Talk:The National (Scotland)

Political allegiance
There are two problems with the introduction/summary:

1) Firstly, the language is suggestive, implying some link between the SNP and The National. The SNP is mentioned twice in summary. The National quite categorically stated this was not the case in its first issue, noting that whilst the newspaper supported independence, it would hold the SNP government to account like any other. Unless concrete proof can be provided that indicates otherwise, the language in the summary needs to be made more neutral.

(As an aside, it should be clear from the Scottish referendum that support for Scottish independence and the SNP are two distinct, very separate things.)

2) Undue weight. Wikipedia does not mention alleged political allegiances, for any Scottish newspaper, in article introductions. Not one. Therefore to make an exception in this case is unfair, and lends undue weight to allegations of SNP affiliation.

A compromise would be to reword rather than remove the last paragraph of the Introduction, to make it more balanced and representative. (80.192.37.212 (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC))


 * I don't double post as a rule, but an exception (at least in part) is needed here, I think. As the newspaper's political stance was a key part of the reason for its launch, I'm not sure what your complaint is, and while other Scottish newspaper articles don't mention their political allegiance, in this case it is relevant. I don't think the article implies a link between the newspaper and SNP, more that they share a common goal and that their choice of launch venue did raise a few eyebrows. Knowing the disagreements that may arise around this article's content, I wrote it with the Featured article criteria in mind, and articles such as The Covent-Garden Journal. That is a featured article, and if you read through it you'll find discussion of controversies in its lede. The fact many of Wikipedia's other newspaper articles don't include the information may have more to do with them being incomplete. I am pleased that you've finally brought this issue to the talk page rather than just taking it out because it's not to your particular liking, so let's have a sensible discussion about this. This is Paul (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Lesley Riddoch
The intro presents comments in favour of the National by Lesley Riddoch. That's completely fine as it balances out the negative comments that are also mentioned, but it's misleading not to acknowledge that Riddoch is both an independence campaigner and a columnist for the newspaper. Both facts are vital for putting the statement in context - just as it's vital to know George Foulkes is a Labour peer. 82.26.17.69 (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Um...no. She is a columnist for several newspapers (she writes for the Scotsman for example), and to state that she is one solely for the National is misleading. This is Paul (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody, at any point, has suggested stating that she only writes for the National so that comment seems fairly irrelevant to the point being raised. The point was that it's useful for context to make clear she isn't an entirely neutral observer. 82.26.17.69 (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes vote statistics
An anonymous ip has been altering the yes vote statistics in this article to make them look smaller (see here for an example). While technically this is correct the widely reported figure was 45% rather than 36%, and that is what we should be reporting. We are not purveyors of original research. This is Paul (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)