On fairness and balance
So, everyone turned up for Question Time in the end. We expected no different. As far as we can ascertain, the view in the pro-independence community was that the SNP’s Angus Robertson acquitted himself well as the sole political representative of the Yes campaign, and it was interesting and welcome to see journalist Lesley Riddoch (who was also assured and compelling) actually nail her colours to the Yes mast too.
But what of the show itself? Were the fears of independence supporters justified, or did the BBC mount an impeccable exercise in impartiality? Let’s find out.
Firstly, we should passingly deal with the protestations of some of the more comical No-camp activists that the programme wasn’t primarily about independence. Numerous media reported that the BBC had billed it as an “independence special”, but we haven’t as yet located an original source of that quote. So instead here’s how much airtime the episode devoted to its discussion topics:
PRIVACY AND SURVEILLANCE: 15:47
INDEPENDENCE: 33:01
SYRIA: 7:28
That seems fairly clear. More than half the show’s total running time, and almost 50% more discussion time than all the other subjects put together. This was, empirically, a show chiefly about independence, so the line-up of panellists – four anti-independence politicians, one pro-independence and an ostensibly neutral journalist who in fact came out in favour – was indefensibly unbalanced.
Don’t take our biased word for that, though – it’s also the view of the neutral Electoral Reform Society of Scotland, whose former-Labour-councillor chief Willie Sullivan sent the BBC a strongly-worded complaint in advance of the show.
But what happened during those 33 minutes? We sat down with our stopwatch and checked the amount of speaking time given to each panellist, because such is our job.
ANGUS ROBERTSON: 5:44
ANAS SARWAR: 3:10
LESLEY RIDDOCH: 4:38
GEORGE GALLOWAY: 5:25
NIGEL FARAGE: 1:49
RUTH DAVIDSON: 3:10
TOTAL PRO-INDEPENDENCE: 10:22
TOTAL ANTI-INDEPENDENCE: 13:51
That’s slightly over one-third more airtime (33.6%) for anti-independence panellists. But the imbalance of the show didn’t just manifest itself in the cold numbers.
For example, a full minute of Angus Robertson’s time was taken up drawing attention to the disproportionate number of guests, and another minute was swallowed up in defending Alex Salmond’s comments on the protests against Nigel Farage in Edinburgh last month – which were neither organised nor supported by the SNP – during which time Robertson was constantly interrupted and harangued by Farage and Galloway in what was otherwise mostly a fairly civilised debate.
David Dimbleby defended it by saying the BBC had taken care to ensure that “on the independence issue, this audience is divided 50/50”, but Robertson missed the chance to retort “So why isn’t the panel?”, perhaps in order to get on with the rest of the show. And that’s where the real problem with participation lies for the Yes camp.
If one side in a debate has twice as many voices and a third more airtime, it will always be able to bombard the other side with so many questions, challenges and points that they can’t all possibly be dealt with. It’s a tactic we’ve highlighted many times on this site, describing it as the “swarm of wasps” strategy.
Time and again, Robertson’s comments were misrepresented or flat-out lied about without him having any chance to refute the claims. In Galloway’s first segment, for example, he attacked Robertson’s complaint about unbalanced representation as having been “on behalf of the SNP”, when Robertson had in fact spoken about the exclusion of the Greens and Liberal Democrats, as well as the broader independence movement. At no point had he demanded additional SNP representation.
Then, around 36 minutes into the show, Nigel Farage spoke of Scots “swapping your masters from Westminster to Brussels” if they voted for independence. (Apparently unaware that the UK is currently in the EU, and Scots are therefore already governed by Westminster AND Brussels.) Responding, Robertson referred to Farage’s term:
“A hundred years ago there really weren’t that many independent states in the world, or members of the United Nations. Now there’s over 200, and there is nobody going back and saying ‘I want to be run from the masters, or the form of governance we had in the past’.”
Extraordinarily, in response to this innocuous comment, Ruth Davidson piped up:
“I wanted to pick up on the pejorative terms Angus is using there about slaves and masters. I don’t feel that the UK is a master and I am a slave.”
Now, that’s a flat-out lie. Robertson had NOT used the word “slave”, nor implied that Scots were slaves. He’d simply refuted Farage’s point about Scotland swapping one “master” for another, in terms of nations voluntarily pooling sovereignty in certain respects. But – perhaps out of arguably misguided courtesy, or perhaps out of waiting to see if Davidson would answer David Dimbleby’s question about the democratic legitimacy of a party with one Scottish MP governing Scotland (she didn’t) – he didn’t butt in to correct the falsehood.
There were numerous other examples, and not restricted to Robertson. George Galloway was quite extraordinarily rude to Lesley Riddoch, shouting her down, accusing her of lying about statistics regarding millionaires in London, and astonishingly ranting that the economy of the UK’s south isn’t “overheated” in comparison to the northern half, despite the weight of evidence to the contrary.
One can always, of course, make the argument that the viewer is intelligent enough to spot all these things for themselves. But that’s not how human nature works. If you keep up an unending stream of untruths and they’re not immediately refuted, at least some of them will sink in.
In some ways, the strong, calm performances of Robertson and Riddoch last night were in fact counter-productive. In giving good accounts of themselves, they justify the dice being stacked against them. “Look,” the BBC will be able to say, “they could handle it, so it’s okay for us to always outnumber pro-independence voices by two to one (or more) and give them less time to speak.”
For as long as pro-independence campaigners are prepared to tolerate unequal treatment, they’ll continue to be treated unequally. That they’re practiced and adept at coping with it mitigates some of the damage caused by the media’s bias, but not all of it. We remain of the view that the Yes camp needs to take a stand on the issue, and sooner rather than later.
Dimbleby was obviously flustered by Angus Robertson’s accusation of bias in representation, so much so that he lied on air by saying that QT didn’t do by-elections and didn’t take account of them, despite previous QT By-election Specials in Eastleigh & Corby.
O/T – If you fancy seeing a unioist blooger retreat faster than the Italian Army, have a look here: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/richard-l-wood/alex-salmond-scotland_b_3430616.html
For as long as pro-independence campaigners are prepared to tolerate unequal treatment, they’ll continue to be treated unequally.
So, the question is – if pro-independence campaigners refuse to tolerate unequal treatment, will that lead to them being treated equally? I’m not convinced. In fact, it is possible that the refusal will be portrayed as ‘going in the huff’ by those parts of the media that are doing the ‘treating unequally’. Given that those parts of the media are treating unequally at the moment, I wouldn’t expect them to approach a boycott in a novel fashion.
I think it’s simple really. The Referendum is a straight Yes/No question. As such, ANY discussions in forums such as #bbcqt should reflect this 50/50 nature in their panels. If this means they have to make the panels bigger to accomodate both sides and all interested parties, then this is what they should do.
PS: When are STV having their next debate. It was so refreshing to see Sturgeon and Moore going head-to-head… much more relevant and interesting.
PPS: Will we still have aliens in an Independent Scotland?
Galloway’s defence of London & the Southeast was grotesque but unsurprising. Gadfly George has already fluttered to his next attention seeking ‘challenge’, his candidacy for mayor of London, and he knows with whom he needs to ingratiate himself.
Pretty much everyone gets a bit more reactionary as they get older, with GG it manifests itself in the ripening of his Unionism.
@teechur
Yes I’m concerned about the aliens as well. Will they become furniers? Will they bomb our airports? and most importantly will they steal our tattie scones?
George Galloway was quite extraordinarily rude to Lesley Riddoch, shouting her down, accusing her of lying about statistics regarding millionaires in London, and astonishingly ranting that the economy of the UK’s south isn’t “overheated” in comparison to the northern half, despite the weight of evidence to the contrary.
I thought it odd that an MP from the North of England, which as La Riddoch pointed out last night gets just as bad and at times a shittier treatment from Westminister would take that line……
Then I remembered this….
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/george-galloway-considering-running-mayor-London
Was last night the press launch of his mayoral campaign ?
The message by Lesley Riddoch was very potent. I’m in favour of a federal Britain, but it’s not going to happen, so I’m voting yes. Interestingly, neither the tory or Labour politicians had anything to say on that issue.
Thank you Rev. for watching (with stopwatch) so i didn’t have to. As pro-Yes I can hardly bear this mis-representation any more. I’ll continue to plug the positive case for independence in face of whatever the beeb throw at us. And I did make a complaint as well. so more who also do that every single time, the better.
“So, the question is – if pro-independence campaigners refuse to tolerate unequal treatment, will that lead to them being treated equally?”
Maybe. But meekly putting up with it DEFINITELY won’t, so what is there to lose?
@naebd says:
14 June, 2013 at 12:42 pm
“So, the question is – if pro-independence campaigners refuse to tolerate unequal treatment, will that lead to them being treated equally? I’m not convinced”
Well put. I don’t get the we wont show up if everything isn’t exactly balanced stance. It is counter productive. The opposition has to be confronted at every level – even those we have little or zero control over.
What annoys me about Galloway is his insistence (rightly, I concede) that Arab states should have self-determination, yet he doesn’t extend that right to his fellow Scots.
Also, why does he decry the imperialist, aggressor stance of the UK, yet insist that Scotland remain a part of that very set-up?
Baffling, to say the least. But then, Communists are never the sharpest tools in the box.
Look,” the BBC will be able to say, “they could handle it, so it’s okay for us to always outnumber pro-independence voices by two to one (or more) and give them less time to speak.”
I think that’s one thing the BBC will absolutely not be able to say.
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
14 June, 2013 at 1:04 pm
Maybe. But meekly putting up with it DEFINITELY won’t, so what is there to lose?
The referendum?
There`s another good article over on NewsNetScotland about the BBC`s bias.
Some people are rightfully getting more and more angry regards the impunity of the BBC in Scotland.
I say some people…
The presence of the two fringe demagogues Gallage and Faroway, the Tweedlee and Tweedledum of bonkers egomania and dodgy politics., really weakened this programme. Instead, we could have have the thoughtful Patrick Harvie, whose mere presence would have made the point that Independence isn’t solely an SNP policy. The other position could have been filled by an articulate Unionist, could such a mythical being be found – the Sarwar – Davidson double act really needed the help. We really don’t need rape apologists and women haters like Galloway, and cryptofascists and racists like Farage on our screens.
Ive seen a lot of comment saying they’re glad with hindsight, that Angus Robertson and Lesley Riddoch did appear on qt last night with the general view that they proved that they were more than ablheld their own but i would add on this occasion. Next time the hatchet job that the EBC were plotting on the independence cause might just come off and we could be surveying one almighty train wreck for the YES side and we will be left with the collateral damage all round us. Imagine us today and how we would feel. I fear some of us are setting our sights on settling for a lesser settlement of not an equal position but that of an inferior one. I fear we are allowing this propagandist organisation to make and break the rules at the cost to our democracy. Whats the point of our independence if we dont fight for our very democracy and our freedom of speech.
I too think its time the SNP and YES Scotland boycotted the EBC. That way, even the section of the public not interested in politics will smell a rat when they watch and listen to the EBCs’ anti democratic one sided debates. Im disappointed to learn that Angus Robertson also didnt answer Farages’ lies on the protesters identites at the protest to his last visit to Edinburgh. I understand that when he is heavily outnumbered with not always the right to reply then Robertson or whoever may be the independence panellist is always facing an uphill struggle deliberately skewed by the Brit nats. When it gets to the stage were im doubting even the authenticiity of the audience and lets face it on past and current form of the EBC, why wouldnt i, then quite frankly its time to say feck this for a barrel of laughs, stop watching and go play the game on a far better pitch with much fairer rules.
Time for a boycott of the BBC.
EdinScot says:
14 June, 2013 at 1:28 pm
“… stop watching and go play the game on a far better pitch with much fairer rules.”
Where is that? On websites dominated about BBC bias?
You are 100% correct that sometimes it will be a bit of a car crash for the “Yes” side. That is inevitable in politics – look at Obama’s first presidential debate. These are the exact moments when we have to back our participants 110%, refrain from infighting, and come back stronger. It is unthinkable not to have a yes vote in 2014.
@ Rev:
“we haven’t as yet located an original source of that quote.”
Doesn’t quite say that, but this Herald article describes it thus . .
“SCOTTISH teenagers will have their views on independence broadcast to an audience of millions in a special edition of the BBC’s Question Time to be held next month.
An audience of 16 and 17-year-olds will have the chance to air their thoughts and quiz a panel of politicians and experts in the one-off broadcast from Edinburgh on June 13.”
http://tinyurl.com/lmrrxo7
Noone seems to mind that this freak show was put on for Scottish new voters.
What a slap in the face that your participation in the referendum that will determine your life for a generation, not just for the 5 yearly cycle of the government staying the same but changing its name, allows the BBC to put on a wildly unbalanced, in terms of the representation of the two sides in the referendum, and wildly unrepresentative, in terms of the Scottish vote, show as nobody in England cares about the Scottish referendum and even less about 16 and 17 year olds voting when English 16 and 17 year olds dont. and we have to have something for the English to watch.
I do hope the younger Yes supporters are making this point to their peers.
Maybe. But meekly putting up with it DEFINITELY won’t, so what is there to lose?
I absolutely don’t have the answer to this one, except I do have misgivings about declaring open war on the media, as it were. They don’t like it when you do that.
Doesn’t quite say that, but this Herald article describes it thus
As does practically every other news source in the country (and beyond), in identical words. Almost like they’re all quoting from the same BBC press release.
Sapheneia says:
14 June, 2013 at 1:38 pm
EdinScot says:
14 June, 2013 at 1:28 pm
“… stop watching and go play the game on a far better pitch with much fairer rules.”
Where is that?
If you dont fight for your rights you wont know and you certainly wont ever get. Because the EBC thinks skewing the debate in favour of one side is fair doesnt make it so.
In Rory Bremner’s programme last night they showed a scene where one of Bremner’s ‘team’ admitted that initially, pre-informed and pre-aware of facts and information regarding Scotland as an independent country, he was a ‘No’. He then went on to say that now informed and aware of facts and information regarding Scotland as an independent country he was more inclined to vote ‘Yes’!
Here was a good example of the natural conservativeness of people regarding ‘change’. Then, when presented with the truth, and not lies, scares and smears about an independent Scotland, people, who are not absolutely definite ‘No’s, can be open towards viewing Scotland as independent as a good and positive thing and more inclined to vote ‘Yes’ in the referendum.
Of course, the Establishment and the MSM know this fine well, hence the constant barrage of anti-independence mis/disinformation, FUD, scare-stories, fearbombs, smears and lies. Keep the population as ill-informed as possible – ill-informed, unaware and scared will get that ‘No’ vote. UK democracy 2013-style.
According to Digital Spy the viewing figures for last night’s QT over the present UK was 2.36 million so not a huge audience although from reading the accounts of those who did watch it the BBC did not like the dressing down from Angus Robertson about a balanced panel.
The next time QT comes to Scotland, the SNP should stand aside and let Patrick Harvie or Denis Canavan or Margo McDonald be the pro -Independence speakers. If there is not a balanced panel then no one from the Yes side should take part and state the reasons for doing so.
Can we now have a QT where the audience is composed entirely of voters aged 75 and over?
We need to get to them too.
@ianbrotherhood
Cant stand the smell of mothballs but I’m up for being part of a balanced audience.
My question – Why have a balanced audience when you have such an unbalanced panel?
@Rev
“We remain of the view that the Yes camp needs to take a stand on the issue, and sooner rather than later.”
The problem the Yes campaign have in this regard is that the head of the campaign, Blair Douglas, who is an ex-BBC employee, is on record as saying the BBC is NOT biased against independence.
He made that statement at the same time as a similar contention by another prominent nationalist, again an ex-BBC employee, Ewan Crawford.
Indeed their stance was, IMO, instrumental in derailing a growing grassroots protest movement at the perceived bias of the BBC (and others).
BTW I only mention the fact they were both once BBC employees because that raised the question in my own mind whether they may not therefore have been, in many ways admirably, influenced by historical personal loyalty and admiration of some still working there, and for no other reason.
It has also occurred to me that this ‘barrier’ could easily be removed, and in the end turned into a positive, by simply issuing a statement along the lines of:
“As an ex BBC employee I have in the past defended them from attacks regarding their position regarding balance and plurality on the question of independence. However, since then, it has become increasingly apparent that I can no longer …. etc.”
“Numerous media reported that the BBC had billed it as an “independence special”, but we haven’t as yet located an original source of that quote. ”
It’s not described as a special on the QT website but it does appear to be a QT which concentrates on independence.
“David Dimbleby presents Question Time from Edinburgh, with an audience of 16 and 17-year-olds. The 2014 referendum on Scottish independence will be the first time anyone under 18 has had a vote in the UK.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02xch54
This from Citizen Smart
http://youtu.be/8v56WJQrG9Q 🙂
ianbrotherhood says:
14 June, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Can we now have a QT where the audience is composed entirely of voters aged 75 and over?
We need to get to them too
Yes we do Ian. Unfortunately a disproprtionately high number of them are dead after paying a life time’s state pension contributions to subsidise the more affluent and longer living SE UK. Over 15 months you can’t defend the undefendable regardless of the make-up of the panel.
Again about the Bremner programme. Having expected Bremner to go the anti-independence route, it was a pleasant surprise to see a fairly balanced opinion. Good to see him give the McCrone report a mention!
Interviews from Cochrane and Davidson showed them up as the Bitter Together, unpleasant naysayers they are, as could be expected, too.
@Colin Dunn
According to the comments on the two newsnet articles relevant to this, the producer of the show was tweeting before it, that the reference to independence being a topic was not made by the BBC but by the electronic programme guide people- one wonders exactly where *they* get their information from if it isn’t the programme makers but, hey. The point is no one can yet prove the BBC said independence/the referendum was going to be discussed. However the panel did not comprise politicians with youth bias but politicians with a bias for or against independence so one is left with the impression that that was the idea all along – you just can’t prove it. If that isn’t propaganda at work I don’t know what is.
I think the pro-independence campaigners and the SNP are between a rock and a hard place with the Media and in particular the BBC because the BBC don’t actually care if they turn up to Question Time or not. The BBC has a Unionist agenda and the fact they deliberately populate the political programming with a blatant Unionist bias is design to deliver a certain message and not as we all know to stimulate proper and balanced debate. All in all I think Lesley Riddoch handled herself well and Angus Robertson did ok. I think that the SNP should have taken this opportunity more seriously and either Nicola or Alex should have appeared instead. As you correctly pointed out there were numerous occasions where untruths were not properly challenged and the BBC was not fully held to task on the blatant one sided bias of the organisation and the programme itself. The Yes camp and the Scottish Government bead to take on the BBC head on but we cannot allow them to totally dominate these contrived affairs unchallenged. If the BBC are able to behave in this way the the Yes camp should campaign to abolish the license fee in Scotland on the grounds that the BBC are totally indifferent to Scottish opinion and not representative of the Scottish population.
“The next time QT comes to Scotland, the SNP should stand aside and let Patrick Harvie or Denis Canavan or Margo McDonald be the pro -Independence speakers.”
Nah, bollocks to that – it’s not the SNP’s job to apportion out the Beeb’s ‘Question Time Pro-Independence Seat’ for them.
@Sapheneia–
‘Unfortunately a disproprtionately high number of them are dead…’
Hmmm….
I know some folk weren’t too sure about boycotting and/or walking-out of the debate, but one could hardly object to a discussion on the basis that the potential audience is x% of what it would’ve been if people hadn’t passed away.
We know BT will resort to dirty tricks, but no-one has yet accused them of geronticide.
If the rUK were ‘foreigners’, then the BBC’s conduct could be considered an act of aggression tantamount to an act of war. Declared or otherwise. Sound mad?
I know the clip is not immediately relevant to Scotland, but I hope it highlights the consideration governments give to propaganda, and the role the MSM plays in its dissemination.
@ ianbrotherhood says:
No i’m not a conspiracy theorist. Just pointing out the fact that unfortuantely Scotland has a relatyively low life expectancy but have the same NIC % contribution deducted from wages. If we had our own country we could decide how much tax to raise, from whom and where to spend it.
I’m in the minority that want indy supporters on the EBC regardless of who is on the panel. Much of the inherent unfairness of Westminster rule is undefendable once people get the facts. I agree how you get the facts across is open to honest debate. My life long belief in independence may cloud my judgement.
Slightly O/T but hope this helps Rev
(Sorry, not had a chance to read the whole article, Will finish it on my phone later!) but in this one he certainly SUGGESTS they are having an indy special http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b021mjpt/?t=57m31s
Don’t know if that helps.
I did see this guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2013/jun/14/bbc-question-time
But what it doesn’t point out is how often someone from UKIP other than Farage turns up, because that would bump up the numbers! 2 weeks ago they had a “rising star” of UKIP Diane Jane…He seems to quite like UkIP ;-d
Chic Macgregor,
I dearly hope that is part of the strategy YES have considered to counter what is becoming pretty blatant bias against one side on a YES/NO issue. For me, it’s a question of when such a letter and stance should be issued.
By waiting until all eyes and ears are focused on the issue, just as the referendum hype reaches a peak but still before the 16 week official campaign period starts, we may be able to both claw back and reinforce a public perception of bias, as well as ensure that the final 16 week period is in fact scrupulously neutral.
If that can be assured then I feel really quite confident our arguments will get out there. Our arguments are unanswerable (hence the current bias). The fear is however that it will be too late by then.
A difficult call, but on balance I would settle for using it as a tool to absolutely guarantee those last all important 16 weeks of campaigning are non biased. As a result our arguments will be rampant and uppermost in the electorates mind during the actual decision making process/period.
I feel that’s the time the non political and undecideds usually start taking their responsibility seriously and start considering the facts and weigh opposing arguments. We must, somehow, time that block of non biased airtime to when that historic and most important YES/NO decision is being demanded of them.
Unfortunately just because the BBC are obliged to produce this unbiased coverage during the official campaign period does not mean they will willingly, as they are aware of the power of that period just as much as us.
@Sapheneia-
I don’t doubt your judgement is sound.
This discussion about representation is never-ending. For all that I’m probably a pretty ‘average’ Yes supporter, I seldom see or hear anyone who accurately represents me. On QT last night? Robertson and Riddoch only represent me insofar as they stand for ‘Yes’.
They’re nowhere near as ‘left’ as the voice I’d identify with. I’m really struggling to think of one person in public life who does represent me. Closest I can get is someone like Stuart Cosgrove, but he makes a living – at least in part – by being scrupulously non-committal when it comes to matters political. It’s pretty clear that the party I’ve chosen to be a member of (SSP) is not going to be given any MSM attention between now and Sept next year, but that’s not a good reason to join whichever Yes outfit seems likely to get the highest profile.
Perhaps we just have to accept that the only people who really can represent us are ourselves – the media circus which determines the parameters and conduct of the discussions is little more than an elaborate charade whose purpose is to constrict, confuse and, ultimately, silence.
That’s why WoS and some other pro-Indy sites are so valuable – right here we can do the donkey-work of representing ourselves rather than delegate the task to someone who can never know for sure what we actually think and feel.
Rev
Based on your figures alone I am surprised Foulkes hasn’t burst a vein in apoplectic fury at the disgraceful over-representation of the evil separatists and the smuggling in of a 5th columnist (well she is a journalist).
On balance and despite an apparent uphill struggle I think the Yes voice did pretty well last night. Of course it would have been a damned sight better if either Galloway or Farage’s spot had been occupied by Patrick…better still if Wullie had taken the other spot because he is guaranteed to take aim at both his feet.
Galloway has severe women issues and can’t seem to help himself to be less than charming when it comes to dealing with the opposite sex. He has already alienated a lot of female Respect supporters over other injudicious comments. I see nothing to suggest he has acquired new skills in this area.
I’d like to see a license fee boycott! But failing that, how exactly do you complain to the BBC about this ongoing bias – what’s the best way?
@ Malcom
Wet your finger to find out which direction the wind is from, then piss in that direction.
Reports of an Independence Special:
Here’s the wording from BBC iPlayer for yesterday’s Question Time:
David Dimbleby presents Question Time from Edinburgh, with an audience of 16and 17-year-olds ahead of the 2014 Scottish independence refererendum
Clicking on the more information tab also brings up this line:
The 2014 referendum on Scottish independence will be the first time anyone under 18 has had a vote in the UK.
Clearly then in the eyes of BBC iplayer Scottish Independence is the topic of the show.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b02xch54/Question_Time_13_06_2013/
Ianbrotherhood,
I think the SSP are going to come out of this referendum campaign much strengthened. I heard Colin Fox on an Indy podcast a few weeks ago and couldn’t believe this man was part of the implosion of the Scottish left.
The cross party nature of the YES campaign seems to have opened up, what seemed to be from the outside, a pretty vicious self destructive and politically unproductive inward looking period.
The talk of respecting and working together with the SNP, Greens and folk o no party, on shared issues was really quite inspiring. I hope to hear more of this kind of approach from the SSP and The Greens, as it’s exactly the type of politics and politician I want to be voting for in that first independent Parly!
Are you gony stand Ian?
Ian
Think there has been a fair bit of on the hoof lying regarding the programme, by election specials and all the rest. The great thing about the Beeb is that they have two left feet.
BBC Scotland is nothing more than mince consisting of horseshite with very little spice added.
cynicalHighlander
That will be the Sheppard’s pie then? From a chicken? Now that’s amazing. 🙂
@ianbrotherhood
“Perhaps we just have to accept that the only people who really can represent us are ourselves”.
Echo that and WoS is a well run place.
I’ve never been a member of a political party. I’m not sure if I could ever join one. Unfortunately many of my civil rights “heros”are no longer around. The one that stands out for me though is Steve Biko. Your movement has to feel confident about itself and within itself to achieve success. “Scots man, you are on your own” – maybe our rallying cry against the “system”.
@Chris
What annoys me about Galloway is his insistence (rightly, I concede) that Arab states should have self-determination
The reason that Galloway supports independence for Arab states is that he is not standing for election in any of these countries.His greatest fear about Scottish independence is that he would then be viewed as a foreigner in about the only place (London) that would elect him to office.
@Roddy MacDonald
It’s terribly unfair of you to suggest that David Dimbleby is being economical with the actuality on Question Time and By Elections.
It might have been a long time ago and presented by someone else:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nznsl
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01r1twc
Just because he’s included in the credits and there’s a picture of him on the programme website doesn’t mean he was actually there. Although the fact that his map appears centre stage in the first second of both programmes suggests he may have been peripherally involved.
Surely only the simplistic would draw any conclusions from the fact that the Dimbleby lookalike mentioned nothing other than by elections in the first two minutes of both broadcasts, both of which occurred on the date of said by-elections. It’s a mad coincidence that the first questions in both events just happened to refer to by-elections.
It is clearly irrelevant that in both cases all of the panellists were either members of or connected to the parties involved in the by-election. Furthermore, you can see that Nigel Farage is more or less mandatory for these occasions.
Maybe DD is simply forgetful. It’s almost four months ago since the last one and a full six months since Corby.
@Braco
First a slight correction. This is no rebuke because your mistake is perfectly understandable. My username on here is Chic McGregor, not Chic MacGregor. Normally I would not even mention such a trifling error, however, as it happens there is another poster here who uses the name Chic Macgregor. He and I are not one and the same, I do not even know the other chap, even if we do seem to have a pretty large overlap in pro indy views. To confuse things further, it is Mac not Mc that is on my birth certificate, I’m just lazy. 🙂
Regarding your post, I concur with you that timing of any such hypothesised ‘Damascene statement’, if it is indeed forthcoming, should be chosen carefully to maximise effect but would caution whether immediately prior to the official campaign would be that time.
As well as inevitably invoking an eloquent and time eating rebuttal by the BBC, no doubt backed by lunatic counterclaims of nat bias from the the swivel-eyed battalion, that particular timing would also, I fear, be more susceptible to the equally inevitable accusation of being a ‘political stunt’. Which as an honestly held reappraisal it most certainly is not.
My preference would be some time later in this year. Pre-empting the U-propaganda for Christmas/New Year period which is no doubt already being lovingly crafted as we speak.
@Braco
I heard Colin Fox on that podcast. It is the first time I’ve heard him speak really. I was really impressed with his eloquence and what seemed a principled outlook.
If he is typical, even if you do not lean in his particular direction, of the kind of person looking to change Scotland to a more socially equal country, then I think the future of our nation is assured. It’s well worth a listen.
Two other broadcasts I heard and watched this week that I’d urge all to catch were:
This week’s Radio 4 edition of Thinking Allowed where socioligists discuss the reason why Scotland integrates its immigrants so well. It kind of makes you proud to be Scottish.
And Rory Bremner’s Putting the Satire into the Saltire. I started watching half way through and that half at least was much better than I’d feard.
If we had our own TV station(s), the support for independence would be overwhelming, and thousands would be demonstrating on the streets.
Just look at the Catalans.
I will never pay the BBC a coin to pump out the unionist propaganda, not a chance, so I ditched my sky boxes and now have no live connection to TV services and I can’t record live TV, only my laptop and cinema system are attached to my screen.
No License required !!
Lets be honest most things on TV are bollocks anyway !!
“Sorry, not had a chance to read the whole article, Will finish it on my phone later!) but in this one he certainly SUGGESTS they are having an indy special http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b021mjpt/?t=57m31s“
Don’t hear the words “independence special” anywhere there, but ooh, I didn’t know you could have timed links to iPlayer progs. Ta!
@Buster Bloggs
I cancelled my TV license yesterday. Been meaning to do it for ages. I’ll cross the problem of a visit by them when it comes.
@Juteman
“If we had our own TV station(s), the support for independence would be overwhelming, and thousands would be demonstrating on the streets.
Just look at the Catalans.”
Agree. But we don’t.
What I would suggest, which is a modification of a suggestion I have long been plugging, is that the Scottish Parliament, for the referendum campaign, gives over a slot on Holyrood TV to the Yes campaign. Say half an hour per day.
Preferably, largely consisting of a question and answer session where the guest of the day tries to answer questions put by the public. Those would ideally be ‘live’; phone-ins, texts, emails etc. A host would be required to ‘referee’ things.
The programme would be available, live and recorded, by streaming on line and to people’s tablets and even for the MSM to ignore/selectively edit. The ‘live’ real time nature of it, while no doubt at times painful for the respondent of the day, would be essential if it is to have any chance of becoming a ‘must tune in’ phenomena for a significant portion of the electorate.
Of course, in the interest of impartiality, a similar slot would have to be offered to BT/United. The jury remains out on which programme would garner the more Yes converts.
CameronB says:
14 June, 2013 at 2:48 pm
If the rUK were ‘foreigners’, then the BBC’s conduct could be considered an act of aggression tantamount to an act of war. Declared or otherwise. Sound mad?
Very interesting and eye opening the cost and lengths so called democratic countries will go to, in order to shut down democracy!
Thanks for the link CB
@Braco-
‘Are you gony stand Ian?’
It’s a flattering suggestion, but I’m afraid my activity will be restricted to handing out leaflets, writing short articles for the SSP Voice, and watching closely along with the rest of you. Only reason I get involved at all is because doing nothing doesn’t seem to be a justifiable option, and the SSP has always impressed me because they DO stuff rather than just talk about it.
I don’t know how many times, while on street stalls, this or that old dear has looked at me with fleeting sympathy and said ‘It’ll no make any difference son’. ‘Maybe not’, I reply, ‘but I’d rather be doing this than sitting in the house watching Bargain Hunt.’
“I cancelled my TV license yesterday. Been meaning to do it for ages. I’ll cross the problem of a visit by them when it comes.”
Just ignore all correspondence is apparently the tack to take.
By the way you can still watch iPlayer, etc, just not live broadcasts.
Chic McGregor,
believe it or not, I initially spelt your name correctly then scrolled up just to check and the first Chic I came across was not you. I then ‘corrected’ my mistake. Oops and apologies to you both.
On the timing, It’s a bugger all right. Let’s hope those strategists are as clever as I think they are (judged only on their previous triumphs).
I think the YES strategy of grass roots campaigning was probably designed from the outset to effectively work around MSM and broadcast bias anyway, so any period of non bias that is achieved should really be considered a lovely Brucy Bonus!
The jury remains out on which programme would garner the more Yes converts.
Ha ha, good one, Chic!
Alex Taylor,
Yeah, hopefully as the campaign widens these ‘smaller’ parties will start to be heard much more often. When they do get their voices heard they have opened up the concept of Independence beyond simple party politics and have been a bit of a revelation.
Will try and hunt down those broadcasts you mention. Cheers
I switched off after 20 minutes. Just knew where it was heading when Galloway started in about Alex Salmond.
Thing is he did so well about our freedoms and rights from the US snoopers. Then ignores the rights of the Scots to determine their own destiny.
Also when the young man in the blue shirt and tie letting rip about thousands of jobs being lost to England if Scotland vote for Independence then applauded the Scotsman columnist when she gave here reasons why she will vote YES in 2014.
The young girl who asked “Don’t you think the SNP have stitched us up?.
The young girl who questioned whether her education would be protected.
I liked the fair headed boy in the red tracksuit and the young lad with the blue checked shirt at the back. Both seemed to be very up with what is happening and the come across very well.
The panel was so one sided that Angus was drowning in negativity. No wonder he was looking bemused after just 20 minutes.
I also noted a few heads shaking from some of the comments from that were coming from the panel.
Still can’t find a reason as to why Nigel Farage was there. Was it simply a ruse to let George Galloway show is contempt of Alex Salmond as stated earlier?
PS. I’ve switched off from the BEEB. I think that STV are now doing a much better job in representing both side and seem to be less biased towards both camps, but seem now to be moving towards the YES camp.
@ theycan’tbeserious
Another pro-indie nnews site threatened to ban me from posting, when I made the same comment about a year ago. I actually did get banned when I suggested the ‘Goebbels Prize’ and the ‘Ribbentrop Medal’, to be awarded for conspicuous conduct in the field of MSM perception management, sorry broadcasting. Did I take that too far? After all, the EU awards the Order of Charlemagne, despite it being originally a creation of the Nazi Party.
O/T
If anyone is interested Iceland has stopped negotiating with the EU for membership following a change in political balance after their recent GE
The EU will work etc etc
So what the fuck is Darling and his bunch of Westminster Crooks PLC doing saying post independence we will be EU pariahs
http://euobserver.com/political/120501
Edit: Charlemagne Prize
I know that that page doesn’t say as much, but follow the link to Kurt Pfeiffer and do a bit of digging.
After all, the EU awards the Order of Charlemagne, despite it being originally a creation of the Nazi Party.
Except it doesn’t and it wasn’t. But otherwise, spot on. The Order of Charlemagne is awarded by Andorra. The Charlemagne Prize is awarded by the city of Aachen (in Germany) but was created in 1950, when the Nazi Party was no more.
@ Jiggsbro
As I said, do a bit of digging. Check out the history of the people behind the award. I might be on meds but I try not to talk mince. Perhaps start from here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nf5KeC4dAs
@Braco
“believe it or not, I initially spelt your name correctly then scrolled up just to check and the first Chic I came across was not you. I then ‘corrected’ my mistake. Oops and apologies to you both.”
No sweat, before I put my mugshot from last year’s indy march up as an avatar to frighten the kids, horses and I hope, a unionist or two, I caught myself reading the other guy’s posts sometimes and thinking “I don’t remember writing that” for a moment or two before the penny dropped.
@Chic McGregor
You said
The problem the Yes campaign have in this regard is that the head of the campaign, Blair Douglas, who is an ex-BBC employee, is on record as saying the BBC is NOT biased against independence.
He made that statement at the same time as a similar contention by another prominent nationalist, again an ex-BBC employee, Ewan Crawford.
It’s Blair Jenkins, and I’ve commented previously as to his silence on BBC bias, or indeed, anything about BBC management when he held a senior role. Why, for example, the partner of a serving Labour minister MSP held the post of Parliamentary Unit Head at Holyrood. Wouldn’t happen in London.
How long is it since Ewan Crawford was on the wireless, I wonder why that is? I wonder if he wonders.
Oh, and to add, as a previous BBC employee it’s all rather sickening.
@Rev Stu
George Galloway was quite extraordinarily rude to Lesley Riddoch, shouting her down, accusing her of lying about statistics regarding millionaires in London, and astonishingly ranting that the economy of the UK’s south isn’t “overheated” in comparison to the northern half, despite the weight of evidence to the contrary.
Yes, that is what I most remembered from last night’s programme (as well as Angus Robertson’s complaint about the panel). Galloway was very aggressive towards Lesley Riddoch, I think there was another occassion as well when he started to shout at her. On a wider perspective I think the contrast between the BBC’s debate yesterday and STV’s one between Moore and Sturgeon was stark. The STV debate was far better than the BBC’s one.
Why, for example, the partner of a serving Labour minister MSP held the post of Parliamentary Unit Head at Holyrood. Wouldn’t happen in London.
Yes, but London matters.
@Albalha
“It’s Blair Jenkins”
Oops! another senior moment. Apologies to both him and the accordionist involved.
Thanks for correcting.
As I said, do a bit of digging. Check out the history of the people behind the award
Pfeiffer, like almost anyone of any importance in post-war Germany, had been a member of the Nazi Party. Which is a far cry from ‘created by the Nazi Party’. Everything you posted was mince and appears to have originated in the wilder reaches of the internet where facts are much less important than having a top-of-the-line tinfoil hat.
@ Jiggsbro
Just as well that we have you around then, eh?
@jiggsboro
Okay you say ‘London matters’ as a response to the Boothman/Holyrood position point, as most people do, but those who could really have spoken out at the time here in little old Scotland chose not to, that’s the point isn’t it?
Okay you say ‘London matters’
And I forgot the </irony> tag again. It is, undoubtedly, the BBC’s view that Westminster matters and Holyrood doesn’t. That’s possibly because the BBC is based in London, possibly because its executives tend to be English and possibly because broadcasting is a reserved matter. Whatever the reason, it leaves Scottish democracy poorly served by the ‘state’ broadcaster, something which is unlikely to change without Scotland having its own state broadcaster by virtue of being its own state.
@jiggsboro
Yes I got the ‘irony’ tag but it doesn’t excuse those who could have spoken up and didn’t, that’s my point.
But I suppose it’s easier for most folk to see it in absolute terms.
“Yes camp needs to take a stand on the issue, and sooner rather than later.”
I agree with that sentiment. Rangers FC made it plain that it would not put up with distortions and misinformation about the conduct of its manager and players and banned the BBC from its pre and post match conferences. Lo and behold the BBC was very soon back with its tail between its legs apologising and promising to be good in the future.
The YES campaign apparently don’t have the nous to realise they have the BBC by the shorts in this matter. The latter cannot afford to be left out in the wilderness in what is the biggest news event in Scotland in 300 years. If the SNP/YES say they will not co-operate with the BBC the later will soon come crawling to its proper station.
GROW A PAIR SNP AND YES CAMPAIGN. TELL THE BBC BLUNTLY YOU ARE NOT PUTTING UP WITH THE BIAS ANY LONGER.
@ a supporter.
Bringing The Rangers into the thread is very suspicious of trolling?
@muttley79-
Galloway was as rude as he was to Riddoch because he had no choice – as the hour rolled on she got the bit between her teeth and was clearly ready for him. He knew it, and you could see the fear in his face – in a straight uninterrupted head-to-head Riddoch would’ve torn him a new one.
It’s as well GG has the London Mayoralty and the liberation of Palestine to keep him busy – he must know he made an arse of it last night and will probably be ‘washing his hair’ next time he’s invited to head north for a similar debate, loaded with fellow travellers or not.
Oh well. So it goes. Nae big loss…
Yesitis says: 14 June, 2013 at 1:26 pm
“There`s another good article over on NewsNetScotland about the BBC`s bias.
Some people are rightfully getting more and more angry regards the impunity of the BBC in Scotland.”
I’m getting more angry about the weak kneed response by the SNP/YES. Talk about not scaring the horses they aren’t scaring the children.
ianbrotherhood says:
14 June, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Can we now have a QT where the audience is composed entirely of voters aged 75 and over?
Hi Ian, my father in law, aged 92 going on 16, Burma Star and all that, is voting YES. My father and mother aged 81/80 are voting YES (all labour voters by the way).
Albalha,
it’s obvious why he didn’t speak up when he was employed by the BBC. Why he still feels the need to publicly deny its obvious bias against Independence (both historically and currently) when speaking as a leading spokesman of the YES campaign is much harder for me to fathom. Personal loyalty to friends? I don’t know but it’s certainly not helpful.
@Dramfineday-
Love it – esp the ‘Labour voters’ twist in the tail.
Can you imagine the faces of those BT apparatchiks who are told to monitor this site? They must read something like that and just despair…aw, bless.
It’s Friday evening, all ye BT apparatchiks – get yourselves out! have a good swally! then sit down in a quiet place and have a right long hard think about what you’re doing.
naebd says:14 June, 2013 at 1:50 pm
“Quote REV STU Maybe. But meekly putting up with it DEFINITELY won’t, so what is there to lose?
“Quote naebd I absolutely don’t have the answer to this one, except I do have misgivings about declaring open war on the media, as it were. They don’t like it when you do that.
We would not be declaring open war on the media. Only on the BBC. And if bias is claimed against it, it has much more to lose in International credibility than we do. Boycott it till it comes to its senses. Anyway as I said before they cannot afford to be shut out of the most important debate in recent Scottish history.
Yes I got the ‘irony’ tag but it doesn’t excuse those who could have spoken up and didn’t, that’s my point.
But from the BBC’s point of view, those who could have spoken up don’t matter, so they would have been ignored if they had spoken up. The BBC is largely impregnable except to the indisputable scandals of individuals. Any criticism of the BBC, especially from politicians, simply reinforces their belief that they are doing the right thing, because criticism always comes from all sides. ‘proving’ that they’re impartial. That means all criticism can be, and is, ignored. Groupthink and a culture of denial mean that – as with most large organisations – potential problems are simply not recognised until they become explosive. There’s no easy solution to that sort of organisational culture.
Iainbrotherhood,
‘It’ll no make any difference son’. ‘Maybe not’, I reply, ‘but I’d rather be doing this than sitting in the house watching Bargain Hunt.’
Another vote winning response Ian. WOS should start trying to get independents elected at the first Post Indy elections. Stuff this out of date and inherently conservative party political shite!
@Braco
I’ll labour the point a bit more. Given BJ was on an equal footing, possibly senior, in terms of the BBC food chain at the time why not speak up?
Do you think the Head of News in London would not have raised a flag if they were considering appointing a partner of a serving government minister as Head of Millbank? Of course for a whole host of other reasons they wouldn’t have considered doing it but …….
What’s it they say about who’ll speak up for those when there’s no one left etc etc. (Yes I know it’s Niemoller).
Dal Riata says:14 June, 2013 at 2:30 pm
“Again about the Bremner programme. Having expected Bremner to go the anti-independence route, it was a pleasant surprise to see a fairly balanced opinion. Good to see him give the McCrone report a mention!”
Bremner was well warned, implicitly, in advance by the discussion about Calman and her antics that an anti-Independence stance would not go down well. He may be a comic but he is not an idiot.
@Jiggsboro
Yes, but when you’re high up in the organisational culture then people do listen.
a supporter says:14 June, 2013 at 1:29pm
And fee fi fo fum, I smell the blood of an Englishman. Norse Warrior in drag? Is that true?
Missed this in earlier post so apologies to all for putting it here. As I said there are scum bags in all countries. My kids are proud to be born in England. If they choose to call themselves English or Scottish it’s no care to me. What I do care about is bigots.
Slightly O/T
Galloway’s outburst that he was not entitled to a vote in the referendum got me thinking about other Scottish politicians who might not be entitled either.Where does the head of the No campaign currently reside? Is his current designated main home in London or Scotland?There should be a correlation between claimed residency and eligibility on the electoral role.
Albalha,
how do you know he didn’t but was ignored/warned off etc.? He can speak up now and with real credibility and knowledge on the matter, why doesn’t he?
I believe BBC Scotland is and always has been a marketing response to Scotland’s National re awakening, just as the Unionist parties response was to add Scotland onto their name and carry on as normal. As such, in the final analysis, I am afraid it will always disappoint as a ‘national’ broadcaster and is unfortunately a lost cause.
I made myself watch QT and it was better than I feared – AR and LR were reassuringly positive and came across well. The numpty panel came across exactly as expected – spouting the usual shite. 16-17 year olds did pretty well, albeit some daft questions but that’s nothing unusual.
While I don’t think we should sit back and do nothing, this needs to be tactical. BBC is playing to the main audience – and frankly that just is never going to be pro-independence. On the other hand, STV seems balanced and I see others being much more open to the possibilities of independence. We can’t beat BBC machine so lets get around it another way. Social media is key – anyone who wants to get information can find it easily enough online. I’d love a resource though to make it easy – a website that has links to everything useful to consider independence. If such a beastie already exists, please let me know.
I’m still going along the ‘one convert at a time’ with the tried and tested – ‘what has a Scottish Parliament ever done for us? Well, free prescriptions, free personal care, free university education, state owned water company – you don’t get those sooth. Vote no and you risk all that – vote yes and imagine the possibilities.’
Problem with BBC is boycotts is that it does’t work and although Angus Robertson was spot on , politicians complaining about bias doesn’t count for much hence the reason the complaint by Electoral Reform Society was ignored by the newspapers was that it would have damaged the BBC’ pretence at neutrality over independence.
We need far more non politicians to come out for Scottish self government and attacking BBC / Westminster as that is what will influence the undecided.
Braco
BBC is one Hell of a political animal and unless you can adapt to the prevalent transient political culture as well as the bureaucratic system you are onto plums by trying to change the direction of SS BBC
As an example I give one late Controller of BBC Scotland who was demoted to running Radio Inverness after picking the wrong fight; Alastair Hetherington
Follow the Wiki link and look at the part 3 Later Career
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alastair_Hetherington
Juteman says:14 June, 2013 at 7:26 pm
“@ a supporter.
Bringing The Rangers into the thread is very suspicious of trolling?”
What an ABSOLUTELY STUPID REMARK! It’s people like you who shame the Independence movement.
I was merely pointing out that Rangers brought the BBC to heel and so can we.
“Galloway’s outburst that he was not entitled to a vote in the referendum got me thinking about other Scottish politicians who might not be entitled either.Where does the head of the No campaign currently reside? Is his current designated main home in London or Scotland?There should be a correlation between claimed residency and eligibility on the electoral role.”
Spooky – I found myself wondering the exact same thing this afternoon. Is there a register or something where we can find out? I’m sure it wouldn’t list actual addresses but it should at least tell us the city.
“Bremner was well warned, implicitly, in advance by the discussion about Calman and her antics that an anti-Independence stance would not go down well. He may be a comic but he is not an idiot.”
Or, y’know, maybe he actually WANTED to present a balanced view…
@Braco
My hunch is he said nothing at the time. I’ve said ad nauseam I’m perplexed as to why he doesn’t retrospectively whistle blow. He was at the heart of the machine, it’s way beyond me. The place is in freefall, Holyrood Cttee on their case and the same players are still at the helm.
Maybe it’s the slowly, slowly catchee monkey philosophy of the YES campaign, let’s hope they persuade enough of their ‘grassroots’ supporters to get us over the line.
Albalha,
does Cameron listen to Ruth or Mlliband listen to Lammont? Why would you expect whoever is the real high hiedyin at London BBC to listen to some junior up in Scotland with a ceremonial but practically powerless job title.
I think you might have believed the spiel that BBCScotland has some sort of autonomy that would or could influence policy at BBCUK level. It doesn’t .
@ a supporter.
Thanks for the rage.
I simply couldn’t see a reason for your comment.
My apologies if it was unwarranted.
“Bringing The Rangers into the thread is very suspicious of trolling?”
It IS possible to make a relevant reference to TRFC without it automatically being trolling. In this case it seems entirely valid.
@Braco
I speak from a position of having worked for the BBC both in London and Glasgow. If you’re up for it, in a powerful managerial position, good enough at your job and want to have your say then you can.
Sapheneia says:14 June, 2013 at 7:53 pm
says:14 June, 2013 at 1:29pm
And fee fi fo fum, I smell the blood of an Englishman. Norse Warrior in drag? Is that true?
Missed this in earlier post so apologies to all for putting it here. As I said there are scum bags in all countries. My kids are proud to be born in England. If they choose to call themselves English or Scottish it’s no care to me. What I do care about is bigots. End QUOTE
You see folks it is old Norsie. Becoming insulting now, calling me a ‘scumbag’ and a ‘bigot’ just because I and a number of others pointed out the fact that there is plenty of anti-Scottish racism in England which is never commented upon. He is now trying to gain your sympathy like all good ‘concern’ trolls.
“You see folks it is old Norsie.”
Just so we’re crystal clear: this stops right here and right now. My trigger finger is now permamently itchy when it comes to witch-hunts.
Albalha,
yes, in a ‘powerful [enough] managerial position’. Such a position simply does not exist in BBC Scotland just as it does not exist in any of the other creations for ‘Scotland’ of UK unionist political parties.
Incidentally, while I’m in mildly cranky mode, can people please NOT use [cite] tags in comments? They make a total mess.
Sorry, can you explain that to a computer null?
Was that for me Rev Stu?
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:14 June, 2013 at 8:19 pm
QUOTE “You see folks it is old Norsie.”
Just so we’re crystal clear: this stops right here and right now. My trigger finger is now permanently itchy when it comes to witch-hunts. END QUOTE
OK Stu, take the point, just a warning shot across bows.
“Sorry, can you explain that to a computer null?”
If you don’t know what it means, it doesn’t apply to you, so don’t worry about it 😀
“Was that for me Rev Stu?”
It was for anyone who does it. Haven’t noticed it on any posts of yours.
Read all my posts. “Grow up” – I used that earlier – was a poor use of words by me.
I simply challenge any posts that appear to encourage anti English (or any other country for that matter) sentiment within the independence debate. We are better than that.
If I’ve caused a supporter undue grief then that was my mistake.
@Braco
Let’s agree to disagree, but, surely we can agree that the Blair Jenkins’ silence, now, is somewhat baffling, at best.
@Albalha, Braco
The following is me speculating, and I am not implying anything or suggesting that anyone else is, just doing a simple logical follow through here.
My instinct, FWIW, tells me that Blair Jenkins is 100% for independence. Don’t know him personally, just going by his performance in TV interviews and stuff he has posted on the Yes site etc.
He also seems to be a person of principle and integrity.
So if there were anything other than, some might well say misplaced, loyalty to former colleagues involved, then I feel he himself would have found his position untenable and stood down.
Therefore I must conclude that that is all it is and as such must, hopefully, be nearing breaking point.
Time, perhaps, will tell.
Albalha,
Absolutely. Very strange.
Long way to go.It seems to me the unionist camp – media,politicians etc – is slowly destroying its own cause with each hysterical headline and unthinking outburst.
“PPS: Will we still have aliens in an Independent Scotland?”
Yes, and they’ll be very welcome!
Chic McGregor,
sounds the most logical explanation. If you are right and he eventually does feel he’s taken enough, as it was on a personal level, his response may well be on that same personal level and so contain that extra steel that personal disappointment in a formerly respected institution can bring. I think many in Scotland will be traveling a similar path during this referendum campaign with regards to the BBC and the reversal of esteem they hold it in.
@john king
““PPS: Will we still have aliens in an Independent Scotland?”
Yes, and they’ll be very welcome!”
HIja’ qar’a’.
@johnking
John are you trying to tell us something?
“live long and prosper”
Marcia says
“The next time QT comes to Scotland, the SNP should stand aside and let Patrick Harvie or Denis Canavan or Margo McDonald be the pro -Independence speakers. If there is not a balanced panel then no one from the Yes side should take part and state the reasons for doing so.”
I’m totally with you on that one Marcia, they’ve had more than enough free kicks at goal, we need to tell them enough is enough
Rev Stu,
You can’t count Anas Sarwar’s 3:10 contribution as anti-independence – he is so totally vacuumous in every utterance he makes that I believe he is now the Yes Campaign’s special weapon, or special tool. The more airtime he gets the more chance he has to work his magic…
Long way to go.It seems to me the unionist camp – media,politicians etc – is slowly destroying its own cause with each hysterical headline and unthinking outburst.
Quite. The sky has yet to fall in as predicted. Which is rather unfortunate if you are an avid supporter of the union. Life well, just continues on. Looking increasingly grim as part of the union too.
It’s not independence that needs to be sold. It’s the union. We wouldn’t be in this position otherwise.
As I’ve said before, a cause/party can only destroy itself. Governments are voted out because they failed. If they are half decent, no amount of accusations, attacks etc from the other side will oust them. It is the union that has brought about its own demise. For the union to survive, it must look attractive and stable. Otherwise, the electorate will gamble on change.
Then there’s this.
You can be Scottish and British. Honestly you can. No seriously, it’s really possible! Think of the olympics! We fought in wars together too. Please feel strongly British!
Which is a counter to the question people will effectively be asked:
Is Scotland a country/nation?
Yes or No
Coming back to worries about the sky falling in… Standing in that booth, for some the pencil hovers pensively over No. Then it touches down in the Yes box inquiringly. Nothing happens. It starts to move across the card. Still nothing happens. It forms the first stroke of an X. Yet again, nothing happens. No explosions, no sudden thunder and lightning, no sound of gunshots in the distance. It completes the X and still all is well. Placing the polling card in the ballot box likewise has no obvious disastrous effects. The next day, the sun still – as predicted – rises.
In the end, what harm could one more Yes vote possibly do? After all, it’s just one vote…
HIja’ qar’a’.
I can’t believe I know what that means.
Chic Macgregor says:
think your wrong there chic,
if it had been a car crash for indie , it could have been disastrous if the casualties had been Alex or Nicola
“@john king
““PPS: Will we still have aliens in an Independent Scotland?”Yes, and they’ll be very welcome!” HIja’ qar’a’.”
eh?
kin yea dae that in fife dialect?
Lesley Riddoch seems to have emerged with the most cred from last night, but to her cost – literally. She knows she’ll now be persona non grata at Pacific Quay, and she may find freelance gigs that wee bit harder to land.
One things’s for sure – the BBC people who’ve been quietly tolerating intimidation and outright bullying for years will not, tonight, be discussing the relative merits of independence, or last night’s QT. They’ll be wondering whether or not they can afford to take such a brave decision and ‘come out’ as Indy supporters inside an organisation which clearly has no place for them.
Riddoch is leading by example, and may be playing the long game.
In any future SBC she would surely be a major figure. Those with the foresight and guts to support her right now could well benefit in the long run – in terms of job security, and the opportunity to rekindle what, for may of them, was once a vocation.
We should also look forward to some powerful new work from Riddoch – free at last, free at last, thank god almighty, she is free at last…more power to her.
“BeamMeUpScotty says:
14 June, 2013 at 4:04 pm
@ChrisWhat annoys me about Galloway is his insistence (rightly, I concede) that Arab states should have self-determinationThe reason that Galloway supports independence for Arab states is that he is not standing for election in any of these countries.His greatest fear about Scottish independence is that he would then be viewed as a foreigner in about the only place (London) that would elect him to office.”
Just had a premonition of the future and saw George Galloway staggering up to someone on sauchihall street, asking for a pound for a drink ,saying, I used to be an important person you know
little does he know.
@john king
“kin yea dae that in fife dialect?”
Yes indeed, neebur.
HIja’ qar’a’. I can’t believe I know what that means.
I cant believe you know what that means and you cannae tell me?
@john king
Ah telt ye Sir. It means ‘yes, indeed’, ken?
I remember when I was living and working in England, I used to get BBC Scotland on my office computer and listen to Lesley every lunch-time. She was great. Breath of fresh air, window on home and all that.
Don’t even know what’s on between 1 and 2 now, even though a tranny would pick it up.
sneddon says:
14 June, 2013 at 9:35 pm
sneddon says:
14 June, 2013 at 9:35 pm
sneddon says:
14 June, 2013 at 9:35 pm
@johnkingJohn are you trying to tell us something?“live long and prosper”
nuqDaq ‘oH puchpa”e’.
@Morag-
Were you listening to Riddoch’s show when she broke news of the Twin Towers being hit?
(I’m not trying to start anything here!)
It was powerful stuff – only time I’ve ever heard any radio presenter say ‘If you’re anywhere near a telly you might want to switch it on.’
“Janice Hadlow, Controller of BBC Two and Arts Commissioning Editor, Mark Bell today announce an eclectic range of new arts programmes for BBC Two.”
“An exploration into whether 16th century Britain had its own Renaissance with celebrated art historian, Dr James Fox”
“A Very British Renaissance”
“This three-part series, presented by celebrated art historian Dr James Fox (A History Of Art In Three Colours, British Masters), explores the British Renaissance, an epoch that saw Britain shed its medieval shackles and embrace a world of cutting edge art, literature, architecture and science. But this was no slavish imitation of Continental fashion: this was a very British renaissance.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/bbc-two-quartet-of-arts-programmes.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Renaissance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_in_Scotland
Kenny Gibson tables a motion re Question time
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/jun/gibson-tables-motion-bbc-question-time
Did Dimbleby spin the line that Question Time never covers by elections.
http://youtu.be/JTjLR2OR9LU
Ian, no. I was wrestling with a printer that had decided to malfunction. When I decided to check what was happening in the world just about two or maybe just after, the internet was essentially broken. I thought it was just my dial-up, and walked over to the printer shop across the road to solve the more pressing problem.
Didn’t find out until a colleague who’d been to the garage to collect his car returned with the news. The garage had a TV in the showroom to entertain the clients they were keeping waiting, and he’d seen the lot. We all commandeered the only tranny in the place after that. Everyone kept saying “towers”. It was only when I got home and turned on the TV I realised they were huge office blocks.
@Morag-
Thanks for response – was a wee bit worried in case the reference jarred.
You’ve been awfy quiet of late – hopefully just too busy?
Bestest anyway.
BeamMeUpScotty:
The British Establishment is comfortable with George Galloway and George Galloway is comfortable with the British Establishment. He’s the rebel and they’re the backdrop and both are happy bunnies.
The SNP threaten to break the British Establishment and that’s what’s got George hot, flustered and very upset.
@john king
“@johnkingJohn are you trying to tell us something?“live long and prosper”
nuqDaq ‘oH puchpa”e’.”
Bathrooms? Klingon? There must be a connection there somewhere. 🙂
@johnkingJohn are you trying to tell us something?“live long and prosper”
HIja’ qar’a’
yes i’m trying to tell you I looked up a Klingon phrasebook on the internet
sorry Iv’e always watched Star trek with bemusement rather then interest
on fairness and balance,
I had an email conversation with an msp recently (who shall remain nameless)and the general drift of the converstion was that its the public who will be required to stand up to the BBC as any attempt by the SNP would be not only counter productive but an act if political suicide,
so its up to us guys,
noo who’s fur a rammy?
let me remind people what my approach to the OSCE elicited,
my email in early april,
I am aware other Scots have approached the ODIHR for help in combatting a completely biased main stream media in Scotland in favour of the country of Scotland remaining within the United Kingdom, the main culprit being the British Broadcasting Company, this has led to a scenario where although people are obliged under law to pay a license fee to the BBC, they quite outrageously prevent people having a response to biased articles, this coupled with vested interests paying for the no campaign but resisting media interest raises the question of a fair and open debate, however to reach my point, the other contactors appear (correct me if I’m wrong) to have had responses which imply only the sovereign state can ask for help which suggests your mandate is only to support the oppressor and not the oppressed ,please I would be most grateful if could enlighten me as to the facts, yours very sincerely
john king
the response
Thank you for your message regarding possible observation by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the referendum scheduled for 2014. From your message I am aware that you are familiar with the Office’s previous responses to inquiries on this subject, so I will focus here on the specific question you have asked regarding ODIHR’s mandate and the referendum. ODIHR is mandated to observe elections in OSCE participating States, and all 57 participating States have committed themselves to invite the Office to observe their elections. The wording of the commitment in this instance refers to “national election proceedings”, so the government of the United Kingdom is not politically obligated by the OSCE commitments it has made to invite ODIHR to observe the referendum. That said, ODIHR has been invited been invited in the past by the governments of OSCE participating States to observe local elections or referenda. If the government of the United Kingdom did issue an invitation to ODIHR to observe the referendum, the Office would then certainly consider doing so. Analysing the media landscape and monitoring the coverage of the referendum campaign would almost certainly be part of such an observation activity. Best regards, Thomas RymerSpokespersonOSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Tel: +48 22 520 0640Mobile: +48 609 522 266
now correct me if I’m wrong here but didnt the ODIHR get involved in Iceland without the Icelandic governments request? besides am I not correct if suggesting that as (in contrast to England) where Westminster is sovereign
in Scotland it is the people who are sovereign, so it stands that if the people (or a representative %) request ODIHR oversight ,we would be within our sovereign rights under EU law to do so?
petition anyone?
this is how I responded to Mr Rymers dismissal on 30/04/13
In response to your recent communication to me,
might I say thank you for your prompt response and I am grateful you should take the time to do so ,
however I do feel the content of your response opened up a schism in the connection between the OSCE and the electorates they are there to protect,
as in the case of Scotland the body who stand to gain by no involvement of the ODIHR is the only body you say is entitled to ask for your input which would be the UK government,
As Scotland has a devolved parliament and the Scottish people (as opposed to Westminster ) are sovereign in Scotland I would imagine a case for your involvement of the basis that you have been invited by the sovereign masters of Scotland is justification enough for the protection your body offers,
or is it the case that protection is held solely for the support of the governments who’s duplicitous actions are preventing (or attempting to) the right of the people of Scotland to fair and balanced reporting by using a corporation who demand our money on pain of imprisonment to support them but refuse point blank to honor their own editorial commitment (http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-editorial-values-charter/)to present a balanced approach to reporting,
might I suggest you cast your eye over this article http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/04/bbc-the-new-hammer-of-the-scots/
which is indicative of the belief most Scots have of the BBC
in summary I would strongly urge your office to take a stand in regards to the forthcoming referendum in Scotland or stand aside and watch a travesty take place
john king
no response
@doug the dug
“The SNP threaten to break the British Establishment and that’s what’s got George hot, flustered and very upset.”
I saw spittle, he at times looked like he was going to cry
aw never mind eh,
I understand that people are getting upset over the obvious imbalance in the BBC. I do however think that the MSM would come down very hard on the SNP if they criticised the beloved BBC too harshly and would be accused of trying to prevent free speech etc.
I believe that if we continue to point out to the un-decided that imbalance by pointing then to websites such as WOS. Newsnet and Craig Murray, this will be more effective as they would see the evidence for themselves.
A lot of the don’t knows are like that because they dislike the SNP and would maybe be pushed the other way if they felt that they were being manipulated by politicians.
I will continue to complain to the BBC even though it might seem pointless as at some point the number of complaints will come to light. They can’t get away with it for ever.
@john king
After reading up on it I didn’t have much hope that they would act in Scotland’s case, however, the involvement of the Electoral Commission in complaining to the BBC about the imbalance on the QT panel last week raises an intriguing question.
Since they are the guard dogs of the electoral process, and hence independent from the government of the day (or should be) and since they should have supremacy on such matters, I wonder whether they could make a request of the ODIHR which would obviate the need for UK Government compliance?
Or, it could be suggested to them that they request that the UK Government seek ODIHR monitoring.
Chic McGregor says:
15 June, 2013 at 12:32 pm
@john king
anything is better than the current intolerable situation,
and Liz,
absolutely. this is why SNP cant be seen to be involved in the complaints (up to a point) against the BBC as the msm will give them a mauling
One thing we can all do is gen-up on the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/guidelines/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-politics-practices-elections/#broadcasting-during-elections
and in particular
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-politics-practices-opinion/#reporting-opinion-polls
Seems that BoothmanBC Scotchland are very aware of these guidelines by the careful wording they use: e.g. calling an opinion poll or survey a ‘study’, such as in the recent BBC online article “Scottish independence: Study suggests most 16/17 year olds would vote ‘no'”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22745855
when it seems to me they were still flouting some of their own opinion poll & survey reporting guidelines, i.e.
10.4.31
When reporting the findings of opinion polls (especially voting intention polls in the United Kingdom), whether commissioned by the BBC or others:
We should not lead a news bulletin or programme simply with the results of an opinion poll
We should not headline the results of an opinion poll unless it has prompted a story which itself deserves a headline and reference to the poll’s findings is necessary to make sense of it
We should normally report the findings of opinion polls in the context of trend and must always do so when reporting voting intention polls. The trend may consist of the results of all major polls over a period or may be limited to the change in a single pollster’s findings. Poll results which defy trends without convincing explanation should be treated with particular care
We should not normally rely on the interpretation given to a poll’s results by the organisation or publication which carried it out or commissioned it
We should report the organisation which carried out the poll and the organisation or publication which commissioned it, as well as the questions, results and sample size. This information too should always be shown in television and online graphics
10.4.40
We should exercise appropriate scepticism when reporting the results of surveys commissioned or carried out by other organisations and, where necessary, include a description of the methodology used. Care is required, particularly in news output, not to report such surveys in a way which leads our audience to believe they are more robust than is actually the case.
Thanks for response – was a wee bit worried in case the reference jarred.
Not at all. I’ve no objection to talking about that incident. What I object to is people who try to hijack serious discussions about police procedure and the legal process in the Lockerbie affair into batshit crazy conspiracy theories about something that happened 13 years later and 3000 miles away.
You’ve been awfy quiet of late – hopefully just too busy?
I’m reading. I’m finishing my book about the Lockerbie balls-up, which has to be done soon because it’s the 25th anniversary in only six months so it has to be out by then and I’m cutting it a bit fine. Started the final chapter though!
Bestest anyway.
Thanks. You too.
OT (or maybe not). Spending the afternoon flicking through WoS with an eye on both the tennis and the US Open Golf. Rain in London, so they’re showing replays of old matches.
They just showed the final set of the Olympic Final, so it was good to watch oor Andy at the top of his game – but they then showed the medal ceremony and THE NATIONAL ANTHEM!! They can’t help showing how we’re better together, eh?
Add in over a hundred Scots on the Queens Honours List (seems more than usual) – just seems they are applying a helluva lot of superglue to the huge crack in the ceiling. Sorry we can see right through it….
George Galloway’s comment at the end re being Scottish and not having a vote was daft. It would be like Londoners living in Scotland getting to vote if the GLA decided to hold a referendum on London becoming a City State. Self determination is based on where you live not where you are from.
@Chic McGregor
It was the Electoral Reform Society Scotland that complained, not the Electoral Commission.
@AH
Was it? Bugger, misread that.
They would just be ignored. I guess.
Ach well, back to plan C.
“For decades two of our biggest exports to England were whisky and Scottish MPs – or, in the case of Charles Kennedy, both.” Rory Bremner.
That’s not very nice and just remember he’s a Tory toff.
It’s worrying that so many people remain confused about the licence fee situation. It’s happened on several threads here on WoS alone – folk wondering aloud whether or not to take the plunge and just cancel the debit, or refuse to renew when the year’s up.
Sure I read somewhere that the best guesstimate puts the number of households not paying the LF at approx 1 million. That’s nationally. Say, for argument’s sake, 100,000 of those are in Scotland. (We’re not allowed to see the actual figures because the BBC refuses to release them despite FOI requests.)
Even using the lower estimates on voting intentions, can anyone do a back-of-envelope calculation to determine how much the BBC would be losing in Scotland if even HALF of those firm Yes voters (who, presumably, don’t enjoy being lied to and crassly misrepresented on a daily basis) knew how to legally avoid paying the LF and did so immediately?
There remains widespread confusion on the subject – we really need a definitive Q&A-type statement from someone suitably qualified. As things stand one has to do the online homework, then make a personal judgement as to who’s telling the truth. The BBC certainly isn’t ever going to do it, and no MSM organ has ever (so far as I’m aware) highlighted the subject.
Do we have any WoS readers in N Ireland who can speak about the experience of non-payment there during the ‘Troubles’? Or do we have a lawyer who knows the ins and outs and can give us the straight truth?
The more of us who go on Licence Fee ‘strike’, the greater the chance of spreading the word and giving Auntie a good kick where it hurts most.
Can’t imagine why the Daily Mail could possibly want to encourage citizens to starve the BBC of much needed dosh, but it’s an informative piece.
The second link is where you’d go to tell them you’ve finally decided to modify your viewing habits in such a way that you are no longer obliged to cough up £146 – go on, treat yourself in more ways than one: stop watching shite, and buy yourself an enormous potted plant from IKEA to fill the space about to be vacated by that box.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304280/BBC-silence-licence-loophole-Corporation-refuses-say-households-need-catch-online.html
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-if-a-tv-licence-is-not-needed-top12/
@ ianbrotherhood
I stopped paying the Propaganda Tax years ago.
However I’d happily pay whatever the Licence Fee is these days into a Scottish Broadcasting Trust Fund if one was set up (how about it Rev?).
That way we could show BBC and rest of MSM exactly how much is being unpaid/withheld – and therefore how many people are pissed off with the BBC bias and dirty tricks.
And if a significant amount is put into the Trust Fund perhaps international media monitoring organisations such as the ODIHR will find it harder to ignore/desist from getting involved…
@beachthistle-
Stunning idea. Love it.
Would like a bit more info on non payment of LF..Does non payment show up on any credit rating sites for instance. Or do debt collectors start writing to you.?and how often do the BBC get in touch with you.?? Can I turn round and tell them that it is because of blatant unionist view that the channel has. I would love to stop paying but as I said I need a little bit more info.
@Dee-
Exactly.
We all need more info, and we need it to be confirmed by people we trust.
I’ve informed them (via the second link I posted, above) that I don’t require a licence as I don’t watch or record any ‘live’ transmissions. They replied (about three days later), thanking me for getting in touch, said that I’ll get a ‘home visit which won’t take more than a few minutes’ and won’t hear from them otherwise for approx two years, when they’ll ‘check if your circumstances have changed‘ (pure deja-vu right there, doing the whole Jobseekers B1 sketch…)
Dee, I can only tell you what I know, and it’s this – as and when the man turns up at the door I’ll tell him that I filled-in the online declaration, that I do have a TV, but I only use it for watching DVDs, and the weans use it for playing games. I do watch BBC programmes, but only via the I-Player.
If he then asks to come inside my house? No way. Not unless he’s got a search warrant, and cops to witness what he’s up to. By asking to come inside he’s effectively calling me a liar, and it’s as pointless as it is offensive – he wants to check what’s being watched on whatever monitor I happen to have in the house? Unless he’s got a copy of the Radio Times in his hands and has perfect knowledge of whatever’s being broadcast at any given point in the day, there’s no way he can determine if I’m watching ‘live’ broadcasts or not.
And I happen to have aerials entering the upper and lower windows? Aye. So what? They were there when I moved in, I used them for so long as I was watching live telly, but I’m not ripping them out – the next occupant might want to use them.
The whole thing is ludicrous.
There’s not an awful lot any of us can do to counter the sickening behaviour of the BBC but we can certainly refuse to be co-opted by paying for the shite we’re force-fed on a daily basis.
had to laugh at the criteria the BBC requires of a member of it audience council
Seven Principles of Public Life
As a member of the Audience Council you must commit to abide by the Seven Principles of Public Life as outlined below:
Selflessness
Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.
Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.
Objectivity
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make decisions on merit.
Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
Openness
Holders of public office should always be as open as possible about all decisions and actions they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
Honesty
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Leadership
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.
soor ploom anyone?
I have been without a live TV connection for a few months now and miss nothing, no more propaganda and no more forced to watch adverts…fantastic.
I now fill my spare time choosing what I want to read, watch listen to on the net, my laptop is attached to my 46 inch screen as is my cinema system, who needs the BS from live TV, old hat and it’s time has passed.
I get out more, see more of my family and have time to learn the guitar, liberated I think.
Best of all I can send the TV license\government tax collectors packing and of course tell them where they can stick their threats of court action and their Unionist crap.
You know Bill Hicks said back at the start of the 90’s about people being bombarded with bullshit from the box whilst we are all being kept in the dark by the government, took me a long time to realise what he meant but my eyes are well open now.
This post ran a bit longer than I had intended….. Ditch the TV altogether and take part in real life again….. It’s wonderfully liberating and will give you more time to work on the Indy cause !
@Buster Bloggs. wait till you’ve been off TV for a decade, then you’ll have the trip when you go to tele watching mates house and spend hours in bewilderment when you see an advert. It is truly scary!