OVER days of fast-paced breaking news, you can possibly forgive a few slip-ups on the finer points of Scottish politics from the UK media.
But you’d expect them to get the basics right, at least. You know, things like the names of some of the key players in Scottish politics for the last few years (and in some cases, decades).
As the eyes of the world focused on Scotland over the last week, some details got lost in the noise.
Multiple outlets referred to some chap called “Hamza Yousaf” in their coverage.
The i newspaper told us that the misfortunes of this Hamza fellow “may be [a] timely boost for Labour”.
The Washington Post – whose motto is democracy dies in darkness – reported that the guy had resigned. Don’t know why they were on about this Hamza fellow when Humza was the one in the spotlight.
READ MORE: SNP confirm details of leadership race following Humza Yousaf resignation
Then there were repeated references to someone called John Sweeney, which sounds like the sort of name you might come up with if you created a politician out of a West of Scotland random name generator.
Kevin McKenna, formerly of this chapel and now a writer for The Herald, complained: “Who’s this SNP bloke John Sweeney the BBC news anchor is referring to?”
Who’s this SNP bloke John Sweeney the BBC news anchor is referring to?
— Kevin McKenna (@kmckenna63) April 29, 2024
Another Twitter/X user added: “Can someone please tell the [BBC News] presenter that it isn't pronounced John ‘Sweeney’.”
They were of course referring to the former deputy first minister John Swinney, one of the biggest figures in Scottish politics who was also the SNP leader around 20 years ago.
Perhaps no mistake was more annoying than the BBC’s repeated references yesterday to “the Bute agreement” while presenters were filling airtime before Humza Yousaf’s resignation speech yesterday.
The anchor referred to it multiple times, conjuring up images of Yousaf and his two erstwhile Green ministers taking to a secluded spot on the island to thrash out the details of their doomed power-sharing agreement. Just don’t mention the ferries…
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel