Sturgeon: Brexit impact leak exposes ‘desperate cover-up’
● First Minister says Whitehall studies vindicate Scottish estimates
The case for a hard Brexit is “dead in the water”, Nicola Sturgeon has claimed, after leaked Whitehall impact studies revealed all known options for the UK’S future relationship with the EU will do serious damage to the economy.
Economic growth will be 5 per cent lower after 15 years even if the UK manages to agree a comprehensive free trade deal with the EU, the assessment finds.
Staying in the single market through membership of the European Economic Area would see growth slow by 2 per cent, while crashing out of the EU without a Brexit deal and relying on World Trade Organisation rules would knock 8 per cent off growth, according to civil servants.
Free trade deals with the United States and other countries will not make up the difference, the document also states.
Ministers dismissed the study, leaked to the news website Buzzfeed, as an attempt to “undermine Brexit”, insisting it was incomplete “initial work” and did not examine the “bespoke” relationship the UK government is seeking.
But it was seized upon by critics, who accused ministers of engaging in a “cover-up” of bad news on Brexit.
“This devastating leak is a watershed moment in the Brexit negotiations,” Ms Sturgeon said.
“For months, Theresa May’s government have refused to produce any detailed analysis of the potential
From the verb which describes the tendency of some men to explain something to women in a condescending manner to the adjective that perfectly captures the irascibility brought on by a rumbling stomach, new words are a sign of our constantly evolving common language.
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) – the bible of lexicography that dutifully records the changing nature of how we use words – has accepted more than 1,100 new entries.
The list of additions draws on phrases that have become ubiquitous on social media such as “mansplaining”, used to describe a man who expounds on a subject in a patronising and chauvinistic manner, usually to a member of the opposite sex.
Also included is “hangry”, a blend of “hungry” and “angry” used colloquially to describe someone who is “bad-tempered or irritable as a result of hunger”.
The term “snowflake”, which had already gained a new meaning in 1983, has recently taken on a less than complimentary meaning, used as a noun, has also been included.
The word, once used to describe children with a unique personality and potential, is increasingly wielded as an insult to dismiss someone who, the OED says, is “overly sensitive or as feeling entitled to special treatment or consideration”.
The new editions also include a Scottish twist on the word “selfie”, which has been in the OED since 2014. “Selfy”, on the other hand, is an adjective dating back to the 17th century first used by Robert Baillie, a Church of Scotland minister and author. It means “self-centred” or “selfish”.
The compound “me time”, which refers to time devoted to doing what one wants, typically on their own, makes the cut, as does “swag” derived from “swagger” and used in slang to denote “bold self-assurance in style or manner”. The OED’S first citation comes from a 2003 song by US rapper Jay-z.
The new additions will bolster the OED’S compendium of more than 829,000 words. In order for a term to make it into the august tome – which published its first edition in 1884 – there must be evidence it has been used “for a reasonable amount of time”, as well as several independent examples of its usage.
The OED’S researchers often consult experts in particular fields when deciding if a new coinage should be included.
In the latest update the team also spoke to contributors to the online parenting forum Mumsnet, in an effort to capture the developments in the English language that have risen around child birth.
Among the new entries resulting from the project are a number of initialisms commonly used online such as TTC (trying to conceive).
When taking a pregnancy test one might get a BFN (big fat negative) or a BFP (big fat positive). Further down the line, some exhausted new parents may try CIO (cry it out) as a means of baby sleep training.
OED senior editor Fi Mooring said: “These words reflect personal experiences but many of them also resonate much more widely, even with people who are not parents.
“The distinctive lexicon of parenting maps a whole range of human experience from immense joy to immeasurable sorrow and, considering its relevance to so much of the population, it seemed an underrepresented category of vocabulary in the dictionary.”
Used to describe a man who expounds in a patronising and chauvinistic manner, usually to a member of the opposite sex
OED DEFINITION
There was a time, not so long ago, when the rapid evolution of social networks from a conduit for ephemera and blurry cat photographs to the epicentre of day-to-day discourse proved problematic for journalists. I worked for one editor who was aghast at the idea of quoting someone’s Facebook status update or tweet in print, no matter if the poster was a public figure and what they had to say was newsworthy. Only by speaking to them and inviting them to repeat what they had typed verbatim would the copy pass muster.
It was a gumshoe forerunner of the modern two-step verification process, and labouring under such fogeyish mistrust of emerging communications platforms seemed an unnecessary toil. On occasion, of course, it had unintended benefits. Opening up a line of conversation brought elaboration, reflection, and nuance, qualities seldom found in a throwaway post, and all of which made for more thoughtful quotes, and a better story.
A decade on, it seems inconceivable that the likes of Facebook or Twitter would be dismissed out of hand by a straitened fourth estate. They have become an integral fixture of the media ecosystem, a nerve signal through which government policy is set, factions are exposed, scandals erupt, and people bleat on endlessly about flags. The messages that are conveyed can be insincere or tendentious, but it was ever thus. What is important is that the legitimacy of the medium itself is no longer open to question. Or is it?
The recent forensic investigation by the New York Times detailing the opaque black market in phoney followers on Twitter strikes the latest blow against social media’s credibility. Just as tech giants are facing political heat over the proliferation of fake news, the revelation that just one little-known firm has bolstered the standing of politicians, academics, journalists, and celebrities by providing them with more than 200 million fake followers has muddied the waters further.
As the report pointed out, some calculations suggest that as many as 48 million of Twitter’s reported active users – nearly 15 per cent of the total – are automated accounts designed to simulate real people, although the company itself disputes the figure.
Whatever the exact number, the consequences of the industrial scale by which these so-called bot brokers are working are ominous. The rise of the bot brokers throws a spanner in the very cog which keeps social media turning: the implicit understanding that the interactions which play out in the ether are between real people.
In the online world of affirmation and validation, it is only natural that our curiosity is piqued by someone with what appears to be a sizeable band of adherents. For a modest outlay, it is possible to recruit thousands of them at a time. The fact that most of these created accounts have limited biographies and little in the way of interactions is neither here nor there. Most people don’t bother to scrutinise, the numbers give a lasting first impression.
The result is that people with the means and desire to leverage the metrics so as to artificially inflate their online standing will rise above the fray.
The added irony is that a sudden influx of fake followers is liable to beget more genuine followers.
This Black Mirror-esque turning of the tables damages trust further and leaves all of us uncertain as to whether an individual’s six-figurestrong follower base is a reflection of their wit and insight, or sheer desperation.
Not that those are the only variables at play. Without recourse to detailed data analysis of someone’s followers, it is nigh on impossible to know whether the quickfire accumulation of bots is a crude ploy on the part of the account owner, or a malicious smear orchestrated by one of their adversaries or competitors. Expect the latter to become more prevalent.
The upshot of all this is a direct challenge to supposedly democratising influence of social media. As New York’s attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, pointed out in the wake of the New York Times article: “The growing prevalence of bots means that real voices are too often drowned out in our public conversation. Those who can pay the most for followers can buy their way to apparent influence.”
It is tempting to suggest that the blame for all this lies with us as much it does with the bot brokers. After all, we assign qualitative merit to how many likes or retweets we receive and revel in a reality where none exists. But then again, the majority of people recognise social media’s advantages as well as its pitfalls, and are able to step back from its feedback loop.
No, the real guilty parties for this disruptive and destructive duplicity are the firms themselves. They have the knowledge to create algorithms to root out the problem overnight, yet lack the will to do so. The scourge of fake accounts is too convenient for those companies which depend on advertising revenue and who are able to reel out their latest record user numbers without even the most cursory of external checks.
There are some who may end up jettisoning social media altogether. That would be a hasty decision. It remains a valuable and stimulating arena. There is, however, a lesson to heed. We must pay less attention to the numbers and become even more discerning and sceptical – not only about what we read, but who is saying it. I’m sure my old editor would have approved.