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.