I regularly refer to “the national press”, meaning “the British press”. But it is not an appropriate description because several of the London-based newspapers, despite their unionist politics, treat Scotland as a nation apart.
Principles take second place to profit. What counts more each side of the border is the maximisation of sales.
So the Daily Mail edited in London runs a front page today calling the SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon the “most dangerous woman in Britain” following her performance in the televised leaders’ debate.
But the Mail, despite its antipathy towards the SNP (and much vaunted advocacy of press freedom), didn’t feel confident enough to go with that in Scotland. Instead, the front page headline of the paper edited in Glasgow says: “Nicola: I want Tories to win”.
That’s the story based on a claim - first reported by the Daily Telegraph - that she would prefer David Cameron to be prime minister rather than Ed Miliband. She has since denied saying any such thing (as she would, wouldn’t she?).
It was picked up by the Sun in England and appears in the later editions in a short piece on page 2. By contrast, the Scottish Sun splashes on a story headlined “Stur crazy”, reporting that Sturgeon was mobbed by adoring crowds in Edinburgh after being “top of the box”.
The Scottish Daily Express front page is dominated by a headline saying “Sturgeon ‘prefers Cameron at helm’”. But its English edition, which splashes on a supposed increase in foreign aid, doesn’t mention it. (Then again, it’s so short of staff at night it lacks the ability to follow late-breaking stories).
“Nic backs Tories”, says the front page of the Daily Star in Scotland, with a full page devoted to her inside. There is no election story at all in the English edition.
The Daily Mirror alone of the tabloids sticks to its pro-Labour agenda in both English and Scottish editions, making almost no reference to Sturgeon’s TV success while praising Miliband to the skies.
In the serious press, Sturgeon’s confident TV performance is widely appreciated and considered to be bad for Labour. The Times’s splash (in England) says: “Sturgeon triumph has Labour in turmoil”.
Jeremy Paxman, in a column inside, refers to Sturgeon being “pre-eminent” in the debate. A pocket cartoon showed a mother telling her husband that their daughter had “swapped all her Rihanna posters for Nicola Sturgeon”.
A front page picture in the Guardian shows a smiling Sturgeon surrounded by young people in Edinburgh anxious to feature her in a selfie. There is a similar picture inside, also chosen by the Independent to illustrate its article by political editor Andrew Grice in which he suggests “Sturgeon has moved to the heart of the general election campaign”.
By far the most interesting piece of analysis is in the Telegraph by Dan Hodges. He argues that Miliband was outflanked in the TV debate from the left by Sturgeon in company with the Welsh nationalist, Leanne Wood, and Natalie Bennett of the Greens.
Hodges writes that after Miliband had attempted to upbraid Cameron on his austerity agenda, “to his horror, he suddenly found himself under concerted attack from the left; first from Bennett, and then from Sturgeon...
“It wasn’t supposed to happen like this. Miliband was supposed to be fighting Bullingdon toffs with plums in their mouths. Not angel-tongued charity workers from the valleys”.
A Financial Times editorial, in noting that “this election is without precedent” appears to bemoan the breakdown of “Britain’s longstanding Conservative-Labour duopoly”.
It recognises that “Ms Sturgeon confirmed the popularity that has seen SNP membership soar since the independence referendum”, and goes on to argue:
“Her straightforward avowal of anti-austerity policies looks set to lose Labour any chance of gaining a governing majority. But her popularity may also blunt the Tory attack linking a Labour government with Scottish domination southof the border”.
The Daily Mirror’s leading article is the most surprising reaction of all to the TV debate. “Miliband is suddenly POPULAR with British voters”, it claims.
Can the paper be serious? Evidently, it is:
“People quite like the man they see on screen and his Labour-boosting personal surge explains why Tory chicken David Cameron is dodging a man-to-man showdown”.
There, in a sentence, is the definition of partisanship!