As far as political news value goes, Scotland has a standing roughly on a par with a middle-sized English local authority

Only a quarter of civil servants in Scotland trust their political bosses in the Scottish Executive to spend taxpayers' money wisely, according to a survey reported in the Scotsman of 22 January. On the same day, the Herald revealed a leaked memo by the Executive's man in Brussels, in which he complained that his efforts on Scotland's behalf in Europe were continually undermined by Whitehall.

Two good stories, if you are Scottish, but probably of little interest if you are not. Predictably, the London-based papers (with the exception of the Financial Times) chose not to bring either story to the attention of their readers in England and Wales, and I don't expect those readers felt cheated.

By embracing devolution a decade ago, Scotland devolved its news, giving its own papers a lot more home-grown, kitchen-sink political stuff to write about. It was obvious that would happen, and good luck to them. Less predictable was the way in which Scotland has all but vanished from the papers that are read in England.

I was prompted to this thought, paradoxically, by a flurry of writing relating to Scotland in what I still call the national press. Even as the Jade Goody steamroller rumbled thunderously across the news landscape in recent days, there was a little space left over for comment on two complementary Scottish stories: the 300th anniversary of the Acts of Union and the prospect that the Scottish National Party might get hold of some power in the elections due in May.

Magnus Linklater, of the Times, said the Union was a Good Thing; Deborah Orr, of the Independent, told Scots to stop whingeing; Philip Stephens, of the Financial Times, said the SNP would lose an independence referendum; and Simon Jenkins, in the Guardian, proposed a constitutional solution to the West Lothian question. As for the Telegraph's Simon Heffer, he declared that all sensible Scots would vote SNP in May. (His point, as I understood it, was that he didn't give a damn what happened to the undeserving Scots, and an SNP victory would at least have the merit of sinking Gordon Brown's chances of becoming prime minister of England.)

A bracing but generally healthy reflection of the union of the two countries, you might say: the historic bond candidly discussed by some of our most intelligent columnists (at least two of them Scots). That's surely the way it should be. Except that the rash of columns was notable because it was unusual, and by their nature the articles were almost as much about England as Scotland - Heffer wrote of "we English".

On the news pages there have been a few political stories: Brown endorsed the Union; Tony Blair said Scotland would be crazy to vote against it; and David Cameron set off on a mission to revive Conservative fortunes north of the border - all a bit Anglocentric, if you ask me. And under the faits divers heading we had Bob Dylan buying a mansion in the Cairngorms, and a tourism body exploiting John Lennon's fondness for the Highlands in an effort to attract visitors - celebrity stories more than Scottish ones.

As a rule, editors try to give their readers what they want. If they are getting it right - and they usually are, give or take a little - the implication in this case is that readers south of the border are just not interested in Scotland. My own impression is that those readers probably see more news in their papers about the Republic of Ireland, which is a foreign country.

It is as if, now that the Scots have a parliament where they can air views and discuss events among themselves, the English don't want to know them any more, and so, as far as political news value goes, Scotland now has a standing roughly on a par with a middle-sized English local authority. The question "Can you name the Scottish First Minister?" is a common political trap in England, precisely because even well-informed people often can't.

Does it matter? The Scots, after all, are getting on with their business and may not care much about their profile south of the border. And it is certainly the case that few controversies in the Scottish Parliament have a practical impact on the lives of newspaper readers in England.

It might yet, however, have implications for the Union. The so-called "national", or London-based, papers are notionally part of the cultural cement holding the two countries together. They think of themselves as reaching every corner of the land, and in general they do - several even have distinct editions in Scotland, the better to serve readers there. One way or another, Scottish readers are seeing news from both sides of the border, enriching their idea of what is going on in their partner country.

The same cannot be said of readers of the English editions, who may imagine they are getting the national news, but are, with occasional exceptions, seeing only the English side of the Union. That is not a recipe for understanding.

Brian Cathcart is professor of journalism at Kingston University

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website