Alex Salmond inner self after the referendum
I’m still of the opinion that the BBC was leaning more towards Scottish independence than the Nats give them credit for…it would suit the BBC pro-Europe stance….divide and rule…splitting up the UK into small parts that are easy to pick off.
Throughout the run up to the referendum Salmond and Co were given an easy ride without too much rigorous questioning whilst the pro-Union campaign was ripped into.
When Cameron announced the new deal for Scotland before the referendum the BBC roundly panned it…based it seemed on the fact that a few Tory backbenchers opposed it…the same backbenchers who the BBC normally dismisses as a fringe bunch of rightwing backbenchers out to make trouble.
The BBC decided that the legislation for this deal could never be pushed through…however you might have thought that with all three leaders backing the promises and whipping their colleagues in to vote for it, it must stand a good chance of getting through the House….I can’t quite see why the BBC is so pessimistic.
After the referendum the BBC devoted most of its coverage to the impossibility of Cameron fuflilling his promises and the hopelessness of the No campaign. I didn’t hear anything about the credibility of Salmond’s promises nor of the way he ran his campaign, hearing next to nothing of the bullying, intimidation and lies that the SNP indulged in….could Salmond fulfill those promises, were his figures on North Sea oil, the NHS and the economy credible? The BBC didn’t seem too excited about exploring such issues.
The BBC did seem intent on stirring up Scottish nationalist’s anger by presenting the referendum as somehow undemocratic…er…because one side lost the vote…by a good 10%. Apparently we now have to think of the 45% who wanted independence and not the 55% who don’t, and mould our policies to suit that 45%…there is much ‘negative anger’ out there we were told…and the BBC will not miss a trick in trying to whip that up into yet more anger about the result…Alex Salmond is already claiming ‘we was robbed’…the BBC’s asks…‘With all that anger the big question is ‘Can the Yes campaign work together for a united Britain?’….apparently we can no longer be Britain despite the vote to be British….Viewpoint: What now for Britishness? Curious how democracy doesn’t work for the BBC.
Jon Pienaar came out after the vote telling us that Cameron was targeting Labour, he had ‘weaponised’ the politics by announcing he would seek to answer the ‘West Lothian Question’…. he isn’t looking for a consensus according to Pienaar who seemed to be making it up as he went along and interpreting things in a way that sexed up his reports never mind that their wasn’t as yet any evidence that what Pienaar was saying had any basis in truth…it was mere conjecture presented as fact by Pienaar.
Pienaar cornered a Labour MP (can’t remember who) and tried to get him to say this was Cameron playing politics but the Labour MP steadfastly refused to say that and seemed aggrieved that Pienaar would seek to politicise this himself.
Perhaps the MP had already had a memo with the official Labour line….. that Labour’s then policy was to support the idea of English votes for English laws.
How do we know that? Because due to a bit of a cock up two Labour MPs repeated exactly the same lines in the same interview with Sheila Fogarty. (3 hrs 53 mins)
Fogarty had Frank Field in to give us some spiel…he stated that we know Scotland can look after itself, the big question is how England can look after itself, Cameron has snatched victory from defeat, Labour must put its Scottish privileges over the English (that Labour Scottish MPs can vote on English laws) on the table and that Ed Miliband must represent the English party in England. This is the project where Cameron can screw UKIP. (In other words his gameplan is not to ‘weaponise’ the WLQ and target Labour, in Labour’s opinion…it is to target UKIP)
Then in came Labour’s Siddique Khan who hadn’t heard what Frank Field had said and launched straight into the exact same spiel…in a different way of course…..Cameron snatched victory from defeat, Scotland can look after itself, Labour’s Scottish privileges must be negotiated, Miliband must represent the English Party in England…and he even said Cameron is out to screw UKIP.
Fogarty and Field leapt in to close him down eventually in a bit of a panic as they realised he was reading from the same Labour script.
This was clearly a template message that Labour had concocted and sent out to its MPs to deliver if buttonholed by the Media…in their own words obviously…or not so obviously to some apparently.
The main message? Labour supports Cameron’s wish to have only English MPs vote on English laws….and that this is about ‘screwing UKIP’ not Labour….not the message Pienaar was trying to claim Labour had.
Of course that seems to have changed now with Miliband opposing such a move.
Fogarty failed her big test there…any reporter worth her salt would have leapt in and demanded to know if this was the official Labour position if we had two MPs parroting the very same lines, almost to the word. It is after all the major question of huge consequence as Fogarty alluded to in the interview when she kept asking if such a postion was really in Labour’s interest.
Fogarty’s wish to change the subject may just have been panic when she realised the interview was going awry but Pienaar has always been Ed Miliband friendly, Labour friendly. I can’t say I’ve heard him utter much in the way of criticism of Miliband, in fact he ususally praises him…for price freezes on fuel and his Syria policy (opportunistic cowardice)….it has always been thus…when Labour was in power Pienaar would tell us that any policy announcement by the Tories looked good on initial impressions but if you delved deeper it started to fall apart…however Labour’s policies were a marvel of success and genius….and the fact that 12,000 manufacturing jobs a month were being lost in 2005 at the time of the election never got mentioned.
All in all I can’t say the BBC’s coverage of the referendum and all that has been anything but somewhat one sided giving the SNP an easy ride, and now looks to be targeting Cameron whilst Miliband once again opportunistically changes his mind, doing a huge u-turn on ‘English votes for English laws’ backpeddling rapidly into the muddy waters of ‘consultation’ (post election naturally), and the BBC doesn’t notice even when the evidence is literally right in front of them.
From the Telegraph:
Miliband cornered over home rule
Labour leader refuses to say whether he backs PM’s plan to ban Scottish MPs from voting on English laws after referendum
Ed Miliband refused 13 times to say whether he would back plans set out by the Prime Minister for “home rule” in England in the wake of the Scottish independence referendum.
Maybe he missed the memo Frank Field and Siddique Khan received.
I saw an interview with a MP talking about the ‘VOW’, saying that this had been agreed. But then let it slip, known maily to those in the Westminster Village who follow events. So were the citizens of the UK told by the media (i.e. bBC) what was really offered to the Scots.
So did the media make it clear to all citizens of the UK exactly what was at stake and the bribes that were offered NO. This is going on time and time again, dirty deals that gov keep secret (for secret gov says not widely known) . The bBC is not doing a good job of telling us how gov are treating us like mushrooms. (Mushroom for those unaware ‘keep in the dark and feed on bullshit’)
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/21/1411293901938_wps_6_The_Vow_daily_record_rag_.jpg
Hope this image of the VOW comes out, look for the bit on Barnett. The VOW promises to keep the wholly unfair Barnett formula. So the bribe that has been ongoing for 40 years; to be kept, no wonder they wanted to keep it secret.
The strategy for the BBC and Labour would appear to be as follows: The general principle is that the UK should be broken up (Balkanised) so as to help destroy national identity and facilitate absorption within the EU. However, the loss of Scotland gives the problem that without their MPs the Labour Party can never hope to have a majority in Westminster, resulting in a perpetual Conservative majority in England (as if that would make a difference with the likes of Cameron in charge). The solution is to break England down into regions in accordance with EU diktat – don’t forget the notorious EU map without any references to England at all. Labour’s additional twist is that to counter the fact that the England is predominately rural and conservative with a small c, each region should be based around a large urban centre. These urban centres are more likely to contain Labour voters, but to ensure victory they can additionally be flooded with immigrants, who are statistically far more likely to vote Labour (in essence, mass immigration as a form of gerrymandering). Any Labour MP or BBC associate care to deny it?
Utterly, utterly correct, the best succinct analysis of the game that I have seen for ages.
I said last week that I hadn’t detected a particular BBC bias either for or against Scottish independence. Having had a chance to reflect I’m still not convinced that any shortcomings were bias rather than piss-poor political journalism.
Certainly the extent to which Salmond was allowed to get away with his “Naw it winnae” defence is lamentable. His feet should have been held to the fire until he was forced either to say what he would do if he couldn’t agree a currency union for the pound or admit he had no contingency plan for such an eventuality. Ditto entry to the EU. Ditto the possibility of financial institutions upping sticks from Edinburgh. Instead he was allowed to say simply it was scaremongering and wouldn’t happen.
But then again any half-decent political journalists would have looked at the Three Stooges’ panicky bribes and said, “Hold on, don’t you need to get the agreement of Parliament to this? How do you know you will get it?”
Subsequent to the referendum there has been far too much focus on the losing side. That may be BBC Scotland, which has often been felt to be more pro-independence than the BBC as a whole. Although that didn’t stop Today interviewing someone from “Women for Independence”, of whom I’ve heard an awful lot in the last few days. Nothing, strangely, from “Men for Independence” but I guess they would be a horrid sexist lot. Or, indeed “Men for Union” but perhaps a more favoured group has taken that title.
The focus on the “No” side since the vote has been negative. A lot of that is the fault of the Three Stooges for giving promises it wasn’t in their power to give but as I said, these shortcomings should have been looked at during the debate. I feel however that the impetus behind this focus is not pro or anti indepence but more to kick the Tories and pursue the EU agenda of English regions.
The first TV debate between Salmond and Darling was run by Sky and seemed an orderly affair in which each man answered, or avoided answering, questions. It gave us an idea of where each stood, leaving Salmond in a poor light because he clearly hadn’t though through the financial implications of Scotland as a separate country.
The second debate was organised by the BBC. This was an appalling, visceral, rowdy, bullying hall of nationalists howling down Darling and applauding to the rafters every utterance of Salmond. When the adjudicator failed to find a single person in the audience who wanted to ask Salmond a question it became clear that the audience was staggeringly biased to the nationalists.
Ought there be an inquiry into how the BBC allowed this to happen? This was, after all, at a time when the nationalists were supported by less than a third of the vote.
The debate appeared to be the turning point for the rise in nationalist support and the panic that followed.
Your answer is: If there had been a YES vote the existence and funding of the bBC Scotland would have been in Salmonds hands.
The audience was selected by polling company ComRes.
Thank you Jerry, ComRes seem to do a lot of work for The Independent and the BBC but are you aware of any known political leanings of this company?
I wasn’t aware, no.
I had a quick google (very quick & unscientific mind) and found this article which suggests that in the poll discussed that it had a ‘fairly substantial and in-built conservative bias across the board’…..and that ‘Little wonder then, that ComRes has become the polling organisation of choice for right-wing Christian organisations across a range of social issues from same-sex marriage to abortion.’
http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2013/05/02/comres-polls-an-inbuilt-conservative-bias/
I wouldn’t think it would be too difficult to invite a balanced audience though when the subject for debate was a Yes/No question?
STV that organised and broadcast the first debate.
“The Status Quo Is Maintained” isn’t news, “disruption, destitution and decline” is. The BBC’s journalists would set fire to their own building with them in it if they thought it would be news.
The whole idea of having a referendum should have been examined right at the start, did anyone consider the risks of a break-up? One of the most interesting parts of the campaign was an interview with a Canadian diplomat who pointed out that a new nation would burst into the world with no trade agreements, treaties etc. An ex-BBC numpty on the ‘Yes’ side was asked about this and he said “That will be exciting!”. Moron.
No-one really followed up on the risks at all, just letting Salmond getting away with the ‘scaremongering’ retort. No-one can doubt that small countries can exist but in most cases they have established their institutions and links with the rest of the world over a hundred years or more. ‘Scotland’ isn’t a legal identity, there are no ‘Scottish’ citizens, yet Salmond was going to sort it all out in 18 months (on the basis he got everything he wanted from everyone in and out of the UK?). Government does well to place a new contract for paper-clips in 18 months!
I think all of our politicians have a lot to answer for, the risks weren’t assessed beforehand. Arguably a main driver for Independence was the perceived disconnect of Westminster to the people, the same main driver for the rise of UKIP. And what is our politicians new fudge? A cosy deal between all party leaders to adopt the ‘Brown Plan’! Ever think of asking the people first?
Come on everyone lets hear a round of applause for Mr Salmond. His work to force the Scottish Referendum has allowed the English to regain their voice after Labour and the BBC have spent years trying to get rid of any notion of England.
Cameron should push hard, offering as much to Wales, Scotland and NI as possible so that the nats in all three countries maximise their support for major devolution and so leave Labour having to agree to similar measures for England or face wipe our in all corners of the UK.
Of course exactly how the various national Parliaments are elected is up for grabs, and if it is necessary to say that we will have PR in England to get the Lib Dems on side, I would do it because it puts even more pressure on Labour. I think its true that on a PR basis the Tories have been the largest party for ages and are therefore likely to be dominant in an English Parliament.
Once all this is done it will be time to deal with the BBC, at least in England. No mercy, no half measures, it must fund itself, the other countries can pay for it as they wish. So don’t allow the BBC to be ‘Federal’ service, allow the English to opt out of the LF if they wish.
I agree with most of what you say, except for the PR bit. PR would bring permanent coalition. And we’ve seen how bad having one for just four years is, even one with a nominally right of centre lead. With PR, the Liberals will keep Labour in power for ever as they would only choose the Conservatives when Labour aren’t interested (such as in 2010 when they wanted someone else to sort out their mess). PR is bad for democracy and bad for the forces of conservatism and decency. .
I agree about FPTP, we had a referendum to make that point. If the LibDems demand PR then it is clear that all their talk about democracy is complete bollox.
Yes PR can be a problem but in Scotland they have a mixture of first past the post, by which some MSPs are elected , and a PR system from party lists, which make up the balance of MSPs. Of course the SNP have a clear majority and rule without a coalition at present
I think that if an English, Welsh and NI parliaments were to be formed, as opposed to just having MPs doing two roles, they would be likely to be based on the Scottish model for the sake of consistency.
This was setup by Labour before we had the referendum on FPTP. No excuses left to use PR, it needs to be on a purely FPTP system. In fact if they believe in democracy (which they don’t) then ALL existing legislation should change PR to FPTP. That includes London mayor and EU elections.
Watching the BBC coverage of the referendum I saw auntie swing in both directions, which is unlike coverage of Gaza or climate debates. I think it was not a question of the BBC losing its bias, but rather reflecting the lack of direction within the socialist movement, to which the BBC is committed. Tactically independence would cater for a Tory majority but on the other side is the dream of a socialist utopia up north. I guess it is one for the egg heads to resolve in the SWP.
Welcome to Alan’s fantasy land.
‘Welcome to Alan’s fantasy land”
To you it is, but that 34M counter suggests you are in the minority.
Still, it is free, and the welcome to join or leave is there.
Even for you, one bitter line at a time.
Jerry Fletcher – Qualify your statement ?
Jk Rowling does fantasy and she gets 32m+
But then its all about the likes for you isn’t it? Makes you feel its all worthwhile.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Even in one line.
“Makes you feel it’s all worthwhile”
If you say so, Jerry.
I did. Scroll up and you’ll see I did.
Glad we cleared that up.
Good for you.
As you seem pretty clued up on BBC modding strategies, any thoughts on topical BBC issues, say their opening comments on their oddly analysis-free ‘report’ of Labour’s latest offerings, that closed just before the majority of the nation’s licence fee payers got back from work?
The only thing that these left wing cocksuckers will understand about the damage they are doing to the Uk with their self loathing, is to round up them and their entire families and send them to Syria/Iraq and see how they enjoy living in the utopia of their dreams. I forgot to mention that they would depart the plane for their new homeland from 40,000 feet without a parachute.
Alan is repeatedly lying to you Pounce,
Do you not know? Or do you not care?
Alan,
“Then in came Labour’s Siddique Khan who hadn’t heard what Frank Field had said and launched straight into the exact same spiel… …Fogarty and Field leapt in to close him down eventually in a bit of a panic as they realised he was reading from the same Labour script.”
Very good Alan, except none of that actually happened.
Listen again,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04h80sr (3 hrs 53 mins)
and finally admit that no one should ever believe a single word that you say.
Are you saying that if he admits that, we shouldn’t believe him?
Busted Alan!!!!!!
‘I’m still of the opinion that the BBC was leaning more towards Scottish independence than the Nats give them credit for…’
Why? Based on what evidence? Why ate the ‘Nats’ wrong, as the accusations about biased ocverage seem to be mostly coming from their side? We’re not told, and there’s no evidence to support his accusations:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11095752/Scottish-independence-Nationalists-demand-Nick-Robinson-sacking-in-vocal-anti-BBC-protest.html
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/is-the-bbcs-coverage-biased-yes-absolutely-dont-get-me-wrong-i-like-these-f.25322002
‘it would suit the BBC pro-Europe stance….divide and rule…splitting up the UK into small parts that are easy to pick off.’
Evidence? None. If there was a motive, surely it would be that the BBC would be funded by Scots in a union and not in an independent Scotland? Rather than a fantasy about an over-arching BBC conspiracy. Why it would want to ‘pick off’ parts of the UK I have no idea. That would presumably have pretty dire consequences for the licence fee.
‘Throughout the run up to the referendum Salmond and Co were given an easy ride without too much rigorous questioning whilst the pro-Union campaign was ripped into.’
No evidence provided for this either.
I find that those who complain an interviewee wasn’t challenged enough, usually think that if only they were pressed on a point, they’d suddenly turn round and admit they’ve been wrong all along. Alan would be as quick to scream bias if an interviewee wasnt casked a question about a particular subject. But if you have a 10minute interview and you press on 1 question then the last question immediately drops off. These kinds of ‘easy ride’ accusations are usually about the perception of the biased viewer.
Here’s some examples of Slamond interviews. Easy rides?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28781276
http://forargyll.com/2014/09/jackie-bird-interview-salmond-downgrades-to-6bn-swinneys-7bn-oil-revenues-projection/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10701331/Andrew-Marr-accused-of-bias-over-Scottish-independence.html
Ok, so what’s next in Alan fantasy land?
‘When Cameron announced the new deal for Scotland before the referendum the BBC roundly panned it…’
Please provide one iota of evidence showing where the BBC panned it please.
‘The BBC decided that the legislation for this deal could never be pushed through’
You know what I’m going to ask for right?
‘however you might have thought that with all three leaders backing the promises…..it must stand a good chance of getting through the House….I can’t quite see why the BBC is so pessimistic.’
Do you think maybe Alan was tempted to stealth edit here given subsequent events?
‘After the referendum the BBC devoted most of its coverage to the impossibility of Cameron fuflilling his promises and the hopelessness of the No campaign. I didn’t hear anything about the credibility of Salmond’s promises nor of the way he ran his campaign’
You don’t think maybe because the vote was a ‘No’, that might be the focus. Especially with the PM’s speech that morning announcing new devolved powers including addressing the West Lothian question. Whereas I suppose Salmond’s plans for an independent Scotland weren’t quite so high on the agends given that the referendum result turned out to be a No?! Salmond resigning the next day also seemed to be a factor. Sorry, if it seems I’m explaining something to a 2 year old. Sure feels that way.
‘The BBC did seem intent on stirring up Scottish nationalist’s anger by presenting the referendum as somehow undemocratic…er…because one side lost the vote…by a good 10%.’
I haven’t the foggiest what Al’s referring to here. I did hear widespread praise for the percentage of registered voters, turnout, and general engagement of the electorate.
‘With all that anger the big question is ‘Can the Yes campaign work together for a united Britain?’….apparently we can no longer be Britain despite the vote to be British’.
By this stage my mind is well and truely boggled. What’s this about then? The result of the referendum is in. The vote was split 55/45. There won’t be another referendum for many a year. Seems that given nearly half the country (and a significant majority of the younger generation) wanted to leave the UK, might be a legitimate question to ask how they ‘heal the rift’ so to speak.
Or, to sum up……….’Welcome to Al’s Fatasy Land’.
’Welcome to Al’s Fatasy Land’
Tell it often enough, Jerry, in all forms.
Raising questionable stealth edits on a blog discussing the BBC’s methods, on a thread discussing #indy ref is… brave.
Slam on, dude.
I’ve providing evidence for my assertions. .. .links and everything! I thought you’d like that? Isn’t that your test for any post, that it has a link or two?
Ita a little rich of you is it not to suggest I ‘tell it often enough ‘ when you’re the man who constantly regurgitates the hugs email/FOI redacted/ twitter headline ‘tell it often enoughs’. Although I doubt most know what your insider, made up references are even about.
Wanna try again?
Mornin’ Jerry. Day off? Or full on?
‘links and everything!’
Good for you. I just saw a swallow. It isn’t summer, mind.
‘Isn’t that your test for any post, that it has a link or two?’
Nope. I do like ’em if on topic and adding to the argument though. Snarky drive-by one-liners… not so much. Be interesting to see how your contributions work out so far. I must get me one of your Madocian ‘Don’t tell ‘im Pike’ notebooks too.
‘It’s a little rich of you is it not to suggest I ‘tell it often enough ‘ when you’re the man who constantly regurgitates the hugs email/FOI redacted/ twitter headline ‘tell it often enoughs’.
Not. But hey, if on a site about BBC lack of accuracy, objectivity and integrity the man who would be DG wants to compare various looped Milibotian manifestations of ‘fatnasty’ trying to troll a site author, with me pointing out how the BBC’s commitment to transparency usually ends up, go for it. Nice to see you are paying attention, though. If a bit obsessively.
‘I doubt most know what your insider, made up references are even about.’
Oo, I think those who I care about do, and even a few I don’t. And that seems to really bug you. Which is nice.
Want to find out more (that’s an insider reference too:)?
‘Seems that given nearly half the country (and a significant majority of the younger generation) wanted to leave the UK, might be a legitimate question to ask how they ‘heal the rift’ so to speak.’ That lefty rag the Mirror gave breakdown of the voting for yes, and for the 16-18 it was 78%. For the next age group 18-26 it was 46%. So your claim that that the younger generation want independence is bogus.
The stats show that the vote should never be given to 16-18 year olds as they are too immature and are swayed by liars like Salmond and Labour.
On twitter, it seems the single most pressing issue originating from the BBC is reducing the voting age to sixteen. Can’t think why.
Then they rather spoiled things with this:
—-
@bbc5live: We’ll speak to @Ed_Miliband in just over an hour. What would you ask the @UKLabour leader? > http://t.co/UQMSd5TKbb http://t.co/1OP4ckD9Ir
—
Oops. This isn’t HYS where they can pull a quick closing, so the questions are quite fun so far. And a few very good, to the point ones that demand answers, without waffle.
Be interesting to hear what he actually gets asked so the BBC can get him installed at all costs.
78% seems a big majority to me.And 46% is quite a big chunk too. By your logic the oldies should have their vote removed to as they mostly voted one way…although they voted the way you wanted of course
If I was Scottish I’d be a solid No btw
“By your logic the oldies should have their vote removed to as they mostly voted one way”
Not unless he’s also suggesting oldies are too immature.
Which I doubt he was.
You were having a go at Alan for making unsubstantiated claims and then you do the same. 78% is such a statistical deviance from the mean of 45%, then the remainder 18-26 were at the mean. So a majority of the young did not want to leave only the immature schoolchildren.
‘You were having a go at Alan… and then you do the same.’
SOP. Also weighing in on a person and then throwing toys out the pram when someone else points out what they’re up to.
So many standards, so little else.
Oh Fred! You mean that the vote shouldn’t be given to 16-18 year olds because they might not vote the same way as you! What qualifies you as a paragon of maturity? Do you define maturity as thinking the same as you?
Touche Guest Who, touche!