The mask slips
Among Scotland's professional media, there's a pretty wide consensus that the Herald is the best of a bad bunch when it comes to fair and balanced reporting. It's arguably Scotland's only genuine remaining "quality" newspaper, the Scotsman having to most intents and purposes become a large-format tabloid, full of shrieking headlines and "SNP accused" churnalism fed by Unionist-party press releases. While openly opposed to independence, the Herald offers regular commentary from all sides of the political spectrum, takes a mostly non-partisan line in editorial and rarely allows overt bias to seep into its news coverage.
Every now and again, though, it lets its guard down.
Today's front-page splash on the Fred Goodwin story by Michael Settle and Kate Devlin would be more at home in the pages of the Daily Record, or the "Scottish" editions of the Mail and Express. After the initial reporting of the former Sir Fred's de-ennoblement, which includes a line pointing out that he was recommended for his knighthood by "Jack McConnell's Scottish Executive" with no mention of the word "Labour" (an old trick more commonly used when some unknown regional councillor's been caught with his fingers in the till), the article goes on to note that the removal of the honour was backed by First Minister Alex Salmond. But it then immediately adds a line which is deployed frequently by Labour as an attack on the SNP leadership.
"At the time of the ABN Amro takeover, the First Minister had written to Mr Goodwin to show his support for the move.
The SNP politician famously signed his note to the banker "Yours for Scotland", adding that he "would like to offer any assistance my office can provide".
Finance Secretary John Swinney had also hailed the deal at the time as "an enormous achievement for RBS" that helped make Scotland seem "an attractive place to do business"."
The contrast between the paper's handling of the respective parts played by the SNP (emphasized) and Labour (concealed) in Goodwin's story is not accidental, and is instructive. Contrary to the Unionist narrative, Salmond's letter – just three lines long – made no endorsement of the Royal Bank of Scotland's decision in electing to buy ABN Amro. It did only what any Scottish Government of any political hue would be expected to do in the event of one of Scotland's biggest businesses embarking on a significant venture – wish it luck and offer any assistance it could provide.
It's not the responsibility of any government, in Scotland or anywhere else, to determine the wisdom or otherwise of a private-sector company's investment choices – indeed, a government would have no ability to do so even if it wanted to, the company's financial affairs being confidential information. And RBS's subsequent collapse as a result of the ABN Amro deal wasn't foreseen by anyone else at the time either. By so pointedly highlighting this irrelevance, and implying that the judgement of the SNP alone was at fault, the Herald aligns itself with the likes of Phil Taylor, the Tory councillor for Ealing, who quite remarkably asserted last month that:
"With this one letter Salmond has accepted moral liability for the bad debts of Bank of Scotland and Royal Bank of Scotland on behalf of the people of Scotland"
(No, we're not quite sure how HBOS got roped in either.)
We're sure this is only a blip in the Herald's normally-conscientious standard of reporting. But it serves as an illustration of how subtly the news agenda can be manipulated. Rest assured that this blog will keep watching the watchmen.
WoS,
In the same way that the Icelandic and Irish (Arc of Propsperity) banks used easy credit to write economy destroying levels of bad loans the major driver of UK banking bad debts is bad commercial loans written in Edinburgh by RBoS and BoS.
I was implying that if Salmond was so up for it he might like to write the cheques. From memory Edinburgh bad loans run to about £30 billion. Can Scotland walk the talk? I think not.
A Scottish prime minister did not wreck Lloyds by persuading it to buy HBOS because it was a foriegn bank.
"I was implying that if Salmond was so up for it he might like to write the cheques."
As the article points out, Salmond's letter in no way implies that he was "up for it". It's the bare minimum any First Minister would have been expected to do.
"From memory Edinburgh bad loans run to about £30 billion. Can Scotland walk the talk? I think not."
That rather depends on which arbitrary point in history you ascribe this hypothetical Scottish independence to. For example, between 1979 and 1997 Scotland subsidised the UK Treasury to the tune of approximately £31 billion, conveniently almost the exact amount you cite. Had Scotland become independent in the early 1970s, there's no reason to believe it wouldn't have an oil fund the size of the one Norway has now, with near-identical population and resources. That fund stands at over £300bn, enough to bail out RBS ten times over even if Scotland had been held solely responsible for all of its liabilities, which is of course an idiotic notion.
Salmond wrote a polite three-line note to Goodwin, wishing him all the best and offering support.
If you remark politely to a neighbour that you'll give him any help he needs, do you expect him to clean out your bank accuont to pay off his mortgage?
The Queen opened the new RBS HQ. Brown nominated Goodwin for a knighthood, and the Queen knighted him. Everybody and his dog was lining up to endorse him, then. Maybe they shuold all share?
It's odd how everyone seems to forget that the same banking industry problems are WORLD WIDE to varying degrees, the City of London being a prime example and that the same laws and regulations around the world led to the same problems. Global financial crisis, remember?
Odd that everyone seems to forget this and pretend it is uniquely Scottish and unique to Alex somehow because his magic 8-ball and super secret tyrant powers let him both know about everything that others didn't and make demands of private business to the smallest degree (and also completely abandon his expected role as FM to act as cheerleader for business and no doubt the Herald and co. would condemn him at the time for it).
All the more ridiculous that magically now HBOS has been thrown into the pile somehow when it's a seperate company. Herald seems desperate to destroy that glimmer of hope and good reputation they were building up. Why on Earth do they write these clearly innaccurate and dishonest hack pieces? Are they so feverishly mad in supporting unionism that dishonesty is considered a small price or does the editor pick and choose or guide the way to this awful point?
It's the same nonsensical type of fallacy as the "too poor, too, wee, too stupid" and the fearmongering about Scotland bailing out RBS. It all relies on ignorance, like most unionist propaganda, to try and convince you or frighten you. The more you learn and know the less the unionist fearmongering works. When one side is strengthened by knowledge and truth and the other by fear and ignorance it's easy for me to feel confident in choosing a side.
Just about the only thing keeping me buying the Herald is "auld times sake" and a desire to support the village newsagent's business.
I have heard of a number of instances where nationalist posters have tried to post factual corrections to their articles, and not made it past the online moderators.
One thing that is often overlooked is that the RBS bank bailouts (Read: Free public money given in vast amounts to a private company) first of all need not even have taken place as that was only done out of the same self-serving crony capitalism as the privitising of many public services in the past. City of London types were no doubt cracking open the champagne when they knew that the free money was secured. Secondly, even if they did decide to bail it, out only 5% of the company holdings and business were in Scotland. Far more and far more of the problematic parts were actually in London and elsewhere. The 5% that concerns us could have easily been kept for a fraction of the cost and the majority of people wouldn't see any difference as their high street access would continue (this part of it is a tiny segment of the gaping hole in the purse, despite it being what most people think of as the financial industry and banks). In other cases with large financial institutions that are often international the bailouts there were divided in such a manner, where fractional bailouts were all chipped in by the various countries that the company did business in, depending on the size in that country. This is why America were adding to the RBS pot too. The settlement arrangements in this case would mean that Scotland should be fine, even if it was unwise enough to prop up failing private businesses to benefit the crooks who ran it into the ground.
So clearly there were several options for an independent Scotland in that situation, at least two of which would be easily within its financial means even in the scaremongering unionist vision of Scotland alone (the 5% salvage of Scottish interests and what I would say is the right attitude of letting private banking companies (and international ones at that) deal with their own mess instead of depriving the public of money or taxes and therefore services).
If you look at the origins of the RBS it only adds fuel to the fire when you see it's early success hinged on the newly formed UK's distrust of the older BOS and so they favoured and helped the establishment of RBS post-Act of Union. In that sense it really is every inch the United Kingdom bank. Another unionist chess piece in the game against independance way back. Of course since then it's become another load of pigs at the trough like the rest, but that's hardly a reason to cling on to it and lovingly spoon feed it cash out of some sense nostalgia based on something it never was. Nor is any of it somehow Alex or the SNP's fault, despite what the increasingly hysterical and low quality media claim.
@Morag
I had the same attitude with my newspapers. That and I liked the TV guide with it. Now I buy a TV guide magazine and something else to make up the value from the newsagent. I actually think he makes a better profit from it now in the end anyway, so we both should be happy. I realised that the longer I kept buying these papers, the longer they would assume that this purchase meant I supported their viewpoints or the messages they are putting out. Vote with the wallet, and all that.
Speaking of quality journalism:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/8970054/Deep-fried-butter-balls-and-other-Scottish-delicacies.html
Didn't they dream themselves to be a respectable paper? I see the Telegraph has gone all out on their "shit on the Scots" agenda this weather. I always wonder how it must feel to be the Scots (party members or otherwise) who are pro unionist or supporters of or writers for these news rags where you have to nod along enthusiastically at someone constantly running down your own people and country to a degree that it would risk landing you in prison if you replaced "Scot" with "Jew" or "Black". The "too wee, too poor, too stupid" should be enough to make most people with any integrity break away from that camp, but to see them add on insult upon insult should make them burn with shame if they had any sense of it.
The hard part for the unionist camp is that they've been so successful at insulting the Scots and making them out to be the UK's version of "the wicked Jews" of pre-war Germany that the English (especially London/SE region) believe it in large numbers and want Scotland and the Scottish out, thus ending the union anyway. A bit of a problem for the politicians and the media as they need to keep up the constant anti-Scottish attitude and stories to keep the Scots subdued, frightened and humble so they will timidly back away from any chance to escape, but the more they add to it the more the English feel like ending the union themselves. They must be sweating it out to keep that balance of just enough Scots bashing to keep them scared and that Scottish cringe fresh but not too much to make the English people force their hand to end it from their side.
Alex Salmond signs 'yours for Scotland 'on letters from my SNP membership,it does'nt mean go out there girl and spend for Scotland does it ?
Molly, it does now. Remember when it all goes wrong to complain to the media and blame him for it, no matter what or how flimsy the premise. You'll get compensation via selling your services to the interview circuit until the day after the vote. I will get a piece written up with the title "Alex accused…" in anticipation. We'll both make out like bandits (or mainstream media journos).
On the Today programme Digby Jones ex-boss of CBI and Gordon Brown's one-time go-to man in business, while deploring Goodwin's demotion, stuck in that Alex Salmond had congratulated him on the knighthood – not a whisper about who actually selected him for the knighthood.
"Yours for Scotland" is the equivalent of "Yours sincerely" for many nationalists when writing letters to other nationalists or in a nationalist connection. It may be criticised as being twee, or precious, or even presumptuous, but it also has to be recognised as a habit. It probably trips off Salmond's pen as easily as his own signature.
I note Taylor did not come back to defend his piffle.
This is typical of the unionist creed.
They like to insinuate, imply, infer, but turn tail and run the moment their "argument" is shot down in flames.
He's pushing Tom Harris for the "Most Pathetic Response of the Year Award".
Standard unionist tactics for this campaign has been established as basic mud slinging. They throw endless amounts and hope something sticks and if it doesn't then it will muddy the water and confuse or worry people needlessly enough to stop them slipping out their grasp. People like wacky Tom Harris are their idols and shining examples for running this campaign.
Look at all the stuff about pandas, not promoting Scottish booze any more (despite charging Scotland for it already anyway), not being able to use the pound or join Europe, etc. It's all a shots in the back and then instantly run when someone takes notice or counters them.
Thanks to this hit and run lies and mud slinging campaign the unionists in England seem convinced that Scotland is universally hated abroad (the irony) thanks to the recent crackpot propaganda campaign from the UK media and politicans about Europe and Spain from the English unionsts. I've seen the unionist camp online crowing and daring Scotland to leave as they are sure that Scotland will somehow suddenly no longer be part of the EU and no one would want to talk to them. The unionists are like drug dealers taking their own product though – worse – as the propaganda has the most effect on them. They end up believing their own lies and mud slinging. A risky position to be in.
This attitude is probably why the ever-biased BBC cut Alex's conference short at the castle (giving us a tiny fraction of the whole) and instead showed us unionists bashing Alex and the notion of independence. They didn't want people to see how big it was and just how many people from around the world were watching. They're making sure the only opinion we're getting is funnelled in from unionist media, England and Westminster.