Forum menu
bencooper - MemberThey also confuse SNP policies with independence. To be fair, so do the SNP in their white paper, but saying that SNP policies are unaffordable is not the same as saying independence is unaffordable.
Because to the general public, the SNP policies/whte paper, is what is being sold as the outcome of independence.
Oh, well, that's all right, then, if she's said that she won't let her party affiliation affect her journalism in any way, of course we have to believe her.
This works against the other presenter as well
Clearly they will both represent their own views which will be broadly similar to yes and No / their parties - this is what balance is. Its not like of just you presented a programme or just THM did one we would all applaud it for balance.
The SNP is in government and so their plans are all we have to go on.
So we should assume that all the the Tories have said will actually happen then as it is all we have to go on and anything else would be silly 😕
" Austerity Alex" does have a ring to it though!
That is almost polite from you.
The Queen's Speech has just finished - what a brilliant opportunity for the government to show they were serious about giving Scotland more powers after a No vote. they didn't, of course - they're more serious about carrier bags.
The total mention of Scotland was "My government will continue to implement new financial powers for the Scottish Parliament and make the case for Scotland to remain a part of the United Kingdom."
"Continue to implement" means, of course, continue with the measures already introduced in the Scotland Act 2012.
This is the concern about serving politicians, from former BBC journalist Derek Batemans blog "I resign"
I have never heard of a payroll politician being hired as a presenter, as opposed to guest, when the BBC has entered the period when impartiality is a necessity. The format is for two people to argue from opposing sides but her adversary is far outside the party machine with known views of his own developed after years outside parliament and party whip scope. Two such people would be fine. I don’t even think two serving MSPs, Labour and SNP, would work either because they act at the party’s command.
That is to say Kezia Dugdale shadow Minister for Education is very much part of the Labour party hierarchy , you cant say the same about Andrew Wilson and the SNP.
Ernie Yes Scotland have organised hundreds maybe even thousands of public meetings up and down Scotland. I use the term meetings not debates because it has been very difficult to get representatives from BetterTogether to attend. I did link to a meeting in Edinburgh a few pages back where the Unionist view was represented. I am not scared of debate I suggest you ask BetterTogether why they dont attend these meetings.
Well quite frankly I'm shocked to see that there was nothing in the Queen's Speech to satisfy the SNP and force them to abandon their desire for Scottish independence.
Seriously, with the right words coming from Her Majesty I'm sure SNP would have abandoned decades of struggle and embraced the Union.
I agree with Ben.....a wasted "opportunity".
It's not about making the SNP happy - it'd be about showing undecided and wavering No voters that they were serious about their proposals.
Guess they weren't that serious.
THM - another one for the list
😀
That is to say Kezia Dugdale shadow Minister for Education is very much part of the Labour party hierarchy, you cant say the same about Andrew Wilson and the SNP.
It seems to me that the BBC Trust is determined that Scotland will vote No in September.
So if it all goes wrong on the day for the nats we'll know who to blame......the BBC of course, and their cunning plan to force Scots to vote incorrectly !
Yes, because predicting what'll happen 50 years in the future always works perfectly 😉
You mean you were not persuaded by the liberal use of facts Ben 😉
SO poor I assume even THM will distance himself from it
Its also a bit misleading IMHO
for example
The problem for Scotland is that its under-65 population will shrink while its over-65s increase, putting big pressure on public finances.
yet for the UK as a whole
The figures also show a 31% growth in the number of people of state pension age putting it up to 16.1m in 2037
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/nov/06/uk-population-increase-births-migration
ie the same problem but with more people rather than the same number.
It seems to me that the BBC Trust is determined that Scotland will vote No in September.So if it all goes wrong on the day for the nats we'll know who to blame......the BBC of course, and their cunning plan to force Scots to vote incorrectly !
Well if thats your opinion Ernie
Here s the link to the debate I mentioned before
[url= http://www.broughtonspurtle.org.uk/news/scottish-independence-debate-%E2%80%93-damn-closerun-thing ]independence debate[/url]
[img] 
[/img]
Got to save those cymbals 😀
Well if thats your opinion Ernie
You don't share the opinion that the BBC's agenda is to influence Scots to vote no ? Really ? 🙂
Got to save those cymbals
Need them for the indepen[b]dance[/b]
Knowing that I'm on the other side of the debate from the supporters of a brutal colonisation of NI tells me I'm on the right side.
But they needn't weep if they lose in Sept, I'll help contribute a bit towards their new cymbals.
Maybe they will all head south so they are still,in their eyes,British.
Losing the plot, Darling?
Kim has better outfits IMHO
THM beat him to that one by a couple of months.
duckman - Member
Maybe they will all head south so they are still,in their eyes,British.
Oh the irony if they were stopped at the border as illegal immigrants... 🙂
THM beat him to that one by a couple of months.
read it earlier and I liked the stats at the bottom that showed that yes get abused more than the no do
I am sure THM will be along soon to talk about robust statistics, lies [ its off forum its ok to say this] and such like
You don't share the opinion that the BBC's agenda is to influence Scots to vote no ? Really ?
My opinionis that BBC Scotlands ability to provide unbiased coverage is being hampered by current managements poor decisions, by cutbacks, and to an extent by the organisational structure which is very centralised in both Scotland and the UK.
I think the beauty if the BBC is that when in power labour moans and when in power the Tories moan
They do a pretty good job of being balanced IMHO - I cannot comment specifically on Scotland as i do not see much of it.
IMHO they are often too balanced as in giving a counter view to global warming which is akin to having a faith healer on when they discuss cancer cures.
duckman - Member
THM beat him to that one by a couple of months.
Why thank you. It's always good to be ahead of the crowds.
They do a pretty good job of being balanced IMHO - I cannot comment specifically on Scotland as i do not see much of it.
Luckily, there are now several rigorous academic studies showing exactly how and by how much the BBC is biased towards the No campaign. The BBC's reaction to the first - [url= http://opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/john-robertson-oliver-huitson/interview-bbc-bias-bullying-and-scottish-referendum ]Professor John Robertson's[/url] - was to attack him and complain to the chancellor of his university.
Interesting reading Ben ta
the tendency on both channels to demonise First Minister Salmond, to edit in offensive comments about his honesty and the deferential manner in which ‘research’ from ‘independent’ sources, mostly with an interest in preserving the Union, was treated.
Further, the undue authority conferred on quite clearly ideological agencies such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Office for Budget Responsibility is clearly biased.
Nope it does not remind me of anyone
Junkyard - lazarus
...They do a pretty good job of being balanced IMHO - I cannot comment specifically on Scotland as i do not see much of it...
I used to believe that, but I'm aghast at the way it is behaving as a propaganda arm instead of being an unbiased organisation.
epicyclo - Member
duckman - Member
Maybe they will all head south so they are still,in their eyes,British.
Oh the irony if they were stopped at the border as illegal immigrants...
Surely there will be a control on the transfer of infectious diseases across the border?
Actually,the North Korea remark was "Alistair injecting some humour" sheesh touchy Nats. The Times Scotland section also talks about the business leaders that "are afraid to speak out" yet overlooks the fact that more abuse is given to yes campaigners. I am starting to prefer the beeb. Damn the London Times and their free tablet/sub offer!
How can the BBC be anything other than biased in reporting this story? As part of the charter it has a responsibility to maintain high levels of professional standards. Given that it is impossible to comment on large parts of the BOD and yS arguments without a wry smile or shake of the head, it is inevitable that some "bias" will result. The BBC doesn't report flat earth stories, so why on earth would they need to give any credence to similar political and economic gobbledygook? That would be a dereliction of duty and a failure of editorial standards. By all means report for comedy value and entertainment but apply appropriate critical factors in mainstream news programmes etc.
When yS present credible economic arguments they can expect a balanced level of reporting. Until then......
Add the (London/Sydney?) Times and most broadsheets to the ever-growing "long list" then ducks.
When yS present credible economic arguments they can expect a balanced level of reporting. Until then......
Yet when the Treasury presents figures that are 12 times larger than they should be, the BBC says "the SNP dispute the figures". The pattern is that everything produced by the No side is taken as gospel, any objection is portrayed as "debate".
YES THM to be neutral is to agree with your view- who could disagree?
Jesus wept man mark that post as an essay - its poor and you know it.
give any credence to similar political and economic gobbledygook?
Like say claiming AS is like the north Korean leader - is that gbobledygook? or like when the treasury used figures the source attacked as off by a factor of x 10 .. Boy did you really go to town when they did that - iirc you one comment was to say AS figures were worse
apply appropriate critical factors
As always THM no one could disagree that you are not a shining example of what you appeal for:roll:
Critical means to defend bias as fair because you are right so they are as well- what a terrible sophist argument.
Like say claiming AS is like the north Korean leader - is that gbobledygook?
Well it's nonsense to claim that Darling said that Salmond is like the north Korean leader. What he said, according to piemonster's link, is : "This is something that Kim Jong-il would say."
Which is imo opinion is a perfectly acceptable comment, although I can understand the nats need to exploit it and feign outrage and indignation.
And although I half agree with Salmond with regards to UKIP's electoral success. That is, there is little doubt that the huge media coverage which UKIP recieve in the runup to the recent election benefited them enormously.
But it is quite ridiculous to single out the BBC as being responsible for this. All the media has an equal responsibility including ITV and newspapers such as the Guardian.
It is quite frankly absurd to have expected the BBC to ignore UKIP while the rest of the media continued to give them a huge amount of publicity and coverage. Indeed if the BBC had done that questions would have been asked concerning its impartiality and biases.
Criticising what is undoubtedly the best broadcaster in the world as become hugely fashionable, and Salmond obviously couldn't resist a lazy cheap shot at the BBC.
Well it's nonsense to claim that Darling said that Salmond is like the north Korean leader. What he said, according to piemonster's link, is : "This is something that Kim Jong-il would say."
Okay 😀
But it is quite ridiculous to single out the BBC as being responsible for this. All the media has an equal responsibility including ITV and newspapers such as the Guardian.
You're correct to some extent - however the BBC is unique in that it has an obligation to be unbiased (the Guardian does not) and it is publicly funded.
What he said, according to piemonster's link, is : "This is something that Kim Jong-il would say."
I need to learn the polite way to say something insulting 😉
Bit of a pin dance tbh. IMHO you cannot really compare someone to someone and then say you are NOT saying they are like that thing you just compared them to
it is quite ridiculous to single out the BBC as being responsible for this. All the media has an equal responsibility including ITV and newspapers such as the Guardian.
Thankfully we are not at Fox News levels of news coverage but the BBC charter says they should be neutral. I think we can all accept the written media has an agenda/political stance and few would expect impartiality from them on any issue.
There are also highers standards of neutrality from the TV output than from the written one iirc due to regulation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-impartiality-introduction
What's worse than the Kim Jong-Il comment* is that yet again the No side are trying to turn this into a Scottish vs. English ethnic thing. There was debate about what else exactly Darling said in the interview, but he quite definitely said that it wasn't about civic nationalism.
The New Statesman are now desperately rowing back on whether he called it "Blood and Soil" nationalism, but the implication is still there.
*Salmond is big enough to look after himself, and it's far from the first time he's been compared to a genocidal dictator by someone who should know better.
i think it is useful tactic from no as they know many dont like AS and see this as his pet project. It makes political sense to scare folk into voting no to vote against him and his fiefdom. I dont think the argument is true tbh but i can see it works
Same with anti english - who wants to be seen as a racist or vote with some racists? hence they play this card
IMHO there is a very small percentage of scots and english who genuinely dislike each other. Racism is not a huge issue in this vote, for either side, IMHO.
The problem is it's misguided because it's viewed from a Westminster perspective. From Westminster, it makes sense to attack Salmond - no-one in England voted for him, you're not going to offend anyone.
What they forget is that a decent majority of people in Scotland voted for the SNP in the last Scottish elections. From a Scottish perspective, it's crazy.
Junkyard +1
Even by THM standards,that was a fantastic one eyed post.
What's worse than the Kim Jong-Il comment* is that yet again the No side are trying to turn this into a Scottish vs. English ethnic thing.
Hmm, "[i]Ukip is a party that gets beamed into Scotland courtesy of the BBC."[/i]
Beamed into scotland? Where else is it getting 'beamed in from'?
I particularly like the allegation that a Scottish MP criticising Salmond is now somehow a Scottish v English thing
I particularly like the allegation that a Scottish MP criticising Salmond is now somehow a Scottish v English thing
Wow, you've totally misunderstood. It's a Scottish MP calling other people in Scotland anti-English because they want independence.
a decent majority of people in Scotland voted for the SNP
More voted against him though so it was not a majority and if this is repeated yes loose the vote.
Hence why it makes sense* to portray it as an SNP issue as they are below 50%.
I do not know what % satisfaction rate he is at tbh
* i always mean political sense here not truth or moral as it is clearly a distortion to do this
Wow, you've totally misunderstood. It's a Scottish MP calling other people in Scotland anti-English because they want independence.
Well, no, its not is it - because Darling [u]never actually said that did he?[/u]
its the nats putting words in other peoples mouths, because, as Ernie rightly says 'nats need to exploit it and feign outrage and indignation.'
Edit - somewhat like how they were jumping up and down in outrage yesterday over the 'blood and soil nationalism' comment that it turns out Darling never said either!
Well, no, its not is it - because Darling never actually said that did he?
It's unclear - the New Statesman first said he did, then said he didn't.
Meanwhile, the UK government is now quoting stuff from Buzzfeed to make its case:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/12-things-that-1400-uk-dividend-could-buy