Talk:The Scotsman

Untitled

Removed: "While more than every London-based title put together" How does 80,000 issues compare to the London papers? lots of issues | leave me a message 13:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Political Allegiance

I'm not sure that the recent change to an untidy and unnecessarily linked "no political allegiance" is for the best. While there was seemingly nothing wrong with centre-right, could we not discuss whether that ought to have been changed? For all I know stances may have changed since the sale of the paper which may have seen a slightly more liberal line in editorial opinion, however I can not make any claims. If any change has occurred due to this, I doubt it would amount to "no political allegiance"... 86.135.171.89 20:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Does "rabid anti-SNP drivel" count as an allegiance? Shame there won't be a usable source with that description... - TG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.84.18 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

...Fast forward eight years...

This is still an issue. I see we’ve tried “independent”, “centrist”, some kind of “syncretism” thing, and most recently “Conservative” with a link to the relevant wiki page. The problem is, there doesn’t appear to be a whole lot of discussion prior to changes, and so we’re leaving it subject to whomever wants to make an unchallenged assertion. For that reason, I’ve reverted the recent change back to “Centrist”, for the time being anyway. (I’m not saying it’s not Conservative, but we shouldn’t be accepting what is, in this context, the mere opinion of a single editor. We need something more than that.)

SO, I propose that we leave it as-is or, perhaps better, just take the field out, until such times as it has been discussed and a consensus reached. And just by way of gentle reminder: what we want on this or any other WP page is not what we believe to be the case, but what we can show that reliable sources believe to be the case. Our job is not to say what are the facts. Our job is to say what those sources say are the facts. 70.123.153.76 (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

...Fast forward another two:...

They are not particularly politically aligned. Being SNP-sceptical doesn't make it right-wing and the source linked to back up that assertion doesn't give any reasoning for it's "conservative" moniker. It's often quite critical of what the rest of the country would consider 'right wing' so this doesn't make sense. I do not feel that it meets WP:RS either, unless someone can prove me wrong on that. Will leave for now, but I am very very sceptical that this is accurate. OH NO IT'S cmn HIDE YOUR MUM HIDE YOUR WIFE ( ❝❞ /✍ ) 09:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The Times: "Scotsman staff condemn ‘disgusting’ treatment as Editor-in-Chief is sacked"

Short extract from Times article:

Mike Wade Published at 12:01AM, April 13 2012 Devastated staff at Scotsman newspapers walked out in disgust yesterday after the shock dismissal of John McLellan, the group’s Editor-in-Chief. The latest victim of a cull of senior management by Johnston Press, Britain’s second largest newspaper publisher, Mr McLellan’s treatment was described as “utterly disgusting, demoralising and demeaning” by one senior journalist. The Scotsman, which sold more than 90,000 copies a day 20 years ago, had an estimated sale of 30,000 on Easter Monday, a decline that mirrors the fate of many regional titles. “This role (Editor-in-Chief) which has overall editorial responsibility for The Scotsman, The Edinburgh Evening News and Scotland on Sunday, will cease to exist,” said Mr Richardson, a former McVities manager, responsible for HobNobs and Ginger Nuts. “The editors of each title will report directly to the managing director of the Scottish Publishing Unit.” The memo added that Angus Morrison, the managing director of Angus Country Press has also left his post. The announcement over the company’s intranet was greeted with shock by journalists. Mr McLellan is a substantial figure in the newspaper industry, and sits on the Press Complaints Commission. As editor of The Scotsman, and overseeing the publication of both Scotland on Sunday and The Edinburgh Evening News, he was an important part of Johnston Press Scotland. Until 9am yesterday.

--Mais oui! (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Magnus Linklater, the former editor, is questioning whether the title can now survive. Also seems to be a move of features and magazine production to England. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Magazine production from England means production - not content. Scotsman pubs' journalists are based around Scotland. Also, Mike Wade is a known friend of John McLellan: the views he reported were very partial. Staff morale improved with the appointment of Ian Stewart. Mr Stewart is also a substantial figure in journalism. McLellan is now working for the Scottish Conservatives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.131.204 (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"Unionist"

OK - I know I'm stepping into a viper's nest here, but I'm going to tackle the multiple uses of the word "Unionist" which have been added to the article by an anonymous user. There are a couple of problems with this, which might not be apparent especially to readers outside Scotland:

• The word "Unionist" is a loaded and confusing one in Scotland. Those who are in favour of independence will often describe their opponents as Unionist, but those who are against independence do not always self-identify in those terms. A more NPOV term would be "pro-union", or "against independence". Citation: [1]
• Although the majority of people probably would agree that the Scotsman is against independence, its official position is that it hasn't decided yet. Citation: [2] (final section).

If the article is going to make these statements, then they need to be rigorously supported by citations from neutral sources (so not, for example, websites which campaign for indepdendence).

For the time being I'm going to add some tags to the article, to give the person who added these words an opportunity to add citations. Mortonhall (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point: also at the last election, the Scotsman recommended backing the SNP! Hardly the act of a staunch Unionist journal. It is more accurate to describe the paper as "centre right" in outlook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.131.204 (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is probably fair to say the paper is SNP-sceptical, in the face of recent assertions by the scottish government that membership of the EU would not be problematic if Scotland became independent. The Scotsman had a scoop in December, revealing a letter had been written by the EU president Jose Manuel Barroso stating that this was not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.131.204 (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

accuracy

The article says that the paper has an audited circulation of 28,500, but the link to the source clearly says this is just an industry analysis and not the ABC figure 195.59.102.211 (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Scotsman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150613074658/http://www.abc.org.uk/Certificates/47046607.pdf to http://www.abc.org.uk/Certificates/47046607.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130101125719/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk:80/node/49153 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/49153

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. abc

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. PressGazette

Belastro (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)