The Truth Hurts!

· by · in Politics, Unionism. ·

The start of the summer holidays is always good for bringing a smile to my face.  If that weren’t enough, though, the on-going debate about Scotland’s future has taken an unexpected turn into the realm of comedy gold!

I’m talking, of course, about the ludicrous “protest” outside of BBC Scotland over the alleged bias being shown in BBC coverage of the referendum debate.

It’s hard to find something about the whole thing that isn’t hilarious!

There’s the bit when the organisers claimed there were thousands in attendance, only to be corrected – AGAIN – by Police Scotland!

There’s the fact that there are often similar complaints of bias to be found among unionists; one of the best signs that BBC coverage is pretty much spot on in terms of balance!

Image

But it was this nugget from the “event” organiser, more than anything, which nearly had me choking on my cornflakes:

Whether Scotland votes ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, let it be based on facts provided in a fair and accurate way, not because people have been misguided.

THAT is their complaint – a lack of “accuracy”?!  This from an event that can’t even accurately report on its OWN attendance figures?!

The Big Yin himself couldn’t come up with a better joke!

That aside, if issues of accuracy really are their main gripe, the BBC is not the culprit they need to be worrying about.  Ms Williams would be better off packing up her wee bandwagon and rolling it down the M8 to Edinburgh, so that she can give the Scottish Government an earful!  Because THAT’S the ONLY place where “fact” is a dirty word in this debate (just look at the embarrassing to-ing-and-fro-ing going on over the estimated start-up costs for a new state if you don’t believe me!).

I’ll end today by pointing out a basic fact that Team Judas seem utterly incapable of grasping:

When EVERYONE – the media, celebrities, business leaders, political commentators, independent experts, and even leaders from around the world – disagrees with you…that’s NOT bias!

You’re just WRONG!

Now, back to my cornflakes…

17 responses to “The Truth Hurts!”

    • Thanks for your comment ,yodamo.

      It’s a bit of a generalisation, I admit, but “everyone” seems to be fairly close to accurate, yes 🙂

  2. The bias of the BBC is nt merely alleged. It has been clearly proved by academic researchers. But the, you wouldn’t know that because the BBC has decided that you shouldn’t be made aware of such facts. And you are dumb enough to trust them.

    • Thanks for your comment, Peter. I would love to reply to your point, but would first ask you to provide a link to this “research” so I can do so.

    • Thanks for your comment, eyesopen.

      That certainly is an interesting article, and I regret I have no evidence to dispute its arguments with regard to the “Vote No Borders” campaign. If it is true – and, having nothing to do with VNB, I can’t say one way or the other – it was pretty foolish of them to try and pass themselves off as something they aren’t. It can only harm their credibility.

      On the other hand, it wouldn’t be the first time a group had claimed to be something they aren’t in this debate…”Labour” (by which they meant SNP) for Independence, anyone?!

      Oh, and I would say as well that this nationalist tendency to attack the player rather than the ball – by going after someone’s background, birth place, familial ties (such as the treatment of poor Clare Lally) and so forth, rather than responding to their actual points – is pretty telling about the quality of their arguments.

      • Thanks for your reply Pantombrit.

        What they said is a discussion for another time perhaps a different post on it, I am talking about what you said in relation to BBC bias. If you wish to discuss what was actually said I will be happy to do so. The BBC portrayed VNB as a spontaneous movement of local Scots, which they are not. Poor Clare Lally nothing, this “ordinary housewife” wheeled in from Better Together Land, more lies!

        Labour of Indy founder and leader Allan Grogan is a Scottish Labour Party activist

        Labour for Indy have many members from Scottish Labour and UNISON as do the SSP/RIC alliance as previous members of the Labour party before joining SSP

      • The BBC portrayed VNB as what VNB itself portrays itself to be, eyesopen. The earliest report on the BBC I could find says:

        A new grassroots pro-Union group called No Borders launches later to make what it says is an “emotional” appeal to voters.

        Its spokesman, Malcolm Offord, is an investment banker originally from Greenock who now works in London and Scotland. He said the group’s aim was to engage with voters’ emotions and promote “ordinary voices”.

        Mr Offord told the BBC: “It is going to allow people to tell their stories. These are not polished political voices but they are from local communities within Scotland and they are going to give the reasons why they want to keep the Union.”

        Regardless of where its money comes from, its commenters have certainly fulfilled the “not polished political voices” criteria outlined here. And the fact remains that attacking the people, rather than what they’re saying, only makes plain that you CAN’T dispute their arguments and have to instead resort to attacking their right to make them.

        Incidentally, that report also goes on to describe a similar anti-UK group that was being set up around the same time.

        Or there’s this report, about the withdrawal of a VNB advert after complaints from Great Ormond Street Hospital. If it was as biassed as you claim – and as so-called “reputable” sources identified by separatists, like Newsnet or Wings Over Scotland (neither of which can bring themselves to say anything remotely positive about the pro-Union message, or negative about the anti-UK message), supposedly are – why would it be criticising a pro-UK group?!

        And Clare Lally’s claims to be an ordinary housewife, by the way, are a good deal stronger than Yes Scotland’s claim to being independent of the SNP! But it’s immaterial; attacking her only again highlights your inability to attack her arguments!

        Oh, and as for your point about “Labour” for Independence; the few times it has been pictured actively campaigning, its small number of volunteers has been proven to be overwhelmingly dominated by SNP figures. Claiming it is “Labour” because its founder was once somehow affiliated with the Labour party is like claiming a group called “Women for Unity” could be said to represent women despite 80% of its membership being men!

      • That’s right but BBC claim impartiality but they didn’t research it before broadcasting and just took what a pro-union campaign were saying as gospel.

        I couldn’t care less about Clare Lally it was you that brought her in it and I am not attacking her, yet again you guys cry wolf every times someone merely points out flaws in your logic.

        To repeat, This whole Blog/Post is discussing BBC bias and that is what I’m commenting on.

        The BBC reported on Standard life releasing a statement to their shareholders, this was wrongly reported in all national and regional news bulletins giving the impression they would leave Scotland, which they never actually said, then to make matters worse when Grangemouth and then Stagecoach showed their support a few days later for indy the stories were largely ignored. Similarly the nasty comments JK Rowling received were splattered all over regional and national news but two weeks prior to that when the Weirs received death treats that never got reported, I could go on

      • We could go back and forward about VNB all day…but why bother? Why is it relevant anyway?! As I said in previous replies, petty gripes about who is making the comment – such as those against VNB, which, regardless of funding and leadership, IS a unionist organisation that spreads pro-UK stories from ordinary people, just as they claim – is not as important as what the comment says. And whether or not you choose to completely ignore what they say and simply because you’ve decided they don’t have the right to say it is your business.

        As for the examples you cite at the end of your comment:

        Standard life say the following in their annual report (available at http://www.standardlife.com/static/docs/2014/ara.pdf):

        We will continue to seek clarity on [matters relating to constitutional change], but uncertainty is likely to remain. In view of this, there are steps we will take based on our analysis of the risks. For example, we have started work to establish additional registered companies to operate outside Scotland, into which we could transfer parts of our operations if it was necessary to do so. This is a precautionary measure to ensure continuity of our businesses’ competitive position and to protect the interests of our stakeholders. As Chief Executive, my commitment is whatever happens, we will continue to serve the needs of our customers and maintain our competitive position.

        And this is what the BBC reported (available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26364418):

        Standard Life’s announcement that it may move operations outside Scotland in the event of independence has sparked a political row. The company said it was putting the contingency plan in place because of uncertainty over issues like currency.

        This is, more or less WORD FOR WORD, what they said in their report! And the only mention of a potential departure from Scotland by Standard Life in the BBC report – which, by the way, while not explicitly stated in the Standard Life briefing is a CLEAR implication of “transfering operations elsewhere” – comes from a quote of Johann Lamont!

        I’m not sure what you mean by “Grangemouth”, which is a town.

        And Stagecoach – or at least certain representatives of it wearing their “personal opinion” hats – may well speak positively about separation. Their corporate side, however, had this to say (available at http://www.stagecoach.com/~/media/Files/S/Stagecoach-Group/Attachments/media/press/pr2014/2014-06-25.pdf):

        There is a risk that changes to the regulatory environment or changes to the availability of public funding could affect the Group’s prospects. Such changes may arise as a result of the outcomes of the September 2014 referendum on Scottish independence and/or the 2015 UK general election.

        Separation, then, is a potential risk to “the Group’s prospects”. And before you respond by saying the general election in 2015 is identified as well, I concede. It isn’t unionists that are trying to deny that risks exist, after all!

        On your last point, I would start by agreeing – the personal abuse heaped on the Weirs is every bit as wrong as that heaped on J K Rowling. In fact, I have argued with fellow unionists about it; attacking the Weirs’ donation as an attempt to “buy” the future but then welcoming Rowling’s money is blatant hypocrisy! Personally, I think that comments on the situation with the Weirs should’ve been confined to criticisms of Yes Scotland for being a much less “broad based” campaign than they like to pretend (given that as much as THREE QUARTERS of their money has come from two people!). But that’s just me.

        In any case, I would point out that the BBC DID report about the abuse the Weirs suffered: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27323186. And any greater prominence given to Rowling’s situation can be explained by the fact that she is a bit more prominent a public figure than two lottery winners (not trying to be mean to them, just stating the obvious!).

        So I say again – any bias separatists like to identify in the media has MUCH more to do with the fact that you don’t like the truth than it does with any ACTUAL bias that exists. And if you don’t believe me, you need look no further than the sources held up by separatists as trustworthy, like Newsnet and Wings Over Scotland who, as I noted earlier, are pathologically INCAPABLE of reporting on the UK or the pro-Union cause in any way that could possibly be construed as positive. Like most followers of separatism, in fact, they aren’t even willing to openly criticise their own side (as happens constantly of the unionist cause in the mainstream media, and as I have done repeatedly, even in very this comment!). Unless you have an example to the contrary?

  5. Reblogged this on Are We Really Better Together? and commented:
    This is a first for me; my first reblog of an article from the No side of the campaign. When I started this blog I genuinely wanted to present arguments from both sides of the referendum, and while I make no bones about being an ardent supporter of independence, I am very open to a proper airing of the arguments from both sides. Unfortunately I have not really been able to find what I consider to be reasonable arguments being expressed in favour of Scotland remaining within the Union. Not that I have managed to today either. This appeared in my Facebook feed from the site ‘Vote NO to Scottish independence and protect the union’ and is typical of the sort of article that site likes to share.

    I’ll leave it to you to decide what you make of the tone and content of this article but I wanted to highlight one particular sentence;

    “When EVERYONE – the media, celebrities, business leaders, political commentators, independent experts, and even leaders from around the world – disagrees with you…that’s NOT bias!”

    There is one glaring word (conveniently highlighted in the original) that shows just how out of touch with reality – either through ignorance or deliberate policy – that some of the No propagandists are. Nobody, with any sense or decent level of education, can honestly believe that ‘everyone’ disagrees with the people who support independence for Scotland and this simple statement is the single best example of confirmation bias that I have ever had the misfortune to read.

    • Thank you for your reblog and your comment, Hugh.

      I take your point about my closing remark there completely, and can only apologise. When I closed this post with:

      “When EVERYONE – the media, celebrities, business leaders, political commentators, independent experts, and even leaders from around the world – disagrees with you…that’s NOT bias!”

      I am happy to concede that I am neither willing nor able to complete the appropriate amount of research needed to confidently use the word “everyone” in the literal, every-living-soul-on-Earth sense. In fact, I’m pretty confident that if I DID do said research, I would be able to uncover some people that DO agree with you.

      You’ve caught me; my use of the word “everyone” was disgustingly misleading!

      OR…

      It could be that I was exaggerating for (mostly comedic) effect; something that amateur bloggers are more than entitled to do, particularly where it doesn’t actually impact on the point being made.

      ALL of Scotland’s largest employers support Better Together. So do most of its most famous sons and daughters (you can keep Shir Sean). Practically every objective and impartial study – that’s the ones that haven’t been composed with a particular agenda in mind – are either pro-Union or neutral. I’m not aware of a SINGLE world leader that has come out in support of a split either; every single one – including the likes of the EU leadership and the President of the United States – that’s declared their view has come out for the Union!

      So no, from a strict, literal perspective, the word “everyone” doesn’t apply.

      It’s not far off, though, is it?!

  6. Why hold a demo outside one of your main ‘backers’ i.e. BBCScotland the mouthpiece of the YES campaign.. It’s BBC London they’re really annoyed with, for telling the TRUTH

    • Thanks for your comment, Allan.

      In fairness to BBC Scotland, the fact that both sides complain about their coverage suggests to me that they’re probably giving both sides a fair airing, all things considered!

Leave a comment