More than 17,000 ScotRail trains were cancelled last year, according to data obtained through a freedom of information request by the Scottish Liberal Democrats. The report revealed that 17,491 services were cancelled during the 2024/25 period. Additionally, around 306,120 trains did not arrive on time, which accounted for approximately 45% of all scheduled services. Furthermore, about 71,691 trains were delayed by five minutes or more.

Jamie Greene, the transport spokesman for the Liberal Democrats at Holyrood, emphasized the need for a reliable transport system in Scotland. He expressed concern that many passengers are paying high fares only to experience frequent cancellations and delays. Greene noted that despite three years under SNP Government management of Scotland's railways, significant issues with train reliability persist.

In response to these concerns, Mark Ilderton from ScotRail stated that while they operate over 2,100 services daily with a punctuality rate of around 90%, cancellations can occur due to various factors beyond their control. He acknowledged passenger frustration and affirmed ScotRail's commitment to improving service reliability.

A spokesperson from the Scottish Government highlighted that cancellations represented only about 2.1% of all ScotRail services and asserted that train performance in Scotland is generally better than the UK average. They also mentioned ongoing investments in rail infrastructure aimed at enhancing service quality and affordability for passengers.

Overall, this situation underscores ongoing challenges within Scotland's rail system and highlights calls for improvements from both political representatives and transportation officials.

Original article

The article presents a complex web of biases that shape the narrative around ScotRail's performance. One of the most striking biases is the political bias, which leans decidedly left. The Scottish Liberal Democrats, a centrist party, are quoted extensively in the article, while their opponents are largely absent from the narrative. Jamie Greene, the transport spokesman for the Liberal Democrats at Holyrood, is given significant airtime to express his concerns about train reliability and fares. In contrast, representatives from other parties or organizations are not mentioned at all. This selective framing creates an impression that only one perspective on ScotRail's performance matters.

Furthermore, the article exhibits cultural and ideological bias by framing Scotland's rail system as inherently problematic. The language used to describe cancellations and delays is consistently negative, with phrases like "frequent cancellations," "passenger frustration," and "significant issues." This creates a narrative that Scotland's rail system is failing its passengers and that there is a pressing need for improvement. In contrast, when Mark Ilderton from ScotRail attempts to provide context for these issues – citing factors beyond their control – his comments are downplayed or dismissed as insufficient.

The article also reveals economic and class-based bias by highlighting high fares as a major concern for passengers. While this may be true for some passengers, it ignores other factors that might contribute to cancellations and delays, such as infrastructure constraints or staffing shortages. By focusing solely on fares as a source of frustration, the article reinforces an economic narrative that prioritizes consumer interests over other considerations.

Linguistic and semantic bias are also present in the article's use of emotionally charged language. Phrases like "cancellations can occur due to various factors beyond their control" are framed in a way that implies ScotRail is somehow responsible for these cancellations. This creates an emotional tone that primes readers to view ScotRail unfavorably. Additionally, words like "frustration" and "concern" carry connotations of distress or anxiety, which reinforces this negative emotional tone.

Selection and omission bias are evident in the way certain facts or viewpoints are included or excluded from the narrative. For example, while 17% of scheduled services were cancelled during 2024/25 period (a relatively small percentage), this figure is not presented in context with other statistics on service reliability (e.g., punctuality rate). By omitting these comparisons, readers may be led to believe that cancellations represent a more significant problem than they actually do.

Structural and institutional bias emerge when considering how authority systems are implicitly defended or left uninterrogated within this text: The Scottish Government spokesperson offers responses aimed at mitigating concerns raised by Jamie Greene but does so without scrutinizing systemic issues related to infrastructure investment decisions made under SNP management during those three years under review; instead emphasizing ongoing investments into rail infrastructure without addressing potential inadequacies within existing frameworks governing such investments; thus reinforcing existing power structures rather than interrogating them critically.

Confirmation bias becomes apparent when considering how assumptions about train reliability persist despite three years under SNP Government management: Rather than questioning whether there might have been systemic failures prior to SNP management leading up-to-present-day challenges faced by Scotland’s railways; instead attributing blame solely onto current governance structures without examining broader historical contexts influencing contemporary outcomes; thereby reinforcing pre-existing narratives about governance failures rather than seeking out alternative explanations rooted within complex socio-economic realities affecting transportation systems nationwide