Hypocrisy, thy name is North Briton

I had originally planned to write this blog article yesterday, but events got in the way in the shape of the news that the Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Borrell had once and for all definitively killed off the much touted British nationalist myth that Spain would veto an EU membership application by an independent Scotland. This news was not broadcast in Scotland, not even with a tiny fraction of the prominence that our overwhelmingly anti-independence media had previously given to pronouncements from marginal and minor Spanish politicians which hinted that Spain might not look favourably on EU membership for an independent Scotland, despite the fact that Josep Borrell is the man in charge of Spanish foreign policy. Surprise, surprise. It was another illustration of the double standards which run through the very soul of Scotland’s media.

However I had planned instead to write about another example of British nationalist double standards in Scotland. There has been considerably harrumphage in Scottish media circles about the distinct lack of sympathy that independence supporters had displayed online to the news that Johnson Press, the publishers of the Scotsman, were going into administration and there was a possibility that the Scotsman newspaper would be no more.

It should be stated clearly and unequivocally right away that I am glad that a deal has been struck which preserves jobs and which keeps the publications of the Johnson Press alive. I want a diverse media in Scotland. My criticism of the Scottish media is now and has always been that it is not diverse enough. Scotland’s media reflects the interests of middle aged middle class white men who support the British state and who love the fitba. The rest of us, not so much.

The Scotsman was one of those anti-independence newspapers which had done most to propagate the myth that Spain might veto Scotland’s membership of the EU. It had even gone to the lengths of giving front page coverage to remarks by an extreme right wing Spanish politician who was and remains a marginal and ridiculed figure in Spain, even within the Partido Popular of which he was then a member.

Yesterday, the paper didn’t see fit to mention the comments made by the Spanish Foreign Minister. There was no cover of that story at all, despite the Scotman’s previous history in publishing anything and everything Spanish related which was negative for Scottish independence. Instead it chose to give a front page splash to a poll from Zoomers in Union, which had asked a non-standard question about independence and unsurprisingly got a non-standard result which is out of line with all other recent polling on the issue. The paper misleadingly gave the impression that there has been a substantial fall in support for independence.

This is the same paper which infamously published a photo of independence supporters raising a Saltire which the paper had photoshopped into a swastika. Many in the independence movement have never forgiven the Scotsman for that slur. Certainly the paper’s editorial staff have never seen fit to apologise for attempting to conflate the entirely peaceful and law-abiding Scottish independence movement – a movement which goes to great lengths to stress that Scotland should be a welcoming place for migrants and which celebrates Scottish diversity – with a bunch of genocidal racist maniacs who slaughtered millions in the Holocaust. Why, thank you Scotsman for that measured and balanced contribution to Scottish political discourse.

The Scotsman has proven by its actions and its selective and often misleading reporting that it is no friend of the independence movement, and does not see its job as being to inform the people of Scotland in a fair and unbiased manner. Expecting independence supporters to mourn its possible passing is like asking a Gay Pride parade to be upset that so-called conversion therapy from religious fundamentalists can’t be offered on the NHS.

Many of the Scotman’s problems are problems it has brought on itself. Its digital edition is almost unusable. Its online comments section is a spittle flecked zoo of British nationalist zoomery and bile. Scottish journalists are very quick to condemn pro-independence digital publications on the quality of the below the line comments they attract. That was a frequent attack made upon Newsnet Scotland by mainstream anti-independence journalists. If we were to judge the Scotsman by the same standard, it would qualify as a hate-sheet.

The little self-regarding world of mainstream Scottish anti-independence journalism doesn’t apply the same standards to itself or to anti-independence supporters which it applies to the independence movement. Yes, of course it is wrong, petty, and unpleasant that some independence supporters reacted with glee to the news that the Scotsman was in trouble. But those same anti-independence supporters who decried indy supporters for their Schadenfreude about the Scotsman have themselves displayed the exact same distastefulness about Scotland’s only pro-independence newspaper.

You don’t have to look far on social media to see Zoomer in Union types gleefully predicting the demise of The National, taking immense joy when there was a fall in its sales figures following the General Election in 2017, insulting the paper and its staff – often in unnecessarily personal terms. I’ve yet to see any of those who affected outrage at the response of certain indy supporters to the news of the Scotman’s difficulties condemn, or even mildly tut at, those on their own side who express similar sentiments about The National.

However it’s not merely that it’s the same people who expect the independence movement to condemn those amongst its ranks who took pleasure in the Scotsman’s possible closure while turning a blind eye to the same behaviour on its own side. That all by itself is enough hypocrisy to fill several columns of Scotman editorials. But what’s even worse is that they refuse to acknowledge, never mind condemn, that there are those on their own side who are guilty of far worse behaviour – taking deliberate actions with the express intention of getting a Scottish newspaper closed down.

Some months ago, Callum Baird, the editor of The National, mentioned on social media that copies of the paper are being hidden in some shops so that they are not visible to potential buyers. He was called a conspiracy theorist by certain Scottish journalists, who openly mocked the claim. Yet Callum’s claim was well founded. During Roadshow events when he meets with readers of the paper, people have told him that they have actually caught individuals in the act of hiding the newspaper. A reader of this blog emailed me to say that he works for a national supermarket chain, and his store had banned a member of the public who had been caught coming into the premises in order to hide copies of The National. Callum’s claim was well founded, based on the evidence of witnesses – basic journalism in other words. Yet anti-independence journalists preferred to mock and to pretend it wasn’t happening rather than engage with real evidence and proof. That doesn’t say much for their journalistic standards.

Recently, after The National on Sunday was launched, some shops sold out every copy that they had stocked. Despite this they contacted the distributers to say that they didn’t want to stock any copies in future. No reasons were given, but it’s not hard to believe it’s because they were shops owned by opponents of independence who were refusing to stock pro-indy publications. But the overwhelmingly anti-independence media in Scotland only gets worked up when it’s its own freedom which is threatened.

Of course it’s wrong to be gleeful that a newspaper chain is under threat and thousands of jobs could be at risk. Not everyone who works for Johnson Press is a rabid British nationalist. But it’s pretty rich of anti-independence supporters and media to demand that indy supporters who expressed such glee be condemned by the independence movement when they themselves turn a blind eye to far worse behaviour from those on their own side. They don’t want diversity of opinion to be reflected in the Scottish media. They don’t want the Scottish media to hold up a true and accurate mirror to Scottish society. They want Scotland’s media to be in their own North British image. They resent the one pro-independence publication that does exist and would be delighted to see it fail. Hypocrisy, thy name is North Briton.

You can help to support this blog with a Paypal donation. Please log into Paypal.com and send a payment to the email address weegingerbook@yahoo.com. Or alternatively click the donate button. If you don’t have a Paypal account, just select “donate with card” after clicking the button.
Donate Button

If you have trouble using the button, or you prefer not to use Paypal, you can donate or purchase a t-shirt or map by making a payment directly into my bank account, or by sending a cheque or postal order. If you’d like to donate by one of these methods, please email me at weegingerbook@yahoo.com and I will send the necessary information.

Please also use this email address if you would like the dug and me to come along to your local group for a talk.

GINGER2croppedGaelic maps of Scotland are available for £15 each, plus £7 P&P within the UK for up to three maps. T-shirts are £12 each, and are available in small, medium, large, XL and XXL sizes. P&P is £5 for up to three t-shirts. My books, the Collected Yaps Vols 1 to 4 are available for £11 each. P&P is £4 for up to two books. Payment can be made via Paypal.

48 comments on “Hypocrisy, thy name is North Briton

  1. Macart says:

    Well said Paul. Every word.

  2. Clive Scott says:

    I regularly have to search through the paper stands in Falkirk to find The National upside down and carefully hidden below other publications. There is some comfort to be gained that the very sight of The National inspires such fear in in the red/blue toady Tories.

    • Clive I am sure that your local newsagent would be happy to order a daily copy for you, mine does. Not only am I assured of my copy but as a bonus I am giving my money to a local business rather than the supermarkets who were all anti-independence during our referendum.

  3. Who put up the money to buyout Johnstone Press? Then employ the same M. D. who helped to put into administration in the first place, queer.

    • Muscleguy says:

      The board handed it over, sans the pension liabilities to the bond holders, a large American Hedge Fund. They created a shell company to hold it. Don’t be fooled by the shell company.

      They did this without reference to the shareholders, who actually owned the company. The bonds were not due for repayment until June next year yet no efforts to refinance the debt had been made by the board.

      Paulsen who owned 25% of the shares is livid and this will end up in court.

  4. Davy says:

    A couple of things !!

    As far as the continuous role of the Scotsman is concerned, well ‘fuck them’, and this is my own personal opinion.

    Also I wonder if anyone else has noticed a rash of “North Britain” descriptions being used for Scotland by the main BBC weather men/women reporters. though they do throw in the odd “Scotland” every now and again, just to keep the natives happy.

    Thankfully our own Scottish BBC weather people have the common sense to call “north Britain” what it is and always will be ‘SCOTLAND’.

  5. Hetty says:

    The National is most often hidden on the bottom shelves, upside down in our ‘local’ supermarkets
    and it’s been almost impossible to find the Sunday National recently.

    The ones at the big store of a well known chain are usually folded in half, the space allocated for The National has no perspex, ( I asked if they could fix it, they haven’t ) so they fall over and are left there, they are basically impossible to see. I have seen Britnats hiding them, they are very threatened by one wee paper that doesn’t suit their anti Scotland bias, which is weird because they have all of the other daily rags sitting on the shelves that shout anti independence and anti SNP very very loudly!

    The Scotsman has been nothing but a disgrace to Scotland regarding independence, it has been incredibly biased against, it’s understandable some find it totally unpalatable, especially the photo as Paul mentions, which was photoshopped to equate independence with Nazi’s. That one incident was despicable. That photo was a symbolic picture taken at the time of devolution, it’s a great iconic image in that sense, how dare the Scotsman deface it.

  6. […] Wee Ginger Dug Hypocrisy, thy name is North Briton I had originally planned to write this blog article yesterday, but events got in the […]

  7. Cubby says:

    The Britnats are getting smarter (well as smart as they can get) they used to put the National at the bottom of the Express or the Mail or the Record but now they are putting them three quarters down the pile. The whole thing is bloody ridiculous. They are not content with having about a dozen Britnat papers on display they cannot stand one newspaper with headlines not to their liking. At times it is like going on an orienteering run trying to get a National. Still to see a National in Lidl or Aldi – why?

    I would not be surprised if staff in the newsagents are not putting them out. Miserable mean spirited Britnats are everywhere.

    My advice to independence supporters is stop buying these Britnat papers.

    I have no problem in saying I would be happy to see any of the Britnat papers go out of business. As per Norway, it should be illegal in Scotland for foreign owned propaganda pamphlets masquerading as newspapers to be sold in Scotland.

    • Orri says:

      The National might take a leaf out of the Financial Times book and adopt a distinctive colour for its pages. would make it harder to hide under a pile of other papers if it was blue. Yellow might be easier but not a good word when combined with journalism and probably to easy to link to the SNPs colours.

  8. John says:

    Amazing that the hiding of the National continues. I thought it had stopped, but it can be hard to find at my local Tesco store – but only on Saturdays!
    The Scotsman has been a long time dying. When I was in my Edinburgh youth it was the paper that came into the house every day. In the 70s its coverage of the devolution debate was excellent and even-handed even though the paper never hid its pro-devolution stance. The letters page could even be informative and entertaining.
    All that went when Andrew You-Know-Who took over at the helm and tried to turn the Scotsman into something it never could be. In the end his continual teacher-bashing was too much and I moved on. Since then I have seen nothing to persuade me to return, even though I bought it occasionally for the weekly Gaelic articles. There are rumours that the staff are treated dreadfully too.
    What I find really depressing is that newspapers feel it so necessary to take one side or the other. There is very little detached, independent and objective writing anywhere.

    • Neil Anderson says:

      John, you took the words out of my… keyboard. I remember, as a rather politically savvy teenager in the early to mid 70’s, that the Scotsman was the choice paper of Scottish Nationalists. A pal of mine in school who was SNP then (around 1975/6) read it and I called him a tartan Tory. To my shame. In my defence, this was a number of years before the 1979 group and it was a fair description of the SNP of that time. Sadly, I was being thoroughly brainwashed by the Labour Party at the time. My Dad, who was a Communist, decried them all. I’ll never forget him asking me in the 1979 devo vote, what did I think he should vote. By then, I was a Yesser and said as much. I think he voted Yes but I was never sure. Wish he was here today.

    • Muscleguy says:

      We moved up here from London end of ’98 so not in time to vote in the Devolution referendum but in time to vote in the first parliament elections. I bought the Scotsman because the Courier was too parochial and despite being from Ayrshire I found the Herald too Glasgow focussed and not very relevant here in the East.

      But under Neil they started putting little diatribes against the parliament at the end of articles and apropos of nothing. It was petty, mean minded and spiteful. I haven’t bought a Scotsman since and see no reason to start again.

      I’m not a middle class ultra yoon Reekie. Why would I then buy it? For the crossword?

  9. WH Smith in Ayr High Street used to put The National at the bottom of the newspaper stand, labelled “Local News”

    They have now got a new stand and National is usually in the middle, as is Sunday National. I cannot tell a lie though I do…..redistribute….copies, if there are more than the one I am buying, to cover some of the more violently BritNat zoomery headlines.

    Molly says it’s compulsory 🙂

    And aye, some shops, Aldi, Lidl etc don’t stock it at all. It’s ridiculous that in a country where over half the population support independence, getting hold of an independence supporting paper is like seeking the Holy Grail, wi’ a blindfold on and baith feet tied together

  10. NConway2 says:

    @NConway2: Yip we need a diverse media we have ,the BBC,stv, channel 5,The Herald, Daily Record, The courier ,The East Lothian courier etc and of course the Scotsman all of them unsupportive of the independence movement,apart from the odd article….oh I forgot Sky

  11. FlikeNoir says:

    It’s a shame for the Scotsman, they had such a lauded beginning in Edinburgh and seemed full of the best intentions:

    ‘The most important edifice on the south side of Cockburn Street is unquestionably, for many reasons, the office of the Scotsman newspaper, No. 30 – the leading journal in Scotland, and of which it may be truly said that there is no newspaper out of London, and only one or two in it, which has an influence so widely felt.

    About 1860 the offices of the Scotsman were removed from the High Street, where they had long been situated, to the new buildings in Cockburn Street, where no expense had been spared to make the establishment complete in all its appointments, and the perfection of what a newspaper office should be. The heading of the newspaper is carved in stone along the front of the edifice.

    According to a privately-printed memoir of Mr. Charles Maclaren, who for thirty years (1817-47) was editor of the Scotsman, it was in the year 1816 that the idea of starting an independent newspaper in Edinburgh originated. The political influences which overspread Scotland after the close of the long war had permeated society, and the ruling powers carried their repressive effects into every sphere of action. Hence the local press was very abject, without courage enough to expose any abuse, however flagrant, if in doing so there was any risk of giving offence in high quarters; and the time had come when a free organ was necessary for Scotland. It was calculated that if only 300 subscribers were obtained the project would have a chance of success, and Mr. Maclaren, with Mr. William Ritchie, were to be joint editors. The leading article of the first number appeared on the 25th of January, 1817, and was from the pen of Charles Maclaren, who, during Mr. Ritchie’s absence on the continent, found a valuable coadjutor in Mr. John Ramsay McCulloch, afterwards the eminent statist and economist, who temporarily assumed the office of responsible editor of the infant journal. Mr. Maclaren having become a clerk in the Custom-house, it was deemed unwise that he should be known as the editor of an opposition journal.

    By 1820 the paper having become firmly established, Mr. Maclaren resumed the editorship, and very few persons now can have an idea of the magnitude of the task he had to undertake. “Corruption and arrogance,” says the memoir already quoted, “were the characteristics of the party in power – in power in a sense of which in these days we know nothing. The people of Scotland were absolutely without either in vote or speech. Parliamentary elections, municipal government, the management of public bodies – everything was in the hands of a few hundred persons. In Edinburgh, for instance, the member of Parliament was elected and the government of the city carried on by thirty-two persons, and almost all these thirty-two took their directions from the Government of the day, or its proconsul. Public meetings were almost unknown, and a free press may be said to have never had an existence. Lord Cockburn, in his ‘Life of Jeffrey,’ says:- ‘I doubt if there was a public meeting held in Edinburgh between the year 1795 and the year 1820,’ and adds, in 1852, that ‘excepting some vulgar, stupid, and rash’ newspapers which lasted only a few days, there was ‘no respectable opposition paper, till the appearance of the Scotsman, which for thirty-five years has done so much for the popular cause, not merely by talent, spirit, and consistency, but by independent moderation.’ “

    In the management of the paper [Maclaren] was ably succeeded by Alexander Russell, a native of Edinburgh, who, after editing one or two provincial journals, became connected with the Scotsman in 1845, as assistant editor. He was a Whig of the old Fox school, and contributed many brilliant articles to the Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews, the “Encyclopædia Britannica,” and also Blackwood’s Magazine. As editor of the Scotsman he soon attracted the attention of Mr. Cobden and other leaders of the Anti-corn-law agitation, and his pen was actively employed in furtherance of the objects of the League; and among the first subjects to which he turned his attention in the Scotsman was the painful question of Highland destitution in 1847. A notable local conflict in which the paper took a special interest was that of 1856, on the final retirement of Macaulay from the representation of Edinburgh, and the return of Adam Black, the eminent publisher; and among many matters to which this great Scottish journal lent all its weight and advocacy in subsequent years, was the great centenary of Robert Burns.

    The Scotsman, which has always opposed and exposed Pharisaism [hypocrisy] and inconsistency, yet the while giving ample place to the ecclesiastical element – a feature in Scottish everyday life quite incomprehensible to strangers – was in the full zenith and plenitude of its power when Alexander Russel died, in about the thirtieth year of his editorship and sixty-second of his age, leaving a blank in his own circle that may never be supplied, for he was the worthy successor of Maclaren in the task of making the Scotsman what it is – the sole representative of Scottish opinion in England and abroad; “and that it represents it so that that opinion does not need to hang its head in the area of cosmopolitan discussion, is largely due to the independence of spirit, the tact, the discernment of character, and the unflagging energy by which Mr. Russel imparted a dignity to the work of editing a newspaper which it can hardly be said to have possessed in his own country before his time.” ‘


  12. susan says:

    Sorry Paul but I do wish the Scotsman to fold and I’m not concerned about the journalists jobs. The backroom staff yes, the journalists no. Actions must have consequences.

  13. Geordie says:

    A diverse media is one thing, a collection of mouthpieces for British state propaganda is another entirely. Anyone who willingly participates in producing such propaganda is unworthy of the title of journalist. Good riddance to the lot of them.

  14. Stookie says:

    Agreed susan

    • Robert Harrison says:

      Same here the hoots man with its nazi slur must face the consequences and those who stood by and not complain when there boss went and slandered there fellow countrymen like that and did nothing about then they should go down as well same for the bbc if it ever gets in the mess the scotsman found itself in.

  15. Cubby says:

    If the newspapers in Scotland were truly competitive private businesses there is no way they would act as they do. They should not be seen as normal businesses – their primary purpose is anti Scottish propaganda. Scots people buying newspapers that tell them that Scotland and Scots are rubbish. British Nationalists of course tell themselves that they are British and superior. I can’t imagine there is another population in the world that suffers this situation.

    If you support independence and do not want this negative conditioning of Scots to continue then please stop buying British Nationalist anti Scotland papers.

    Is it any wonder so many young people emigrate. Why if you have not yet been conditioned to have low expectations of yourself and your country would you want to stay a minute longer. No wonder the population of Scotland stagnates.

  16. Indyman says:

    I have been told by a few newsagents that Menzies limits the number of copies of The National that they can get.

    • wm says:

      I was told by a newsagent, that Menzies delivery man told him that the national was no longer published. I don’t know whether he, the delivery man or both were liars.

  17. Iain says:

    I can’t agree that it is wrong to celebrate the possible demise of the Scotsman. I bought it daily from the 1970s for about 20 years. It was a newspaper then until it went weird and morphed into what it has descended to now. I am unrepentantly delighted it may be gone, just as I would have been thrilled had I been an Estonian to see the collapse of Pravda.

  18. Movy says:

    It’s the hypocrisy shown by the Scotsman that is so galling. No fairness, no balance, no respect for other views. However if you offend half the population, then… I won’t shed any tears over its demise.

  19. Martin Edmunds says:

    Well written and who can argue with it …. well, apart from one bit.

    As a nearly middle class middle aged white guy who does indeed ‘love the fitba’ it would be much appreciated if you could amend that sentence to read ….. ‘Scotland’s media reflects the interests of ‘THOSE’ middle aged middle class white men who support the British state and who love the fitba.

    Some of us have voted for the SNP and by definition an independent Scotland since we were first old enough to cast a vote in 1979

    Cheers very muckle.

  20. Janet says:

    Newspapers: they are all dying. No longer relevant.

  21. Les Bremner says:

    And from yesterday’s Scotsman :

    “ScotRail has cancelled around 100 services over the past four days as it struggles to train staff in time to run extra trains next month.”

    They have learned nothing. This would have been better :

    “There is good news for ScotRail’s passengers. A series of new services are being introduced, including half-hourly trains between Edinburgh and Glasgow via Falkirk Grahamston and Cumbernauld – effectively a fifth route between the cities. Other changes are near-hourly services from Dundee-Arbroath, Aberdeen-Montrose and Inverness-Elgin.
    However, due to matters outwith ScotRail’s control, such as the late delivery of the new sets for the Glasgow-Edinburgh prime route, staff need training which will necessitate taking them off existing services.”

    They have learned nothing.

  22. I got so tired of playing ‘Hunt the National’ in my local Sainsbury’s store in Strathaven, Lanarkshire I subscribed to the full digital package. How threatened must the Yoonies be by the one Independence supporting paper available that they feel compelled to hide it from view. Obviously, truthful headlines hurt!

  23. Macart says:

    Bit of background. Newsprint is dying on its feet across the globe. Technological and societal change is driving this primarily. The speed and exponential growth of both means that readerships and advertisers are falling off their pages and changing their habits to suit. In the main, it is a managed decline as both accommodate new habits of selling goods and gathering information. Communicating. In the UK the trend has been needlessly and recklessly sped up with a frankly inhumane political and corporate compromise. It began long before Leveson tbf, but that inquiry and subsequent events have escalated the process. It didn’t have to be that way, but… sadly, their choice.

    Realistically though, publishers and editorial staff aren’t going to go away anytime soon. They’re simply going to move their method of reaching the public. Their footprint will eventually and inevitably move from printed to digital. Broadcasters? They’re already there. The backroom staff, production and so forth are going to be the ones who put the lights out in press halls for the last time. The decision makers, the copy writers? They will simply move house and keep right on going.

    Elements of the media troll half of Scotland’s population quite regularly and deliberately. They want to illicit extreme responses. Some simply for profit and others you’d have to say for ideological reasons. They wear their bias on their sleeve, right next to what passes for their heart. Some were and are merely ignorant of the people and the issues involved. Take a look at any metro pundit suite when they talk about anything Scottish for an example of lazy, ignorant journalism or opinion. There’s quite a lot of it on any broadcast sofa or metro title. Some though. Some knew exactly what they were doing. Their arrogance. Their ignorance. Their insults weren’t casual. They caused and arguably hoped for, reaction, frustration, hurt.

    These people had a soap box, the blessings of their broadcasters, publishers and editors and they used the resources available to them accordingly. Their success has been a curate’s egg. They’re holding onto their orthodoxy by the thinnest of ba’ hairs currently. (well done them) How and ever, the more callous of them didn’t achieve their wet dream of trolling the YES movement into acts of violence. The YES movement hasn’t provided them with the shock horror headlines for selling the daily hate mail. They underestimated who and what they were dealing with.

    What they did do, across the board in media terms, is turn half a country’s population away from their outlets. Probably never to return. A needless loss of revenue and a reckless endangerment of production staff and facilities on a purely management angle. They’ve destroyed professional reputations and the industry we all, at one point, held in some esteem.

    Societally though? The media were meant to be OUR watchdog. They were meant to protect us from the privileged and the powerful, not get into bed with the bastirts and bang their drum for them. They were meant to be representative of all of society. That’s what I find unforgivable. They let us all down and they did it willingly.

    So yeah, I’m guessing that’s why the schadenfreude from a lot of folks out there. It’s as simple as cause and effect.

  24. I can also testify to the fact that The National is often hidden behind unionist mouthpieces in my local supermarket. It is not an occasional occurance. I find it two or three times a week. It must be annoying for those doing the hiding that they don’t stay hidden. Anyone who buys a National is used to searching behind other titles and restoring them to public view.

  25. Frank Gillougley says:

    Exactly, Paul:

    ”They don’t want diversity of opinion to be reflected in the Scottish media. They don’t want the Scottish media to hold up a true and accurate mirror to Scottish society. They want Scotland’s media to be in their own North British image. They resent the one pro-independence publication that does exist and would be delighted to see it fail. Hypocrisy, thy name is North Briton.”

    and also from Peter Bell on Kevin McKenna’s article

    ”Journalists are manipulators. They manipulate information. They manipulate language. They manipulate perception. Ultimately, they manipulate people. This is entirely unsurprising and quite uncontroversial. After all, journalists work, for the most part, in an industry devoted to manipulation of people’s perceptions. Manipulation is a function of control. Control is a function of power. Power must be made manifest. Manipulators gotta manipulate. They can’t help themselves. Crucially, they don’t get paid unless they can demonstrate their ability to manipulate. And you’re only as good as your most recent bit of manipulation.”


  26. Macart says:

    Oh. Here we go.

    HERE and HERE

    Aaaaaand HERE.

    • Andy Anderson says:

      To be expected Sam. Once it, the outline for the future becomes known, all Brexit shouting will kick off again because it is an outline and includes thoughts not fact.

    • In Greek mythology, King Sisyphus was condemned by Zeus to push a k
      large boulder up a hill, which rolled back to the bottom repeatedly for all eternity as punishment for his arrogance and deviousness.
      Brexit is the Blue Tories’ Sisyphus boulder.
      Once again May has huffed and puffed her way up the hill to Brussels only to witness her Brexit boulder wobble at the top, before trundling all the way back to base camp in WM.
      Blind Brexit.
      No deal on Gibraltar, Northern Ireland, Freedom of Movement for the EU workers already here or the 1.2 million Brits working or retired in Europe.
      Have Mundell and Davidson resigned yet.
      What about the rest of the Blue Tory Dirty dozen?
      Will they resign the Blue tory whip now that May has once again sacrificed Scottish fishing?
      Of course this crap will not get through Westminster, but May and Co’, will push the boulder once again back up the hill to Brussels on Sunday in the certain knowledge that even if the EU agreed this Blind Brexit nonsense, back here in ReesMoggland all hell will break loose.
      A UK GE?
      May to resign?
      Paul’ s excellent piece above will be proven to be on the money as our Dead Tree Scrolls and the TV outlets with the BBC Propaganda Unit to the forefront, will sell this as May’s triumph.
      Let’s hope some hacks are crushed under Zeus’ boulder as it careers inexorably towards the Palace of Westminster.
      Our Dead Tree Scrolls are as relevant as gas lamplighters.
      I will not be sad when they finally go out of business.
      I have referred to our fourth Estate Fifth Column many times.
      I shall not shed a tear at their deaths by a thousands efficiency cuts.
      They are the enemies of independent Scotland and shall reap what they sow.

  27. Clapper57 says:

    The Scotsman is part of the media cabal within Scottish MSM whose main intent is to actively dispute the real concerns which impact Scotland by discrediting their legitimacy.

    “So called” power grab suggests it is merely an opinion and not a fact thus as usual they diminish concerns that should be raised while at the same time endorsing the act of the UK government implementing this.

    So they, the media, via the language they use give credence to the UK government’s Brexit policy of taking back control of powers returning from EU as somehow a practical solution while at the same time inferring the Scottish governments concerns are unsubstantiated and questionable.

    Important issues are dealt with by the press and televised media in Scotland by either total omission or they are kept low key . If a story is not given prominence then most people assume it is of no consequence and will not affect them. This is where Scottish media lets us down. They fail to challenge or report matters which could potentially have a detrimental effect on us and this is done to diminish support for independence while simultaneously increasing or maintaining support for the Union.

    Their failure to highlight important issues, and indeed at times, they even challenge the validity of the Scottish government’s assertions on certain matters is the media actively acting against public interest.

    They fear that by either raising concerns or disputing an argument or policy implemented by the UK government that they will somehow sway opinion in favour of the SNP and independence.

    The fact that the Scotsman printed the infamous green ink gangs incessant grievance letters on tap , allowed Brian sour puss Wilson to spout his incessant grievance fueled anti SNP articles on tap and the incessant rabid online responses by uber unionists to any story that was associated with the SNP speaks volumes as to why it’s sales were/are declining.

    It is a source of news which promotes but one perspective and that is the Unionist perspective only. It knows it does not reflect a certain section of opinion within Scotland but that is not it’s remit…….it’s remit is to ensure the Union should be maintained.Thus it is perceived by many of us as an unreliable source of objective news which exists solely to satisfy but one viewpoint only…plus it’s obviously a Tory mouthpiece……hence fake wealthy ‘socialist’ Brian Wilson fitted in perfectly.

    That all said , why then should we be sympathetic to it’s decline or fall…………………when it , as a newspaper, has been so relentlessly diligent and active in trying to achieve a decline in support for Independence and indeed the ultimate fall of Independence itself ?

  28. Craig P says:

    The Scotsman are welcome to choke on their propaganda. The paper will not be missed when it finally croaks.

    Sad that it has come to this, but it has, and by their own actions.

    As for the Daily Mail, Times, Express, Record, Spectator, the BBC…

  29. Cubby says:

    I asked Aldi customer services by email what its policy was regarding stocking The National. I was told that the National Enquirer is available in all regions for £1.59. A reply was quickly on its way back.

  30. Referendum1707 says:

    In my local tesco (which I’ve little or no choice about using) I always move some of the Nationals from where they’re usually put (on one of the lower slots below where the rest of the “main” titles are displayed) and move them on to one of the top slots on top of usually the express or mail.

    I’m mostly only in there once a week and I don’t imagine they’ll stay there long but it’s always good to know that I’m helping to upset some britnat who can’t stand the idea of there being an alternative voice to what they think everyone should have to read.

    As for the hootsmon, in that particular case I’m not as charitable as WGD, if it ever actually does go under for good I’d be delighted to dance on its grave then piss on it, and as for any of its staff involved in its political stance we’re supposed to feel sorry for them?? I couldn’t care less about them or their poxy little jobs.

  31. Macart says:

    Altogether now…



  32. fairliered says:

    We can all help. Next time you are in a supermarket or newsagent, move The National in front of the Scotsman. Maybe people will then think it’s already defunct.

  33. davidmccann24 says:

    As someone who spent a lifetime in the newspaper industry, I should mourn the passing of the Scotsman, but I dont, and as others have said, they have brought this on themselves, so have to live with the consequences.
    I do however, think the thousands of production jobs lost is sad, but as Sam has said above that is the way modern communication has gone, and there is no stopping it.
    The future of paper newspapers is now with you local rag, and I hope all here support them, or they too will disappear.
    Thank goodness for The Dug, Wings etc, and of course The National, of which I am a digital subscriber.

  34. Macart says:



    Not quite as billed, now is it?

  35. Have Mundell and Supermum resigned yet?

Comments are closed.