Monday, May 11, 2015

Could the Guardian please stop their hysterical reinterpretations of statements made in plain English by the SNP?

Severin Carrell of the Guardian is at it again.  He's based an entire article on routine comments made by Angus Robertson in a radio interview, in which the SNP group leader at Westminster basically reiterated that the party will be demanding the fast-tracking of welfare, job-creating and tax powers for the Scottish Parliament.  Not very interesting you might think - but of course what Severin does is shamelessly pretend that Robertson somehow said the exact opposite, and has abandoned the SNP's demands for the fast-tracking of these powers.  We're breathlessly told that Robertson's new "doubly significant", "gradualist approach" somehow contradicts absolutely everything said by the SNP during the election campaign, and even by Alex Salmond two days after the election.

What makes this particularly bizarre is that Severin supplies lengthy quotes from Robertson which helpfully demonstrate that what was said in the interview is utterly identical to all previous statements on the subject from the SNP -

"I want to see maximum decision-making in Scotland as soon we possibly can"

This reiterates the well-rehearsed message that there should be a phased transition to full fiscal autonomy, but that this will take several years.

"Unfortunately, the most important thing to be aware of and to recognise and respect is that Scotland voted no in the referendum last year, which means we can’t realistically have all the powers we want to have as quickly as possible."

This reiterates the bleedin' obvious that full independence will not follow on from a No vote to independence, and again underlines the SNP's view that full fiscal autonomy will take several years to implement.

"Firstly, it’s delivery of the Smith Commission proposals, secondly it’s following the discussion of further powers beyond that, which will emerge from discussions between the first minister and the prime minister"

This reiterates what Nicola Sturgeon has said before and after the election, namely that the Smith Commission proposals should be implemented as soon as possible, but that they should be significantly beefed up to include the fast-tracking of welfare, tax and job-creating powers.

"And then there will be vigorous debate in the House of Commons during this parliamentary term and about the additional powers that we can hope realistically to have further devolved."

This reiterates that the SNP will be pushing for movement closer to full fiscal autonomy after achieving the Smith powers and the additional fast-tracked powers.

The game that Severin is rather tediously playing here is to reinterpret Robertson's timetable for full fiscal autonomy as if it is some sort of revised, slower timetable for the fast-tracked powers that the SNP want over and above Smith. To misunderstand plain English to that extent requires either stupidity or a deliberate intent to mislead - and in this instance it's hard not to suspect the latter.

52 comments:

  1. I wonder how much longer Severin's position in the Guardian will remain tenable. He has been a SLAB mouthpiece for years and does not even attempt to disguise his bias. Labour will have nothing relevant or important to say for quite some time so all his friends and contacts will be useless. He has treated the SNP with contempt and they are unlikely to do him any favours any time soon. Nobody cares any more about carefully crafted McTernan press releases.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Guardian is just as much a British nationalist mouthpiece as the Daily Mail and Telegraph. The founders of the Guardian must looking down and weeping.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brace yourself for some utterly earth shattering news... Mundell is Scottish Secretary.

    I'm sure Morag is delighted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Governor Mundell will be praying the natives don't become too restless . . .

      Delete
    2. And Ian Murray as Shadow SoS - I know that was probably inevitable, but they'll live to regret it.

      Delete
    3. What was the alternative?

      Delete
    4. We were just musing that Mundell's so barely articulate that this could be quite a lot of fun. His retaining his seat might have quite an interesting silver lining.

      Delete
    5. Don't pretend that you're not feeling a little proud that you'll have such a formidable local champion striding across the UK stage!

      Delete
    6. Westminster needs to keep a toe hold in Scotland through their Scottish Office if for no other reason than to act as a propaganda outlet for the one nation narrative.
      You can see how they will play things when negotiations get difficult....."however,a spokesman for the Scottish Office claims....." which will allow the Tory press to counter the SNP position by giving the impression of illegitimacy to Scottish aspirations.

      Delete
  4. Carroll is a disgrace of a journalist. No wonder Eck bared him from his resignation speech.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Basically Severin attributes the questions put by the interviewer to Angus Robertson who disagreed with, corrected and failed to countenance them. But par for the course for the man. I had the misfortune to encounter him in the referendum when he came to see us in RIC canvas a Dundee outer suburb. He severely patronised the gentleman of a whole household of Yes people we found. He was lucky not to get punched which I don't think he noticed as he was busy with his shorthand but I witnessed the flash of anger and the clenching of the fists. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm convinced that Carroll is a spook, along with many others in the print media, and especially the BBC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He looks kind of like a spy. Quite dashing, if I may say so myself.

      Delete
  7. Agree with you there Juteman, The guardian appears to have three regular Foreign Office placemen in necessary places. Rory Carroll - active in S America as and when needed He particularly focused on anti Chavez nonsense that failed the slightest scrutiny.
    Luke Harding spinning many lies about Russia and supporting whatever nation the government happens to find useful that day and of course Severins' distortions.

    I assume Libby Brooks must find the experience of working in association with the guy to be frustrating as she makes a fair attempt to do the job without resorting to his mad distortions.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Stoat, where are we going with this?...

    ReplyDelete
  9. aye Severin's being doin my head in for a very long time...you start reading his articles and very soon you're in this world of wicked Nattery, but it's all dressed up in this somehow prim language, as if he's merely stating the facts and "leaving the reader to decide". But let's not rubbish the Guardian completely, there's the wonderful George Monbiot who wrote one of the best pro-indy articles I've ever read in the msm (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland), and a couple of other talented folk.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The British State has always had placemen in the media to help form the narrative required. They are usually tapped at uni.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Just ignore him. Rebut his lies, and refuse interviews.
    His employers will soon get fed up of regurgitated mince from Count Smurphula ( the undead), and McTernan will be a tad expensive to keep on the books.
    I doubt that Scottish Labour will be getting extra funding for some years to come.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The time of Glenn Greenwald is long gone for the Guardian. The fourth estate rots and festers, as does the UK establishment.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think that Glen Greenwald did an excellent job with Snowden but quickly realized the Guardian was acting as a gatekeeper. The info was going out in one way or another so the New York Times/Guardian/Der Spiegel controlled the situation, made money and gained plaudits that are unearned. .The pantomime played out in the Guardians cellar with the smashing of hard drives was farcical. I note Luke Harding ot to write the official Guardian book about the affair.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Talking of Glenn Greenwald, does anyone remember his interview with Kirsty Wark?

      Delete
    2. Here it is Muttley,for those who may have missed it first time around

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-moGtQFvsVU

      Delete
  14. The comments BTL on the Guardian online article about Mhairi Black yesterday were absolutely shocking. She was viciously attacked for her youth, her appearance, her accent, her social class, even her basic intelligence.

    I also see from today's press online that the London press are intent on an all-out onslaught on her basic competence or even legitimacy to represent me - a constituent - despite her winning a democratic election by a clear margin.

    I hope the media here in Scotland will not be tempted to join in but it is all too easy to assume that they have still learned nothing. I suppose that actually supporting Mhairi would be a step too far.

    OT

    James, I saw this analysis of the GE from a commenter on an article in the Washington Post - will leave it here without comment:

    Adjusting for the collapse of the Liberal Democrats and the rise of the SNP, the Conservative/Labour divide is about the same from 2010. If you define the Liberal Democrats (and one Alliance MP and the Speaker) as "center", and place all the other parties into "right" (Conservatives, UKIP, DUP, UUP, right-wing independents) and "left" (Labour, Nationalist parties, Green party), the right/left ratio stayed almost exactly the same compared to the 2010 election. In 2010, there were 317 Right wing MPs to 276 left wing MPs, for a ratio of 1.149. In 2015, there were 342 right wing MPs to 299 left-wing MPs, for a ratio of 1.144. The difference is about the equivalent of the left picking up one seat from the right.

    Likewise, in terms of Lib-Dem seat loss, the split is almost 50/50. The Lib Dems are down 49 seats since the last election, while the Conservatives are up 25, and the Labour + SNP total is up 24, almost an even division between left and right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Guardian comments below Scottish politics articles really started to deteriorate about a year before the referendum. By spring/summer 2014 there was a really strong anti-SNP, anti-Salmond element in particular. They were almost virulent in their British nationalist/unionism. I stopped commenting because I could see that many of those opposed to independence had no intention of having a real debate on independence.

      I still do not know what happened, whether it was organised, or if the MSM and the No campaign succeeded in just whipping up UKIP type elements in England. Some people seem to think that there was an organised hate campaign against the SNP and Salmond in Scotland.

      Delete
    2. We really have rocked the boat here. If independence happens in the next five years, it won't be us that have caused it.

      Attacking her intelligence? She's a politics student at Glasgow Uni.... I don't think she lacks intelligence, just because her accent is a little different. They will need to watch, plenty of aspiring youngsters go to Glasgow.

      Delete
    3. I cannot understand how anyone called a journalist can refer to the Labour party as left wing in any way whatsoever.

      Delete
  15. I really think that the SNP needs to start blacklisting a whole pile of so called journalists and give their exclusives to the pro Indy Press exclusively because the Brit Nat Press is just going to twist and lie every chance it gets.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have never understood why the SNP keep offering up their teeth for a kicking by the hostile "Scottish" media.
      During the general election the BBC Scotland sock puppets tried to pull off the same dirty tricks they used in the referendum.
      There was a massive propaganda campaign aimed at selling Murphy as a champion of the poor.
      Hardly a day passed without a photograph of his smirking face, even in The National.
      Meanwhile the SNP got a despicable attempt to smear Nicola Sturgeon, the tired old wheeze of blaming the SNP for the antics of a small band of highly vocal activists, and the usual burying of anything that might remotely help the SNP's cause.
      It's time to tell BBC Scotland, the Daily Record, the Scotsman, etc, to take a hike. Let them interview each other!

      Delete
    2. I have a lot of sympathy for Neil hay because he was tried convicted and sentenced and then hung drawn and quartered by the rabid Brit Nat Press and Media. It is just one instance of other dirty tricks they ran in the GE. It of course began with Frenchgate affair. I lost track of the various SNP candidates they attempted to smear.

      Delete
    3. The SNP can't afford to tell the mainstream media to take a hike. It's hard enough to reach out to certain sections of the population as it is.

      Delete
    4. I asked Nicola Sturgeon about this at my local SNP branch meeting.
      She said the SNP can bypass the mainstream media by using its army of new members to talk directly to voters. If that's true then they can afford to tell the mainstram media to take a hike.

      Delete
    5. That's a politician's answer. If she really meant the mainstream media were dispensable, she wouldn't have appeared on every TV programme you can think of over the last few days.

      Delete
    6. Well, like a gullible old fool I took her at her word.
      She didn't mean dispensing with the media entirely and of course I didn't take her to mean that either.
      I'd still like to see them to cut a few of the more rabid journos out of the loop.
      I don't see any reason why they can't.

      Delete
    7. James - I'm talking about disengaging with journalists who write things that make it hard not to suspect a deliberate intent to mislead.
      We seem to differ only in the idea that there is nothing the SNP can do about it.

      Delete
    8. Nicola has told members the same thing even during the first indyref.

      We can reach past and over the top of the hostile media with social media. It also happens to be true. That doesn't mean we can ignore the media since it still affords Nicola and other SNP figures the best chance to talk directly to voters regularly, but it does mean we use all the tools available to us to reach out to all scots.

      Just because the media is biased and hostile doesn't mean we can't still use it extremely effectively.

      There's a reason Nicola won the debates.

      It also goes without saying that the best way to marginalise the unionist BBC is to stop watching and recording live TV and stop paying their TV tax.

      Not everyone can, but despite it's grandiose trappings of being a State broadcaster the truth is the BBC is now in a cut-throat market where TV Networks and channels can be delivered directly to your home or your hand for a small price on a monthly subscription basis. Until the BBC wakes up to that it's going to go the way of the papers and face lower viewer figures, every lower levels of trust and ever lower levels of influence.

      Those who deny the truth of that or the media strategy employed should perhaps look at our westminster election results again.

      Delete
    9. No one's advocating ignoring the entire media. The election result suggests most Scots no longer swallow the BritNat propaganda anyway, but some of their so-called "journalists" act more like political agitators and rabble rousers.
      Several of them cross the line into abusive, demonising attacks and the SNP don't have to put up with it.
      In 1993 Quebecois leader Jacques Parizeau was compared to Hitler and sued for defamation. The courts ordered his accuser to pay C$200,000. Parizeau's out of court settlement was donated to charity. No one compares Parizeau to Hitler any more.

      Delete
  16. Mundell insisted at his count that being SoS for S was above his pay grade. Perhaps we should keep reminding him and the Tories of that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you sure he didn't mean "it's above my pay grade to decide who the SoS should be"?

      Delete
  17. Def con fuck the SNP up is upon us

    ReplyDelete
  18. FWIW, the SNP won the three council by-elections in Scotland last Thursday.

    Two defences - Nairn and Perth city centre.

    One gain from Labour - Dunfermline South (Cara Hilton's old seat)

    http://ukgeneralelection2020.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/results-from-council-by-elections-held.html

    Dunfermline result:

    Sinclair (SNP) 5899
    Verecchia (Lab) 3185
    Ross (Con) 1324
    Calder (Lib) 1041

    http://www.fifedirect.org.uk/topics/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&p2sid=27C83962-BEC2-EBEC-E40E3D8E8F623EB1&themeid=2B892409-722D-4F61-B1CC-7DE81CC06A90

    Nairn result:

    Fuller (SNP) 3135
    Cunningham (Lib) 2406
    McIvor (Ind) 1440
    MacGregor (Ind?) 893
    Johnson (Lab) 455

    http://www.highland.gov.uk/news/article/8588/nairn_by-election_result

    Perth result:

    Parrott (SNP) 3589
    Ahern (Con) 1679
    Redford (Lab) 939
    Brown (Lib) 701
    Thomson (Ind) 119

    http://www.pkc.gov.uk/article/4150/By-Election-Results

    Obviously the turnouts were a little higher than normal!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It makes you wonder what would have happened if the Council Elections had been held on the same day as the Holyrood Elections. But hey we were told by the Brit Nats Press and Media that we were too thick to have two elections on the same day. Last week in England they judged that the English could easily cope with a whole series of local elections as well as the GE. Oh well!

      Delete
    2. It's not a question of being "too thick", it's based on the negative experience (massive numbers of spoilt papers) of 2007, when you had Scottish Parliament (AMS) and Scottish council (STV) elections on the same day.

      English council elections still use FPTP so those problems don't arise.

      Delete
    3. The main reason for the rejected ballots in 2007 was the wording on the constituency paper that was ambiguous. It said, 'you have two votes..... 'many stopped reading after that and then placed two crosses on the ballot paper not realising it was one vote per ballot paper for the Scottish Parliament. The person in charge of this at the time? Douglas Alexander.

      Delete
    4. You mean this one?

      http://jonathan.rawle.org/2007/05/04/ballot-combined-with-intelligence-test/

      Not exactly a brain teaser.

      Delete
  19. OT, and I know you covered this briefly earlier, but Adam Ramsay asks (and a lot of us are still asking!) of the UK elections:

    "What percentage of the wrongness of the polls can be explained by a failure to accurately predict turnout?

    "I saw turnout projections of around 70%. Turnout in this election was in fact only 65.8% in England - only 0.3% up on last time. This was masked somewhat by a growth of 8% in Scotland and 1% in Wales, taking it to 66.1% in the UK as a whole.

    "It seems feasible to me that Tory types, as well as generally being more likely to turn out, would have been more scared into voting this time, whilst Labour types had less of a reason to show up.

    "I've heard various explanations for the result/polling difference, but differential turnout projections seem to me to likely explain some of it. Or, to put it another way, the utter failure of Labour to enthuse its base."

    ReplyDelete
  20. James,

    As you know, I maintained all along including here in your comments that Cameron would get back and that the whole SNP influence on Labour schtick was a waste of time. I also maintained that another Tory government would lead to an increased demand for independence.
    I think I am right - an awful lot of No voters believed they would have a Labour government - and that we will now see a step change in support for independence of maybe 5-6%. When is the next poll that will ask the question?
    I know you don't agree, but I think we should avoid being shunted into the more powers cul-de-sac and go for another referendum about 2018, which all psephology indicates will be the height of mid-term popularity for the Tory government. As London Labour will have a new still more right wing leadership, and failure Murphy may still be with us, the chances will never get better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Craig,

      I don't think it quite works like that. The strength the SNP has gathered is because they have been eminently reasonable with a completely unreasonable establishment (e.g. continuing to offer to support Labour in the run up to the election despite Labour's response). They need to continue the same approach with the Conservative Government, which means that being willing to pursue more powers need not mean being "shunted into the more powers cul-de-sac" but means continuing to be reasonable and ask for the necessary powers, which necessarily ultimately requires independence. They would be foolish to try and set up a confrontation. That confrontation will come from peoples experience of the Westminster Govt (and hence your predicted 5% rise in support for Indy) but the Scot Govt needs to continue to be the bastion of reasonableness for that to lead to a good IndyRef2 result.

      Delete
    2. Craig : There's a huge YouGov poll underway asking for Holyrood voting intentions and views on independence, but I'm not sure whether it's intended for publication.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  21. sorry mid-term unpopularity obviously

    ReplyDelete
  22. " the whole SNP influence on Labour schtick was a waste of time."

    *Looks at the staggering unprecedented historic westminster result and popularity of the SNP

    *Laughs :-D

    ReplyDelete
  23. You Gov poll ongoing, huge number of Q's but asked how you voted GE15, did you regret, Holyrood VI, another indyref in 10years, how would you vote in indyref2

    will be interesting to see any movement on Yes / No after the GE

    ReplyDelete