Smile for me now, brother
As we’ve noted before, media bias is a subtle beast. It doesn’t (we think) take the form of dastardly late-night meetings where BBC or Scotsman editors gather to plot the next day’s subversion of the Yes campaign. Much of it comprises things journalists often aren’t even consciously aware they’re doing, as documented by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in their remarkable book “Manufacturing Consent”.
(We’ve appended a footnote below this piece by Douglas Daniel, summarising a few of the book’s core principles as they can be applied to the independence debate.)
Let’s be uncharacteristically charitable, then, and assume honest intentions when we examine an interesting piece by Magnus Gardham in the Herald today, which goes by the headline “PM’s Euro gamble has strengthened SNP’s hand”.
After all, on the face of it that sounds like it would have to support our own conclusions about the implications of David Cameron’s speech this week on an EU-membership referendum. At the very least, it would seem to be a token effort by Gardham – so often the bete noire of nationalists – at presenting a figleaf of neutrality. But as you delve further into the story, a rather different picture emerges.
Before we even start, of course, we’re obliged to note that the headline chooses to lazily and inaccurately conflate the Yes campaign with the SNP, and the first couple of paragraphs waste no time in immediately reminding us of Alex Salmond’s much-publicised media trials on the subject last year.
Indeed, despite being ostensibly about “the independence debate” the entire article bizarrely contains not a single mention of either “YesScotland” or “Better Together”, framing itself entirely around political parties despite the by-now well-worn fact that neither Yes nor No support is party-aligned, with many SNP voters opposed to independence and substantial minorities of the other parties in favour of it.
Gardham then goes on to question whether the fallout from Cameron’s speech can “transform the Nationalists’ fortunes after a week which saw support for leaving the UK fall to a post-devolution low of 23%”. The phrase is slipped quietly and matter-of-factly into the piece without fuss, like a stiletto between the ribs – unnoticed but deadly. Yet we already know, and Gardham knows too, that it isn’t true.
Even if the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey really did see the “Yes vote” fall to 23% (which it didn’t), it CERTAINLY didn’t do so last week – the survey was conducted between July and November last year, and more recent polls asking much more direct and relevant questions about the referendum show a far higher figure (either 32% or 37% rising to 52%, depending which polling organisations you pick).
The rest of the article sees Gardham fall back on the classic “they’re all as bad as each other” line that so often accompanies embarrassing situations for the parties of the Union, before concluding that the SNP “still have a long way to go” in capitalising on the European issue’s new position in terms of the independence debate.
So what do we see before us? We have a superficially balanced piece under an apparently positive headline, but which conflates the Yes campaign into the SNP, which perpetuates a false statistical claim and also makes a false assertion about how contemporary that statistic is, and which spends most of its time reminding readers about the SNP’s difficulties – Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon get five mentions compared to just one for David Cameron.
That the article is misleading and biased, then, is beyond rational dispute. But has it arrived at that condition through conscious calculation, or by unwitting Chomskian self-censorship? Look below and decide for yourself.
—————————————————————————————-
FOOTNOTE
The Five Filters Of Propaganda
1. Size, Ownership and Profit Orientation – simply put, this is about how media organs must pander to the whims of their owners. Most people agree News International papers follow the editorial line that their Murdoch would put down (his tweets may look like someone just giving an opinion, but in reality his editors etc will take that as a cue to go down that path).
It’s hardly inconceivable to think that the large corporations that own the Scotsman and the Herald etc, who also own large numbers of local newspapers in England, are fundamentally Unionist. Therefore, it’s not much of a leap to suggest that their influence would lead to their newspapers putting forward a broadly Unionist line.
2. The Advertising License To Do Business – the argument is that, as newspapers are now mainly funded by advertising rather than sales, then newspapers have to please the corporations that pay their bills. This has led to working classes losing their voice, as corporations are inherently conservative, leading to the near-universal support for neoliberal economic and social policies trumpeted by the media. Again, it’s not exactly controversial to point out that conservative folk are likely to support the status quo, hence media organs find themselves under pressure to toe the line.
3. Sourcing Mass Media News – This is possibly the most important element. The media all get their news from the same places, and with media organisations constantly cutting back on journalist resources, they invariably have to cut corners where they can. That includes taking press releases at face value. Since the media relies on a constant stream of things to write about (no one visits a website that isn’t regularly being updated), they need to keep their news providers happy. The vast majority of news is not sourced by journalists “going out and getting the story” – it is given to them through press associations and from “trusted” providers, such as governmental PR departments.
There is a pressure to keep such providers sweet, because if you upset them they can cut off the flow of “news” (hence why the UK government is happy to have the Leveson proposals hang like the sword of Damocles over the media). This is basically what Nick Davies (the journalist who exposed most of what led to Leveson) calls “churnalism” in his excellent book, Flat Earth News. Anyone who doubts this clearly hasn’t paid attention to the closeness between politicians and journalists thrown up by Leveson. It’s very, very real.
4. Flak and the Enforcers – the negative responses to media statements etc. Ian Davidson provided an uncharacteristically visible example of this when he accused Isabel Fraser and “Newsnat Scotland” of being biased in favour of independence. But as mentioned before, there’s also more subtle things like the government keeping the Leveson proposals alive as a constant threat to give the media a big kick up the arse.
5. Anti-Communism – since updated to the “War On Terror”, but in our case it’s Scottish independence. This is essentially about an external threat. During the Gulf War it was headlines about Saddam Hussein, but today, during what you could dub the War On Independence, it’s headlines about Alex Salmond. MP jibes about “dictatorships” feed into this and help shape the narrative of the Evil Separatists being a threat to everyone’s lives.
Just as a matter of interest the Irish minister who made a careless statement about Scotland’s position in the EU can be easily contacted at Lucinda.Creighton@taoiseach.ie
Excellent dissection Rev.
“who also own large numbers of local newspapers in England”
Johnston Press have been busily buying up most of the newspapers throughout the UK. This is why local papers all seem to have the same format and ideology. A standard ‘Common Purpose’ line. The UK as part of the EU and part of the UN. National boundaries to be demolished and ‘seperatism’ to be defeated. Agenda 21 the way forward through a strong third sector takeover. Losses at the newspapers will never see them go bust. Other funding is always available to get the message out.
Jonhston Press publications in the UK….
Publications | Johnston Press plc
On this occasion I am of the “complacency, not conspiracy” camp. I think journalists have become monumentally lazy as the pressure from their Paper is to have rolling 24/7 “news” impinges on their “journalistic integrity” – assuming they still have any. As a consequence, once the editorial position is made, then there is no imperative for them to present anything outwith that world view.
So in the case of Independence, until the editorial stance of the owner changes, I do not expect anything to be less biased. So all the PR puff from the NO side will be presented without any real criticism or analysis. Contrast this with the YES campaign which will either be ignored, of subjected to rebuttals.
The BBC in Scotland SHOULD of course be neutral, but it is not. Once again I have to assume that this is a policy decision taken, probably in London, but also influenced by the inbuilt Labour bias of many of the “journalists” on their books.
This is a problem that will not go away any time soon.
Slightly OT, but the “comment” boards of the Scottish papers in particular, seem to give far more weight and access to the NO brigade and their preposterous ideas. One comment on this piece in the Herald about the number of local YES groups around the country is typical.
From Mr John MacIntyre, OBE “Are the people of Scotland going to be intimated and coerced by “Yes Scotland” campaigners and supporters to join these groups in 130 communities throughout Scotland? Are “Yes Scotland” going to draw up lists of those who refuse to attend meetings of these groups? Is it the intention of “Yes Scotland” that neighbours should inform on neighbours for their failure to participate in these groups?”
He actually seems to be serious. I think he has edited his original piece as I am sure he mentioned East Germany. You couldn’t make it up.
Dave McEwan Hill,
Thanks for the contact details of Ms Creighton. I have just sent what I hope is a sensible e mail to her.
“Dear Ms Creighton,
I wonder if you are aware that your interview with Mr Buchanan of BBC Scotland
has been used by that organisation to support the view that a “Yes” vote in the
2014 Independence referendum would result in Scotland finding itself out of the EU.
The position of the SNP government appears to be that there is no mechanism for the disenfranchisement
of its citizens in any EU treaty and no precedence for such a situation. Their expectation is that
the Scottish Government would be renegotiating terms within the EU, which seems the only logical
and practical outcome to me.
Perhaps you would like to reconsider having, perhaps inadvertently, given succour to British nationalism
in these islands, and issue some clarification of your comments, if appropriate. I am sure my late Irish
mother (from Cork) who voted SNP for 50 years in Scotland would much appreciate it.”
I always hated journalists since I had an accident and when I read it in the newspaper didn’t recognise it as the accident I had had as its facts were fiction.
Since then I have read less and less newspapers for the same reasons and that most of what was being printed I would discard with “Who Cares” as they were so trivial. Now I am after independence and not affiliated to any party I find I want to read less and less of what they print as it seems most of them should amalgamate and become the Westminster Times as it would seem they take their orders from their now!!
As ever Rev a most informative and pertinent article. This morning on Good Morning Scotland we had an excellent example of just what you are talking about. Jackie (fibber) Baillie being interviewed as a representative of the No campaign. Dereck Bateman asked her about the “latest” poll i.e the Curtice suvey. and quoting the discredited 23% for independence not onlt that we heard that 70% of the voters were in favour of the no vote. All through the interview the Yes campaign was conflated with the SNP and of course Alex Salmond. However when Bateman raised the poll which has shown that Eck. has a 46% satisfaction rate and grumpy Granny has 6% her unchallenged comment was ” I can’t see that about Salmond” As I have said before they are bastards, they are lying bastards and Goebbels would be proud of them.
JPJ2
Excellent. Irish support for Scottish independence would have a very large effect in parts of Scotland.
I’d love to see it in two forms
“Come on Scotland and join the free independent nations of the world. Ireland welcomes you”
and
“Whats’s up with you, you cowardly little gits. We went independent with nothing because we believed in ourselves. Are you lot feart?”
With regards to our newspapers. The simple shocking fact is that five billionaires playing a round of golf in Bermuda can decide what our headlines will be in Scotland tomorrow.
I have been of the opinion that the Scottish media’s has had a long-term goal of attempting to steer the constitutional debate towards a ultimate devolved settlement. They want Scotland to be part of Britain, but with powers over domestic issues. Their once constant quoting of John Smith’s opinion about devolution being the “settled will of the Scottish people” is an example of this. As is their extensive use of Donald Dewar’s remark about “Devolution being a process, not an event.”
These remarks were of course opinions, and not evidence. However, revealingly the media thought the views of leading Scottish Labour politicians were evidence in themselves. Therefore, rather than having a purely reporting role, I believe the Scottish media have taken it upon themselves to influence the direction of constitutional debate. Seen in this light, they are not observers, they are active participants in supporting the No parties, and are at present attempting to steer the people of Scotland away from independence. The problem for them is that it is becoming increasingly obvious to more and more people.
With the development of internet blogs, such as WoS, Bella Caledonia, NNS and social media, they are under unprecedented scrutiny and exposure.
It’s hard to say whether “ordinary” journalists providing aid & succour for the anti-independence movement are doing it because they personally oppose independence, because it’s the editorial line and might hurt their career if they don’t follow it, or because they are simply too lazy to appraise themselves of the balanced position.
The reaction to the Scottish Social Attitudes survey is a case in point. It was of course entirely predictable that the unionist media would spin this as a disaster for the Yes campaign, concentrate on the 23% for independence figure, and point out that it represented a huge reduction in support from the previous year etc. etc.
SOME journos are actually prepared to engage in debate (David Leask for instance), and appear open to reason, or at least prepared to see that there is another side to the argument; even then however it is often after being picked up on something like the SSA figures, and his statement that they showed there would be a No landslide. By then of course the damage has already been done. In this instance he may in his own head sincerely believe that 23% for indy according to the SSA means 77% against, despite the other evidence in the survey showing support for independence at 35% which is the largest individual preference.
Many other journalists in the Scottish MSM are of course simply not open to reason.If you venture to disagree with them or suggest that e.g. one of the reasons the circulation of Scottish newspapers has declined is that they are out of step with public opinion, you are labelled as a cybernat, dismissed and or blocked. The circulation decline they insist is ALL attributable to general declines in print media due to new media, and reflects declines elsewhere. How is it then that the declines in Scotland have been far steeper than elsewhere in the UK, and that countries of similar size like Denmark, Finland etc have NOT exhibited such changes?
Strangely, I’m still waiting for a satisfactory answer on that!
O/T Interesting discussion developing over on pie & bovril on footie clubs and political affiliations. But warning to all those sevco fans, this is real footie, and old friend Baron Foulkes as well as Cathy Jamieson are mentioned for their Cumnock and Talbot connections. But it did start with Larkhall, now proud to boast a nationalist MSP despite the knuckle draggers and pit bulls on the streets of said burgh.
Sorry, can’t provide link on this gizmo, but P&B Political Affiliations should get you there
The Irish Dimension is interesting. Irish Independence was won after the Anglo-Irish war of 1916 to 1920 and was followed by the Civil War of 1920 to 1922. Much blood was spilled and to this day Irish politics reflect those times.
Let us hope that Scotland’s Independence from Westminster rule is won bloodlessly. It shall be a first.
I am sure that there are in place “black operations” to subvert the Yes campaign’s modern, reasoned and democratic approach.
Tiocfaidh ár lá
Our day will come indeed. I do not blame the many of the people of Scotland for the strangely disjointed and uninformed impressions they have of Ireland but it would a lot easier for us if there was a better understanding of the Irish Troubles – and why.
.
“Let us hope that Scotland’s Independence from Westminster rule is won bloodlessly. It shall be a first.”
It might not actually be a first. New Zealand appears to have slipped out the back door of the British Empire with almost no-one noticing. They, apparently, don’t have an Independence Day, either.
Until the journalist/presenter/BBC link with the Labour party is broken, nothing will change. This link is what constantly needs to be pointed out to undecided folk at every opportunity.
“Well she would say that, her husband is……..”, or “She would say that, she was a Labour activist before moving into state propoganda.” etc, etc.
“Sorry, can’t provide link on this gizmo, but P&B Political Affiliations should get you there “
Here you go:
http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/197722-political-affiliations/
Noam Chomsky would have a field day doing a critique of the Scottish press. Incidentally, for anyone who doesn’t know the name, Professor Noam Chomsky is the father of modern linguistics, and has been engaged in political activism since the 1960s, and has written countless books exposing and criticising American foreign policy and Western power structures more broadly. His propaganda model is the result of years of academic research, rather than just some left-wing nutjob looking to “smash the system” – which is what people in the media would like you to think. Unfortunately for them, his academic credentials in other fields means he’s difficult to portray in such a fashion.
Here’s an excellent video of Andrew Marr trying to fathom Chomsky’s propaganda model, but like anyone who is a product of a system that is being criticised, he quickly turns defender against claims that people such as he could be anything other than pioneering, challenging truth-seekers of impeccable integrity:
http://youtu.be/F6gLH0r3iVU?t=9m50s
It’s funny, because Marr’s reactions – especially later on – remind me of the reactions of journalists on Twitter when you DARE to challenge their integrity. Just another example of a journalist not liking it when their position as a guardian of democracy is questioned.
We need look no further than the “Common Purpose” organisation to find out who is behind the unionists.
I’m ashamed to have Mr Marr as a fellow Dundonian. Mind you, he went to Dundee High School, so he isn’t a real Dundonian. 😉
Just watched the Noam Chomsky v Andrew Marr video. Where oh where is our Noam Chomsky?
@juteman
Marr isn’t a Dundonian, he was born in Glasgow went to prep school in Fife, then Dundee High and Loretto in Mussleburgh
Oops Musselburgh
Aplinal: ‘On this occasion I am of the “complacency, not conspiracy” camp.’
This is just it, though. As Stu says in the article, there is no grand conspiracy. It’s simply the result of a system forming to protect the interests of the most powerful. The Propaganda Model is fundamental to this, because the main thing people should take from it is that none of The Five Filters are specifically set down by people – they’ve just evolved naturally, often because of human nature (it’s inherently human to try not to “rock the boat” as such, and to try and fit in with others).
It’s not complacency as such, but it’s how they have been trained. The people teaching journalism in universities are not going to be folk like John Pilger, Paul Foot or Nick Davies – it’s people like Tim Luckhurst, the former BBC journalist who once edited everyone’s favourite small-C conservative Scottish newspaper, the Scotsman. How can we expect to produce journalists who are properly capable of scrutinising the establishment when they’re trained by people who are as establishment as it comes?
So most of your journalists are trained to think that exposing a sex scandal or uncovering some over-claimed expenses counts as “scrutinising government”. Although in truth, even that is beyond most journalists. Most journalists are merely “reporters”, reporting back to us whatever information they’ve been given. They know how to ask some questions, but anyone can learn how to ask a standard range of questions – just as politicians learn how to answer them.
It’s not a conspiracy, but it’s not complacency either – it’s just incompetence. You can tell Stu didn’t follow the same journalistic path as most of the journalists who write about Scottish politics (not least because he didn’t spend years arse-kissing politicians and SpAds to build up a list of “contacts” to get stories – aka party PR lines – from). People like Gardham could never be relied upon to uncover any real shocking truths, because it goes against everything they’ve spent their career doing. Even the less obviously Unionist members of the media can’t be relied upon to expose the truth about the No campaign and the unionist case, because they’re simply not equipped to do so.
The same people letting the No campaign get away with making baseless claims are the same people who have spent decades unable to challenge the political orthodoxy of the UK. The same people who glibly accept the Westminster parties’ story that we have a choice between the Tories’ version of austerity or the Labour version, without challenging the idea that we need austerity of any kind in the first place. The same people who believe that because Labour, Tories and Lib Dems say we can’t have universal benefits, then it must be the ones who say we can that must be wrong, and must therefore be challenged.
And this is why we needed a 2 and a half year campaign – because the only chance we have of getting independence even a shot at a fair hearing is if we can turn it into an orthodox viewpoint. The poor-quality journalists that fill our media are incapable of understanding what to do otherwise.
Noam Chomsky …one of the great minds of our time!
So if the 5 filters worked like this, what would happen?
1. Size, Ownership and Profit Orientation
If all (size) the pro independence campaigners were allowed a forum (ownership) to promote their cause (Profit).
2. The Advertising License To Do Business
If there was no advertising (unless pro indy adverts appeared) and the pro independence campaigners had an unabated voice, (advertisers would have to put up or leave) that they themselves advertised the medium, (via social media, friends etc) and spread the word.
3. Sourcing Mass Media News
If there was a stream of news items from empathic or at least accurate sources all in one place, (and able to be mainstream) and indeed the pro independence campaigners themselves researched truthfully and posted to this medium and then disseminated it far and wide.
4. Flak and the Enforcers
If the medium reported inaccuracies and facts and was a public forum for the public that are on that forum, rather than a media empire.
5. Anti-Communism
If you could satirise the war on independence in an effective manner whilst negating it.
Then…
Would that be a good thing. Pick me up if the model above would not work or highlight any challenges you see.
I’ve posted the 5 Filters here http://www.facebook.com/cmisid
Thanks for the good news Albalha! 🙂
As someone who has only read the odd Chomsky article, any suggestions for a book that will give a ‘full flavour’?
Of course, all this hinges on the populace being educated and therefore by definition inquisitive!
It’s the reason that “free” education is unwanted by political parties, obviously!!
Don’t question; don’t ask, believe all……..but that is changing.
edit Was interesting hearing his comments re- internet.
Amanayeman
I’d venture to say Kenyon Wright is as close as we get to a Chomsky in Scotland. Why we don’t use him more often is beyond me.
I’ve yet to work out who “handonshrimp’ is who posts on the gruniad site. I’d give him/her a huge nod though as his/her posts are invariably straight to the point and leaves very little room for people to contradict him/her.
@juteman You’re most welcome
On Chomsky type thinking, someone else worth reading is Sheldon Wolin, similar vintage to Chomsky, and his Inverted Totalitarianism theory.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9175.html
And why we leave one of the greatest patriots to ever grace our lands to languish in obscurity is also beyond my comprehension. I speak of the man who would easily qualify as our first head of state (if we’re that way inclined) no other than the esteemed gentleman – Ian Hamilton.
I often ask myself, why is he not given a greater voice and the recognition he so rightly deserves.
Oh right, Chomsky. Never read much of that, but I did read most of:
Language in Thought and Action (S.I. Hiyakawa).
Similar but General Semantics, more than media or politicians. Tried reading it about 10 times, never finsished, it was far too interesting and thought-provoking. And indeed dangerous. I did get far enough to be able to recognise, and protect myself.
C’mon,guys. Some of us are reading this between races on the telly.
Seriously though. Ian Hamilton as head of state? I spent a couple of nights with him once. Aged me ten years
Here is the e mail reply that I have received from Lucinda Creigton TD, Irish Minister for European Affairs.
In particular, she states of Angus Robertson’s EU view
“I think that sums up the situation quite well”. I suggest it is important that we recognise that she had (and presumably has) “…no intention to intervene in the Scottish debate…….” A pity Raymond Buchanan tried to use her in just that way.
“Many thanks for your email. It certainly was not my intention to intervene in the Scottish debate about the future of your country. As I stated clearly to the BBC (though perhaps they did not show it) this is a question exclusively for the Scottish people and I fully respect that fact. I was asked about the future of negotiations with the EU in the event that Scotland votes for independence. I thought that my reply was largely in line with that of the Scottish Government. I certainly did not at any stage suggest that Scotland could, should or would be thrown out of the EU. Scottish people are citizens of Europe.
I did answer the question about hypothetical negotiations with the EU. I think it is clear that a newly independent state would have to (and would have the right to and indeed should) negotiate the terms of membership, as they would undoubtedly be somewhat different to the existing terms. I did say that this would take some time, which I expect it would. I did go on to say that a newly independent Scotland would be welcome as an EU partner (and I think that applies to all EU member states including Ireland).
My understanding is that the Scottish Government has already committed to a negotiation with the EU between 2014 and 2016, if you vote for independence in 2014. If my interview suggested something other than that, this was not my intention. I think my comments have been misconstrued or perhaps manipulated by some quarters. I sincerely regret this.
As SNP Westminster Leader, Angus Robertson said‘Negotiations on the terms of membership would take place in the period between the referendum and the planned date of independence’, and that ??The EU would adopt a simplified procedure for the negotiations, not the traditional procedure followed for the accession of non-member countries???.”
I think that sums up the situation quite well.
I hope that this clarifies my position, and again I regret that my words seem to have been presented or taken out of context.
Warm regards,
Lucinda Creighton ”
@ Dave McEwan
Aged you ten years?
Was that in terms of wisdom or ennui?
Good work JPJ2.
@JPJ2
(answer to email) “As I stated clearly to the BBC (though perhaps they did not show it) ”
This is brilliant. I expect she’ll check out the BBC report, and if she finds they’ve distorted what she said, she won’t be chuffed. Not chuffed at all. Never wrong an Irishwoman!
Congrats for following up, Scotland’s unofficial Ambassador to Ireland. I recommend you to the Foreign Ministry of the first Independent Scottish Government!
So it looks like BBC Scotland’s unionist Labour luvvies have been up to their old tricks again. Deliberately misrepresenting others is just another sign of their lack of integrity. It is just a surprise that it was not Glenn Campbell this time…
Noam Chomsky! Maybe I should have kept that cheque!
A little off-topic, but Noam Chosky is a “signatory” of Justice for Megrahi. About a year ago I arranged to have a pamphlet printed summarising the problems with the Lockerbie conviction, to be circulated to all MPs and MSPs. For convenience, I paid for the printing, and a call was sent out for voluntary contributions to the cost. The result was that (among other things) I received a cheque for $70 from Noam Chomsky, which had to undergo some complicated banking voodoo before it could be turned into real money.
When a friend saw the cheque, she said I should have kept it, or asked for the cancelled cheque back or something. But in other company, when I have mentioned Mr. Chomsky as one of those eminences who believes the Lockerbie case was a pile of bats’ doo-doo (along with people like Desmond Tutu and Kate Adie), I find he’s sneered at as some sort of left-wing fruitcake.
@JPJ2
Politicians are not above reproach either, I don’t think either side comes out of it well …and I don’t think RB made up the quotes before anyone asks, undoubtedly he, his editor, chose what to highlight but I don’t think Ms Creighton is giving the whole picture.
The BBC article is more detailed than the Rep Scot piece ……….
Asked if an independent Scotland would be welcomed by its EU neighbours, Ms Creighton told BBC Scotland: “Welcome I think, by all means, but obviously there are legal constraints.
“If Scotland were to become independent, Scotland would have to apply for membership and that can be a lengthy process, as we see even with the very advanced and well-integrated countries like Iceland, where I’ve just come from.
“Iceland is obviously a member of Efta (European Free Trade Association) and had been deeply involved in the single market for many years, but still has a task in terms of transforming its legislation and fitting into the European requirements for membership.
“And that would be the case, I think, for Scotland as well. It may not take as long, but there would be an application and a negotiation process, as there is for any candidate country.”
Ms Creighton described the potential Scottish situation as “kind of unprecedented”, adding: “I don’t see why it would be a terribly complex process, but negotiations for membership are always painstaking and they’re always complex, but I don’t see why it would be difficult.
“I think that it would certainly lead to accession at the end of the process. But it would take time.”
The Irish minister added: “We’re speaking in a hypothetical sense obviously, and it’s very much up to the people of Scotland as to what they choose to do between now and when that question might arise.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21195630
Keef
Neither, I don’t suppose. How to start a rammy in a dull gathering. Great minds bored are very good at oppositionism
I suspect a flood of emails to Lucinda has perhaps made clear to her that she had not taken into account the fact that Scotland was already in the EU and she has changed tack to accommodate this
@ dave
Did he divulge where the real stone was then? Or were you to engrossed in the mindless illusory idealism?
@Dave McEwan Hill
As you said elsewhere you’re ‘generous’! Maybe you’re right, with politicians I’m always highly suspicious.
Interesting perhaps that Creighton was in Iceland, and perhaps talking about EFTA.
With a potential UK referendum on EU membership, some countries might review their membership in the EU as well – Sweden, Holland, Denmark, perhaps the Czech Republic – and Ireland. So of course then, should Scotland …
I just realised why Chomsky was gurgling around the brain. Chomsky Grammar – possible a major factor behind markup language such as HTML. Were it not for Chomsky we might be “talking” via text email.
I’m offski, but it would be remiss of me not to wish Andy Murray all the best against the Djoker in the morro’s Aussie final.
Guan yersel son!
I received the identical backtracking reply from Ms Creighton. Maybe she’s looked into the Scottish situation and has come to the conclusion she was talking a lot of guff. Anyway I have replied, suggesting she insist the BBC corrects their misrepresentation of her position. lol
Slightly worrying for someone who is Ireland’s European Affairs Minister.
That’s interesting Morag – as a matter of fact, it was Noam’s signature that made me utterly convinced that you guys were right.
I would definitely have kept the cheque!
Keef
Ian hates talking about “the Stone”. He feels it has completley overshadowed everything else he has done in his lilfe
One small point about Chomsky the linguist, proponent of Transformational Generative Grammar. It is a result of Noam’s musings on language that we know that “colourless, green ideas sleep furiously.”
@ Dave McEwan Hill.
well, no wonder. I can understand how in the early 50’s a grand gesture was needed but the whole stone escapade is too easily used to tie the nationalist movement to some retrospective shortbread-tin antiquarian version of nationalism that is very easy to disarm and dismiss. If anything, Scotland has too much history and not enough future, and lumps of Perthshire sandstone that may or may not have been the lid of the Abbot of Dunkeld’s toilet should be left in the museums.
Next time kids, if you want their attention, steal a Eurofighter. 😉
BigBuachaillie – indeed, that was one of the first things we learnt in Formal Languages & Compilers in 3rd year Computing Science at Aberdeen Uni. I was chuffed when I later realised it was him who had said it.
I would exclude Derek Bateman from this lazy one-sided approach to journalism. He demolished Jackie Baillie this morning. Asked a variation on the Lorraine Mann question – would you prefer a Tory Government taking Scotland out of Europe or a Scottish Governmnet staying in Europe, she hummed and hawed. Why can’t these people be honest? She does prefer a Tory Government in London to an independent Scotland. That is the logic of her position. Why can’t she justify it with argument?