworthy at all. It’s been well known for a long time that Alex Salmond favours a reduction to 20 weeks, and that’s a hundred times more likely to put it on the agenda than anything Alex Neil thinks. We’ve discovered nothing new here whatsoever.
the problem is while not everyone reads the SoS, alot of bloggers do and i’ve already seen one come out condemning Alex Neil and questioning whether that is the sort of society an independent scotland would be, i was rather irritated and posted a reply to it
I’m sorry but i dont think you actually read the article. that headline was an outright lie. What Alex Neil did was give his opinion on the subject (my own personal opinion is that it should be reduced to 16 weeks or later for genuine medical issues) that doesnt mean thats what the future of abortion will be in an Independent Scotland.
It could be equally said of Jeremy Hunts comments that voting to stay in the union would mean 12 week limit on abortions. I dont mean to sound ratty but i have been really pissed off by the SoS and thir story. Worse still people believing it.
It is a clear case of attempting to alienate women such as myself (same with all the women hate alex salmond & wary of independence rubbish. It is there to cause division in the same way bringing up the monarchy and NATO has. This is a simple case of divide and conquer, there is a reason it works.
How many other female blogger will react to the headline without reading the article fully. I am really annoyed by it all to be honest.
I warmly welcome such blatant lies. It just makes the MSM look more like Pravda every day.
People generally don’t beleive a word that’s written in neswpapers. It gives the accurate impression that the NO camp and their unionist media outlets are becoming more desperate by the day. I’m convinced there becoming a hindrance rather than assisting.
The sitaution regarding Universal benefits is a massive own goal for the unionists of giant proportions. Their MSM supporters are making it much worse for them. If they wanted to be helpful they would just ignore the whole situation. Alas, they cannot due to their egos. I hope they keep it going for another two years.
Dual_Intention
I think you are missing the point, accidentally or deliberately.
Alex Neil said what he said and it was duly noted.
It is not what he said that is the area of my contention but the manner in what it was said ( e g a loaded question in passing as part of a general chat) and, more importantly, the way it was written up.
It was deliberately slewed to portray it as being a policy of one Party or an individual, within that Party, who could make it so, by magic even.
It is as close to lying as you can find without doing so at the High Court, under oath.
It is lying by misrepresentation; a professional lie, which in my book is a greater “sin.”
The Scotsman is pushing the boat out in this area of political manipulation and have clearly crossed the Rubicon.
They need to fail and hopefully will.
As for the workers in the Scotsman and their innocent victimhood to such a closure, they are probably part of a very well organised Trades’ Union, affiliated to the Labour Party, who could stop this affront to democracy, if they really wanted.
They are culpable too.
I was just wondering how desperate the Labour party and their lackies in the media will become when the polls show that, after all this propaganda and lies, support for Labour has diminished, as it surely will. With two years to go until the referendum and four years until we have a Scottish GE they’ll be a spent force by Christmas if they try to keep this up. I live in hope anyway.
O/T When you see things like this posted today it makes it clear what pygmies and fools the Labour Party and the MSM really are, going on about bus passes and trying to concoct speculative stories damaging to the SNP.
link to snp.org
A commitment to a written constitution and no nuclear weapons in Scottish territory. If the MSM don’t discuss these issues in a serious way then they are beyond all redemption.
I gave up buying that tawdry rag in 1992, it hasnt got any better since, in fact it has got much worse. Buying the Scotsman would be equivalent of paying the TV TAX – I would feel like I was subsidising a Paedo Sex Ring and the activity of Tax Dodgers!
I make no apology for my views. The SoS, the Scotsman and the BBC disgust me!
“We’ve discovered nothing new here whatsoever.”
No. I disagree. You’ve discovered what Alex Neil thinks. He is now the new Health secretary. Therefore what he thinks on just about any subject to do with health is always potentially newsworthy. Clearly the case here. Hardly rocket science.
What newspaper(s) do you work on/for?
The topical peg which it’s been hung on, of course, is Jeremy Hunt and his risible belief driven abortion proclamation. The same most definitely cannot be said for Alex Neil’s opinion. He has clearly been honest and straightforward but rightfully guarded with the SOS.
I was unaware of Alex Salmond’s stance on the subject so therefore it was news to me, albeit it was only background information in the SOS piece anyway.
“Alex Salmond favours a reduction to 20 weeks, and that’s a hundred times more likely to put it on the agenda than anything Alex Neil thinks.”
I’ve heard Labour types suggesting that the Health post was a sinecure for Alex Neil intended to stop him from causing trouble within the party. I presume you’re implying a similar thing?
Is that the real reason why you think that what Alex Neil thinks about abortion isn’t newsworthy because it doesn’t make any real difference what he thinks anyway?
Curious.
James McLaren
“It was deliberately slewed to portray it as being a policy of one Party or an individual,”
The Health Minister said he thinks there is a case for reviewing timing on abortion. That is a signal. It might not have been a signal of intent but then again it might have been. Therefore the headline is not misrepresentation.
Therefore I disagree with you that the headline is a lie. It is not misrepresentation, because in his capacity of Health Minister, just about anything the minister has to say to a journalist concerning his remit is signalling something. That’s politics and that’s news reporting. Simples.
I agree that there’s probably some mischief making going on, all newspapers do that, but in tabloid terms, this is a Gotcha! story. In this instance though, I’m surprised at Alex Neil (I’m a bit of a fan), it looks like he’s been Gotcha’d.
Dual_Intention
“Therefore I disagree with you that the headline is a lie. It is not misrepresentation, because in his capacity of Health Minister, just about anything the minister has to say to a journalist concerning his remit is signalling something.”
The headline is
Health Secretary Alex Neil signals abortion law ‘change after independence’
He signalled nothing but a personal observation and whilst this is a matter of conscience his view is just his view and not SNP policy or a portent.
It is lying by misrepresentation; simples.
Alex Neil was a bit naive and in long enough in the political tooth to realise that off the cuff remarks are like handing the keys to the bloodbank to a Vampire.
Several of the SNP front bench, present and past,, need to get media savvy and very fast
Well, I have to say I liked the big front-page splash headline in the Sunday Herald better. “Exclusive: How the SNP will ban the bomb in an independent Scotland.”
The accompanying article tries to spin it all as splits and disagreement, both within the SNP and with the Greens, but the take-home message was fairly clear. Vote YES for an end to Trident.
On rthe topic of the “alleged” quotation.
I haven’t read the offending article as to click on these website would offend my atheism.
However, to who did A Neil actually say this and in what context?
Was it to a journalist, in an interview of an “off the record” chat?
Was it an overhead remark and if so, by whom?
I get the impression that it was in response to a question but, who was that person?
This is a total non-story in a paper very few people read anymore about some potential possible thing that might be looked at in the distant future that’s nothing to do with independence. The electorate expect the SNP to be attacked and smeared from all sides; this comes with being an independence supporting party. This is why they just ignore it all and vote SNP anyway. Must be rather frustrating for unionist parties.
Meanwhile, some actually relevant news that may have a significant impact on the constitutional situation.
Conservative conference: Cameron in benefit cuts warning
link to bbc.co.uk
While at the same time, in the neighbouring country, we have this somewhat opposing view by the leader of its government.
Alex Salmond: Why we must save universal benefits
link to heraldscotland.com
Which do you think will go down better with the Scottish electorate? Come on, come on, it’s easy!
@James McLaren,
“Several of the SNP front bench…need to get media savvy and very fast”.
This is what I find so concerning about Alex Neil’s intervention. The Scottish government has been handling the unionist media quite well and the evidence for this is that the unionist media is being forced to fabricate more and more stories about the Scottish government to try to sow division and confusion in Scottish voters’ minds about the referendum. Admittedly, the Scottish government is not as polished as New Labour was in its news management, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing as New Labour lied and spun its way through its 13 years in office, not exactly an exemplary model for any other government to follow.
A lot of what Alex Neil said in the interview was commendable, even quite enlightened. For example, when he said that, “I don’t think it is for politicians to pick a random number of weeks out of the air. There has to be evidence on the right way to go…”. That was the right thing to say, IMHO, and he could have supplemented this with some neutral comments e.g. a reference to looking at an independent commission on the issue in the UK (as the article suggests) and/or looking at the issue again after independence. That would have been the smart thing to say, that would have been good politics.
But think about the possible consequences of what he has said. First, the Tories were on the hook on this issue. It will hang over their conference this week and we could have enjoyed watching them squirm on the issue. Instead, in Scotland, this is now a story about the Scottish Health Secretary and any political capital that might have been made out of this by the Yes campaign – divisions between Labour and Tory on this emotive issue in the Better Together campaign – have been squandered by Neil’s indiscretion. As this thread demonstrates, we’re now talking about Alex Neil rather than Jeremy Hunt.
Second, this provides the Scottish press with yet another stick with which to beat the Scottish government and, by implication, the Yes campaign. This story will run and run, make no mistake about that. We can look forward to more stories on this issue about divisions within the Scottish government, confusion about policy and so on. I could write the stories myself. It’s only two days ago, in his post ‘How soon is now’, that Stuart provided us with yet another reminder of the significance of the acronym FUD. It’s bad enough that the unionist press generate this Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt on the most slender pretexts but that a leading member of the Scottish government assists them in this mission beggars belief.
Third, Scottish Labour will have a field day with this. As we know, like the unionist press, Scottish Labour will seize on anything, however minor, to discredit the Scottish government, amplify its significance and sow division. They’ve started already and they won’t stop here.
Fourth, the Catholic church will be rubbing its hands over this. Unfortunately, this is something that we have to take seriously in Scottish politics. If there’s one issue that unites the fundamentalists in the Catholic church, it’s the issue of anti-abortion. They, too, will exploit this issue and use it to try to push abortion to the top of the agenda. We don’t need this distraction when all of our energies should be directed to securing a Yes vote in the referendum.
If only Alex Neil hadn’t been drawn on offering his “personal opinion”, and had confined himself to those other comments (comments I agree with, incidentally), then this story, this post and this thread wouldn’t have been necessary. But the damage has been done. More Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt are being created in what has been a completely unnecessary gift to the unionists with no tangible benefit to the Scottish government or the Yes campaign. If you’re going to hang yourself out to dry on an issue, then at least do it for some tangible political gain. We need to remember that this isn’t a polite student debating society that we’re engaged in, this is an ideological war and the referendum is a one-shot game with no prizes for the loser.
@Morag
After I raised my challenge I went round the corner for some milk and saw the front page of the Sunday Herald – for that they are (partially) redeemed (until the next time).
And the BBC have just had some woman from a ‘rights’ organisation saying ‘it makes you wonder what rights women would have in an independant Scotland.
How low will the BBC stoop?
The beeb are now pushing this story for all it’s worth and adding their own spin to it:
link to bbc.co.uk
A spokewomen from an Abortion Rights group is now claiming “it’s particularly alarming that he [Alex Neil] seems unconcerned by the prospect of women being forced to travel to England to obtain a safe, legal abortion”. Obviously, as far as the beeb is concerned, there is no chance of the abortion limit being reduced in England.
Yes, the liberal government which supports gay marriage/is going to legislate for this is at the same time rabidly keen to restrict women’s rights.
The Scottish electorate are not stupid. That’s why we have a Scottish Parliament, an SNP majority government and an independence referendum coming.
This non-story will be gone in a few days just like all the other smearing non-stories. All these do is to assist the independence movement.
i can only echo the sentiments expressed, and add:
Despicable
“Can I point out that every time you add a link in your blog to the scotsman or herald or any other pile-o-shite website, you’re increasing their google ranking, making their site appear higher in google (or other search engines) searches. Thus increasing their ability to get advertising revenue.
Maybe a better thing for you to do would be to copy and paste the text from their pile-o-shite story on to a page on your own site or link to the google cache page.”
I was so disgusted by the story that I actually went looking for a cached version to link to, but there wasn’t one and nor was there a full version on any news-aggregator site, so I had no choice. I did the next best thing, which was to link to AdBlock+ instead. We all use AdBlock, right?
SNP accused of being a reasonably good government
SNP accused of implementing manifesto promises
SNP accused of keeping too clean a sheet
SNP accused of preserving free access to higher education
SNP accused of caring for the elderly
SNP accused of stopping NHS privatisation
SNP accused of not charging ill people for medicine
SNP accused of trying to preserve the welfare state
SNP accused of balancing budgets
etc
Aye. These are the headlines that are important to people.
Could this headline – more than the story, everybody knows the headline is the important part – have been timed to coincide with the launch of Women For Independence?
That’s why they have put ‘change after independence’ in brackets on the end of the headline, even though nobody even suggests that Alex Neil said those words in the story.
“Is that the real reason why you think that what Alex Neil thinks about abortion isn’t newsworthy because it doesn’t make any real difference what he thinks anyway?”
I’m not sure what you mean by “real” reason. I wasn’t aware I’d offered any other reason. It doesn’t make any real difference, because any new abortion bill would be an individual-conscience vote for all parties and therefore it doesn’t matter in the slightest whether he’s Health Secretary, Defence Secretary or Secretary Of Irn Bru And Scottish Country Dancing.
Is “Dual Intention” Tom Peterkin?
Scottish Skier @ 7:46pm.
Thanks for that. I was getting negative and the darkened room beckoned. Could I add?
“Scottish Government accused of doing all of the above deliberately.”
Just for completeness?
We must look to the big picture.
We are now into a phase in which our enemies are reduced to telling lies – and by and large getting away with them as the mainstream media willingly and enthusiatically repeats them.
We’ve had plenty recently.
Ian Duncan Smiths nonsense on benefits.
The turnout at the Independence Rally.
The SOS front page misrepresentation of Alex Neil’s remarks today.
It is becoming a daily occurrence.
All of the above are examples of demonstrable lies – and many of them are deployed as our enemies become emboldened by lack of exposing of them.
This gives us an opportunity.
If we can establish firmly that they are making fools of the Scottish people by feeding them lies the effect will be massive.
No one likes having their plonkers pulled – and they like even less being exposed as being easily fooled by allowing this to happen to them.
I have written often about the “half-wit” factor in Scottish politics.
We have to establish that only the foolish allow themselves to be suckered by the lies – or , to put it another way, intelligent and well informed people who know the facts and who are not fooled by infantile lies are in the YES camp.
It only takes us to expose widely a couple of big lies to set this process into action. Then NOTHING they say is readily believed.
After that it is easy to get the actual true facts into wide circulation – the most important of these being that Scotland is a self supporting country. It is doubt about this which still is the biggest drag on our advance.
Dave McEwan Hill
Well said Dave McEwen Hill. I have to say I don’t share Rev Stu’s outrage on this particular story because there have been anti-SNP stories like this – sensationalist headlines,contradicted by the actual contents of the story – for a number of years now. Can’t think of any specific examples right now but the Record has been a particular culprit of this sort of dishonest reporting. With any luck, floating voters will be starting to see through these stories.
Dave McEwan Hill @ 9:12pm.
Well, I’ve done my best to send Robert Black back under the stone he turned up under. It seems to me important that in debating with the enemy, we at least do two things:
Firstly, the idiot that says something. I have an unresolved discussion on the ‘Herald’ with the a certain Cllr Terry Kelly. Mr Kelly appears to believe that whatever he thinks – today – is Labour Party policy. If it moves, then he will move with it. Apparently our counciillor is in favour of Trident and it’s replacement. But, despite pressing him extremely hard on that topic, there has been no corresponding confession from a self regarding socialist.
I haven’t looked in the last few hours. Maybe our hero will tell us that he has been an outstanding member of CND and that he ought to be embraced as such? Y’know, I don’t think so. I think he is exposed as a blowhard, who uses the word ‘socialist’ as a password for being voted in, despite the fact that no socialist I know believes in nuclear annihilation. Which is what Trident is all about. .
Which is what Westminster and, allegedly, Terry Kelly is all about.
Secondly, and more to the point, that we deal with their arguements as if they had any merit whatsoever. It is my opinion that only a tenth of their arguement about prescriptions or eye tests are valid compared to our rather better regieme. They do not like facts, it reduces their ‘arguement’ about universality to well within the scope of a cost benefit analysis.
Well, that’s all I have to say……
Alex Neil didn’t have to say anything at all; there is no law that says you must answer questions put to you other than those asked in a Court of Law. He ought to have known better. I really wish that some of us would just learn to shut our pie holes and stop bumping our gums. All he had to say, if he absolutely had to say something, was, ‘That will be a matter for the Government of an independent Scotland to decide.’
And then zip it.
”Even a fool will pass for a wise man if he keeps his mouth shut”.
Fave McEwan Hill said: “It only takes us to expose widely a couple of big lies to set this process into action. Then NOTHING they say is readily believed.
After that it is easy to get the actual true facts into wide circulation – the most important of these being that Scotland is a self supporting country. It is doubt about this which still is the biggest drag on our advance.”
One of the more egregious whoppers I like to debunk is Margaret Curran’s claim that benefits spending in Scotland is three times higher than oil and gas revenues. Benefits spending (including public pensions) is £15 bn per year. North Sea oil and gas revenues contributed £40 billion to the UK economy in 2011, according to the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply, and improved the Uk;s balance of trade according to Tory Mp Nicholas Soames in the House of Commons this year.
link to supplymanagement.com
link to publications.parliament.uk
So Curran would only be correct if the benefits spend in Scotland per annum was circa £115 bn. Which is just ridiculous.
It works because it’s easy to understand, and she is openly trying to take us all for mugs. However, I know the oil revenues are supposed to be considered a vulgarity now that nobody is allowed to talk about unless they are attempting to minimise them.
I agree, we need to establish maybe three Big Lies told by the unionists and hammer them home, with facts and figures. There are plenty more than three to choose from.
Sorry about typos. I meant Dave McEwan Hill, and that Soames said NSO revenues improved the UK’s balance of trade by £35 billion in 2011.
“I’m not sure what you mean by “real” reason.”
Sure. Apologies for not making myself clear. You appear to be suggesting in your comments that what the Health minister thinks on a health matter is second to what the First Minister thinks. “Alex Salmond favours a reduction to 20 weeks, and that’s a hundred times more likely to put it on the agenda than anything Alex Neil thinks.”
If the Health minister thinks the 24 week limit is too long due to advances in medical science then it’s fair to infer from that that something may be done about it by the minister, hence the ‘signal’ element of the SOS headline.
As you say, it would probably be a free vote, but Alex Neil as Health Minister would be the enabler of that vote. Maybe the inverted commas by the SOS are a way of signalling that a free vote would change nothing. Like you, I’m totally puzzled by their inclusion in the headline.
Initially from the piece I thought your argument that it wasn’t a real story was due to it being the Unionist MSM plumbing the depths over a few personal comments made by Alex Neil. Fair-ish enough belief, but from a news gathering perspective it borders on naivety.
Your comment to me then implied that it wasn’t a story due to the First Minister’s thoughts on the subject being well known.
Of course, any self respecting journalist would be glad of such quotes from Alex Neil to work with. A Health minister making comments on abortion, whether personal, professional or whatever, are highly newsworthy. That’s why I am so keen to know which newspaper(s) you have worked on. How would your news editor run with it?
Neil’s comments are the fundamental building blocks of a good political story. This story and the controversy it appears to have caused is indeed proof of the pudding.
So, go on! Why so coy? What newspaper(s) do you write for?
@BBC Scotlandshire
“…Johann Lamont…of the Conservative and Unionist National Television Society…”
Hmm…
I have to agree that Alex Neil was absolutely brain-dead to say what he did. Has the man no sense? (Sorry, I do know the answer to that.)
The spin has been dizzying, particularly the persistent implication that abortion rights will be seriously constrained in an independent Scotland while all will be laissez faire in England, when this is categorically contradicted by both common sense and Jeremy Hunt’s words.
Nevertheless, Neil is the person primarily to blame for the fact that a deeply unattractive woman was practically spitting at a BBC microphone this evening when she invited us to imagine what a hell-hole an independent Scotland would be for women.
I think we should be wary of falling into a unionist trap here. This is a complete non story, manipulated by one of the biggest unionist rags in the country and reinforced by the Pravda like reporting of the BBC. It is very doubtful if Alex Neil’s perssonal view on abortion will have any effect on the referendum result. The individual interviewed on the BBC news was obviously pro-abortion and I suspect a Labour Party supporter; she in no way represented the views of the majority of women in Scotland. As I warned earlier, this is just another unionist tactic to discredit the pro-independence movement and to sow discord among its supporters. We really must get used to the dirty tricks of the unionists and not allow such gutter journalism to cause division within the nationalist cause. Divide and conquer only works if you let it.
Morag said: “a woman was practically spitting at a BBC microphone this evening when she invited us to imagine what a hell-hole an independent Scotland would be for women.”
Katrina Murray @katrinamurray71
Trade unionist, Labour Party activist, NHS worker, Football supporter. Stuffed by Stewart Hosie in 2010.
link to twitter.com
link to flickr.com
link to news.stv.tv
None of the above was mentioned in the news report, strangely.
Why am I not surprised about that?
I more or less assumed something of the sort – such is the BBC’s way. However, Neil did give her (and the biassed press) something of an own goal.
Recall the fury when Andrew Tickell was interviewed on Newsnight, and the unionists believed it hadn’t been made sufficiently clear that he (as a private individual) was an SNP supporter!
OT
Completely inspired rant by Mr Ishmael here – not for the faint-hearted!
link to mrishmael.blogspot.co.uk
Oh my….
@ G. Campbell
RE that twitter page you linked to.
I don’t know much about twitter and barely understand the page I’m looking at but there’s a tweet on that wifie Murray’s page from Victoria Jamieson (Chair of the Scottish Labour Party)
Which says;
ScouseSocialist “There always seems to be something Jonny Foreigner about the Catholics” Bit of casual Sunday night sectarianism. downton.
As I said, I don’t know anything about twitter, so it’s maybe nothing.
@Dual intention.
LOL.
Now this story is going to have a serious impact on things.
Tory conference: George Osborne in £10bn benefit cut vow
link to bbc.co.uk
This would not be a surprise, now would it.
link to newsnetscotland.com
Scotland and rUK both members of the EU as equal successor states will be the answer and confirmed long before the vote. Same for keeping the £ initially. Will all shape up to look rather like devo max/FFA, but with bells on.
Negotiations certainly going swimmingly. Both parties must be in very good agreement.
Excellent article which I couldn’t agree more with. It is clear that the unionists are now so rattled that they will stoop to anything in order to try and stem the flow of support for independence. For some time now one of the main unionist tactics has been to demonise the leadership of the SNP and this despicable lie is the latest in a long list of their outrageous lies being perpetrated to try an prolong the unionist establishment hold over Scotland.
Dirty fight that will only get dirtier. The establishment only have their infantry out at the moment, just wait till they really get started. Losing Scotland would risk mother England itself, they will fight tooth and nail to make sure that does not happen.
I’m a bit disappointed that people are saying “Neil should have known better”. I’d always MUCH rather a politician gave an honest answer to a question, even if I don’t like it, than deploy Lamontesque evasion and bluster. More to the point, outside the politics-nerd bubble, I think voters respect that too.
clochoderic says:
October 8, 2012 at 12:43 am
OT
Completely inspired rant by Mr Ishmael here – not for the faint-hearted!
link to mrishmael.blogspot.co.uk
Not sure I’m 100% in agreement with Mr Ishmael. Perhaps about 90% though lol.
“If the Health minister thinks the 24 week limit is too long due to advances in medical science then it’s fair to infer from that that something may be done about it by the minister,”
No it isn’t, in the context of comparing it to the importance of the First Minister’s view. Let me put it in simple terms:
Alex Salmond wants a new abortion bill, Alex Neil doesn’t: BILL
Alex Neil wants a new abortion bill, Alex Salmond doesn’t: NO BILL
This is doubly true if it’s a free vote, where an FM can’t impose a whip on his or her party.
“Your comment to me then implied that it wasn’t a story due to the First Minister’s thoughts on the subject being well known.”
It didn’t “imply” it, it said it straight out. It’s utterly not news that various MSPs of all parties have differing personal views on abortion – that’s WHY any vote would be a free vote. And Alex Neil’s position in that specific context is totally irrelevant.
“As I said, I don’t know anything about twitter, so it’s maybe nothing.”
She’s retweeted someone else’s message, with the intent of highlighting and criticising it. No story there.
Predictably Talk Shite with Kay on Good Morning North Britain is going big on it. Alex should be on the naughty step for being so silly as to express a personal opinion to anybody at the Shitesman
Alex Salmond wants a new abortion bill, Alex Neil doesn’t: BILL
Alex Neil wants a new abortion bill, Alex Salmond doesn’t: NO BILL
Hmm! Seems your misreading of news topicality extends to misreading of political process.
Fair enough. Debate over.
You still haven’t said what newspaper(s) you work or worked on however. With over 20 years of experience I imagine it would be quite a few. Why so coy?
“Hmm! Seems your misreading of news topicality extends to misreading of political process.”
So your argument is that the Health Secretary has MORE control over a government’s legislative agenda than the First Minister? That’s novel.
The SNP having shot itself in the foot over the hot libertarian issue of same-sex unions should keep well away from this. There is a referendum to be won and a powerful, mendacious and manipulative neo-colonial establishment to owircowp. Further complications real or media fabricated we do not need. Strategically, thorny issues of conscience ought to be postponed until after the event.
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
October 8, 2012 at 9:18 am
I’m a bit disappointed that people are saying “Neil should have known better”. I’d always MUCH rather a politician gave an honest answer to a question, even if I don’t like it, than deploy Lamontesque evasion and bluster. More to the point, outside the politics-nerd bubble, I think voters respect that too.
In an ideal World I would agree with you. It goes without saying that wrt to the MSM the situation is not ideal. All the MSM need to do make up stories, spin half truths against the SNP, or repeat Unionist press releases as the truth. Outside the political-nerd bubble this mostly swallowed whole as there is no counter balance outwith the political-nerd bubble.
Looking at AN’s photo I wonder where that story was gleaned.
I believe Jeff, late your Tactical Voting participation could have a few pointers?
“In an ideal World I would agree with you. It goes without saying that wrt to the MSM the situation is not ideal.”
As I said – I think in the real world, where almost nobody votes according to what newspapers tell them to do, honesty plays well. (Or if you prefer a more cynical view, favouring a lower abortion limit appeals to as many people as it offends.)
Here was me thinking that legalising gay marriage – which could be considered just as controversial but is actually real, live legislation rather than just someone’s opinion about something that might possibly debated at some undefined point in the future – was going to kill off independence.
Agreed with you on politicians being honest Rev. There will be as many people in agreement with reducing it as their are keeping it the same.
If it looks like smear and smells like smear – which this clearly does – then it’s smear. Only people rubbing their hands with glee pointlessly over this are the ones stupid enough to think it will have any effect on anything.
Dual Intention.
Which newspaper do you work for?
I wouldn’t worry anymore – Ruth Davidson has once more unleashed a full and fruity brainfart of epic proportions – more or less hinting that 88% of scots are either on benefits or working for the state to pay out those benefits. Lovingly reported by the Scotsman and proving the old adage that todays news is tomorrows chip wrapper.
Good morning skier
Seen the Herald homepage yet? They’ve published the results of a new poll proclaiming a huge unionist lead in popularity.
Must be a slow news day in the middle of the conference season. The image of Holyrood with the union flag draped behind it was a bit overkill I thought, but it goes to the heart of misrepresentation through mainstream media. Still, only two more years of this mince to put up with.
Rev Stuart Campbell,
‘I’m a bit disappointed that people are saying “Neil should have known better”’.
Sorry if I’ve disappointed you Stuart but Alex Neil should have known better. The issue is not that Neil should have been dishonest or evasive but that he should have exercised the requisite tact and discretion not to volunteer information that might damage his government. The other issue is the context in which the interview was conducted. I’d prefer it, for example, if newspapers were always honest too – I’m sure all other ordinary voters would prefer this also – and that the reason they interviewed politicians was to provide a public service in a noble search for the truth. But there’s a reason why The Scotsman contacted the Scottish Health Secretary rather than an SNP backbencher on this issue, and there’s a reason why the Scotsman published this interview at the weekend rather than at a later date. I don’t know when the interview was conducted but I’d guess that it was after the Jeremy Hunt story broke.
Alex Neil ought to have been alert to these reasons (and the political context) and that’s why he should have exercised more discretion before volunteering his personal opinion. For, in volunteering this opinion, he gave The Scotsman exactly what it wanted. Which leads us back to your headline and accompanying post. Members of governments may have personal opinions on a wide range of issues but however admirable the principle of honesty may be, it’s not always advisable for politicians to share these personal opinions with the press.
To take an extreme example, suppose that Alex Neil held a personal opinion that the legislation on handguns was too restrictive and needed to be relaxed. Now suppose that another Dunblane-type massacre occurs somewhere in Scotland later this year. After the massacre, The Scotsman approaches Alex Neil for a story. In that scenario, what should Alex Neil do? Should he uphold your admirable principle of honesty and volunteer his personal opinion on handgun legislation or should he exercise the requisite tact and discretion to not volunteer his opinion because his personal opinion would have political consequences, given this context, and because The Scotsman, in soliciting his personal opinion, would be trying to discredit the Scottish government? Maybe I should make it clear here that, to the best of my knowledge, Alex Neil does not believe that the legislation on handguns is too restrictive and that, of course, the primary reason no politician should share their personal opinions in this context would be out of respect for the grieving families.
“The issue is not that Neil should have been dishonest or evasive but that he should have exercised the requisite tact and discretion not to volunteer information that might damage his government.”
As I’ve now said repeatedly: there’s no reason to believe that’s the case, for two pretty obvious and straightforward reasons I’ve already noted.
Macart.
That poll says nothing has changed within the statistical error of TNS since their last poll and does not favour the union at all @ only ~3 in 10 for the status quo.
Also note while this was done just after Johann’s first outburst, it was before one nation tory and such things need at least a good few weeks before they start to have an impact on polls. Herald sounds too hopeful here!
All those people for ‘more powers’ are going to be sadly disappointed soon, i.e. when it becomes clear that there is to be one question. Actually no, that’s not true, they’re going to be pleased as the one question will be for what looks like devo max.
Need to see the methodology as TNS have changed recently from being telephone/face to face pollsters to using online surveys – this has impacted VI polls. currently, they have a bad link to the tables.
If I was a unionist taking this poll as a completely accurate reflection (which it is not given the huge variance in indy polls), I’d be greatly saddened to see that at best only half the Scottish electorate want to be in the UK, with only a 3rd at best wishing to maintain the status quo.
@Rev Stuart Campbell,
The point is that the reasons you’ve given do not exhaust all the possibilities of damage to the Scottish government or political advantages to the Scottish government had Alex Neil not volunteered his personal opinion.
“The point is that the reasons you’ve given do not exhaust all the possibilities of damage to the Scottish government or political advantages to the Scottish government had Alex Neil not volunteered his personal opinion.”
Nor do yours prove them.
@scottish_skier
That was my take on it skier. A nothing revelation dressed up for headline news on the same day that Osbourne declares a 10bil benefits raid, Ruth Davidson does a Mitt Romney and Cameron is under attack from backstabbing the Libdems on Mansion tax.
Spooky or what?
I lifted my Herald off the doormat, saw the headline, and promptly folded the paper and placed it in the recycling basket that sits by the door for the junk mail. I suppose I have to take it out and read it when I get home.
It’s always better to read Scottish Skier’s take on these things first.
“Prove them”?
What, prove “possibilities” 24 hours after the interview was published!
“What, prove “possibilities” 24 hours after the interview was published!”
Yes. My point is that we have differing interpretations of events. Neither can be shown to be definitively accurate, so there’s little point in continuing the argument once we’ve both put forward ours. However, if for the sake of argument we completely discount my view that the public appreciates politicians being honest even if they disagree with them, that leaves us facing the question of what the public thinks about abortion.
link to cdn.yougov.com
link to cdn.yougov.com
link to angus-reid.com
At BEST, these polls show a fairly even split between people supporting the current limit and those opposed, and at worst they show a substantial majority in favour of reducing it. Therefore, even on the most cynical possible interpretation, Alex Neil’s comments are likely to appeal to more people than they anger. Which means that on a purely arithmetical basis they’re more likely to help the Scottish Government than damage it.
As I said, my feeling is that politicians being honest is always a good thing anyway. But while we might not agree with Alex Neil’s view on abortion, such evidence as exists suggests that it WON’T damage the SG in terms of public opinion.
“I wouldn’t worry anymore – Ruth Davidson has once more unleashed a full and fruity brainfart of epic proportions – more or less hinting that 88% of scots are either on benefits or working for the state to pay out those benefits. Lovingly reported by the Scotsman and proving the old adage that todays news is tomorrows chip wrapper.”
Ruth Davidson illustrates the positive case for the Union as only a Tory can………….
All over last year (15 polls):
Y = 41 (+15/-13)
N = 44 (+12/-11)
All since 1998 (46 polls):
Y = 42 (+15/-13)
N = 43 (+12/-11)
Huge variance as you can see, but the naw’s might just have it for the moment by a wee margin, although the ‘not sures’ don’t favour the union. Overall, things have really not changed from the long term underlying trend other than maybe a slight drop in yes due to the ~2009 onwards concept of devo max / FFA. Once it becomes clearly a pipe dream, then Y/N trends will start becoming important to watch.
To be honest, if I was the no camp, I’d not advertise polls showing a good no vote; if that has any effect, it is to favour a yes vote due to complacency.
Alex Neil was caught in the ointment the moment he answered the phone from the Scotland on Sunday. If he’d politely declined to comment, there’s no guarantee the paper wouldn’t have manufactured a splash about the health minister keeping secret plans for post-indy abortion rules, and some deliberate attempt to hide this from the public.
His personal comments, when viewed in the context he actually made them, are actually pretty reasonable. All he said was there was a case that could be argued that there might possibly be a review of the 24-week limit, based on evidence from the medical sector; he even stressed that it shouldn’t be to politicians to pluck a number out of the air and the need for any decision to be informed by expert opinion. Where is the controversy in that? The answer of course is that there isn’t really any, unless the reporter deliberately twists it and misrepresents a solicited response as an active intervention into the debate.
uilleam_beag: Correct on all counts.
No full tables as yet; just the press release up on TNS.
Changes (error from poll to poll is ~3% for this sample sample size, i.e. if nothing has changed, the same methodology should give the same answer within +/-3%; note the error is not for actual accuracy, but for precision, which are of course two different things).
Over past year for TNS, my interpretation:
Full independence down 6% (+/-3%)
More powers up 4% (+/-3%)
Status quo up 4% (+/-3%)
So aye, largely unchanged from their last poll. If anything, the nervous wanting more powers if they can ahead of independence. The generally ok with status quo / would be ok with some more powers rallying for the moment against any change due to the prospect of independence. However, could all be largely just error.
Devo max needs to be put to bed completely before Y/N start to mean anything; the variance has gone from ~+/-9% to ~+/- 14% (for Y) since devo max appeared (in the press and in polls) back in 2009.
With 2 years to go, this all looks fine to me.
EDIT. And remember all the polls we don’t see. The BPC stipulate full tables/methodology/results need to be published only if the results are made public. No doubt the Scottish Gov and unionist parties have been getting these done for them quite regularly, but not releasing the results.
James Morton/John White: Ruth’s 88% isn’t an ONS figure. (Google “the effects of tax and benefits on household income” and you’ll get the reports: Ruthie’s figure is based on the 2009/2010 edition.) It’s something bodged up in Excel by a gofer in her office. Is it true? Well, we don’t even know what it is supposed to mean, so how can we know if it’s true?
But one thing I did pick up from reading the reports and related docs is that since 1979 there has been a shift in the tax and benefits system. The main losers have been the poorest 20% of households. Everyone else has gained, but the middle-earning 20% appear to have been the biggest winners. Curiously enough, most of the changes didn’t happen under Thatcher and Major but rather under Blair and Brown. So New Labour weren’t much like Robin Hood. They robbed from the poor and gave to the better-off. Wonder what Ruth has in mind? Rolling back the system to 1979, or even 1997, won’t win her (m)any votes.
Aw shucks, Rev, I’ve gone all red about the lugs. Do I get a gold star?
Cheers for the stats, S_S. It’s always good to get the proper context from you.
Hi SS, as usual I and I suspect a lot of others are grateful for your analysis. I would make two very unscientific observations 1) If Harold Wilson was correct and a week is a long time in politics – two years is a lifetime! No need to press the panic button yet. In fact I think I would be worried if we were 25 points ahead at this stage. 2) This poll was taken on the back of the greatest unionist summer since VE Day. The feel good factor for Britain is still uppermost in a lot of peoples minds. Come the next tranche of austerity cuts, one question being agreed for the referendum and Europe telling us we are welcome to bide etc. etc. I think the no vote will disappear like snow aff a dyke. Certainly hope so anyway.
@Rev Stuart Campbell,
Fair points and you’re right, on the evidence of these polls – and what other evidence can be cited here? – on the issue of abortion itself I’m not arguing with you. And I don’t want to prolong the argument any longer than is necessary either, nor am I motivated by trying to win an argument. I’m motivated by, among other things, trying to get my point across.
Had this interview with Alex Neil been conducted 6 weeks ago, I doubt if many people would have batted an eyelid. But, of course, it couldn’t have been conducted 6 weeks ago because The Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday had no political motive to solicit Alex Neil’s personal opinion on the issue 6 weeks ago. My point is that the politics of this can’t be reduced simply to public opinion on abortion. I’ve addressed some of these issues in earlier posts. There are others but I won’t labour the point here.
But even if you disagree with that, there are various agents in Scottish society – the Catholic church being the most obvious – who may try to use Alex Neil’s personal opinion on the issue to advance its own agenda on abortion with potential damage to the Scottish government. I’m not predicting that will happen, by the way – if I had a crystal ball, I’d provide you with the winning numbers for the next lottery – I’m just making the point that it is, IMHO, an unnecessary risk that has been caused by Alex Neil’s indiscretion.
Happy to leave it at that now that you’ve let me say my piece.
Hey Angus,
I don’t think her stats are correct either. But the sheer hypocrisy of her statement staggers me as any decline in Scottish wealth creation and consequent reliance on state funding is an indictment of the stewardship of the Westminster government.
Encouraging Scots to reproduce, in a country manifestly ageing, may be a matter that a future independent Scottish government will have to address. But then I would think that as an “agent” of the papist kirk. Anyway, that really would be a controversial issue for the press to gorge on. End of century the Scots die out, so irritating problem solved. Long live the Union!
Scottish_skier, do you have a link to all these polls you talk of? We only ever seem to hear about polls that show independence support being in the low 30s, so I’m intrigued that you still have the average at over 40%.
Also, have you ever thought about doing a blog for interpreting the polls? It’d be a handy resource for folk. If not your own blog, I’m sure someone would host guest posts for you – if the Rev didn’t want to, I’d certainly put them up on Alba Matters (if only to supplement my very low blogging rate!)
Alternatively, arguing for the need for a Scottish government to have control over migration policy might be cited as yet another reason to support independence.
For those of you who think that Alex Neil has spoken out of turn ! I will warn you now That You Aint Seen Nothing Yet . The establishment have been planning for this referendum for years . They will have members of the dirty tricks brigade planted within the hierarchy of the S.N.P ready to throw a couple of bombshells about when it becomes clear that they are going to lose Scotland . These people will stop at nothing to preserve the union . If we can survive the attempt to derail the S.N.P and Yes camp when it comes then Scotland will be Independent .
@doug.
They (47 telephone, face to face polls and academic surveys) have been gathered over the years in an excel file. I have posted some graphs before. I’ll do a new one when I have a chance.
You have a core ~33-35% of Scots who will vote for independence come hell or high water. This corresponds well with the group who are ‘Scottish not British’ in national identities surveys. When unionists jump on a yes at around this value, they are jumping on a poll that the laws of probability say will occur reasonably frequently, particularly if devo max is introduced as an option (as per TNS). You also have a softer yes on top of these which takes you up to ~43-45% mark depending on the question/options/way the wind is blowing; this is the ‘anomaly’ Rev Stu picked up on in the SSAS findings.
It’s about the same for no, with again only a hardcore 33-35% who you’ll never persuade with the other soft no floating between unsure and no, immediately tending to no if devo max is in the offing.
If you run a poll, probability combined with circumstance means it’s quite easy to get a 30/50 return right now, what with all the talk of a second question, more powers etc. Earlier in the year we were sitting at 40/40, but things have heated up over the second question, so people are expressing their preference for this/devo max in polls; hence a slight decline in Y is apparent in a straight Y/N. To be honest, plotted up, the past year looks like a red and green paintball have impacted at the same point, but if you analyse it all, this is general pattern.
Ultimately, what polls are saying right now only important in that their is no evidence of majority support for the status quo nor the union; quite the opposite. Straight Y/N polls themselves will only start to become predictive of outcome once devo max is forgotten as an option and the referendum approaches.
Question was “I AGREE/DO NOT AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state”.
The unmentioned don’t know was 19%.
link to tns-bmrb.co.uk
Remember, folks – the alternative to giving a straight answer is this:
link to youtube.com
Douglas Alexander does indeed display why he’s such a weasley little turd in that clip, but his leader provides a far better example of non-answers.
link to youtube.com
From that clip, I gather than Ed Milibean thinks:
1. The strikes were correct
2. It’s time for both sides to up their rhetoric
3. Both sides meeting across the negotiating table should be avoided at all costs.
I think I’ve got that right, but I could be wrong, because he keeps changing his story…
“So your argument is that the Health Secretary has MORE control over a government’s legislative agenda than the First Minister? That’s novel.”
Not the initial argument which you now appear to be evading for some reason. My argument is that you don’t appear too hot on what makes topical news.
I’ve loved some of your recent stuff on Lamont. The poll and requisite quotes you ran with was inspired.
But, given that you opened this piece by stamping your 20 years journalism experience as a form of authority for what you were about to say, I find it curious you could state that Alex Neil’s comments weren’t newsworthy.
It’s why I’ve asked you what newspaper or newspapers you’ve worked on. If your 20 years experience in journalism was covering stories for paperclip collectors or something then the fact that you’ve missed the trick on this story is understandable.
However if you worked on a national or regional then I’d ask you what level you were at. I’d wager it never reached as high as News Editor. And I could imagine you getting your backside kicked if you showed a similar form of news non-recognition as that displayed here.
But hey, it’s your blog, your opinion I suppose. It’s just that you appear to have undermined your own authority.
Apologies if you think I’m being offensive, but the lack of any serious answer regarding what newspaper(s) you’ve worked on has made me doubt the processes behind your clearly authoratitive tone.
“Not the initial argument which you now appear to be evading for some reason.”
I’m not evading anything except your dull and irrelevant ad hominem attack, based on an extremely limited and narrow interpretation of the word “journalist” and your apparent inability to type three words into Google.
Alex Neil’s position on abortion is not news because it has and will have precisely no impact on anything. The Scottish Government does not have power over abortion law, and even if it obtains that power several years from now it has no plans to do anything with it. And finally, even if all those things came to pass, one way or another it’s highly unlikely that Alex Neil would still be Health Secretary by then anyway.
“Man shares widely-held opinion” is not a news story. Had anyone brought it to me during my time as an editor they’d have been sent away with a flea in their ear and told to stop wasting my time.
Dual_Intention says: “I find it curious you could state that Alex Neil’s comments weren’t newsworthy.”
I think you’re missing the point. If Alex Neil came out and made comments on abortion legislation in a public setting (say, in a speech or on Question Time, or suchlike) on his own and without prompting, then aye it’s certainly a story, and the paper would be well within its rights to run big on it.
That’s not what happened; it’s clear from reading between the lines that SoS called AN directly and asked him what he thought about Jeremy Hunt’s suggestion of halving the abortion limit to 12 weeks. If you look at the direct quotes, AN did his best to give a diplomatic response that stated there was room for debate about a possible change in the law but stressed this was a personal view, said there was no party line/plan to make any change and that even if there were to be a review it would need to be informed by expert evidence rather than politicising the issue. I honestly cannot see how he could have said anything more lacklustre, short of adding the phrase “it’s certainly not a priority” or refusing to comment at all — which as I said before could easily be made into an even bigger story.
In short, this is a lot more dog-bites-man than man-bites-dog; worthy of inclusion in a story focussing on Hunt but it doesn’t stand up as a major story in its own right. At best it’s a down-page shortie somewhere inside, though admittedly it might be worth a right-hand page spot.
The paper’s actual treatment of the minister’s comments was to twist all context and meaning out of them to the extreme. They even try to obscure the fact that it was them that approached AN in the first place — describing it as an “intervention” is a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader. That’s irresponsible journalism, a tabloid hatchett job of the worst kind and far, far beneath the sort of paper that SoS is supposed to aspire to be.
I agree with both sides here! I recognise that Neil strove mightily to give a diplomatic response, and that what he actually said was entirely unexceptional in normal terms. The problem was just that teensy bit where he gave his own personal view. He’s a big boy, he should have realised they were going to make hay with that.
Maybe the spectacle of that hate-filled woman on TV spitting about what a hell-hole an independent Scotland would be for women will remind him of the potential for even the most mild and uncontroversial comments to be twisted out of all recognition by biassed media.
And of course it shows the vitriolic nastiness of the unionist media, which has the journalistic standards of a snake’s belly. That too.
“And of course it shows the vitriolic nastiness of the unionist media, which has the journalistic standards of a snake’s belly.”
I think it’s maybe a bit naive to assume Alex Neil doesn’t know that. Again, let’s assume cynicism for the sake of argument. You’re Alex Neil, and the SoS phones up and asks you the question. Your options:
1. Fudge and avoid, which makes you look shifty and gets you tarred with the same brush as Jeremy Hunt anyway, because if you don’t deny something people assume it’s true.
2. Answer honestly, preserving integrity, while also knowing that it’s the majority view with the electorate, and knowing that the SoS will spin it, thereby reinforcing the useful impression that it’s a mendacious Unionist mouthpiece.
Seems a no-brainer, frankly. I have no idea whether some, all or none of those things were going through Alex Neil’s head, but I’m pretty sure he’s not a total idiot.
On the positive side it will be a timely remainder of how the media in Scotland will report politics here in the next two years. The need to be streetwise, careful in dealing with the press has been illustrated. On the other hand it will be annoying for the Yes campaign that there is such a bias against independence in the media. Unfortunately the B.B.C’s coverage looks like it will be dishonest. If you watched their programme on Sunday they never mentioned Alf Young’s Labour links in the past, so viewers unaware of this would think he was an impartial commentator.
” I’m not evading anything except your dull and irrelevant ad hominem attack, based on an extremely limited and narrow interpretation of the word “journalist” and your apparent inability to type three words into Google.”
When someone makes a claim regarding their ‘journalistic’ authority and experience in relation to the newsworthiness of comments made by a politician of Ministerial status then I think it’s fair to make enquiries into that alleged authority.
I fail to see the ad hominem, though I’ll admit that I’m questioning your authority to decide on what’s newsworthy in this context. I’ve googled your name but only seem to have raised that you are or were a videogame journalist. (semi-obsolete)
If Alex Neil had been asked to proffer his opinion on Angry Birds and had said that Temple Run was a better game then I would defer to the authority of your opinion regarding that comment’s newsworthiness.
But that isn’t the case here. The Alex Neil story is clearly an off-diary story sourced by a journalist on the sniff.
I bet the journalist doing the interviewing couldn’t have believed his luck. Part of a politician’s skill and stature is derived from how they deal with such questions. In this instance Alex fudged it and the journalist was most certainly doing his job which any objective journalist worth his or her salt would commend him for.
Much as I like Alex, he is open to slip ups. Who can forget his quip about caravans after having profited from the sale of his house.
I know that journalists exist in all shapes and sizes hence the reference in my last comment to paperclip collecting.
What you’re either failing to grasp or, worse, evading is that your videogame journalism might have minimal relevance to the world of political journalism. You don’t have experience of it therefore you are not best placed to expound on its newsworthiness or lack thereof.
“Man shares widely-held opinion” is not a news story.”
Totally agree, but “Health Minister expresses opinion on Abortion” is a news story; a loaded with public interest topical news story.
To suggest otherwise goes beyond dull, it reaches out and grabs stupid firmly with both hands.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this because I really do like what you’re doing with this blog (apart, maybe, from trying to flog overpriced junk) and this story will probably blow over within a week or two with minimum harm caused.
“In this instance Alex fudged it”
He did anything BUT “fudge” it. He gave a straight and detailed answer, with specific qualifications. You may think that was the wrong thing to do, but what it certainly wasn’t was a fudge.
I’m going to continue not getting into your misinformed, irrelevant attack on my personal credentials.
“You may think that was the wrong thing to do, but what it certainly wasn’t was a fudge.”
You might be right. It might have been a signal to other vested interests such as the catholic church – who knows. But the one thing you can take as a given is that Alex Neil knew his comments would be reported in the SOS and possibly be given top billing.
“I’m going to continue not getting into your misinformed, irrelevant attack on my personal credentials.”
Apologies if you think I’m attacking you. It was never the intention. You strike me as a pretty straight talking kind of guy with broad shoulders. I’m merely looking for a reason why you are so wide of the mark regarding what is and isn’t topically newsworthy.
Keep up the good work with what you’re doing. I’d like to see you writing in the Scottish newspapers. You’d certainly mix things up (if you got beyond the subs cutting desk). You just need to tune your newsworthiness radar a bit that’s all.
If you’re going to set yourself up as a media monitor, you have to be better at their game than they are. This post shows that there’s still some work to be done in that sphere.
Sorry.