For those of you wanting to look at the report on broadcasting bias from the University of the West of Scotland, we’ve uploaded it to the Repository, and you can also grab it directly from this link. Thanks to the alert readers who sent it in.
We doubt if anyone is going to faint with amazement from the discovery that an academic study has found TV news coverage of the independence debate was biased against the Yes side by a 3-2 margin between September 2012 and September 2013.
But what’s useful about the University of West of Scotland research is that it sets out the exact nature of the various types of biases, and gives a precise number for how many times each type occurred. This moves us on considerably, because complaints can no longer be dismissed as nothing more than (to misquote Derek Bateman) the paranoia of nationalists obsessing over how many times Jackie Bird raises her left eyebrow while reading from an autocue.
We can’t be the only people, surely, to find the latest “Better Together” gambit one of their strangest yet. Never mind the made-up figures or the spurious assertions or their usual habit of having headline amounts which use cumulative sums over many years to make numbers sound bigger. Just look at the barely-concealed subtext here:
“Don’t leave the UK, or you’ll have to give your money to the English! Eurgh!”
Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail, just discovered:
God DAMN it! Who knew we were just the unwitting dupes of the Belgians all along?
Step 1: Write an offensive, provocative piece of trollbait for the Daily Mail, describing your opponents as “kilted bum-barers who bellow ‘freedom’ whenever an English person hoves into view” and suggesting that a Yes vote is an abdication of morality.
(If you can then somehow get the Guardian to reprint it, bonus!)
Step 2: Whine like a baby when you get the response you wanted all along.
When we started the week with news of the UK government’s statement on debt, we wondered aloud whether it would be a game-changing moment. Judging by the No camp’s reaction since then, shrieking and flailing and lashing out blindly in all directions simultaneously, our question’s been answered.
It’s been hard to keep track of it all, but we’ll have a go.
Some loony posted this to YouTube on Christmas Eve, so we’ve only just stumbled across it. It’s the speech given by Scotland’s Sweetheart (and Wings Over Scotland contributor), the estimable Saffron Dickson, to the Radical Independence Conference back in November, and it’s seven minutes of your life well spent.
We hope to live long enough to see her as First Minister.
So, Ruth Davidson’s been digging herself a big hole on Twitter since yesterday.
We’ve been trying unsuccessfully since last night to find any of these “cabernats” [sic] who’ve supposedly been “outraged” by Mr Hague’s comments. As yet we haven’t managed to locate a single tweet complaining about them. But Davidson’s remarks piqued our curiosity about what Hague had actually said, since we hadn’t yet seen the speech he’ll be giving in Scotland today.
So we went and tracked it down, and suddenly we found ourselves outraged.
Alistair Darling double-teamed Scotland’s current affairs shows last night, appearing at length on both Scotland Tonight and Newsnight Scotland in order to blink furiously in turn at first Bernard Ponsonby and then Gordon Brewer.
The STV man largely wasted his opportunity, spending the bulk of the interview talking about live debates, but Brewer did a much better job of putting Darling on the spot in several areas. Indeed, with the “Better Together” chairman’s very first words onscreen, the BBC interviewer drew from him a huge and fundamental lie that sits at the very heart of the independence debate. Stand back, because here it comes.
As we were collecting stuff for the new Repository in our Reference section, an alert reader pointed us to the thing we’re about to show you, which we hadn’t seen before. It dates from 1975 but was only released to the public a few years ago under the 30-year rule – having been kept secret by successive Labour and Conservative administrations in the intervening period – until it was retrieved by Irish journalist Tom Griffin.
It’s the minutes from a discussion between some UK government civil servants on the subject of Scottish devolution, in relation to oil revenues, and what the public should be told about them. This was Westminster’s attitude to informing the electorate when even a small amount of self-determination of Scotland was at stake. Read it and ask yourself if you think the opponents of independence are being any more honest now.
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
