Radio Silence

Has anyone come across coverage of the West of Scotland University media bias report in the mainstream media? I can’t see it anywhere and don’t suppose BBC Scotland discussed it either. Isn’t that in itself remarkable…a Scottish university produces a report on a year-long study of news and finds a disturbing trend showing bias in what is a regulated industry – broadcasting – including the taxpayer funded BBC, and no one in the world of journalism in our country thinks it’s worth telling the public.

That’s a subject worth academic scrutiny all by itself…what principles do the media adhere to in judging items, who decides and what criteria are applied. I would certainly have suggested a follow up to the report and asked BBC management for a response. I’m surprised the National Union of Journalists hasn’t used it to claim the imbalance is down to cost-cutting, or perhaps they will. I remember on a previous occasion when Professor Tom Devine complained about Radio Scotland’s output, we decided to do the story and had to fight for a week with our own management to get them to agree to go on air to defend Radio Scotland. I think I said at the time they broke producer guidelines themselves demanding to know what would be said and what questions would be asked. I wonder when we will see the deeper more informed journalism promised from the Referendum Unit, or is this it? (There is a series of audience debate shows planned for different locations but this is hardly innovative.  Why not set our greatest minds to work on what will happen to Scotland Yes or No in opinionated, authored pieces designed to inspire people on both sides? I’d like  to hear a psychologist or anthropologist on why Scots are reluctant to believe in themselves as a nation – uniquely in the world. What is the genesis of this and is there any other nation like us? What is the point of the Union today and why have so many Unionists been trapped by history lying about our wealth? Can we examine exactly what a Devo Max would deliver? And should we be hearing from the BBC in depth research on the information provided so far and the running of the campaigns…including John Robertson’s report)

The print media normally devour anything to do with the BBC and are besotted with it. Many of them detest it and regard it as the opposition and here is a tale of it making the cardinal mistake of political bias, not someone’s assertion but evidence-based. Yet no-one picks it up, preferring bland Putin remarks about Scotland not being his business to a troubling Scottish issue.

The report gives the lie does it not to the Better Together posturing about their struggle against the forces of the Scottish government and how they were outgunned on the propaganda front and remember the risible efforts by Johann’s adviser Paul Sinclair to say BBC Scotland was a Nationalist front.

92 thoughts on “Radio Silence

  1. When the going gets tough, these toughs draw their wagons into a circle.

    There’s no place for facts such as these in the myth. They are the goodies, their job is to print the legend.

    No one is fooled and it saves the jaw-worthies having to think. A dreadful lot.

    • Have to agree. The Scottish media dare not bring attention to a report about bias in the referendum debate because in effect they would be condemning themselves.

      Well Derek what do you think of your profession now, are you still proud to be a Scottish journalist when you consider your long career at the Herald, Observer, Scotland on Sunday, STV and Radio Scotland?

      All those years in trying to get the news out to people and yet we have this …………………. the sound of silence. Telling, very telling.

  2. Don’t hold your breath for any response.

  3. Derek, you are shouldering the cape of the ‘caped crusader’ on this BBC front and the very short fuse left by the absurdly anti-democratic Boothman and MacQuatter running the nowaday apology for a public broadcaster is just about ready to let go the main charge; do you need support?

    What’s the next move on the board to wreck these wreckers? What can we, your fellow travelers, do to make it happen?

    • Hi My view is that the BBC will do nothing because the mainstream media didn’t bother with it so there’s no external pressure. However, I’ve emailed the BBC Trust suggesting it is worthy of inquiry and I think there is a moral case for investigation given the independent source of the research and its irrefutable evidence. It comes on the back of the recent Trust finding against the news operation in the Creighton affair and before that the finding in the prolonged and misleading complaints procedure relating to the Science Tower affair. Anybody interested should do the same. I’ve contacted the Director of News in London who is already aware of issues in the Scottish newsroom. I suggest contacting MSPs on the Culture Committee who have investigated the BBC news operation previously. They may be pondering this latest report as part of ongoing interest in the BBC. I also sent a message to the Electoral Commission to ask they have a role in warning the regulated media, as in broadcasters to remain impartial ahead of the legal election pending period starting on June 1. It is perfectly in order to contact BBC Scotland itself to ask the Press Office if there is going to be an official response to what is a published academic report proving political bias. Derek

      • As a Nationalist, I am appalled that the Scottish Government has not already broached this subject with the BBC and STV. Depending on Newspapers, sold but not Owned in Scotland, and with a Unionist agenda, is just foolish! In tackling Broadcast media they merely highlight their own complicity.
        That said, what on Earth has happened to a Country who used to produce some of the best Journalists in the World.

  4. We are all on a path to enlightenment, or at least those of us who do our own research out-with the mainstream media. Therein lies the dilemma, how do you enlighten the general public with no access to the megaphones of the MSM and without the apparent rigorousness of professional journalists.

  5. Derek, I contacted the researcher specifically to know who had funded his research. I did this since I have been caught out in the past with fund-awarding bodies ( especially pharmaceutical companies ) taking my raw data and giving them to rent-a statistician who could make them say something they shouldn’t. To my delight, Dr Robertson confirmed he had no such pressures, so there is no question that ” he who pays the piper ” applies.

    • That’ll make it tough for them to discredit it – if it ever sees the light 0f day in the media.

      • Surely the fact that it hasn’t appeared shows that they have , as yet, been unable to find something to discredit it with.

      • Good point re discrediting it, which is of course is what MSM will be busy trying to do today. Hope Dr Robertson won’t be surprised, nor taken aback, if his emails etc. are trawled by the UK state’s dirty-tricksters, as the first thing BBC et al will want to do is ‘personalise’ the research and try to get some smear material before they are forced to acknowledge/react to it…

  6. The FM will have to bring it up in questions on Thursday to get it out on the BBC.

    • Exactly, Annie. The BBC will have no choice but to advertise their bias towards the Unionist stance. And the truth will filter through to a higher percentage of the population. Incidentally, I looked at the BBC Radio Scotland web site minutes ago, simply to remind myself of Haley Millar’s name and found the claim that Derek is still involved with GMS along with G Robertson, the said Haley (sadly) and Izzy Fraser!! I clicked on “Derek Bateman’s Blogs” and got nowhere. Poor old Auntie BBC…… senile dementia surely…….or perhaps simply dementia. Also was surprised to see how young Haley looks. Perhaps that’s her problem – no life experience.

    • That the MSM are unadjacent to the truth? Perhaps truthy Ruthy will surprise us all and save honour in our benighted land … I can just hear her now:

      Why has the Scottish Government again been caught lamentably short, this time doing absolutely nothing about blatant MSM bias in the Referendum campaign?

  7. I think ken McDonald mentioned the report very briefly on his Sunday am headlines programme. He didn’t go into details. I think he just read out the headline from newsnet. I’m not criticising Ken.

  8. I think Ken McDonald mentioned it very briefly on his radio Scotland headlines show. There was no discussion on it. Maybe they’ll discuss it more Sunday coming.

  9. @ yerkitbreeks: thanks for your effort, adds a little armour plating around the report. A rent a statistician, I like that. In my day I played about with such stuff. My favourite was Queueing Theory, probably old hat nowadays.

  10. Nothing on Reporting Scotland they were too busy on their investigation into why free care is not more free and a shop in the borders that burnt down and a bridge that lorries hit a lot.

  11. Aye Derek another blog focussing on issues you feel are relevant. Nationalists of course can always go read wigs over scotland or newsnet scotland if they want a balanced view on the referendum. (oh for a sarcasm symbol)

    Talking about relevant issues, how’s about commenting on the Commons Scottish Affairs Committee on the referendum that took place on 15th January? I’ve you aren’t aware of it (I’m sure you are) but if you aren’t its still available on iplayer (BBC parliament 18 Jan). Perhaps you’d like to write a blog on what the Professors Armstrong, Tomkins and McLean had to say about the SNP and its white paper. Seems odd to me that no nationalists have commented on this Committee session, could it be that it makes uncomfortable watching for nationalists?

    • Must have missed that referendum on 15 January.

    • Wigs over Scotland? Surely you can pull the rug from under that one. Tsk tsk.

      • Murray McCallum

        The Rev Stuart Campbell is actually a renowned international man of law (*). His separatist website (Wigs over Scotland) is a beacon of legal tranquility.

        * Source not found

    • Have watched Scottish Affairs Committee and Iam going through it again, I have to, it’s sooooooo bad.

      When asked about the time table set out by SG for negotiations, (18mth), Proff Adam Tomkins, (yes he of the union jack suit), gives his educated thoughts.

      “a 307 year union will be a mighty difficult task, almost all of it will be done, if we ever get there, and I hope we won’t, but if we ever get there…”

      “the SNP timetable would be ludicrous…”

      “it just becomes, I don’t know, what’s more ludicrous than ludicrous, proposterous…”

      There were lots of ers and ums in there as well.

      You only need to watch the first 10mins to see a love in atmoshere.

      But even then Proff Ian McLean and Proff Kenneth Armstrong have to try and pull back Ian Davidson and his political allies.

      It really is amusing to think that this committee, if reported by anyone, can possibly be treated with any gravity. It really is wotr a look.

      • So a report by a little known academic from one of the lesser universities (I’m trying to be polite here) holds weight, yet the opinions of 3 professors from Oxford, Cambridge and Glasgow who are some of the foremost global authorities in their respective fields mean nothing. Seems to me that in your book someone’s opinion only has “weight” if it agrees with your political views.

      • Reply to John McMad

        Nice smear there, McMad.

        It matters not who did the research, which University or College. All that matters is the method, content and analysis.

        I have published academic scientific articles and acted as a joint editor on two journals where I had to review the work, the methods and the conclusions. Trust me, there is some mince being published by your favourite greater Universities.

    • If you honestly believe that the opinions of three people, no matter how well educated, should carry more weight than empirical evidence, gathered over the course of a year, I may just have a bridge in stock that you may be interested in.

  12. Derek, I believe the media will not respond to this report for the simple reason that they are biased. I have no trust in the electoral comission or indeed any other British based body. Our only hope is for a multi national organisation to look at this and I fear there is little prospect of that occurring. No, we are on our own I’m afraid. Our only means of redress is people power, grass roots activity. We must be our own media and speak to those around
    us. That, in my opinion, is vastly more powerful than any media because it’s active and all media is passive. Once people lose trust in the media it’s not easily regained. I must say I feel some sympathy for BBC journalists. It’s easy to be moral and have integrity when your livelihood does not depend on it. There are bills to be paid, mortgages, children to feed etc.

    • Mr McMad, “We” (the enemy?) consult Wings Over Scotland is read the news from a different perspective. Wings makes no secret of its political bias and it costs nothing. It is free to the user. The BBC claims to be unbiased and costs us money. This study claims it is biased and if you or the BBC think that is incorrect you should say so and give your reasons. I’m sure I’m not alone in feeling this whole affair is repugnant.

  13. Maybe if there are any YES folk in the audience of QTime this Thurs in Dundee, they could dive in and challenge the panel to comment on this report being ignored by all and sundry. Is Sillars not going to be on it? Gonna tweet him!

  14. Aye @ John McMad – I watched the very sparsely populated Committee on ” Separation ” of Scotland and enlightening it was too, especially for example their aversion to issues such as Moral Hazard and it’s effect on how the cookie might crumble.

  15. Aye, good to see we’re playing the man and not the ball again, as sure a sign as you can get that I’ve touched nerve. Its a terrible thing this freedom of speech on the internet…

    • I don’t think you touched a nerve John. You brought nothing new to the conversation. If you think there is something important in the commons committee from the 15th then can you please explain it?

      • All you need to do is watch it, you will see exactly how important the session was. My point was i just wanted to know why this session, that incidentally completely destroyed a whole host of SNP/white paper claims, is something that doesn’t seem to have appeared on nationalist radars, yet an obscure report on media impartiality from one of the lesser universities, that is in itself questionable, does?

    • Chutzpah there McMad

      Play the man not the ball; lesser universities?

    • Straight from the Better Together playbook, throw in a dismissive response with no evidence to back it up then claim ad hominem attacks as soon as someone calls you out, yawn

  16. I think we have another example in the silence on Derek’s blog. There is no way they are not all following it. What’s people’s theory?

  17. John Mcmad, you neatly dovetail the two topics. The Scottish Affairs Commitee and BBC Bias -how (and you ain’t going to like this Derek) the thing lacking is professionalism.
    Imagine, you walked into a solicitors office and they said to you after asking the reason for your visit, this is the legal position but by the way, no wonder you’ve come to see me, if it had been me, I would have decked him, then set about his car but only my opinion of course,is in essence what one of the professors felt compelled to do.
    He was there in his capacity as an academic, his knowledge of the subject not what he actually thinks on a personal level and it’s the same with both BBC and radio Scotland.
    We’re a sophisticated lot , we’ve had hours of practice watching Eastenders and Downton, we know every intonation,every expression and rather than paranoia, it’s familiarity. You hear Gary Robertson on radio in the morning, then he pops up again on Newsnicht, your ( as hoped for by the BBC) familiar with his style. You expect Gary to read the news, ask questions that the viewer/ listener would probably ask in an effort to understand the topic but you don’t expect him to tell the interviewee, we’ll you may think that but here’s what I think.
    The BBC appears to be like so many big institutions, so risk averse that it’s basically failing to do the job it is supposed to do, inform, entertain for all it’s viewers.
    Either,the ‘ethos’ of neutrality has been understated by management at BBC Scotland( which means management failure) or the broadcasters have taken on the role of defending the BBC( which is not their job, despite probably having a clause in their contracts about reputation etc) either way, it’s not working for the viewers or that teeny thing called democracy.
    As for the Committee, it changes nothing, I think you’ll find apart from wondering who ‘ they ‘ were that Ian Davidson kept referring to, it brings to mind a comment a very famous politician said” thousands of words and speeches and still they die hungry and disappointed ” -something like that.

  18. “When the going gets tough, these toughs draw their wagons into a circle.”

    The ‘Laager of Lamont’? Sorry, I know the destruction of the democratic process is a serious affair but I couldn’t help myself.

    Oh, and continuing this vein of hopefully, sanity preserving, insanity, surely it is ‘Whigs over Scotland’ that is the more apropos?

  19. BTW would recommend that everyone read Paton’s ‘The Claim Of Scotland’, serialised in WOS and available now for complete download. It is, I suppose, a piece of history, but presents a remarkably prescient analysis which could have been written yesterday. It would have saved me a lot of personal thinking time if I had come across it as a young man. It is also couched in a logically coherent manner which is a rarity in these dumbed (top) down times.

    Click to access TheClaimOfScotlandFull.pdf

  20. Still complaining that the BBC and STV give the four main political parties a fair crack of the whip?

    Of the four main political parties in Scotland one supports separation while the other three favour Scotland staying in the UK. Are you really suggesting that the broadcasters should distort this to give the impression that it is a 50:50 split?

    You don’t see how absurd and indeed anti-democratic it is to suggest that our broadcasters should double the SNP’s coverage while shrinking the other three parties’?

    • Nice try Grahamski, but it’s not about giving the 4 main parties a fair crack of the whip, it’s about direct evidence of media bias. Of course, little better can be expected from a slavishly loyal unionist apologist, but don’t try and obfuscate the clear shortcomings of both the BBC and STV by crying about it being anti-democratic to shrink the coverage of the 3 unionist parties. How democratic is it exactly to have much of indyref coverage weighted with 3 unionist viewpoints vs one SNP voice?

      As you well know, that doesn’t reflect the split in voting intentions, since pro-unionists don’t account for 75% even in the wettest of Project Fear’s dreams. After what we learned of the Lucinda Creighton affair little better can be expected of the BBC of course, but don’t try an deflect attention away from the UWS report by falsely claiming that this has anything to do with curbing the already unfair weighting given to unionist parties generally in the debate!

    • Grahamski, if you but knew just how absurd and damaging to the No side your logic and reasoning is…

      • From the report:

        “The simple numerical preponderance of anti-independence statements over pro-independence
        statements by a ratio of c3:2 on Reporting Scotland and on STV, is also clear. One obvious
        explanation lies in the editorial decision to allow all three anti-independence parties to respond to
        each SNP statement creating an unavoidable predominance of statements from the former even
        when these were kept short.”

        What a strange methodology!

        This means that in a situation where there are 4 minutes of contributions from political parties and even if the SNP were given 2 mins and the three others 2 mins they would still record the piece to be 3 to 1 against indy.

        That fact alone shows deep flaws in this report and that’s before we examine exactly who is deciding what is a pro and anti statement.

    • Remember when the unionist parties claimed all three combined meant there was a majority against having a referendum despite a majority of Scot`s wanting to have a referendum?
      Look where that got them.
      There are almost twice as many SNP MSP`s as Labour. SNP=65/ Labour 37
      Over three quarters more SNP than Conservative. Con`s=15
      Libs = just 5
      Greens= 2- pro independence
      Independent/ no party affiliation= 4 – All pro independence
      So 71 members for indy and 57 against
      Going by those numbers and remembering that Scotland`s parliament is run under a different system of proportional representation than Westminster`s 3 main parties leaving the rest currently with no chance of ever governing surely there`s an argument that given any number of coalition partners could potentially form a government in Scotland then all should expect a fair amount of media coverage? Not just the Westminster main parties.
      Looks like in actual fact the Cons, Labour and the Libs should in fact be giving up more air time to the Greens and independents. I missed out the SNP as they are the only majority governing party through out the whole UK at the moment and should command more air time as such whether they are on the TV or their policies are being talked about by other politicians, academics, protest groups and the like. Stick that in yer pipe and smoke it!

  21. Two side, yes and no.
    Two campaigns, yes and no.
    It is a Referendum and not a General Election.

    If your dear beloved Tory Toff Prime Minister hadn’t insisted on a simple yes / no question and no Devo whatever, you might have a point.

    50/50 it must be on the “impartial” BBC which is funded by a tax.. STV and newspapers are free to take their own line. They are businesses and will ultimately fail if they lose their viewers / readers. At least two titles seem Hell bent on committing commercial suicide and ultimately their managers and office bearers will be answerable to their shareholders.

    50/50 , not so difficult, even for the BBC and you to understand.

    • First of all STV are bound by the same rules on impartiality as the BBC (and any other broadcaster in Britain for that matter.)

      Second, politics in Scotland is not binary: we have four main parties, all of whom deserve coverage.

      When the official campaign period starts (in June of this year) then the idea of a yes and no campaign will be reflected. To suggest that the campaign should last 2 years is ridiculous.

      This is a ludicrous attempt by the SNP to distort the coverage of our broadcasters in their favour.

      Thankfully this nonsense is taken seriously only by those chronic grievance monkeys at the YESnp campaign.

      • Keep throwing the insults. All that shows is the paucity of your arguments.

      • Untill the parties supporting a no vote present their different ‘visions’ of the union of great britain, should Scottish citizens vote no, then there are only two sides to the argument and only those can and should be presented in a ballanced manner to voters. Over representation of either side therefore provides an unbalanced, undemocratic and indefensible attitude untill other options are guaranteed to be delivered.

  22. Here’s me thinking its about YES or NO, but really its about YES or NO, NO, NO, NO, NO (that would be political opposition plus media, plus pundits).

    Who knew?

    And on the back this revelation about our media is…

    The revelation that not only has our state broadcaster been found guilty of misleading the Scottish electorate by the BBC Trust but that they have no intention of publicly recanting the programme content in question or indeed of apologising to the public now or at any time in the future.

  23. How many times Mr Falkirkski. This. Is. Not. An. Election. The number of parties on each of the two sides is irrelevant, as you well know.

  24. Surely the Scottish Greens, SSP and SNP should get equal coverage with the Conservatives, New Labour, and LibDems? If you are taking a party approach.

    I’m not sure where Nigel Farage, the Spanish PM and the Welsh FM stand in this. I thought they were not part of the campaign against Scotland being a country running its own affairs. They seem to have a big say though.

  25. A 50/50 split grahamski yes I do because if Better Together are um ,Better Together surely one spokesman shuld suffice. Or why not in the interest of balance a green spokesman , SNP , LfI , SSP or are the BBC quite comfortable reinforcing Better Togethers position that it is ‘only’ the SNP on the Yes side ?
    As for the campaign period , the BBC and STV should always be balanced/ neutral anyway in or out of a campaign or you could end up with parties who the Editor favours getting unjustified coverage , like UKIP or Labour – oh wait , we do

    • What about Putin, doesn’t he have a say now?

    • LfI? What political party is that?

      • It isn’t a political party, which is precisely the point being made to you, it’s not an election between political parties, it’s a REFERENDUM (the clue is in the name), delighted the penny is beginning to drop!

      • The party that Sir Charles Gray, Alex Mosson, jeane Freeman, Bob Thomson, Denis Canavan ( noo you must of heard of him in Falkirk) and Allan Grogan belong to.
        The one group of Labour supporters who have kept their principles and are prepared to stand up for them as opposed to Johanns gang , who appear quite happy for the Tories to fund BT and the name of the Labour Party ( and members) be used as the battering ram in the Referendum .
        Principles or party Grahamski? Which one do you belong to?
        Of course, in Labour for Indy , you could keep both –

  26. Another day of silence by the BBC, STV and Scottish newspapers. As I understand it the BBC and the STV are not even responding directly to viewers. It has become a Wall of Silence.

  27. GMS spent all of yesterday trying to compare the Scottish NHS with the English one on a non event of a story…Silence on the media bias complaint …strange that!

  28. A fair debate should surely be between one side who has a vested interest in remaining in the UK versus one side who has no vested interest in so remaining. ie 50:50, not as is regularly the case 75:25

    • Since the SNP have done nothing NOT connected with separation in the last two years are you really suggesting that a quarter of Scotland’s main political parties should enjoy 50% coverage?

      Incidentally, the so-called academic report is not nearly as scientific or objective as they would like us to believe.

      They have counted the statements rather than airtime devoted to both sides of the debate.

      So for example they would count a package which contains 6 minutes of SNP speaking and two minutes of Labour, Tory and LibDem speaking as 3:1 in favour of the UK.

      Clearly a ludicrous and inaccurate interpretation of the broadcast, I’m sure you will agree.

      • The SNP administration has been governing Scotland very competently for nearly 7 years.

      • I think that you have missed the point. This is not an election, it is a referendum in which people are invited to vote yes or no to a single question. There is no reason why political parties should be allowed a greater say than you or I as individuals.

  29. If the now proven bias of BBC & STV was inadvertent, they’d cover the UWoS report and undertake to address the problem.

    The very fact they are blanking it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bias is intentional.

    • The very fact they are blanking suggests the broadcast media don’t see it as a news story of any merit.

      Strangely enough neither do the print media.

      Either that is because those in control of news in Scotland’s media don’t consider the report reliable enough to report or there’s an evil conspiracy across Scotland’s media.

      Tin foil hats at the ready!!!

  30. Grahamski: Have you not taken your medicine again, Go pop your pills and go for a wee sleep. There’s a good boy, and don’t suck your thumb! You never know where it’s been.

  31. I would definitely suggest that Dr Robertson’s report is flawed. My experience during the period mentioned suggest that the bias in favour of the NO campaign is much greater than 3:2.

  32. Whatever the Unionist stooges have to say about the matter, the fact is that the media will be giving this as little coverage as possible because they are, to a degree, and at a certain level being told what to do to preserve almighty Brittannia.

    That, as always, comes before everything else.

    The bottom line is, eventually they lose 😉

  33. “Since the SNP have done nothing NOT connected with separation in the last two years are you really suggesting that a quarter of Scotland’s main political parties should enjoy 50% coverage?”

    Care to back that up with some proof?

    It seems to me that you are always quick off the mark with soundbites but never respond to follow up questions, how very New Labour……….

  34. What interests me more (and not for the first time) is how quiet YES Scotland has been on the impartiality issue. I wrote to my local MP (Roderick Campbell) asking him what his position was re the BBC and impartiality in light of the BBC Trust’s findings on the Lucinda Creighton reporting, and I got a response saying that media was not a devolved matter but that he had written to Lord Patten. I followed this e-mail up earlier with a further query relating to this report, and asking if he would raise the matter at FMQs.

    It is no doubt possible to question the methodology of almost any report, this is the bedrock of modern academia these days after all. However, this report should not be dismissed out of hand, it merits serious public scrutiny. The MSM has no interest in tackling the problem of media bias or even discussing it, that would be a very unseemly can of worms to open…

    To be honest any intelligent person does not need an academic report to put the integrity of Scotland’s media in question, but it definitely helps. Incidentally, you could go through any of Scotland’s ‘smaller’ universities and find world leading experts in many disciplines. Judge the research on its merits and and not on where it comes from. This is incidentally why much of academic publishing rests on anonymous peer review….

    • I think talking about this on a blog is insufficient response in itself and We need to take a leaf out of your book and Derek’s and write to our MSP and the media bosses .
      It’s a dangerous game these people are playing by ignoring this problem and will I’m sure rebound on them

  35. The problems the BBC is storing up for itself are very substantial. The Westminster Tories are watching all that is happening. Incidentally, the same applies to Labour in Scotland. Labour is failing, it just hasn’t reached the end game yet. The Tories have considered Scotland a Labour stronghold, but they can see it has lost a massive amount of support. That won’t go unnoticed.
    Through the Savile scandal and the falling support for the BBC in Scotland, from a report showing it is biased, this plays into their hands.
    Weakness is always noted; the BBC has turned out to have feet of clay.
    We will see what happens in the review of the licence fees coming up in a couple of years and what the BBC has to do to survive in its present form.

  36. “Look Senga! A’ the sojers are oot o’ step but oor Grahamski”

  37. Balance? Where’s John Swinney’s comment then?

  38. From the so-called (ahem) ‘scientific’ report:

    “..typically a Westminster scare story, on the Yes campaign, mostly left unanswered and unchallenged.
    So, on the objective evidence presented here, the mainstream TV coverage of the first year of the independence referendum campaigns has not been fair or balanced…”

    Objective evidence which includes phrases like ‘Westminster scare story’?

    Hardly balanced or objective.

    No wonder the professional news providers in our country have given this shoddy piece of propaganda the wide berth it deserves…

  39. My advice. DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!

  40. Sorry posted this to the wrong article, now posting correctly, anyone want to sign?

    Dear David,

    Thanks for signing my petition, “The BBC: 1.Report without bias during the Scottish Referendum Campaign 2. Respond to “Fairness in the first Year?” University of the West of Scotland by John Robertson indicating bias in favour of NO campaign..”

    Can you help this petition win by asking your friends to sign too? It’s easy to share with your friends on Facebook – just click here to share the petition on Facebook.

    There’s also a sample email below that you can forward to your friends.

    Thanks again — together we’re making change happen,

    Maureen Fairgrieve


    Note to forward to your friends:


    I just signed the petition “The BBC: 1.Report without bias during the Scottish Referendum Campaign 2. Respond to “Fairness in the first Year?” University of the West of Scotland by John Robertson indicating bias in favour of NO campaign.” on

    It’s important. Will you sign it too? Here’s the link:



  41. Your style is very unique in comparison to other people I’ve
    read stuff from. Thank you for posting when you’ve got the opportunity, Guess I will just bookmark this page.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s