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!
Tuesday 31 January 2012
Friday 13 January 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday 3 January 2012
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...:-)
"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...:-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)