Isn’t it amazing how newspapers get the wrong end of the stick - especially if they are wielding the stick themselves? Here’s a classic example in which one paper attacked another.

The National, the newspaper that supports Scottish independence, took the Daily Mail to task over an article about Nicola Sturgeon’s appearance on Desert Island Discs.

Mistake one: the article was published by the Mail on Sunday (as the byline clearly states).

The National’s editorial, in fulminating against London papers for twisting the truth about Sturgeon, said that the Mail story claimed that the first minister had expressed a “passionate hatred” of Margaret Thatcher.

But “to the best of our knowledge”, said the National, “she never has said such a thing.” It was a “false claim”.

Really? I think the National’s writer should have consulted the biography of Sturgeon carried by its sister publication, The Herald. In it, Sturgeon is quoted as saying:

“Thatcher was the motivation for my entire political career. I hated everything she stood for.”

So the Mail on Sunday can surely claim some justification for the opening line to its piece:

“Nicola Sturgeon grew up with a passionate hatred of Mrs Thatcher, but Scotland’s first minister will today admit she now draws inspiration from the former Tory prime minister.”

In its editorial, the National said:

“In making this false claim about the first minister, the Daily Mail and those who have slavishly copied its line are trying to hoodwink the many English people who admired the Iron Lady. The Mail’s motives can only be guessed at. Post-Leveson, however, twisting facts so blatantly is no way for any responsible newspaper to conduct itself.”

The hoodwinking in this case is by the National. Is that a way for a responsible newspaper to conduct itself?