The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

The illegitimacy klaxon

Posted on January 19, 2014 by

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’ve always known that if a crude tick-boxing approach is used, TV producers can convince themselves that their coverage is scrupulously impartial. After all, they almost always give a right of reply to both sides of the debate. But the true problem lies with a news agenda disproportionately driven by the preoccupations of the No campaign and the anti-independence print media, and which thus artificially self-generates the impression of a Yes campaign that is constantly on the defensive.

In one sense, the issue is not what is reported, but what isn’t. It would be perfectly justifiable for the broadcasters to hound the pro-independence campaign over certain issues in the way that they routinely do if they also adopted the same approach for the No campaign and its own points of weakness – but by and large they don’t.

What would it look like if they did? Take David Cameron’s ongoing refusal to take part in a TV referendum debate with his opposite number Alex Salmond. One obvious way broadcasters could put the heat on the No campaign is what Sky News did prior to the 2010 general election – threaten to put the debate on air anyway, featuring Alex Salmond and an empty chair in Cameron’s place.

However, if they take the view in this particular instance that it’s a purely personal decision for Cameron which everyone else must accept, what they should certainly be doing is relentlessly pursuing the No campaign over the consequences of Cameron’s stated logic for refusing to debate – namely that the issue of independence is exclusively a matter for Scots to debate and decide.

So when William Hague came to Scotland the other day, the broadcasters shouldn’t have earnestly reported the content of his speech. Instead, the ‘illegitimacy klaxon’ should have sounded from the moment he mentioned the issue of independence:

“Mr Hague, why are you speaking about independence? This is a matter for Scots alone to debate and decide, isn’t it? I’m sorry, Mr Hague, but you appear to still be speaking. Does that mean it’s okay for non-Scots to talk about independence now?

Does that mean your boss Mr Cameron has had a change of heart? Will he be taking part in a TV referendum debate with Alex Salmond after all? He won’t be? So does that must mean he has a new excuse – sorry, reason for not participating? He doesn’t? So it’s still not OK for non-Scots to take part in the referendum debate?

Mr Hague, you are not Scottish. If the UK government believe that it’s inappropriate for non-Scottish politicians to intervene in the referendum debate, why precisely are you in Glasgow trying to convince a sceptical Scottish public that if they vote for independence they’ll be personally responsible for women being raped in Africa?

And on and on it should have gone, until Cameron either backed down on the TV debate or announced that non-Scottish ministers will in future be making no comment on the issue of independence. And if neither of those things happened, there should have been regular “Pressure mounts on Downing St to clarify its position” headlines.

Sound like too much in the way of hardball reporting? Fair enough – if the broadcasters are too squeamish to hound the No campaign in that way, they should also be too squeamish to hound the Yes campaign in such a manner. Either softball or hardball reporting is fine – but it must be the same for both sides. What isn’t OK is softball reporting of the No campaign coupled with hardball reporting of the Yes campaign.

The “pressure mounting” line is often used as a convenient alibi for bias in the broadcast media, because if the press are overwhelmingly biased in one direction (as they, now demonstrably, are in this context), then in the literal sense it could always be said to be true that more pressure is being piled on one side than the other – even if the media is in fact exerting that pressure itself.

But that just puts even more of an onus on the broadcasters to take a step back from the collective media groupthink, and to consider conducting themselves like the impartial journalists we’re entitled to expect. We do, after all, pay the same licence fee that No supporters do.


A version of this post originally appeared on Scot Goes Pop!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

76 to “The illegitimacy klaxon”

  1. HandandShrimp says:

    It is an excellent time for this report to come out. If it had been closer to the event it might have been too late to address it and too early and bad old ways could have been crept back in. This is perfect timing for tightening the screw and getting it right for the run in to the vote.

    Of course the report merely confirms what we already can see with our own eyes but an independent report is what was really needed.

  2. alexicon says:

    It would be good if there was a monthly report on the MSM bias.

  3. Patrick Roden says:

    Can we have a ‘Bias Counter’ that records every personal attack on Alex Salmond?

    Maybe we can have a counter that shows how many personalised attacks have been launched by all the party leaders in the Scottish Parliament.

    Do the same for both the Yes and No campaigns.

    Alex and yes would come out of that very well and it would
    show the odious Better Together/MSM bastards up for who they really are!

  4. bunter says:

    Will our biased media report the findings that they are biased? Did the BBC report the other day that their knuckles were wrapped for misrepresenting the views of a ROI politician? Is there any point to this when as we know, sometimes its what they don’t report which is the problem.

  5. Frankie goes to Holyrood says:

    I await the response of the BBC and the ITV to this report.

    Or will they ignore it?

  6. jake says:

    We’re regularly told by opinion polls there’s a 3:2 ratio in for “no” to “yes” on the referendum question. Is there, I wonder, a causal link between these opinion polls and the now proven bias in reporting? If so, does the media influence the polls or do the polls influence the media?

    I look forward to prominent reporting of this academic study in media.

  7. bunter says:

    Should these findings not be forwarded to some UN department for consideration, or mibbe naw, considering its in the back pocket of the U.S.

  8. heedtracker says:

    Its not simply vote NO BBC bias, they’ve relentlessly attacked Scottish government and Scottish democracy. Or worse probably, Scottish government and Scottish democracy has been desperately under and unreported since its inception.

  9. Les Wilson says:

    When will they do this to the “Scottish” newspapers?

    O/T just came across and thought it might amuse –

    A man died and went to Heaven. As he stood in front of the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, ‘What are all those clocks?’

    St. Peter answered, ‘Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone who has ever been on earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie, the hands on your clock move.’

    … ‘Oh’, said the man. ‘Whose clock is that?’
    ‘That’s Mother Teresa’s’, replied St. Peter. ‘The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie.’

    ‘Incredible’, said the man. ‘And whose clock is that one?’
    St. Peter responded, ‘That’s Abraham Lincoln’s clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abraham told only two lies in his entire life.’

    ‘Where’s Jackie Baillie’s clock?’ asked the man.
    St. Peter replied, ‘We are using it as a ceiling fan

  10. boglestone says:

    I expect that BBCTogether will be looking for ways to smear and discredit the academics and report.

  11. msean says:

    That upturned eyebrow by ANY presenter conveys intangible information and,depending on the topic,it could be a tool used by either side.So it is important forthings like this to be taken into account.It is a complicated issue,but taking that the msm is not biased,then the advantage should fall 50/50 between both sides,but as the survey shows…

  12. Macart says:

    I wonder if the report will find its way to some relevant desks EC, EU, BBC, STV, Downing street… etc?

    Somehow I doubt it. Even if it did, would it make a difference?

    Don’t mind me, bit of a cynical grump on. 🙁

  13. gordoz says:

    BINGO !

    Well covered Mr Kelly absolutely spot on!

    Maybe ‘Cabernats’ seem to always be bleating about MSM &TV bias but by and large the media can’t keep ignoring this.

    At least the EU should be aware of whats going on – again we say, in temrs of even handed coverage – if this was a 3rd world country all and sundry would be tripping over themselves to cry foul.

  14. AnneDon says:

    The reason the likes of Hague and Osborne come to Scotland is simply because they can sit in front of tv cameras and get soft questions to bat back pre-prepared answers for the cameras. Thatcher used to do the same with tame interviewers – tv presenters are useless as journalists – they always do what they’re told because they’re afraid they’ll lose “access”. Trouble is, they never question the value of the access.

    Alastair Darling’s two interviews on scotland tonight and Newsnight Scotland the other night were classics of their kind. Bernard Ponsonby on Scotnight wittering on about Cameron and the debate, with Darling easily dealing with the answers.

    Gordon Brewer’s interview was interesting. By wandering just slightly off-piste, and pressing Darling for actual answers, his much-vaunted “statesmanlike” appearance crumbled. A decent round of questioning, facing Darling with logical questions and the various absurd contradictions Better Together have uttered would destroy his credibility in a couple of minutes.

    Which, I imagine, is why neither of our national broadcasters would do it.

  15. Taranaich says:

    Read this over on SGP, excellent stuff from Mr. Kelly.

    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.

    I am genuinely surprised it’s as “even” as 3-2: it seemed to me more in the region of 3-1. But perhaps I just get more easily frustrated.

    Sound like too much in the way of hardball reporting? Fair enough – if the broadcasters are too squeamish to hound the No campaign in that way, they should also be too squeamish to hound the Yes campaign in such a manner. Either softball or hardball reporting is fine – but it must be the same for both sides. What isn’t OK is softball reporting of the No campaign coupled with hardball reporting of the Yes campaign.

    But then, there wouldn’t be any debate, would there? If it was softball, there wouldn’t be much of a rigorous discussion. If it was hardball, we would have Yes Scotland vigorously answering counterpoints with clarity and precision (as we’ve seen now), and Better Together collapsing like a circus float of John Bull (as they tend to do under even the lightest scrutiny).

    I would ALWAYS go for hardball, personally, because it’s only when you are challenged frequently and strongly that you can truly show your mettle. Giving Yes a tough ride has forged the arguments for independence in fire; giving No an easy ride means they simply haven’t been exposed to nearly the same amount of scrutiny, and thus are nowhere near as prepared for any in the future.

    Case in point: whenever people challenge Alex Salmond over not debating Alistair Darling, his reasoning is that since he’s the highest mandated authority in Scotland, it makes sense to debate with the highest mandated authority in the UK – and crucially, he’s said he WOULD debate Darling AFTER Cameron. That reasoning has never changed, because it makes sense: Darling’s opposite number is Dennis Canavan, Salmond’s opposite number is Cameron. I’d be interested to know if Darling has said anything about debating Canavan in the meantime.

    Cameron’s reasons for not debating Salmond, on the other hand? First, it was because Better Together selected Alistair Darling as “the man to represent the Union.” When that didn’t convince people due to Darling having no power to speak on UK government’s behalf, he then went to “this is an argument for Scots, it would be inappropriate for a non-Scot to intervene.” When THAT didn’t convince after people brought up UK BT donors (let alone Hague’s pilgrimage), he went to “I’m just not very popular in Scotland because Scots are prejudiced against posh people.”

    How many excuses is he going to go through before he either puts up or shuts up?

  16. Ian Kirkwood says:

    Just filled in the beeb survey re News Scotland website and raised this very point with reference to the new report just out. So they cannot, at least, say… what report?

  17. Macart says:

    Just watched Saffron’s vid.

    Grump gone. 🙂

  18. gordoz says:

    Wonder if we can expect a meaningful undercover exposure documentary from the likes of ‘Mark Daly’ (Rangers – The men who sold the jerseys) winning many plaudits & awards.

    As I’ve been saying for ages where are Scotlands journalists ? Are they too busy selling the jerseys ??

    How about “Scotland – The journalists who sold-out their country (for a few piecs of silver)”

    Im sure it will be preceeded by the stunning work
    “Yes Scotland – the money men and who ate all the pies!”

    Shameful profession in Scotland

  19. Paul says:

    It isn’t just the bias within the media News and papers etc. it is the subliminal messages that the TV channels are guilty of “The great British this and the Great British that” also the use of the Union flag, mugs and T shirts dropped in whenever they think they can in programmes like East Enders and Coronation street.

  20. ronnie anderson says:

    @ Frankie geos to Holyroon,Examination of the study ender

    way by Prof Curtice, will reply in the distant future,

    very distant future.

  21. Andy-B says:

    Good piece James, it should be pointed out on a regular basis, in the run up to the referendum, to show just how biased the MSM really are. I think potential no voters would be shocked to find how much, impartiality there is in the media.

    UKIP councillor blames Englands bibilical floods of recent times, on David Cameron, saying Cameron has angered god with his same sex marriage bill. gay-marriage-9069245.html

    Just how UKIP have made such inroads down south, is a mystery to me, after reading this article.

  22. Rod Mac says:

    Great report confirming what we already knew.
    call me an old cynic ,however it will not make a jot of difference to the reporting we get from the “scottish media”

  23. fairiefromtheearth says:

    I wonder how much a soul is worth? I would ask these rent boy and crack whore jornalists but know i wouldent get a straight answer.

  24. ronnie anderson says:

    A question or two at F Ms ? time, on MSM BIAS, would travel far n wide, ie the Scottish public.I keep saying IT dont pay for MSM to tell you LIES. Money corrupt,s, but it also consentrate,s mind,s, all it take,s is one newspaper in Scotland, to go bust, ( & as suggested elsewhere Dont contribute to their comment pages).

  25. Mark says:

    Has anybody actually seen this academic paper? I would like to read it and check the facts before I post about it.

  26. CameronB says:

    Can anyone suggest good places to take the fight too (on-line), for non facebook-ers?

  27. K Mackay says:

    “We do, after all, pay the same licence fee that No supporters do.”

    lol, speak for yourself 🙂

  28. Flower of Scotland says:

    I have tried for years to complain to the BBC , BBC Scotland , radio Scotland and this year to the BBC TRUST to no avail ! I just get the standard message back that they will show the journalists etc, etc ,etc !
    Hopefully the SG will , when the time is right , maybe sooner than later COMPLAIN !
    This just drives me nuts !

  29. theycan'tbeserious says:

    Should there be a no vote, could it be deemed “null and void” as it was achieved through direct influence from Westminster, the bbc, stv and the MMS in Scotland, all of them controlled by money men in London, all of whom have a vested interest in the result preferring a no vote?

    This influence is against the Edinburgh Agreement.

  30. bunter says:

    Derek Bateman raging at the findings of bias at the BBC on his blog. Not a happy bunny at all.

  31. Angry Weegie says:

    You also have to think about the prominence the item gets. Is it the first item in the news broadcast, or is it sometime after the middle when half the audience have stopped listening or gone to make a cup of tea. Is it on the website for two or three days in a prominent position or does it vanish into the alsorans in a couple of hours.

  32. theycan'tbeserious says:

    MMS…that should read MSM!

  33. CameronB says:

    Meme Manufacturing Shills?

  34. Bugger (the Panda) says:


    It seems I am banned or under pre mod on Derek Bateman’s blog.

    I winder if it was something I said against the blessed BB.

  35. Brian Mark says:

    Question the bias every time you are hooked for an interview by Labour Student Telly or newspaper shit be it the Sun or the gruesome twosome of the Hootsman and the Herald.

  36. FreddieThreepwood says:

    Good to see reports like this finally coming out. But don’t hold your breath waiting for endorsement or promotion from the Nats or official Yes Campaign.

    Whether we like it or not, the BBC is still much loved – and the SNP knows it. One sure fire way to get another barrage of screaming headlines and sarcasm from TV presenters would be for Sturgeon or anyone else to bring this up and support it. In fact, I fully expect her or anyone else from ‘our’ end to say something like, ‘Very interesting … we’ve no complaints.’

    Catch 22 innit?

  37. call me dave says:

    Aye Mr Bateman ‘admits’ (good bbc word that)there is bias and that’s OK for me. I look forward to many more good articles from him in the near future.

  38. david says:

    i used to enjoy watching fmq and the political progs on the telly. i stopped viewing and listening to them approx 3 months ago, cant stomach it anymore, i get my info online now. i hope more than anything the people responsible for this deliberate strategy of lies, misinformation and fearmongering are brought to account after independence. i believe what the media are doing is criminal.

  39. bunter says:

    @ BTP

    My post is up. I must be a good boy, for the noo anyway!

  40. gavin lessells says:

    The only people who will see this survey are the people reading this blog and a few other blogs. Any suggestion that it will receive any coverage from the MSM is in cloud cuckoo land. And the only way more people will see it, therefore, is greatly increased readership of these blogs. Any suggestions?

  41. Jim Mitchell says:

    There’s a surprise!

  42. bunter says:


    Looks like the Bitters have another Salmond is a liar type headline up and running on The Herald the noo.

  43. Luigi says:

    I always thought that a study of MSM bias against the SG and independence campaign would make a fascinating PhD for someone. The only surprise is that it was 3:2 and not 3:1, but I am so happy it has now been properly quantified. The UN may be interested. What we need now are a few more studies to back this up. Maybe we should crowd-fund the next one LOL.

  44. Bevrijdingsdag says:

    Sometimes the smallest step in the right direction

    Ends up being the biggest step in your life.

    Tip toe if you must,

    But take the step!

  45. velofello says:

    Well them Mr Gavin Lessells, one idea would be a short sharp summary leaflet of the report findings, something like the Aye Right leaflet. Oh, I think our Yes group will be running short of Aye Right leaflets, is the Oran Mor handy for you to meet up again?

  46. Grant says:

    Anyone have a link to Hagues speech, curious what he had to say?

  47. CameronB says:

    Wonder when RT will receive their copy. 🙂

  48. Andy-B says:

    This is what we’re up against, millionaires claiming 7 pence for a bulldog clip.

  49. Tinyzeitgeist says:

    Derek Bateman is still hanging on to his assumption that BBC staff are not knowingly involved in biased reporting and that it is somehow an inherent problem with the organisation. I’m sorry but this doesn’t wash.
    BBC Scotland employs a number of very experienced journos and presenters and they don’t realise what is happening?
    Then what about this;

    I understand that this was a briefing given to BBC staff and the bias shown is undeniable.

  50. Bill McLean says:

    send the report on the BBC to your “favourite” newspaper’s editor!

  51. Grant_M says:


    William Hague:

    Danny Alexander:

  52. Ken says:

    We have at present a Scottish government working wonders during an extremely difficult time. Instead of praise from our media, with perhaps a highlight here and there if they fail, we are inundated with negative stories.

    The paradox that is their continuing popularity in the face of this bombardment must perplex the unionists. A sign that Scots, who live in the “real world” as Johann Lamont is fond of saying, aren’t stupid and can see they are being well governed from Holyrood.

    If the SG got as favourable and as supportive a reception from the media as the serial failures that make up the unionist group, one wonders where we would be at this juncture.

    We all on here call for a fairer debate. If this study helps that come about about then it is timely indeed. However, as someone has already pointed out, it will be as starved of oxygen, just as surely as the achievements of our government are.

  53. tartanfever says:

    This report only covers Reporting Scotland and the STV evening news.

    It does not include Politics Scotland, Newsnicht nor Scotland Tonight. I’m sure those bias ratings would have been through the roof if it had been a report on all Scottish TV political output.

  54. gordoz says:


    My thoughts too Luigi (3:1)

  55. O/T Readers may remeber a discussion about Midgies and “Proud Cybernat” badges yesterday on The Classic Double Whammy post yesterday.

    Well, Stewart Bremner’s come up trumps with a brilliant Proud Cybernat badge. You can join the Squadron here:

  56. Paula Rose says:

    @ alexicon – did they mention the similarities? That both places send more revenue to their respective capitals than they receive back?

  57. gillie says:

    Oh the irony.

    BBC ‘accused’ of ………

    STV ‘accused’ of ………

    The biters bitten.

  58. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    I hate to say this but, don’t hold your breath expecting the BBC Trust and directors to act on this, certainly not with alacrity.

    This is a bureaucratic hierarchical structure, quite unused to responding to any external pressure until certain peoples’ derrieres are on the line. Only when the problem becomes an issue does the juggernaut try to work out how the fuck it is change direction and to where.

    Think Jimmy Saville.

    3:2 it is reported. I am surprised as little as that. Whet they seem not have taken into account are the good news stories for the YES side which never see the lih=ght of day or are minimised and the dirty tricks during interviews when the No side is never brought to book about their lies and inconsistent positions but the Yes spekespeople are interrupted and haragned even before they have been gived a chance to answer the first question. I have also noticed an unfortunate occurrence of allowing No representatives to talk over Yes representatives as they try to respond to their questions. In fact I am damn near sure that Jim Murphy’s mike was upped during a response from Nicola Sturgeon to the effect that Nicola’s reply was inaudible. I presume she would have had Murphy’t witterings in her ear at the same time?

    3:2, not even half way there.

  59. Hetty says:

    I think that Paul (4.15pm) has a good point to make regards subliminal messaging, the ‘British’ thing as a commodity, and the UK flag is aboslutely everywhere, including on almost every type of food product packaged or produced in the UK.
    It is indicative of a massive insecurity of the britnats at the moment. However, the blatant lies and scaremongering as well as belittling Scotland’s democratically elected government, is where the real damage is being caused and is verging on the criminal as well as being intensely anti democratic. We will fight their negative campaign all the way.

  60. alexicon says:

    @Paula Rosa.

    You’ve guessed it…nope.

  61. JLT says:

    Quite bloody right, James!

    The only thing I would say, is that people from both sides have noticed this and commented on it. Even folk that I know are ‘No’ supporters have been a bit perplexed with the ‘Will he / Won’t he’ approach from Cameron.

    The ‘No’ mob must be dreading each passing day now. Everytime they come out with something, the London mob go ahead and come out with the exact opposite!

    ‘No Currency Union’ say the BT Mob – then Mark Carney from the Bank of England says he wants to talk to the SG.

    ‘No Currency Union’ say the BT Mob – then Danny Alexander says that the UK will cover the debt (meaning hey! Currency Union).

    ‘It’s nothing to do with Cameron. It’s a Scottish matter’ say the BT Mob – then Cameron has cosy chats with Rajoy and Putin.

    ‘You won’t be in the EU’ say BT – then Jim Gallagher, head of BT says we will most likely be fast tracked into the EU.

    Telling you …how BT must wish it was still 2013. Ever since those Bells went, it’s been one catastrophe after another!

  62. alexicon says:


    You’re not seriously suggesting Cameron debates with AS?
    Cameron has more pressing things to deal with.

    On another note Edwina Curry, yes that old bat,
    has went and put her foot in it again.
    It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious.

  63. JLT says:

    Alexicon mate,

    Seriously …it won’t be the Scots who will drag Cameron’s backside to the podium. It will be the English electorate. Many down south are still being spoon fed that we really don’t deserve half of what we get from the state. Hell! Some even believe that we shouldn’t even get the oil from our own waters! ‘Take it away from them!’, some demand.

    I think a PM-FM debate will happen. For months, the rUK has been told repeatedly that NO WAY will the Scots be getting this, be in that, get this for free, getting that for free, and all the time, the media saying, ‘and hey! It’s you guys who are all paying for the Scots!’

    As each passing headline tells them that the UK government has now conceded this, conceded that, then the English electorate will start to get more and more enraged.

    That’s when the fun begins. That’s when Cameron is told by the SE of England to get his backside on that podium, and tell it like it is…

    Oh, that is the moment to die for…

  64. Roberto says:

    Does the ELECTORAL commission get a copy of this report?

  65. Richard says:

    I am not one for rules but I am really pissed off with MSM. In particular I find the click bait stuff aggravating.

    My first rule is not to comment on any of the MSM sites unless I can help shove one of the No bots off the top page

    The second rule (or maybe it should be no1) is that I intend to use the ‘archive’ link in future to post links to articles.

    If we view the article and don’t click through to the MSM site, they don’t get any money from advertisers.

    The third rule is not to subscribe/buy a newspaper but to give my guardian subscription money to the cause of independence. I have set up a new direct debit to YES Scotland and intend to contribute to the Rev’s new funding request whenever it happens. I also intend to pay money to MR Bateman if he has a facility to accept it. I am considering how little red wine I can survive on until September. I think the latter might be the most difficult

  66. Clootie says:

    Perhaps the BBC could also explain the 100 fold increase in FOI submissions on Scottish government details since 2007. A very strange coincidence being the year 2007 was when the SNP gained power.

    It would never have done to have shown a light on Labour in Scotland when in power.

  67. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Methinks Mr Bateman is showing signs of denial.

    He’s not alone – we’ve often mentioned (and sometimes referred to the work of) prominent Scottish academics who specialise in media analysis, and are experts on propaganda/’manufacturing consent’ etc.

    I’m not naming names, as I have worked with some of them and remain very respectful of what they do, but their silence is becoming embarrassing.

  68. ronnie anderson says:

    @ GrantM, 16.15 I,ve been playing catch up for most of the day,I have past your post several time,s, but Im glad I had a look at it.Mr Question to Mr Hauge would have been,why did it take the UK embassies, that long to promote Scottish product,s. kin somebody help me wie these fekin buttons at the shoulder blade,s.

  69. Geoff Huijer says:

    O/T but LOL..

    Putin’s reply to Cameron (who didn’t approach
    Putn, obviously) on the BBC of all places…

  70. ronnie anderson says:

    @ alexicon 7.23, well he,s no awe that bad 38p fur a staple remover,Pamela Nash Lab MP, claimed fur two.

  71. Ian Sanderson says:

    The Electoral Commission must surely have seen this report….. When are they going to jump in?

  72. Brendan hynes says:

    There is nothing to Stop it being raised at Holyrood , MSP ‘s should demand it be sorted out
    What else are they there’re for but to fight the important issues of the day, and this is the Issue Today!

  73. Grant_M says:

    @ronnie anderson

    We already know all about Mr Hague’s Foreign Office when it comes to promoting Scotch…

    Happened to catch him on breakfast telly on Friday morning (prior to his speech in Glasgow) being wholly evasive on the issue of the £ and sharing Sterling…

    Blair Jenkins was interviewed too…

  74. tartanpigsy says:

    An idea I’ve been pondering this afternoon. And the pdf link makes possible.

    What if ‘we’ were able to deliver, by hand, hardcopies of the big stories that were likely to be buried, to the different news vendors Herald, Record to STV and BBC, and all significant others.

    If two people were to deliver these and have them signed or acknowledged as having taken delivery FAO the Editor/ Controller etc . It could be filmed and uploaded to Youtube as proof of these organisation’s being aware of said incidents and thus when, or if, they don’t publish/run with these stories, having made an editorial decision to not inform the public.

    That the line taken may, just perhaps, be being centrally coordinated is never going to wash with the general public, so we need to just be smarter than them.

    Anyone up for this who’s based close to the culprits? It could discussed in Quarantine.

  75. Craig says:

    This survey looked at only 2 programmes and is therefore grossly UNDERSTATING the anti-independence bias.

    Overall on BBC, I would say the anti-independence bias is 20:1

    Overall on STV, I would say the anti-independence bias is 12:1

  76. MD says:

    The study has been reported on and picked up by the Guardian.

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top