Decision of the Complaints Committee – 04617-21
Hetherington v Scottish Sunday Express
Summary of Complaint
1. Ross Hetherington complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Scottish Sunday Express breached Clause 1
(Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “SAY
GOODBYE TO INDYREF 2, NICOLA / BORIS SAYS: FOCUS ON RECOVERY... NOT INDY”,
published on 9 May 2021.
2. The article, which appeared on the front page of the
newspaper and continued on to page 4, reported on the outcome of the May 2021
Scottish Parliament elections. The article stated on the front-page that the
“SNP [Scottish National Party] had
fallen short of an overall majority” and that “a dramatic second day of
election counting […] effectively end[ed] Ms Sturgeon’s hope of a majority for
her own manifesto.” It went on to report that “[t]here will be a
pro-independence majority at Holyrood”, with the article continuing on page 4
that the Green Party had returned 8 MSPs, and that “the SNP and the Greens
[had] include[ed] another independence referendum in their manifesto[s]”. The
article also noted that “[n]evertheless, the lack of an overall majority for
the SNP will make it much easier for Mr Johnson to continue to resist the calls
for another [independence] vote.”
3. The complainant said that the front-page headline, “SAY
GOODBYE TO INDYREF 2, NICOLA” was inaccurate and unsupported by the text of the
article, in breach of Clause 1. He considered this to be the case because,
whereas the headline stated that there would be no prospect of another
independence referendum, the majority of MSPs elected were in favour of another
independence referendum. The complainant noted that the article appeared to
contradict the headline on this point, where it made reference to a
“pro-independence majority” at Holyrood and the fact that the Green Party
candidates had also run for election on an election manifesto which included
another independence referendum.
4. The publication said it did not accept that the headline
of the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. It first noted that the
headline referred only to the SNP. It also said that it was not in dispute that
they had fallen short of an overall majority and therefore did not have the
mandate to call another independence referendum.
5. The complainant said that it was not the case that the
SNP could not hold a referendum, where it was possible for the party to work
with smaller parties – such as the Green Party, whose manifesto included
support for second referendum – to pass legislation.
Relevant Code Provisions
Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not
supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where
appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence
should be as required by the regulator.
iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies
should be given, when reasonably called for.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings of the Committee
6. The Editors’ Code makes clear that newspapers are
permitted to editorialise and campaign, provided they take care to distinguish
between comment, conjecture, and fact. Therefore, newspapers are entitled to
express partisan views, provided the Code is not otherwise breached.
7. The Committee considered that the headline of the
front-page portion of the article was clearly framed as the newspaper’s
partisan response to the outcome of the Scottish Parliament Election. It was
the view of the newspaper that, without a majority, the SNP did not have a
mandate for a second independence referendum. It was entitled to express this
view, where the factual basis was made clear: There was a “pro-independence
majority at Holyrood” where “the SNP and the Greens [had] include[ed] another
independence referendum in their manifesto[s]”; however, the SNP had not gained
a majority. The factual basis was made clear on the front page and was
elaborated on further on page 4. Where the front-page headline was clearly
framed as the newspaper’s view on the election outcome, there was no breach of
Clause 1.
Conclusion
8. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
9. N/A
Date complaint received: 09/05/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/07/2021
Back to ruling listing