SNP Civil War III is pure fiction

Headlining a myth entirely of their own creation is classic media construction of reality. Media Studies students as young as 16 have pounced on this for their latest projects because it’s an easy one. They can run a wee focus group with their pals and see how many believe the story is true. They can probably get their granny to say it must be true because it’s on the BBC.

Of course it’s not true. The whole idea comes from Nick Eardley’s essay two days ago, which I failed with an E grade. Here’s my deconstruction [meeja word] of his guff:

Nick has a lot to say but little evidence for it. Even a First-Year journalism student knows you need some real evidence to make any case. You know, attributable sources, reliable sources, maybe even some numbers?

Here’s what Nick has:

  1. [T]here are factions in the party
  2. There are even conversations
  3. Some critics say
  4. Some senior figures in the party, such as MP Joanna Cherry
  5. Others – such as veteran MP Pete Wishart
  6. Others still want
  7. The MP Angus MacNeil is one of those who think
  8. He added:
  9. Mr MacNeil is not the only one
  10. Privately, others also say
  11. One parliamentarian said
  12. [T]here are also those
  13. Some have told me
  14. [S]ome in the SNP are
  15.  [T]here are those in the SNP considering the possibility of life after Ms Sturgeon – and even some who think she might not be around for much longer.
  16. Figures in the party have told me
  17. A few have used the exact same phrase
  18. I put that point to a couple of SNP politicians who agreed to interviews. First, Mr MacNeil, who said: “I suppose that’s maybe a matter for events and Nicola Sturgeon – who knows? What I’m concentrating on is not so much the personalities involved but it’s the issue of independence.” Hardly a full-throated endorsement. I also asked Kenny MacAskill, who was Justice Secretary in Scotland under Mr Salmond and is now an MP. He praised Ms Sturgeon but also used a phrase that always raises eyebrows in politics: “There is no vacancy.”
  19. Many of Ms Sturgeon’s supporters are
  20. One, when asked
  21. [S]ome are urging the leadership to think about a contingency plan to replace Ms Sturgeon with a like-minded figure if she has to quit.
  22. One told me:

22 claims, only 6 attributed and to only 4 people within a party of 48 MPs, 63 MSPs hundreds of councillors and thousands of members. Frankly, all Nick has found is polite debate within a healthy democratic party, no factions visible at all, one (MacNeil) tweeting regularly his impatience to get on with Indyref2, one other proposing testing the legal situation, another doesn’t want to do that and one old warrior has nothing to say.

Nick then predicts: ‘The SNP is facing an extremely challenging few weeks.’

Why don’t we check out the polls? If there is any evidence in more than one poll, of a notable fall in support, maybe I’ll worry.

17 thoughts on “SNP Civil War III is pure fiction”

  1. ‘The SNP is facing an extremely challenging few weeks.’ – by this Mr Eardley is probably telling us that BBC Scotland News and Current Affairs will continue its litany of anti SG ‘stories’ and, as we saw on Friday last week, increase the number of these. This is, probably part of a strategy to give the newly elected Leader of the Scottish Conservatives a chance to be on the front foot.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Sounds like an abstracted set of punch points circulated by MI6 to certain journalists and news outlets.

    They are skilled in interpreting completely unrelated and unverified elements of gossip into a semi coherent justification for more wonga to help justify their mystical non existence.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. ‘Mystical non existence’ 🙂

      You have just reminded me of some interesting ruminations I was having regarding mysterious non-reporting of very juicy scandal material contained in the north Ayrshire PFI schools deal – you’d think £1m a month of taxpayer money getting whisked out of the country would be worthy of note – but no media outlets appear to want to explore it. I was looking up some just general background info on the institutions involved and some key people – also very little information, except that they existed (this is public money remember, and public contracts, and public institutions).

      Having explored the murky world of Craig’s blog I am aware of such a thing as a ‘d’ notice (it’s called something else now, but can’t remember what), where the security services can ban any mention of a person or a thing or an event – this is something all news outlets – our mainstream – have to legally obey. So, it is quite possible that some aspect of the above scandal has been suppressed – legally, but for no reason I can fathom, and they don’t need to give us reasons apparently – so the media can’t report on it. It would also explain some of the weirdo behaviour by the police and the highly redacted documents presented under freedom of information.

      I think most people would agree that some things do need to come under national security, and not be public knowledge if it would cause harm, but it would be nice to know that this was the case. And maybe it should be explained to the council above why they need to squander such huge sums of money?

      It gives an interesting perspective when we see all mainstream media outlets responding as one – either reporting with one mind, or not mentioning something at all. I am sure most things are just run of the mill bias, but things like the PFI scandal above, perhaps not.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Richard Murphy has just posted an article on gas-lighting – his focus is on Brexit and Boris of course – but I was reflecting on how much of this type of reporting on the SNP is effectively gas-lighting – sowing confusion and self-doubt. It seems to be a fairly old propaganda technique – is it actually something they look at in meeja studies John? I’m interested in at what point does it spill over from bias to gaslighting, and am I wrong to think BBC reports spill over onto this extreme?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Ah….I think they’re mostly in a bubble doing things more habitually that calculatedly (?). Back in the day, folk like John Boothman were probably gaslightingand maybe Campbell and Smith still today but most drones?


      1. So, they are pretty much confused themselves, and just pass on on their total cognitive dissonance?

        Do you reckon the uk government is doing it on purpose then? Under advisement I assume, they don’t really have more than two brain cells to rub together.


  4. I’m sure there are some on the fringes of MI5, senior civil service, senior Tory/Labour figures who actively seek to pervert ant democratic process that might damage their interests but, as in Scotland, most are on auto-pilot.

    Do you detect signs of more conscious purposeful behaviour more widely?


    1. Well, yes of course it’s there, but it’s *secret*. Not necessarily from the media – though like I said above, there are certain things no broadcaster or newspaper are allowed to report. And with the state secrets act 1989 they aren’t even allowed to tell us there IS a secret they aren’t allowed to report. I don’t know at what level it applies at, but certainly editorial. Journalists might just get stories shelved and not told why. But the security services (there’s tons of them) will have recruits all over the place in journalism I should imagine. But I also imagine that they aren’t constantly active.

      If you see memes appearing, that’s usually driven by the security services, but people copy them as it builds momentum so you can’t say really where they come from. So likes of the supposed divisions in the SNP, or even the statements claiming that you can’t criticise the SNP or it would harm Indy – these aren’t logical, but they gain momentum until genuine people believe it. Lots and lots of little things – anything that shuts down debate is suspect. This is mostly on social media – but that’s what they have to use to target Indy supporters now. I don’t think the mainstream media is necessarily conciously doing what they are doing – but they will be influenced like everyone else.

      MPs are recruited into likes of MI5 too, it’s all very shady and,,, well, secret. That’s why I think we shouldn’t be secret about anything, because (a) they already know it all, so we are just keeping secrets from ourselves and (b) it’s harder for them to misinform if all info is already out there. Also, there’s lots of security services, not all working on the same page, factions, so I don’t get too worked up about it. You would have to know their actual purpose before really being able to spot the bigger picture stuff.

      (Short answer would have been: well. yes and no !!)

      Liked by 2 people

      1. When I shared that post to Facebook I specifically pointed out Sam’s comment.
        I’m sharing almost every blog from TuSC now, trying to educate as many as possible.


  5. All part of Englands Westminster propoganda plan.
    Criticise NS over and over in the newspapers and on BBC and it’s pals
    Stick a couple of regulars on WOS to do the same and rile up a few arguments
    Then say NS is finished

    Same tactics as “ the bridge”

    Criticise over and over bla bla bla
    Stick a couple of bla bla bla
    Then say the bridge is useless

    But all those in Scotland know it’s all lies
    Even the British nationalists know it’s all lies

    NS going strong
    Bridge going strong

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.