The EU and my problems with the media.

The European Union - members or not?

Firstly, apologies for not updating this periodical for many months. As ever, tempus fugit etc. I have recently started a new job and have been working overtime in order to be the good little boy so time has been at a premium and inspiration has been at a minimum. A tweet yesterday by the BBC reporter, James Cook (@BBCJamesCook), who generally seems to be one of the better BBC news correspondents, set me to it. Consequently, don't be dismayed but I am back!

Twitter is one of the pastimes that have taken a seat towards the back of my bus as time pressures have built but I saw a tweet in which he complained that the BBC had been receiving some criticism for their reporting of the current so-called EU controversy. I didn't see the tweets he referred to and it may be that they were over the top but I too feel that the BBC, and the wider media in general, have a lot to answer for in their reporting of the whole Independence debate.

My criticism with the BBC is not that they report the story, as this is their job, but that they report the story in an unquestioning manner. Last week was a prime example of this. The Scotsman (which used to be a decent newspaper but which is now in its death throes) effectively lied to create a front page headline when they stated they had seen a letter sent by José Manuel Barroso, current President of the European Commission, to the UK Government which stated that Scotland would require to negotiate entry to the EU when Independence is achieved. There was no such letter and yet our BBC reported the story with what some might say amounted to enthusiasm. Criticism number one of the BBC is that they reported a false story without checking the facts. The Scotsman have "apologised", the BBC have not.

Criticism number two goes much deeper and I would refer James and his colleagues to the BBC drama "The Hour" which is currently being broadcast on BBC2 and BBC HD. The Hour is a fictional news programme along the lines of Newsnight in which the reporters and presenters place great emphasis not on the news but on the truth. They don't simply rehash a story or a press release but actually look to see if it is truth, fiction or embellishment. Our BBC is not doing this. This week, Barroso has said that "any new country will, I think, require to apply for EU membership".

I don't know whether Scotland will or might require to apply for membership of the EU when Independence comes but, crucially, neither does Senhor Barroso. His opinion, whatever it may be is simply that, his opinion. I would argue that, surely, the role of the BBC is to report and question. 

Were I the President of the European Commission, I would be looking at the UK and the move for Scottish Independence and I would be having internal private discussions to discuss how the subject was handled. I would look at the situation in Spain where Catalunya appears close to holding an Independence referendum and at Belgium where it looks increasingly possible that the country might split into two along Flemish and French language fissures. I might decide that I would prefer this didn't happen as their current Governments are against such democratic break ups and opine that a newly Independent country would require to apply for entry into the EU. I might wonder how many more countries might fragment as the success of the newly Independent peoples becomes apparent. I might, therefore, try and please the UK, Spanish and Belgian Governments by saying what Barroso has done.

Were I a correspondent working for BBC Scotland, I might consider the following and ask the likes of S. Barroso or our Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, to provide their answers. If they can say that Scotland must apply for membership then they must have thought the following through:

• Scotland will not be a new country as we have entered a Union with the other members of the current United Kingdom. Independence will dissolve that Union. Scotland was a country before the Union, remains a country within the Union and will once again become an Independent country after the Union is dissolved. Does or can Barroso's statement apply to us as given that we are not a new country?
• I am, currently, a citizen of the European Union. Senhor Barroso implies that I would lose my rights to and under such citzenship. By what mechanism can this occur?
• Do all the Polish, French, German etc people currently resident in Scotland under EU law lose such rights? Are they then to be repatriated?
• When do you propose that EU students currently studying at Scottish Universities begin to pay tuition fees as current EU regulations will no longer apply?
• Does the EU rewrite all the policies which are in force like the Fisheries Policy as an Independent Scotland outwith the EU might object to Spanish trawlers fishing in our waters?
• Do all the Scots currently living and working in other EU countries immediately lose their residency rights and be told to stop working and return home?

Take it a stage further and consider Belgium splitting into two. Are the European Commission, primarily based in Brussels, going to tell one half of the current Belgium that they are not in the EU whilst allowing the other half to remain as members? Which half do they allow to stay? Belgium uses the Euro so are the Commission going to prevent its use and force the introduction of a new currency in one half or the other?

I would argue that the Scottish Government's position on Europe is quite clear. Scotland will remain a member of the European Union upon Independence. Why do I think this? It is inconceivable that the EU would effectively expel one of its current member states for having the audacity to revert to Independent status. The EU has, this week, been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its part in European harmony in recent decades. Not permitting Catalunya, Flanders or Scotland to remain as EU members would only provoke tension. The EU require to take some serious decisions. They have not yet done so because they are scared to upset the Madrid or London Governments. Barroso stating an opinion does not make policy. The BBC reporting an opinion does not make fact. My second criticism of the BBC is crystal clear. You are paid for by my licence fee. I do not expect you to take sides in the Independence debate but feel that, at the moment, you are firmly on the side of the Unionists. 

Why? Because you don't ask the questions that you need to ask. 

Why? Because your main stories are invariably critical of the Scottish Government or the SNP Government whilst stories critical of the UK Government (like today's Coastguard reports) tend to say "the Government came under criticism" which is either careless or designed to cause confusion. 

Why? Because you never seem to interrupt a Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat spokesperson but never seem to fail to interrupt an SNP one.

Why? Because your flagship programme, Reporting Scotland, regularly provides a platform for one Scottish Government spokesperson but three opposition ones when your main BBC News at 6 steadfastly goes on a much fairer one to one basis at Westminster.

It is drip, drip, drip and more and more people are noticing it. Just as has happened with The Scotsman perhaps? 

Be fair and the criticism will stop. Be fair, that's all I ask.

Skullduggery or Incompetence?

The debacle that surrounds the implosion felt both within Ibrox Park and Scottish football as a whole has been well catalogued, blogged, tweeted, televised, you name it and the Scottish media, fans groups, supporters, journalists and Uncle Tom Cobley have had their say.

Suffice to say that we are where we are. The 11 SPL Clubs plus Rangers voted overwhelmingly that the new Rangers Football Club were not permitted to enter Scottish football in the highest division. Really, only the most rabid of Rangers die-hards could suggest that this was the wrong decision.

This, then, creates a vacancy within the SPL. Now, I agree that the decision to be made as to who is invited to fill the vacancy is, perhaps, not as straightforward as it might be. There are two candidates being Dunfermline Athletic FC and Dundee FC. The Pars finished bottom of the SPL last season and were relegated whilst Dundee finished second in Division One of The Scottish Football League but were not permitted promotion as this would impact financially on the SPL. Nonetheless, this vacancy has not exactly crept up on the SPL and you might expect that a plan existed to be actioned as soon as the decision to reject the Rangers application was reached. Perhaps Dunfermline, perhaps Dundee, perhaps a play-off. Seems simple, really.

This is where the SPL are at, an organisation with a vacancy.

In overall control of Scottish football are the SFA who, through Chief Executive Stewart Regan, have warned of plague and pestilence within our game unless Rangers are allowed to regain their rightful position in the top two as quickly as is manufacturedly possible. This rumour mongering has prompted Division 2 side Stenhousemuir to announce that they will vote to allow a brand new football club to enter the SFL in Division One, thus avoiding what might have been 2 capacity attendances during season 2013-14 at Ochilview, assuming they retain SFL2 status and Rangers gain promotion from SFL3. I have no idea what arrangement they have with East Stirlingshire who share their stadium and are in SFL3 (as usual) but it may be that they take a percentage of gate receipts, catering sales, hospitality packages etc etc. It may be, therefore, that Stenhousemuir are costing themselves financially both this year and next by allowing a new club to bypass them within the League system.

This is where the SFA are at, an organisation in fear that the money might dry up, an organisation who never for a minute considered that either Rangers or Celtic might not be in the top 6 of the top Division - even as both these clubs attempted membership of the English Premiership or the formation of a brand new Atlantic League. Incompetent? You betcha.

Finally, we have the Scottish Football League who, we are told, will meet on Friday 13th July to determine which League they believe The Rangers should start their footballing lives in. Now if this were Clydebank FC or Spartans FC, it would be straightforward. The SFL clubs would determine which they felt brought more to the table and would elect their choice as an Associate Member into Division 3. It would not even cross their mind to consider entry at an higher level. But, this is Rangers and so they will apparently vote on a straight choice between Division One and Division Three with the not so veiled threat that the SPL will magically start an SPL2 within weeks should the vote not go as they might like.

This is where the Scottish Football League are at. They are an organisation comprising of 30 football clubs.

But.

THEY ARE AN ORGANISATION WITH NO VACANCY. THEY HAVE 30 MEMBER CLUBS AND WILL DO SO UNTIL THE SPL GET THEIR FINGER OUT.

What, then, are we to make of the fact that the SPL refuse to announce who will fill their vacancy and thus create a vacancy within the SFL? How can the SFL vote to admit a club to fill a vacancy when such a vacancy does not exist?

Skullduggery? Send Rangers to Division 3 and we have left our options open to invite them back into the SPL should our plans for an SPL2 either fail to materialise or see the SFL clubs refusing to join?

Incompetence? Nah, this Bankies fan is opting for skullduggery. The only basis for not announcing the club to replace the now defunct Rangers is to leave the door open for Rangers to miraculously reappear in the SPL.

Here, then, is my statement, a statement echoed by many throughout the country in their own ways:

If the new Rangers Football Club start life in anything higher than SFL3 then I shall never attend what is commonly known as a Senior football match again.

I may go to the odd Spartans or Gala Fairydean game, I shall reserve that right as most SPL/SFL clubs regard the East of Scotland League (a Senior League) as having the same status as the ludicrously named Juniors where my team play. I shall oppose any move by my club, Clydebank FC, to rejoin the SFL or some contrived Lowland League swiftly formed to permit Rangers to start in Division One. I shall, sadly, not attend the annual fixture between Dumbarton FC and Clydebank FC but shall, instead, donate the entrance fee to the Bankies.

I have news for all fans of SPL and SFL clubs who will take a similar view. There is life beyond the so-called Senior Leagues. Clydebank, Irvine Meadow, Auchinleck Talbot, Petershill, Ashfield, Linlithgow Rose, Bo'ness, Bonnyrigg Rose, Tayport and so on are all a similar standard to Partick Thistle. Honestly. The difference is those teams are part-time. Oh, and whilst Dumbarton seem to be proposing an admission fee of £23 for themselves versus Morton, Clydebank versus Auchinleck Talbot is £5.

The pictures below sum it up. Happiness is a brand of football called honesty. When we lost our team, we did it properly. We did it the right way. This new fangled way is wrong. It is skullduggery AND incompetence.

'Mon the Bankies.

Gordon Moffat scoring for Clydebank FC - 31st May, 2012.

Chris Mackie scoring for Clydebank FC - 31st May, 2009.

Tom Harris MP makes the case for Scottish Independence.

It is not often that I agree with any of the, often drivel and generally nonsensical, tweets that emanate from Tom Harris' Twitter feed. Tom, the Labour MP for Glasgow South was, until disgrace forced his retirement from the position, 'Scottish' Labour's Twitter Tsar and tweets with a regularity that can only be admired and envied, particularly when you consider that he is, also, a Shadow Minister for DEFRA (Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) in Red Ed's Worstminster team. Where he has found the time to tweet on almost 29,000 occasions is beyond belief and such dedication can only be admired.

Yesterday, however, Tom finally saw the light and I am, personally, delighted to welcome him to the cause of Scottish Independence. Hi, Tom.

At the end of his coming out tweet, he added the hashtag 'bettertogether' which is, of course, the Scottish NHS slogan and the well known British Columbia healthy eating programme strapline. Tom, obviously, wanted to draw our attention to the Unionist campaign to prevent Scotland throwing off the shackles of Dependency by become a proper Nation like everyone else and to warn us of the dangers that the said campaign posed.

He particularly, I have little doubt, wanted to make us think of what might have happened were the UK still under the one Government, as was the case until the Scottish Parliament reconvened in 1999, just 13 short years ago.

He wanted, I am certain, to warn us of the dangers posed to the NHS in England by the apparent privatisation of the service down south when we have the marvellous Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy First Minister of Scotland and Cabinet Secretary for Health in Scotland who has firmly opposed such nonsense up here and to suggest that only the Independence of the Scottish National health Service has protected it thus far. Well done, Tom, for drawing our attention to their scaremongering.

He then wanted us, I am sure, to consider the Police service where, once again, privatisation is rearing its ugly head in England. In highlighting the issue, he drew our attention to the redoubtable Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice who has protected the public from the reduction in officer numbers suffered in England by, actually, increasing the number of Police Officers here in Scotland. Thanks Tom for pointing out the dangers of the Union and highlighting the benefits achieved by having an Independent Scottish Police Service.

One of Tom's great interests I think is education and he wanted, almost certainly, to draw particular attention to the tuition fees of £9,000 now faced by students in England compared to those of £0 in Scotland and warn us of yet further danger posed by the Union. In doing so, he highlighted the excellent work done by Mike Russell, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, the man in charge of Scotland's Independent Education System.

Go Tom, go.

I now reach Tom's epiphany and am happy to reproduce below the tweet made by him yesterday in which he warned us not only of all of the above but, also, came out fully, firmly and categorically in support of Scottish Independence:

Q: What's the positive case for "independence"? 

A: What would you like it to be? 

#bettertogether #teamUK — Tom Harris (@TomHarrisMP) June 13, 2012

That's the whole point, Tom, thank you so much for pointing it out to those, as yet, undecided about how to vote in 2014. Come Independence Day, an Independent Scotland can start to shape the future in any way that we, the people who live in Scotland want.

Welcome to the club, Tom, I am delighted you are now going to vote YES. After all, you have pointed out the benefits.

Thanks.

I Read The News Today - Oh Boy (Lennon and McCartney)

"Twitter now writes the first draft of history, where journalism used to."

John Birmingham is one of my favourite fiction authors who also earns a crust by penning articles for some of Australia's best known and most widely read newspapers. He made the above quote in The Brisbane Times last week in an article relating to largely unreported Police action in forcibly clearing an Aboriginal tent embassy in order to make way for a Greek Paniyiri Festival.

Here in Scotland, the quote is wonderfully relevant given the woeful standards evident in the reporting of our news, current affairs and political events that we are expected to tolerate from both our print and, especially, our visual media with particular emphasis being placed on our publicly funded BBC.

I, like many others, no longer buy what I might previously have termed "my" daily newspaper due in no small part to the lack of balanced and factual reporting available. Some "news"papers, like The Scotsman, have seen their circulation fall to alarming levels, quite probably as a result of the ludicrous slant they place on practically any story relating to Government in and of Scotland.

I have never been a member of Facebook and doubt that I will join but I have now been an active user of Twitter for just over 1 year. Twitter now provides me with not only all the news I require but news that I would, otherwise, not even be permitted to read or hear. Be permitted being the crucial phrase.

Apart from their own refusal to accept that most simply want an unbiased report of the news with even-handed opinion pieces, the biggest threat to traditional media comes from Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Had they and the internet existed in the 1970's, Scotland might already be an independent country given the access that each and every one of us now has to attitudes, viewpoints, opinion and even just the news that was once completely denied to us.

Were it not for Twitter, I might never even have heard of any of the following as they have hardly been the subject of widespread media and, particularly, television reporting:

The McCrone Report commissioned in 1974 by the then Conservative Government in London, presented in 1975 and immediately classified as Top Secret by the Labour Government of Harold Wilson. Why was it hidden from us? Because it specifically stated that an Independent Scotland would prosper. Surely, for that reason alone, there exists the basis for a Newsnight Scotland special?

The UK Attorney General blocking the release of official papers relating to Scottish devolution. Why did he block the papers? Because it would not be "in the public interest". Forgive me, but what public? The rest of the UK public or the Scottish public? We are supposed to be in a union of equals but, as is so often the case, it appears that some are more equal than others. Surely, within this classification as secret, there exists the basis for a Brian Taylor studio spot on Reporting Scotland?

The Bain Principle (as tweeted by Willie Bain MP) which is self-explanatory and totally indefensible. To my mind, this was the political revelation of the decade but, to my knowledge, it has not even been mentioned on the BBC never mind discussed or investigated. They are letting us and themselves down by ignoring this revelation as they have a specific remit and responsibility to report the news and to do so in an impartial and balanced way. It is clear to me that they are not doing so.

Glasgow Labour's alleged deal with the Orange Order. Once again, a subject totally ignored by most of our print media and, shamefully, by BBC Scotland. It is alleged that the Leader of Glasgow City Council, Gordon Matheson, agreed to relax regulations concerning Orange Walks in the city in return for the Orange Order 'suggesting' that their membership vote Labour in the recent local authority elections. Once again, this should, surely, have seen an investigation and exposé by one or all of our television outlets. No mention, the story completely brushed under the carpet.

Mr Al-Megrahi, the so-called Lockerbie bomber. I have linked to the Scottish Review because in today's edition, there is a particularly splendid opinion piece written by Kenneth Roy entitled "The coverage of his death has been crass and repugnant" and with which I agree 100%. Were it not for the internet and, to be fair, The Herald, I might never have been presented with a view other than that which states Mr Al-Megrahi was guilty as charged. Personally, I don't believe he was the guilty party but, sadly, I don't believe we will ever find out the truth.

Those, then, are just some examples of where the Internet and Twitter have broadened my horizons. Our print and televisual media are not yet finished, they can save themselves. They could make a start by asking one simple question during political interviews. The next time we have a Labour politician complaining about Westminster this or Tory that, is it to much to ask that the interviewer poses the following:

"If Scotland were Independent, what would the situation be?"

Sadly, I think it is. That will be their downfall.

An Unbiased Report. Match it, my BBC.

They are pretty much finished then - no, not the LibDems but the Scottish Council Elections! Just 4 seats remain to be determined (anticipated to be 2 SNP and 2 Independent) but the make-up of our local authorities for the next 5 years is pretty much known.

I never believed the hype surrounding Glasgow City Council and never believed it realistic to expect the SNP to become anything like the largest party in the city. Labour are, simply, too powerful in Glasgow but further progress has been made. I never believed the suggestions that the Labour vote in Scotland would crumble for two reasons, the STV electoral system used to elect members and the sheer number of candidates standing under the Labour umbrella. I was hopeful that, Scotland wide, the SNP share of the vote and number of elected members would increase and I anticipated a slight fall in the Labour party share of the vote and expected them to lose a small number of Councillors. In the Borders, I had hoped for an increased SNP involvement (they achieved 3 more elected members) and I had wished that the anti-progress and NIMBY Borders party would lose both their seats which, sadly, they didn't!

The title suggests an unbiased report so my sincere congratulations go to the SNP, Labour and Green parties.

To the SNP for gaining the highest percentage of first preference votes; the biggest increase, numbers wise, in Councillors elected; the largest number of Councillors elected and for the bucking of the generally accepted trend that a governing party suffers at the polls mid-term.

To the Labour party for increasing the number of Councillors elected and avoiding yet further crises within their ranks; to the Green party for gaining 6 additional Councillors and, finally, to Professor Pongoo for making us all giggle at the LibDems expense!

In recent weeks, I have been asked why I don't update this blog more regularly and my answer has been that, effectively, I need a good reason. I can't simply sit down and pen a piece commenting on something that doesn't stir something within. A bit pretentious, perhaps, but c'est la vie!

Late yesterday afternoon, I listened to the First Minister suggesting that the SNP had gained something in the region of 60 Councillors since 2007 which surprised me since my BBC were telling me (at the time) that it was 44. Now, perhaps naively, I have always watched the BBC's election coverage, believing it to be streets ahead of its competitors and have looked on agog at such inventions as the swingometer, never thinking for a moment that they might be telling porkies or doubting their figures and statistics, so I did a bit of digging (at the same time, it seems, as others noticed the discrepancies in the figures).

Here is the accurate picture (by my reckoning and using BBC figures from 2007):

	2007	2012	Change
SNP	363	424	+61
LAB	348	394	+46
CON	143	115	-28
LIBDEM	166	71	-95
OTHER	203	216	+13

Here is the new and updated BBC picture:

	2007	2012	Change
SNP	367	424	+57
LAB	336	394	+58
CON	131	115	-16
LIBDEM	151	71	-80
OTHER	237	219	-18

I am unable to explain the additional three seats that the BBC have allocated to "other" in this week's election and, in all honesty, am struggling to explain the starting figures used by them in their calculations. It has been suggested that the figures I have listed in the BBC table for 2007 are, in fact, the figures taken as at Wednesday 2nd May, 2012 but I confess that I am unable to reconcile them even then. That might need a little more time than I am prepared to devote! What I do notice, however, is that every pro-Union party is portrayed as having performed better than they have done in reality.

Let's assume, though, that the BBC have used the figures from Wednesday. This renders my understanding of every BBC election programme invalid as I have ALWAYS understood them to have been comparing current with true historic in that the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections, for example, were compared to the results from the 2007 election.

How can I quickly check my understanding of their comparisons in an as up-to-date way as possible? Initially, I thought to compare their coverage of the England and Wales Council elections online but this was complicated by the strange nature of the English set up in particular, where some Councillors are elected one year and others within the same Council in another year. Similarly, not every (by any means) English Council had an election on Thursday. The best and quickest comparison that I could come up with was with the London Assembly and so that is what I have used.

In 2008, the BNP had Richard Barnbrook elected as a member of the London Assembly. He was expelled from the BNP and, subsequently, sat as an Independent. Using the same principles as they have applied to the Scottish elections, the (our) BBC would show the BNP commencing the election on zero seats. Mysteriously, the BBC webpage for this week's London Assembly elections is detailing the BNP as finishing on 0 seats after Thursday's election BUT it then shows them as being -1. For the London Assembly, then, our BBC are using exactly the system that I had always believed them to use and, crucially, a totally different system than they have used here in Scotland.

Now, I appreciate that this is by no means conclusive but it suggests to me that someone within BBC Scotland has decided to completely and unilaterally alter the methodology used when the (our) BBC cover an election. Everywhere else in the UK will compare like with like (i.e.) 2007 with 2012 but that, uniquely, in Scotland alone we shall compare 2nd May with 4th May. Now that we know this, I suggest that one week before the next Council elections, every single Councillor resigns from his or her party and then our BBC can portray everyone as a winner with nobody losing a single seat except for the 'others'. That. then, is my brilliant idea!

Unfortunately, it is more important than that. On BBC Radio 5Live this morning, I listened to SNP MSP Derek MacKay being interviewed when the studio suggested that he was mistaken in his portrayal of the local elections as being an SNP victory. Why? Because "Our Scottish political correspondent, Brian Taylor, says you came second". Unlike some, I don't pretend or insist that BBC staff based in London know the ins and outs of Scottish politics although it would be nice were they a bit more informed. They do, however, rely on their own colleagues based in Scotland to assist them.

Thanks, then, to BBC Scotland we have the situation whereby:
The BBC are stating that Labour gained more seats than the SNP. This is not true.
The BBC are stating that the Conservatives lost only 16 seats. This is not true.
The BBC are stating that the LibDems lost only(!) 80 seats. This is not true.
The BBC are stating that Labour won most votes (using the figures currently available). This is not true.

Here, then, is the situation within BBC Scotland - as I see it:
Uniquely, within the BBC, BBC Scotland does not permit comment on its politics webpages.
Uniquely, within the BBC, BBC Scotland does not permit its staff to reply or retweet on Twitter.
Uniquely, within the BBC, BBC Scotland uses a completely different rule to compare seats won or lost at election time.

BBC Scotland are being accused of bias on a regular basis. It is difficult to argue that they are not, given the situation described above. I don't want my BBC to be biased for either or any side. I want them to carry out their duty in a professional manner in the very ethos of public service broadcasting. More and more, I and many others are of the belief that they are, simply, not to be trusted, which is a crying shame.

We are all forced, by law, to pay for this service whether we like it or not through the Licence Fee. This means, though, that everyone within the BBC is, ultimately, working for us. Within BBC Scotland, it seems that they have chosen to forget this. We do have very limited recourse and can complain about the election figures they have unilaterally used by clicking this link to BBC Complaints or contacting that nice Raymond Snoddy at BBC Newswatch.

Very sadly, I wouldn't hold your breath as it seems more than likely that a generic reply will be sent to all complainants.

In the meantime, some of you might consider attending the protest against perceived bias evident within BBC Scotland on May 26th. Until today, i wouldn't have bothered but now?

Shame on you, BBC Scotland. Scotland deserves better - much better.

You have cost your constituents £15m a year, Mr Moore. Why?

Last week, I was given some information that truly staggered me. Over the next three years, the economy in the Scottish Borders will fall by an estimated £45,000,000 and there seems little that anyone can now do to prevent or alleviate it. Why will a definite and confirmed £10m and a further estimated £5m per annum be removed from the local economy? Because the UK Government are 'reforming' the welfare system.

Just over £9.95m of the suggested total is confirmed and was arrived at as a result of a detailed study undertaken by Scottish Borders Council (SBC) who are deeply concerned at the impact such a reduction in spend will have on the area and who foresee a significant rise in poverty, deprivation and homelessness. They are shocked at the speed with which such cuts are going to be made but, to their credit, have tried to plan for the disaster that awaits them.

Now, as I have touched on briefly before, SBC is not really your typical Scottish Local Authority having 12 Conservative, 4 Independent (traditionally Tory minded), 10 Liberal Democrats, 6 SNP and, forgive me, 2 village idiots from the ludicrously titled Borders Party (who, despite their title, are firmly against the Borders Railway as it might result in incomers, housing and tourism!). It is run by a coalition of Conservatives, LibDems and the Independents so is hardly a hotbed of revolutionary thinking. Nonetheless, they, as a Council, are so concerned about the welfare reforms that they instigated the study that came up with the £10m.

The area under SBC control in 2010 had a population of only 112,430 so a £15m cut amounts to the equivalent of £133.42 being removed from the pocket of every man, woman and child in the area. What is most pertinent, however, is that the total £15m cut will be taken from the pockets of those who can least afford it and is, therefore, money which undoubtedly would have been spent locally had it not been earmarked for removal.

I have tried to determine figures which can provide a more detailed breakdown of these cuts and came up with the following which all relate to the Scottish Borders alone:

1. There are currently 1,100 LHA (housing benefit) claimants and 825 of them will lose £504k each year. This is £611 per household involved per annum.

2. The total number of disability living allowance (DLA) claimants will be cut by 1,136 resulting in annual losses of £4,094,678 or £3,604 per claimant affected.

3. Incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance will be removed from an unspecified number saving up to £8,219,264 or the equivalent of £2,204 per current claimant.

4. The switch from Retail Price Index to Consumer Price Index will see 1,915 JSA claimants lose £48; 1,790 in receipt of carer's allowance will lose £47; 2,830 in receipt of attendance allowance will lose £54; 12,300 families currently receiving child tax credits (22,450 children) will lose £83 (£45 per child); 800 people in receipt of the employment support allowance will lose £179; 2,460 in receipt of income support will lose £58; and 3,250 on incapacity benefit will lose £57 each (in addition to the cuts mentioned in point 3 above).

Points 1-4 result in a confirmed cut of just over £9.95m per annum but this could easily rise when the actual figure for item 3 becomes known. Where, then, does the other estimated £5m come from? None of the previously mentioned figures take into account those who will completely drop out of Child Tax Credit or Working Tax Credit eligibility with the new rules coming into force on 5th April. It is suggested that 1800 households in the Scottish Borders area will be disqualified from such benefits through rule changes. Some will only have been on part credits previously but, nonetheless, it is estimated that this will result in a further £5m being lost locally on top of the £10m detailed above.

£15m a year or £45m over three years, all from those who, quite literally, can least afford it.

I feel I can confidently claim that the local economy will suffer exclusively since, by the very nature of the welfare system, those in receipt of benefits are not those with savings, are not those with high incomes and are, most definitely, those that can least afford a cut in their weekly available spending money. This lost money would, therefore, have been spent with the local butcher, baker and candlestick maker.

I firmly believe that the current Westminster coalition Government is acting out of ideology as opposed to economic necessity and it takes great delight in telling us that we all know somebody who is fraudulently claiming benefits. Well, I don't, I'm sorry. Now, I have no way of knowing whether the following statement is true or not but it doesn't strike me as being too far off the mark: "For every 250 welfare benefit claimants, 1 is deliberately claiming too much". Widespread claimant abuse is, though, what seems to be being used to justify the unpleasant pursuit of the poor.

In addition to the cuts detailed above, SBC foresee terrible problems arising in the local housing market as a direct result of new rules being introduced regarding acceptable house size. As an example, Mrs McGlumphie moved into her then Council house with three bedrooms in 1968. She brought up three children in this house, managed to see them go to University and contribute to the economy through gaining employment. The last of her children left home just last year having stayed with her following the death of her husband. Mrs McGlumphie is now a pensioner with little or no savings to speak of. The UK Government are going to tell her that her house is now too big for her to occupy and she must move or face a reduction in her benefit. She can, either, pay the difference or get lost. SBC fear that this will happen to many tenants but are, currently, unable to put a definite figure on it, it seems. It, also, seems that they are fearful of the consequences.

I think that few would argue that the UK deficit and debt is anything other than unsustainable, certainly over the long term, but I would argue that we are chasing the wrong end of society. We are crucifying the least well off whilst, at the same time, proposing to end the 50% income tax rate for those fortunate enough to have earnings in excess of £150,000 a year. It simply cannot be right.

We come, then, to the Right Honourable Michael Moore MP, Secretary of State for Scotland and Member of Parliament for Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk and who is, sadly and regrettably, my MP.

Mr Moore, on Tuesday 13th March, 2012, voted in favour of the UK Government's Welfare Reform Bill. He did so in the full knowledge that it would cost his constituency great economic difficulties. He did so in the full knowledge that it would penalise those of his constituents who could least afford it and force many into abject despair and poverty. He did so, quite possibly, in the full knowledge that, deep down, he knows it was the wrong thing to do, just as he did when he voted to increase tuition fees in England. He did so whilst, at the same time, telling me that I am stronger as part of his United Kingdom and that Independence is a dreadful and terrible thing.

Well, Michael, I am sorry but in an Independent Scotland there would realistically be only two parties who might hold a controlling position, The Scottish National Party and The Scottish Labour Party. The SNP would never vote through such a draconian bill and, for all their faults, neither would a truly Scottish Labour Party.

You, Michael Moore, have, in my eyes, resigned as my MP and forfeited any possible chance you had of re-election. You and your party, the Liberal Democrats, have ceased to exist, extinguished by your own swords.

Michael Moore you are, without a shadow of a doubt, Today's Reason For Independence. You are, also, a disgrace.

The BBC - Blatantly Biased Cluster.

I nearly wrote this blog on Thursday 16th February. I nearly wrote it again on Monday 20th February. I find myself unable to maintain my silence any longer and so I am writing this on Thursday 23rd February.

I was, initially, going to write about my recent time spent in Englandshire and the differing ideas of, views of and attitudes to Scottish Independence and right of self-determination that I experienced. As usual, my/our BBC, that bastion of neutral news reporting, has intervened to disrupt my plans.

Blatant (adjective): describes something bad that is very obvious or intentional

On Thursday 16th February, an historic event occurred. Whatever your political opinion or persuasion, the two most powerful politicians in Scotland held a meeting in Edinburgh. Our own First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, welcomed to his official residence the Prime Minister of the UK, David Cameron, for informal talks about Scotland's constitutional future. I would question whether such an historic meeting has EVER taken place before. I would argue that it shows the extent by which the profile of Scotland, as a nation, has been raised since the SNP first came into power in 2007. "Goodness me" my voices muttered, "how will your BBC report this one?" The honest answer? They surpassed any and all of their previous efforts at the broadcasting of distortion in this country. It was blatant. The first B of our BBC.

At 4pm we welcomed the start of BBC Radio Scotland's Newsdrive programme, billed as:

Breaking news and sport from Scotland, the UK and around the world.

The programme started off as expected with a sound clip of an excerpt of Cameron's speech from earlier in the day. Realistically, it had to be either Cameron or Salmond, it couldn't possibly have been anyone or anything else. At this point, our BBC imploded and suffered what I might call an aberration. Instead of an excerpt of Alex Salmond commenting on the meeting, the BBC took the decision to broadcast a diatribe by Johann Lamont! "Where the heck did she come from?", I shouted to my radio. Forgive me, Johann and Scottish Labour but what relevance did the view of Johann Lamont have at this point in the broadcast? Someone within the corridors of power at the BBC had made a conscious decision to go down this route. It cannot have been a mistake, there is no benefit of the doubt here. Incredibly, we had to wait until an astonishing 18 minutes past 4, nearly 20 minutes into the programme, until we heard our first excerpt from the First Minister and the first positive mention of anything to do with Independence. It was blatant. B

Bias (noun): often supporting or opposing a particular person or thing in an unfair way by allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment

During a speech last week at the London School of Economics, Alex Salmond declared a desire to create an oil fund similar to Norway's. He clearly stated that, when economic circumstances permitted, it would be a good thing to do. Surely, few can disagree? Fast forward to this morning and the lovely Catriona Shearer woke me up by telling me that The Centre for Public Policy for Regions (sic) had claimed an oil fund was not viable and that they questioned whether "anything would be left" after public expenditure to contribute to such a fund. Sorry, my BBC, but they, most certainly, did not claim it was not viable. They clearly stated that such a fund was, indeed, viable. They, also, clearly stated that a budget surplus might not be possible in the short-term due to economic circumstance and questioned whether any surplus achieved might be better placed to boost the economy and growth. They wondered whether the rate of return sought by the First Minister might be optimistic and suggested that a return of between 2 and 3% per annum might be more realistic. The clear implication was, though, that an Independent Scotland has the possibility of budgetary surplus whereas the current UK does not. Why present this in a negative light? Why not present something positive? There can only be one answer. It suits those in power at our BBC to portray Independence, at all times, in a poor light. It is bias. B

Cluster (noun): a group of similar things that are close together, sometimes surrounding something and (bomb) an explosive device which throws out hundreds of smaller bombs when it explodes

I have touched upon Seonag Mackinnon, our BBC's Scottish Education correspondent before but this week has seen her continuing (with the able assistance of our BBC) with her crusade against the Curriculum for Excellence (CoE) recently introduced into our schools. This week, she has renamed East Renfrewshire Council (ERC), dropping "flagship" and replacing it with "Scotland's most successful education authority". Really, Seonag? Today's BBC News bulletins are leading with "a cluster of Scottish private schools have abandoned the new Curriculum of Excellence" with "one even choosing to take English exams".

All week, I have listened to her state that children in fourth year of secondary school will be sitting 5 exams. Here goes, then: that is a LIE, Seonag, and I am amazed if you do not know that. It is factually incorrect.

How do I know? My son is, currently, in his 2nd year at High School and he requires to choose his 8 subjects (yes, Seonag, 8) to sit examinations in during year 4. He will choose them by the 2nd of March this year. In 1974, I sat eight exams in 4th year. In 1981, my wife sat eight exams in 4th year. In 2014, my son will sit eight exams in 4th year. The main difference with my son's curriculum is that, until the end of 2nd year, he will have experienced considerably more subjects than either my wife or myself had experienced by his age. Yes, it is too early for him to know definitively what career path he might or might not go down but, and it is a crucial but, he will, simply, revert to the same situation that his parents were in throughout High School when he returns to commence his year 3. Myself and my wife both then went on to sit 5 Highers and the aim of my son's school is that he will sit 5 similar exams in his 5th year. So all this talk about what I would call 5 O grades is false. It is a lie, pure and simple. My son must take Mathematics and English and is relatively free to choose 6 subjects to accompany them. His school and all his teachers have been wonderful in their guidance. The booklet they gave his mum and I clearly explains the outcomes in terms of Further Education for each and every subject offered. The same booklet quite clearly spells out, as an example, the core studies for History and/or Modern Studies to be taught in years 3 and 4. It really is quite clear. Yes, there may or even probably will be teething troubles. Yes, it may or not be a pity that my son is in the first year of those who are taught using CoE. It might be, though, that he will receive a better education than his predecessors and he certainly seems to be receiving a better education than I did (I thought mine was okay, incidentally, but I never enjoyed it).

Now, let's be honest, the Scottish Borders can hardly be described as a hotbed of Scottish Nationalism (although it is growing significantly) having historically been Liberal or Conservative territory and is, therefore, unlikely to impose SNP policy that they object to in a quiet and studied manner. We are, after all, in the middle of Johnson Press country with The Scotsman and the awful Southern Reporter being the local papers of choice (not in my house!). Scottish Borders Council, though, the schools under their control, each and every teacher and, most of all, the pupils have embraced the new curriculum and are enthused by the changes it has brought. My son is loving school - I could never say the same. My son, recently, brought home the most detailed report card covering each and every subject from Spanish and French through to PE and RME (religious and moral education - I know!). In all my years at school, I never once came close to such a positive report card. My congratulations go to everyone involved with education in Borders Council. You do many things wrong, you have some very strange Councillors but, by God, you have done well with the new curriculum.

So we reach "Scotland's most successful education authority", East Renfrewshire Council. It might surprise you to know that education professionals here in Bordersville ridicule ERC for their apparent inability to meet the CoE requirements. Their explanation is simple and seems, to me at any rate, to make some sense. It is claimed that ERC chased "league table positions" by concentrating on Intermediates (I assume they are or were O levels!) when every other authority concentrated on providing their children with the best possible education and placed more emphasis on what I might term Highers. I have no idea whether this is true or not, I have no idea whether it is relevant or not and I have no idea why ERC are unable to continue with CoE without a year's delay. I do know that it, sadly, seems all too possible or, even, probable. Words like "flagship" have to be achieved, after all. Here in the Borders, we don't see houses advertised as being in a school's catchment area and it strikes me as conceivable that ERC's problems stem from this very mindset so please, Seonag, stop presenting them as being hard done to or authoritative. You have either been conned or you are trying to con your viewers.

When I was at school, we had public and private just as we have now. When I was at school, my understanding (maybe wrong) was that the private schools sat different exams to me. I understood they sat exams much more like those down south. Seonag, today, tells me that a cluster of private schools (3 to be precise! Yep, 3 - three, not four, 3 - a cluster, a group!) have opted not to use the CoE. I wasn't even aware it applied to them! One of them even wants to sit GCSEs! I, naively, thought that private schools did this as a matter of course. Who would spend thousands of pounds on a private education if they were taught exactly the same things in exactly the same way as the plebs? I really wasn't aware that Mike Russell had any input into them whatsoever! I was aware, though, that the so-called Free Schools introduced down south are more than keen to use CoE in their institutions as they regard it as being pretty much the best thing since sliced bread. It is early days but, from what I have seen and my son has experienced, I would agree with them.

I have asked Seonag to point me in the direction of her last positive news report on my BBC. She is, obviously, struggling to find records that go back far enough as she has yet to come up with one. She has, though, come up with a record low amount to be classed as a cluster. 3. 3 is now a cluster! C

How to sum up? It has to stop, my BBC. It is Blatant, it is Bias and it is C***.

Can we not be seen as grown-ups? Please?

Can it really be over a fortnight since I penned my last diatribe? Tempus fugit seems ever more apt as time passes by. A lot has happened (as usual) in the intervening period, some of which has kept me far too occupied to update this blether of a blog although, if truth be told, inspiration has, also, been sadly lacking but, no matter, here I am chapping at the bit and ready to go!

Since we last spoke, I have taken what is, for me anyway, an almighty step. I won't reveal my age but think George Clooney and you're, probably, not too far out either way (I don't know what age George is but we look so similar that we could almost be twins!). What have I done that I regard as being momentous? I have joined my first ever political party and am proud to say I am now a fully paid up member of the SNP. I have the Unionists to thank for this development as, I suspect, do many of the what must now be near 2,000 people who have joined the SNP since the turn of the year.

Anyway, as per, I digress. Today, I am not at work (yippee!) so decided to use my time wisely and venture into Galashiels for my first haircut of 2012. Being a lazy so-and-so and with FirstBus charging £4.80 to travel in discomfort the 5 or so miles to Gala and back I elected to take the car.

Now, normally, I listen to Radio Scotland on my commute to and from my office and so I found myself in the company of Kaye Adams and her programme "Call Kaye". Given the amount by which we fund our BBC I do wish they would leave the lowest common denominator stuff to the likes of TalkSport or similar. Do we not deserve or merit something a little more informative than this, what I might unkindly describe as, drivel? As you might gather, I don't normally listen to it, thankfully.

To be fair, I have nothing personal against Kaye but she strikes me as being a bit like our very own Jeremy Paxman or Jeremy Vine. You know exactly where she stands on any given topic. I think this is wrong whether it be Kaye or anyone else who presents on our BBC. She comes across as being anti-Tory as evidenced by the furore she caused when she suggested that Boris Johnson should "p*** off back to boarding school" (forgetting that she, herself, was educated at one such establishment!) and, to my ears at least, never fails to show her contempt and disdain for anything and everything to do with the possibility of Scottish Independence. Sadly, this is only going to become more common at our BBC as we approach the Autumn of 2014.

To return to the timetable, the initial part of today's phone-in was about Tommy Sheridan, newly released from prison, and whether he would "split the Independence vote" and go hammer and tongs with a raging and furious Alex Salmond by promoting, in Kaye's own words, the People's Republic of Escocia. How can you split the vote? It's like splitting the Clydebank support into two at a football match with one group behind one goal and the other group at the opposite end. Both sets of fans still support the mighty Bankies so her point was, at best, poorly made. What she meant to propose was that some might switch their allegiance to the Union whilst others might simply not vote at all.

I will be honest and state that I don't particularly like Tommy but he has undeniably been a charismatic presence in Scottish politics since the 1980's and has just as much right as anyone else to voice his opinion on Scotland's future. Unlike myself, though, he commands a certain amount of publicity and media interest and so will be a man we hear from often as time progresses whether we like it or not. Now I don't know whether he will affect the vote in any way but I would be more than interested to see him in a TV studio debating alongside Nicola Sturgeon and Lesley Riddoch against Johann Lamont, Willie Rennie and Ruth Davidson. Sheridan vs Lamont, who wins? You decide. Personally, I have absolutely no objection to Tommy Sheridan vocally calling for Scottish Independence although I recognise that others will hold the opposite view.

Bear with me, I am coming to the point! On the self same "Our BBC Radio Scotland" the issue of welfare cuts made the news last week and Good Morning Scotland interviewed the SNP's Westminster Work and Pensions spokesperson, Dr Eilidh Whiteford MP, on her feelings regarding Conservative proposals to slash the UK's welfare budget and, after the usual increasingly common and rude interruptions, the presenter went down the Call Kaye route. "What will the amount of child benefit be in an Independent Scotland?", "Will an Independent Scotland have universal child benefit?" in pretty much the same way as callers to Kaye's programme described a vote for Independence as being the immediate proclamation of Tommy Sheridan as President.

Now I can fully appreciate why it suits the likes of the (our) BBC and Kaye Adams to encourage this nonsense but, really, do they think for a minute that we are completely stupid? I read the foreword to the Scottish Government's consultation paper last night and quote:

"Much of what Scotland will be like the day after independence will be similar to the day before: people will go to work, pensions and benefits will be collected, children will go out to play and life will be as normal. What independence will mean is that decisions about what happens in Scotland and for Scotland are taken by the people who care most about Scotland."

What Eilidh ought to have replied on GMS was along the lines of: "After Independence, welfare payments will be exactly the same as they are on the day of Independence. As time goes on, however, I think it undoubtedly the case that an Independent Scotland will administer welfare and benefits altogether more fairly than will be the case within the rest of the UK. The amounts and qualifying criteria will be for the elected Government of Scotland to decide as the months and years go by."

Come the big day in 2014, people will be voting purely and simply on a priciple. Would you rather Scotland governed itself or would you prefer to be governed from London? Tommy Sheridan won't be President the day after. Alex Salmond will only be First Minister until the next scheduled election reappoints an SNP Government or chooses one of a different poltical persuasion. Very little will change for quite some time. A yes vote will, I think, make one massive difference. We, as a nation, will be happier, more confident and our heads will suddenly be held higher. The rest will take care of itself with Scotland and the remainder of the UK gradually moving in slightly different directions. Only through time will the differences become more and more noticeable. Scotland is, though, more likely to be a fair and equal society than the UK will ever be. I have not voted for a Conservative, Liberal Democrat coalition and so I will be voting yes.

The point of all of the above is to basically call on the BBC and BBC Scotland in particular to raise their game. Remove the inbuilt bias against Scottish Independence that is apparent within their newsrooms and demand that their presenters and commentators take a strictly neutral perspective. I am not calling for bias the other way, let me make that perfectly clear. So, my BBC, when you next discuss the serious matter of Scottish Independence can we trust that the SNP might possibly be represented in the studio? Can we hold out any hope that it will not be the usual three Unionistas against one Independence supporter that you so cherish? Let's be brutally honest here, how much airtime do the "Scottish" Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties really deserve on tv and radio in Scotland? Sadly, I won't hold my breath.

Meanwhile, after my haircut, I drove home to hear Call Kaye thank all the callers and introduce the next discussion. "Will an Independent Scotland result in conflict in Northern Ireland?" and am now going to B and Q for a brick wall to hit my head off.

Toodle oo the noo!

2 Questions. Are we seen as stupid or are they just scared of the outcome?

We reach the end of a momentous week, yet again, in Scottish politics, a week in which our small but suddenly vibrant and recognised country has made the front pages of newspapers the world over. A week in which the enthusiasm and support for Independence has visibly increased - whatever our Unionist supporting friends in the media might try to tell us.

Last night, the BBC broadcast what amounted to little more than a pathetic attempt at a discussion about our future during which the possibility of a two question referendum was, essentially, ridiculed. It appears to be generally accepted that the referendum will take one of only two forms. Firstly, it might be a straight yes or no question about Independence and, secondly, as we are all aware, there might be the inclusion of a second question asking whether the voter supported full fiscal autonomy or devo-max as it seems to have been Christened.

Strangely, and presumably coincidentally, I was presented yesterday with a specimen voting paper containing two questions which had been commissioned by a "national Sunday newspaper" as part of a poll to be published this Sunday, 15th January. I admit that I was confused but, then, that seems to have been the raison d'etre of said voting paper. Question 1 was straightforward and along the lines of "Do you wish Scotland to become Independent and separate from the rest of the United Kingdom?" which, whilst suggesting a Unionist leaning question setter, was easy to answer. Question 2, however, was much more confusing to this respondant. "Do you favour full fiscal autonomy for Scotland and Scotland remaining within the UK?". How was I to answer this? No, I most definitely do not favour this but, yes, it is significantly better and preferable to the situation we have today. I, therefore, answered that I didn't know.

When the result of the poll is revealed, please bear in mind that I would not be the only respondent who would be unsure of how to answer. Going off on one of my regular tangents, I should advise that the poll went downhill from there on in with questions like: "If Scotland became Independent and were to separate from the rest of the UK, should everyone in Scotland continue to have more money spent per person on them than anywhere else in these islands?", "Should Scotland be allowed to have access to monies from North Sea oil?"  and "Scotland, it has been suggested, would have to join the Euro if it separated itself from the rest of the UK. Would you be in favour of this?". All things considered, therefore, I suspect it might be the Mail on Sunday or The Sunday Express setting the questions!

It need not be like this and I am fed up of being treated as if I am stupid.

Scottish Government Referendum on Future Constitutional Arrangements, 2014.

Voter guidance:
You may answer Q1 & not Q2, you may answer Q2 & not Q1. You may answer both questions. If the result of Question 1 is yes then Question 2 will be rendered invalid.

Question 1:

Do you wish Scotland to become an Independent country? Y/N?


Question 2:

If the answer to Question 1 is "No" then would you wish to see Scotland granted Full Fiscal Autonomy? Y/N?

Granted, I have scribbled this down on the back of the proverbial fag packet but, honestly, was it that difficult? I am truly unsure as to whether I wish one question or two but to stifle the debate on the grounds that it might cause confusion is, simply, insulting. Having ruled out the possibility that we are too stupid to cope with two questions, I can only conclude that those such as Douglas Alexander who seem hell bent on preventing Scots choosing what we consider to be the best option are scared they might not like the result.

Possibly, therefore, Joan McAlpine was quite right if a little naive in believing she would not be misquoted.

This is (what passes for) The News from The BBC.

A New Year has arrived and, once again, little seems to have changed, certainly not at Pacific Quay, home to the inappropriately named BBC Scotland. Three days into 2012 and, already, they have allowed themselves to be accused of political bias. I say allowed because, in this instance, it seems to be both deliberate and unashamedly so.

"Scottish" Labour's Health Spokesperson, Jackie Baillie MSP, issued a fatally flawed press release entitled "Exposed: New Research reveals Scotland is Superbug Capital of Europe" and was swiftly appearing on BBC Scotland's early morning news programme, Good Morning Scotland, where a friendly interview was conducted. No attempt was made to question her figures and no research appeared to have been made in order to ascertain the truth or otherwise of her assertions. Here is the nub - her figures dated from 2005-6 and related to a period when Labour and the Liberal Democrats were in control at Holyrood so whatever they might have been, they were most certainly not new.

Let's be fair, then, and assume that BBC Scotland made a truly genuine mistake in believing they had spotted a story (emanating from a Labour press release or phone call) and made a genuine mistake in airing the interview when, due to the holiday period, they had not run their typical checks on the story. Were I to believe that was so then you would not be reading this effort but might either have been reading what I thought of the Scottish 6 or the re-opening of the Borders Railway (contain your excitement, they are for another day!).

Almost immediately after Baillie's interview (and, it seems, a similar story being printed in The Scotsman) it was made apparent by many and varied Tweeters that the story was, let's be blunt, a pack of lies. One who Tweeted the actual facts was Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Health, Nicola Sturgeon, who wrote "Labour's attack on NHS today using 2005/6 data is shameful and ignores staff achievement of reducing cdiff & MRSA by 70% since 2007" and who further added a link to the proof of the pudding which is the actual and factual Scottish Parliament Research. Kate Higgins wrote this excellent piece at Burdzeyeview which covers the "mistake" better than I can - but don't visit it yet!

Why then do I accuse BBC Scotland of deliberately attracting accusations of political bias towards themselves? Well, by 8am, I was aware that the story was bunkum and by 10.30am I was in possession of documents which proved it was a pack of lies. The BBC have greater resources at their beck and call than I do with my laptop and iPad and so they will, also, have been in absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the story was nonsense.  BBC Scotland continued to run the story until 6pm.

I repeat: BBC Scotland continued to run the story both unquestioned and, it appears, unamended until 6pm. I look forward to their apology and retraction but I suspect there is as much chance of that happening as there is of Ms Baillie doing the same. The damage has been done and that was the whole purpose of the exercise.

Moridura, the excellent blogger Peter Curran, ran a typically fine piece yesterday concerning Alex Salmond's appearance on The One Show and suggested that many pro-Independence supporters seem desperate to find bias in BBC presenters. I thought that Alex's appearance on the show was excellent and would suggest that both Matt Baker and Alex Jones were well out of their comfort zone and so any apparent bias was, probably, unintentional. It remains, though, the best (by far) BBC interview of Alex Salmond since May last year.

Sadly, the same cannot be said of the BBC following yesterday's events and I would challenge anyone to convince me that Jeremy Paxman and Kirsty Wark are not hostile or that, closer to home, Seonag MacKinnon, the wife of Peter McMahon who is The Scotsman's Business Editor and a former Labour spin doctor, doesn't begin her reports, perhaps unknowingly, from a slanted perspective. To copy from the ludicrous BBC HD sound promo "Glenn Campbell, don't get me started on Glenn Campbell".

The Scotsman newspaper struggles to live up to the name newspaper these days but, whilst accepting and promoting its own political bias, regularly prints magnificent writings from the wonderful Joan McAlpine (one of my MSPs) and others who support Independence for Scotland.

Here then is a question. Who is there within the ranks of BBC Scotland who is permitted any airtime whatsoever to espouse an alternative viewpoint? The Scotsman is a commercial organisation and is, therefore, entitled to be biased if they so wish. The BBC is funded by both of us, dear reader and is supposed to be beyond reproach. If only that were so.

Now, back to Borders Rail...:-)