The good thing is that they do occasionally offer a deeper view of a Scottish topic than its competitors, including the BBC. The bad thing is that unlike the BBC they need the money from advertising, so you get ‘promoted’ articles, video ads which get past ad blockers and so on.
A minor nuisance is copypasting: if you copy, say, “excruciating” from this article, and paste it, for instance, into a dictionary search box to check the meaning of the word, what appears there is this: excruciating Read more at: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/kirk-agrees-to-apologise-for-failing-to-recognise-gay-people-1-4456825.
And the comments. (I know I don’t have to read them, but …) The articles themselves are no more biased than The Guardian’s, but the vast majority of the commentators seem to be people who wouldn’t miss the slightest opportunity to lambast Sturgeon and applaud Trump, usually in a language generally associated with trolls. They would almost make one forget that one supports Brexit as well.
So I only have a look, twice a week, at two sections: Glasgow & Strathclyde news, and More Heritage, which every now and then has something in or about Gaelic. (And yes, now and then something mentioned on one of their Twitter accounts.)