BBC bias – Scottish independence content

Oh dear. Chip on your shoulder?

THM is capable of having a debate (mostly )without flinging around this sort of shite, why cant you and winston? Got bored and decided to troll instead?

To be honest, I dont bother reading his/her/it’s posts anymore. It’s just the same BS drivel over and over again.

The Margo Macdonald quote in that Scotsman article piemonster linked to raises an interesting question. She says the position won’t be known until negotiations start. What if AS doesn’t like the outcome of those negotiations? Anyone believe he’ll go back to the electorate and say “the deal available wasn’t good enough, so the independence project is off”?

After all, he’ll be going into a negotiation (with a mandate from less than 100% of 5M people) to ask for something from an rUK team who won’t have a mandate from the other c55M people to give anything away.

Back to the BBC’s bias – the Carney story was first reported on the BBC under the headline “Carney urges currency plan care”.

Now, the same story has the headline “Plan may lead to power loss”

An interesting edit there.

Thing is, though, the BBC isn’t reporting a lot of things. Have you seen much about the NHS sell-off in England? Nope. Or when 50,000 protesters picketed the Tory party conference? Barely a mention.

oldbloke – the deal, at it’s heart, is quite simple. Let us join a currency union, and we’ll take a share of the national debt.

Tell us to walk away, and we will – leaving the whole debt behind.

Tell us to walk away, and we will – leaving the whole debt behind.

Nice incorrect assumption there. I am part of “us”. And “we” can’t walk away for reasons discussed widely elsewhere. Nor do I want to.

No, neither do I – but the principle is there, this is a negotiation of equals and it’s in everyone’s interest to keep the currency union.

I also don’t see why it’s such a big deal – the UK at the moment is tied into a lot of financial treaties and agreements, but few people say the UK isn’t independent.

It’s an odd position for the No campaign to take, to complain that the Yes campaign’s proposals aren’t independent enough.

Tell us to walk away, and we will – leaving the whole debt behind.

It’s most depressing to see generally thoughtful and liberal-seeming people start to sound a bit, well…. jingoistic on the issue of Scottish independence.

Yes, okay, that was a bit hyperbolic. But it’s also depressing the way the currency thing is portrayed as “those Scots want something free off England again”.

Like on Radio 4 yesterday, one expert kept going on about how the important bit about the discussions was how to protect England when the Scottish economy failed. No mention about vice versa.

Not so sure it is odd for the No campaign – to suggest that independence isn’t going to be really that independent might swing some voters to say it isn’t worth the risk or hassle.

Some of my colleagues who were swithering have said since yesterday that it is getting too complicated and too much hassle for them to consider saying yes now.

But there’s a big risk in staying in the Union as well. Specifically for me, the risk is that the UK (dominated by the English vote) votes to get out of the EU. That would immediately make most things I import about 20% more expensive (and add lots of hassle) and also affect all my exports to Europe.

But it’s also depressing the way the currency thing is portrayed as “those Scots want something free off England again”.

Well when people come out with stuff like ‘we’ll just leave the debt behind’ it’s a bit rich to complain about that isn’t it? Look, I totally agree on the cynicism of the press and the no campaign – but you can’t have your cake and eat it – which does seem like what some people want. Scottish people don’t seem to realise how lucky they are to have the present system of devolution TBH. The north of England gets a much worse deal.

Like on Radio 4 yesterday, one expert kept going on about how the important bit about the discussions was how to protect England when the Scottish economy failed. No mention about vice versa.

He’s presumably speaking from an English perspective, with the scenario in mind of England and Scotland being separate countries – I thought that was what you wanted?

The north of England gets a much worse deal.

I completely agree – and if Scottish independence led to a more federal system in the rest of the UK that would be a very good thing.

However, while devolution is great, we have to bear in mind that Westminster can pull back all those devolved powers whenever it likes, without asking the Scottish people. Does anyone trust the current (and any future) government not to do that?

Or even to do it vindictively, for daring to consider independence?

My big worry is that, after a no vote, it’s punishment time.

He’s presumably speaking from an English perspective, with the scenario in mind of England and Scotland being separate countries – I thought that was what you wanted?

On what is, for the moment, meant to be an unbiased national broadcaster, it’s not a helpful perspective to take.

Ben, it’s not jingoistic. I am afraid it’s simply wrong. An independent Scotland will raise its own debt via the markets in the future. It would be a very odd precedent to set if the first act of independence was to default on existing debt. Now AS says some silly things but even he is not that idiotic to do that.

There is no a priori right to the currency or indeed to a currency union. Carney was being as diplomatic as he could but the message yesterday was clear.

Time for plan b and some honesty.

To be honest, I dont bother reading his/her/it’s posts anymore. It’s just the same BS drivel over and over again.

“It’s and BS” – you have to smile. Given that the far more intelligent governor of the BOE says the same BS, you just might have to get used to it!!!

P.S. Ben don’t forget we are not part of a currency union because among other things we want the economic independence that wee eck describes. We have a poor record of existing within currency unions and ceding national sovereignty.

bencooper – Member

My big worry is that, after a no vote, it’s punishment time.

i’d guess that ‘punishment’ is just as (more?) likely after a Yes vote, it’ll be more difficult, but not impossible.

is it just me, or does the image of Dave and George, delighted to be rid of Scotland’s non-tory MP’s, guffawing like donkeys at the prospect of whiling away their days dreaming of ways to hobble an independant Scotland*, come to mind all to easily?

(*even better if they can further screw over a few tens of millions of ‘undeserving poor/northerners’ and blame it on the Scots)

i’ll be sad if Scotland votes Yes, but i can totally understand why someone would vote for the chance to be rid of Westminster.

Time for plan b and some honesty.

Plan B is we use the pound anyway – it’s a publicly traded currency, Westminster can’t stop Scotland, Bulgaria, or Outer Mongolia using the Pound if it wants to.

Really, there’s lots of posturing and arguing on both sides, but when there is independence it’ll be discussed and worked out sensibly.

i’ll be sad if Scotland votes Yes, but i can totally understand why someone would vote for the chance to be rid of Westminster.

I agree – and if there was some way to get rid of Westminster and make a properly accountable federal government in the UK with proportional representation and regional governments, I’d be all for staying in the UK.

But that’s not going to happen.

You could use the £ as a medium of exchange but that is a very different thing. May I point you in the direction of the NIESR analysis of the currency arrangements. It’s pretty thorough.

One mans posturing is another mans legal opinion and fact. Once again, as with Europe, AS has been caught with his pants down. Yesterday blew away the idea (if it ever stood in the first place) that Scotland has an automatic right to use the £ or be part of a currency unions with rUK. Just because it’s in the book of dreams doesn’t mean it’s true, in fact normally the opposite.

The yes together champaign continues to demonstrate day after day why devolution is in the best interests of the Scottish people. The better together team should just keep mum.

Ok my “yes” friends, I want a bit of balanced reporting, Which paper is broadly sympathetic to the cause. The Scotsman seems generally anti and the Record well…….!! 😀

…who presents the other side well?

Genuine question BTW. I am interested to see how yesterday was portrayed. The record is funny but not much beyond that!!!

There are no newspapers that have come out to broadly support independence as far as I can see.

I was getting that impression, but it seemed surprising.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/pete-martin-newspapers-united-on-the-referendum-1-3280657

It is a bit surprising, but then most newspapers are part of larger media groups where these things would need to be decided at a higher level so perhaps not.

Maybe that’s why the Yes campaign does so well on the social media side of things, as there is a shortage of main stream media outlets conveying their message.

It appears to me that The Herald is the least biased.

Interesting piece in the Independent today though.

Interesting Rene, thanks. Scotroutes, I tried the herald (and enjoyed today’s currency cartoon 😉 ) but still not that positive IMO.

The problem with the indep article where it ends …..”it has oil”. Well yes, and financial services and whiskey according to the FT. Two problems, one has a volatile price (oil) and the other is massively oversized (FS). To imagine having the scale of FS with no lender of last resort or using £ as a medium of exchange is crazy. Still…

…anyway thanks for the links and ideas. I will follow the herald a it more closely. I had forgotten an old mate writes for it!!!

😆

Now now, you shouldn’t laugh at your own jokes.

bencooper – Member
But there’s a big risk in staying in the Union as well. Specifically for me, the risk is that the UK (dominated by the English vote) votes to get out of the EU. That would immediately make most things I import about 20% more expensive (and add lots of hassle) and also affect all my exports to Europe.

Lost on that statement why would everything be 20% more expensive? Before you answer remember that EU has trade agreements with a large amount of non EU countries. Including Mexico and Turkey. EU also has free trade agreements with other countries such Norway and Switzerland. If they wanted to be spitefull the most they could charge for exporting to them is an import duty of 5%. How would you end up paying 20% extra?

VAT?

There’s all this waffle about economic this and that, how we’ll all be rooned, or bathing in million pound notes, who’s going to be our friend or not, etc.

It’s all a smokescreen.

There is only one issue.

Will Scotland benefit in the long run from being able to determine its own policies?

And the answer to that is simple if you believe in a democratic system – Yes.

And is the BBC biased? – Yes (unfortunately)

Will Scotland benefit in the long run from being able to determine its own policies?

Possibly +1, but look closely and that is not what is on offer. That’s the point.

PS I do really hope you vote for independence. My previous rant was truly truly meant, I would be ecstatic if you left the Union.
Definition of ecstatic
1. in a trancelike state of great rapture or delight
2. showing or feeling great enthusiasm: ecstatic applause.
3. a person who has periods of intense trance like joy

❓

Poor iScotland. It will only be as independent as Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. Woe is us.

There is only one issue.

Will Scotland benefit in the long run from being able to determine its own policies?

Not quite. How about – Will Scotland be able to determine enough of its own policies (within the constraints of the EU and agreements with rUK) to make it appreciably better than devolution?

And the answer to that is simple….. 😉 hence the current manifesto for devolution !!!

By having significantly more powers than it currently does or will ever be on offer under devolution?

I can’t see why this is so hard to understand. In fact, I can only conclude that someone pretending not to is deliberately trolling and will thus treat them accordingly.

.scotroutes – Member
VAT?

how will extra VAT come into it. No country in the world charges VAT or the equivalent on goods they export. Somebody needs a bit of bog standard financial knowledge.

He said “import” though?

Bencooper – Member
That would immediately make most things I import about 20% more expensive

Well you are going to have to ignore a lot of trolls in the Scottish government, press, and if polls are correct, population then Scotroutes!! Even dear Margo Macdonald is sounding a bit unsure these days!!

I can’t see why this is so hard to understand.

An independent Scotland isn’t some thoroughly pre-defined entity. It could be wonderful or a nightmare as its structure is dependent on negotiations after a vote and the range of outcomes is wide. To vote Yes is to trust in AS negotiating that in the interests of Scotland.

I see it a little bit like when Fred Goodwin bought a bank without doing decent due diligence first.

. scotroutes – Member
oldbloke » Not quite. How about – Will Scotland be able to determine enough of its own policies (within the constraints of the EU and agreements with rUK) to make it appreciably better than devolution?
By having significantly more powers than it currently does or will ever be on offer under devolution?
I can’t see why this is so hard to understand. In fact, I can only conclude that someone pretending not to is deliberately trolling and will thus treat them accordingly.

Up to now on this and other independence threads the yes supporters have only put forward one policy they need to change/implement. Which is immigration, “we need more immigrants”. Is there any other policy that Scotland will be implementing once they leave the union? I suspect nobody that supports the yes vote will be able to answer that because there isn’t one. Scotland has been exporting its unemployment problems to England for hundreds of years. Once they allowe mass immigration into Scotland they will continue to do so. Only the English will be paying the unemployment benefits.