Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 7th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

UK minister 'totally opposes' plan for Scottish Six news



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 13 June 2008
UK CULTURE Secretary Andy Burnham made it clear yesterday that he was totally against the idea of the so-called "Scottish Six" news bulletin.
Mr Burnham told The Scotsman that the ultimate decision for BBC Scotland to opt out of the Six o'Clock News rested with the BBC, but he said any attempt to break up the corporation into Scottish or English parts would be bad for viewers and listener
s throughout the United Kingdom.

The minister, in Glasgow for meetings with senior Scottish broadcasters, said he would do all he could to make sure the BBC increased its Scottish programming, but insisted this was best done within a UK context.

Mr Burnham's visit to Scotland came in the wake of a major report by the BBC Trust which accused the corporation's political coverage of being biased towards London.

The review said the BBC was "falling short of its own high standards" and "failing to meet its core purpose of informing democracy", and it found that more than a third of viewers thought that BBC news reports were often not relevant to where they lived.

Alex Salmond, the First Minister, has set up a commission to look into the possibility of broadcasting being devolved to the Scottish Parliament, after claiming that only 3 per cent of network budgets were spent on Scottish programming.

Mr Burnham said that, while he wanted to see more programming from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions, he did not want the BBC to go any further and split into distinct national entities, which isolated parts serving different parts of the UK.

On the issue of increased Scottish programming, Mr Burnham said: "I will be pushing the BBC on this. There is a commitment to significantly increasing the amount of programming commissioned from Scotland, and we will be holding the BBC to that commitment via the BBC Trust."

Mr Burnham stressed that the decision on the creation of a Scottish Six – a news hour based in Scotland for Scotland, rather than half an hour from London and half an hour from Scotland – was up to the BBC.

The Culture Secretary said: "I come from a very non-London background; I can have some sympathy with the frustrations people may have had over time."

And he added: "The last thing I want to see is the break-up of the BBC to make a political structure. That would be bad for Scotland and also bad for the UK and bad for viewers everywhere.

"The BBC works as a collective whole. It works in that it provides high-quality news, current-affairs programming and drama to everyone and, on the whole, it does a pretty good job at reflecting life and in covering news in all parts of the UK.

"Can it do better? Yes it can, and it must raise its game."



The full article contains 485 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 12 June 2008 10:05 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: The BBC
 
1

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 13/06/2008 00:02:10
Again the integrity of the BBC is compromised by political interference.

No firm committment from Burnham except to ensure the BBC remains centralised.

Pathetic end to real concerns uncovered by the BBC itself. Labour must go.
2

Edward,

13/06/2008 00:14:40
Pathetic little creep coming up to Scotland and preeching that we should be happy with what we have and that he will get the BBC to increase out put from Scotland. Its stomach churning to say the last
We dont want political intereference, thats what happened when the BBC wanted to put out a Scottish Six before, they were stopped in there tracks by Labour
3

Jwil,

13/06/2008 00:37:37
I understood that the BBC had already said that it would not introduce a Scottish Six as it would threaten the breakup of the UK.

All the more reason to press for it in my opinion.
4

,

13/06/2008 00:40:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

David MacVicar,

web 13/06/2008 00:42:19
Lets imagine that this is a UK business serving UK consuler, which it actually is!

Now consider just one comment:"The minister, in Glasgow for meetings with senior Scottish broadcasters, said he would do all he could to make sure the BBC increased its Scottish programming"

No concrete commitment whatsoever. Totally NOT good enough! I want to see commitment on Non London and especially Scottish spending and programming for Scottish viewers (consumers).

This guy would be sacked in a private sector.
=============

We can sack this inglorious bunch fairly soon - YES to independence, its the ONLY recipe for a Scottish vision as as opposed to an anglo one.
6

David MacVicar,

13/06/2008 00:43:06
Should be "UK business serving UK consumer,"
7

Senga Jean,

13/06/2008 00:50:36
Well . my licence fee strike is getting closer!
8

Richard1,

13/06/2008 00:58:05
The BBC,should be scrapped or,made a subscription service after digital switchover.
9

Richard1,

13/06/2008 01:02:18
Most Scot's are socialist in their political leaning's,while most English are conservative,to have a Liberal BBC forced on us English is even more unfair.The liberal Democrats can't get into Downing Street so,they use a media mouthpeice payed by a compulsary tax.
10

Pat Scot,

13/06/2008 01:36:48
I don't care, cos I don't get home in time. I'd like something of the quality of Channel 4 news for Scotland, though.

Broadcasting as a devolved issue? There's plenty of choice between BBC, STV, Grampian, so I find it difficult to get passionate about it.
11

An Beal Bacht,

13/06/2008 02:37:14
"Mr Burnham said that, while he wanted to see more programming from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions, he did not want the BBC to go any further and split into distinct national entities, which isolated parts serving different parts of the UK."

So it's okay for Scotland to get anglocentric news and programming then? Aye no "national entity" doon there in Londonistan - they're cosmopolitan don't ye know!
12

Guga II,

Rockall 13/06/2008 02:42:51
Time to scrap the iniquitous EBC television tax. The EBC should be forced to compete on the open market. If anyone actually wants to watch it, they can convert it into an encrypted subscription service.

Broadcasting in Scotland should come under the control of the Scottish parliament, as should everything else in Scotland. Roll on independence.
13

,

13/06/2008 04:09:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
14

,

13/06/2008 04:10:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

donald,

glasgow 13/06/2008 06:14:22
EBC and Hammie MacDonell. What a Brit combination.
16

Colin Wilson,

Aberdeen 13/06/2008 06:20:14
"Mr Burnham said that, while he wanted to see more programming from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions..."

This is either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the issue.

The root of the current problem is that the class of people, who currently run the BBC, are incapable of taking Scotland seriously. Their education and social conditioning make it impossible.

Any system, that does not take adequate account of this, is bound to fail.
17

Jay Kay,

13/06/2008 06:54:30
Teenager faces life in jail after second trial over brutal murder.

On this topic I would just like to say Hang the b*stards hang em high, its time to bring back capital punishment, its long overdue folks.

This is the only thing these animals understand and let me make this clear theu are animals.
18

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 13/06/2008 07:13:12
This political interference makes my blood boil. Burnham is quite happy to ignore the views of many Scots. Labour will pay for this selective deafness.
19

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 13/06/2008 07:26:31
I had never previously heard of this Andy Burnham character and quite frankly don’t give a monkey’s what is views are on the future of Scottish broadcasting.

I suggest he returns to wherever he emerged from, and concentrates upon promoting Morris Dancing, warm flat beer, cricket and sneering at the Euro 2008 qualifiers.
20

john z,

edinburgh 13/06/2008 07:28:19
Typical nonsense from a nonsense member of a nonsense government based in England. If it really is up to the BBC, then Andy Burnham should stop trying to disrupt the legitimate decision making process by interfering politically.

This is EXACTLY the kind of political interference in state media that happens in communist dictatorships.

Everyone in the UK likes to think we are living in a model democracy, but under London Labour we are most definitely not. Conctinually we see them using weasel worded press releases which they themselves are really clever, and the public won't see through.

What Mr.Burnham effectively said was' the Scottish six is entirely up to the BBC, but they should remember that we (labour) are in charge of funding of the BBC and will judge future funding based upon the BBCs' decision. The man should resign.

What a dirty piece of political slime Mr Burnham is. Why not go get a job in Burma or North Korea Mr.Burnham, where you could equally not interfere in the 'independent' state media??
21

Colin Wilson,

Aberdeen 13/06/2008 07:56:03
Re #22: AM2 would improve his argument by not using the hysterical term "separatist". Even the BBC itself only uses it with regard to armed guerilla movements such as ETA and the Tamil Tigers. As alternative I suggest "anti-unionist".
22

Unimpressed one,

13/06/2008 07:59:02
Great news. We don't need more Scottish cra*p on TV.
23

Lillig,

13/06/2008 08:02:34
Agree with Number 11

News in general, apart from Channel 4, has become so trivial, parochial and personality-centred that I tend to watch a foreign channel, such as Al Jazeera or France 24 if I want to get a broader view of world news. What the BBC serves up at Breakfast is a joke. I am sick of the absolute nonsense we have to endure. Brits are increasingly ignorant of what is happening in countries around them. Yet, BBC documentaries are great.

Why can't they extend the news programme to an hour and cover more world news in one part - and more REAL UK news in the other. Additionally, the UK regions need more news coverage of issues closer to them. This is not served by the BBC or, indeed, any of the other UK channels.

And if we also take into account the appalling state of the press media in Scotland - which is also trivial, south of Scotland focussed and dam@ned anti-Scottish at times, no wonder I don't buy newspapers.

I know more about what is happening in Iraq than in Scotland.

24

eric,

13/06/2008 08:04:07
Come on snp do the right thing SCRAP licence in scotland ,then ENGLISH will be winging for it to be scrapped too,finish these spongers off.
25

Conan the Librarian™,

13/06/2008 08:04:43
22
"A resounding noise, heard all around Scotland today,was believed to be astonished Scots falling off their computer chairs this morning at 7.39."

"It was caused, some believe, by a wrtten comment by a person only known as AM2"

"I would agree with those nationalists" Seemed to be the phrase in question.
26

Lillig,

13/06/2008 08:05:15
Oh, forgot to mention, Catriona who reads the "Scottish" news some mornings on BBC, dresses so horribly that there are mornings I am caught between choking on my Lavazza, laughing till I cry, or just weeping at the lack of dress sense (which equals being taken seriously on TV) for a newsreader.

Nothing against her - but, Catriona - buy yourself something less in-yer-face.
27

Jimmy the Pie,

13/06/2008 08:05:40
#25 Bob

I thought New Labour Sleaze ran the Hootsmoan???
28

Marian,

13/06/2008 09:03:34
The real truth is that New Labour will never again agree to anything that remotely gives Scotland any vestige of Independent thought, having made the "mistake" as they now see it of granting devolution.
29

Scotland to prosper...,

13/06/2008 09:11:04
#22 AND #23

Will it is admirable that Colin wishes to help AM2 improve his wording of posts, I would say Colin is in need of some help also.

It is neither “separatist” nor "anti-unionist"...it is "Pro-Scottish".

Why would I want to know about Boris banning alcohol on the underground before hearing about the latest to-ing and fro-ing in the Scottish Parliament?
And I’m sure its exactly the reverse for people living in London. They wouldn’t be happy hearing about how Salmond is ripping Labour to shreds before hearing about jolly Boris cleaning up their public transport.

Scotland should have priority at 6pm, it's where we live
30

Alan B,

13/06/2008 09:12:00
Have scottish editorial control of the news is important, as i can see no other way to improve the relevence and accuracy of the news to scotland.

Labour politicians fight against it not because they think it is better for scotland to have a london news but becuase of the political implications.

Blair pulled devolution of broadcasting from the devolution settlement under pressure from politicians like darling and reid for one reason. They fear that news showing scottish issues rather than solely english issues over things like education and health will make westminster feel more distant and irrelevent. We can all see how the uk news totally ignores eu politics and the european parliament if a scottish news was to be more international in its outlook and did not concentrate on london issues but scottish ones, say with murder stories or even with weather reports, england would slowly seem more distant.

The fact remains we should have a news service that covers scottish issues and is accurate and relevent.

There are 3 options:
1)have an international news and then switch to the nations news for each of the countries within the uk. Would be positive but labour would fight it as westmisnter which deals with 80% engish issues would be demoted in its importance.
2)have a reformed uk news covering all countries within the uk in an equal fashion. This will simply not happen. there is no way london will give welsh, ni and scottish issues equal prominence to english issues. Even within england they do not give the north equal prominence to london. A murder or shooting in london is more important than else where.
3)have editorial control of news passed to the 4 nations within the uk.

1 or 3 would be my preference, 2 the current system will simply not work and does not work.

1 could actually be the best as bbc news coverage of international news is poor. I would also like abit more depth to the news along the lines of C4.
31

Vincent-W,

13/06/2008 09:18:20
I for one will continue to listen to Radio 4 news and the World Service, both internationally recognized for quality.

There is a serious danger of becoming very inward looking - we could all end up like the caricatured American - with no knowledge of what happens outside of our immediate domain. I agree that there needs to be a local slant on how world issues affect Scotland but that hardly needs a separate SBC. And could a seperate SBC really fund the worldwide network of correspondants that the BBC can boast.

Some balance is required here, the more rabid posters above need to look at what Scots really need instead of playing out a narrow agenda. I want Scots to be inter- and intra- nationalist.
32

CwlCymro,

Cymru (Wales) 13/06/2008 09:43:28
the BBC is basically the EBC in disguise. Who wrote the latest report must have been called Captain Obvious because any Scot or Taff could have told you years ago that the BBC is extremely anglocentric. Even if they do cover a Welsh or Scottish story its usually from an English perspective. In Wales we have a Welsh language channel S4C, & they do a really good News program made by the BBC- not the crappy BBC Wales news but a full international news.
33

Alan B,

13/06/2008 09:49:53
#Vincent-W

I do not think the issue is about a scottish slant on world affairs. It is not really about international news. It is about the uk news component of bbc tv news.

This investigation showed that all health and educations stories were regarding england and not scotland.

As a welsh mp complained. The welsh assembly election got no coverage on national news. the only story regarding wales that did get a mention was something about an animal.

That is the point.
34

JayDeeTee,

13/06/2008 09:58:02
Why dont we get the BBC to switch the broadcast of the "national" news from London to , say, Edinburgh, and give it a Scottish bias. Wonder what this clown Burnham would think of that then? And what does a 'Culture Secretary' actually do every day on his (no doubt) huge salary and massive perks? Any idea anybody?
35

Jock MacTamson 2,

Highlands 13/06/2008 10:00:39
Heaven forbit a Scottish News providing information to the Scottish people about Scottish Affairs.

In this modern day they could cut and shape all these national and international news items easily to give a different news breifing in different parts of the british isles.

OR they could manipulate the press to not report important issues for examples how much Scottish Oil is in the North Sea. In fact if they had enough of a hold on the pathetic little minions in the press they could supress the story completely.

Imagine Oil was found off the coast of cornwall. You can be damn sure we would be seeing none of it.

It further sickens me to read the comments from people who not only seem to loath their country and wish they too were born in London but also want the rest of us to be denied the basic freedom of having media coverage in our little country that reflects what is actually going on.

36

European Scot,

13/06/2008 10:01:10
35 Vincent W

In this Digital Satellite age there would not be a huge expense setting up a Scottish Broadcaster, and getting access to International News footage these days is often done through Agencies, via Satellite, or land lines.
As for expertise there is certainly enough talent North of the border to create a more International, outward looking, but essentially Scottish News service.
Broadcasting in Scotland is 'reserved' to Westminster, and that is disgraceful.
The fact that it is, shows how important the influence of Broadcasting is regarded by our political masters in London.
Scotland, the only country in Europe that doesn't have its own National Television Service, you wouldn't credit it.
It's well past time that was put right.
A 'regional' flavoured BBC is not the answer.
A totally Independent Scottish Broadcaster is.
37

 Ayrshire Scot™,

13/06/2008 10:32:44
41. What a ludicrous post. Given the report has said the BBC covers Scotland very poorly, is the BBC then, by your logic, trying to limit knowledge of Scotland broadcast in the rest of the UK to underminde the Union?
38

Vincent-W,

13/06/2008 10:39:19
EuroScot - ever listened to R4 or the World Service?
39

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 13/06/2008 10:48:48
Mr. Burnham is too late!

In the Digital Age, it will eventually happen sooner, or later!

Otherwise, as time passes, the BBC will find it almost impossible to justify its annual increase in the licence fee!
40

European Scot,

13/06/2008 11:15:22
43 Vincent W

Yes indeed, I used to listen to Radio 4 when at home, and the World Service when I worked in the Middle East.
However last year at the time of the Scottish Elections, whilst here in Spain I
watched 'BBC World', and tried to pick up some news on the run up to those Elections. Nothing at all.
On other Channels, French, Spanish, German, CNN etc. there were some items. On the night before the Elections there was a scant little item on 'BBC World', and on the day itself minimal coverage.
Now you may argue that this wasn't of World Interest, but it clearly was, as there were TV crews in Scotland from all over the World. One French Channel had a correspondent there, as did a Spanish Channel.
The 'BBC World' coverage was minimal.
It really was censorship, restricting the amount of time given over to an item about the subject of Scotland, and the SNP, an Independence Party !
The Unionist BBC wasn't about to devote too much airtime to that one.
Scotland should definitely have its own Broadcaster.
41

Highland Mighty,

13/06/2008 11:20:34
45. Utter rubbish.

So you scanned all these international news channels and found that all were reporting on the Holyrood elections?

How often do you see reports on German lander elections? Or US state elections? Or Australian state elections?
42

Highland Mighty,

13/06/2008 11:24:11
No?

How about Dutch national elections? Icelandic national elections? Belgian national elections?

Do you see the international media covering these?

No, of course not. Yet you claim they all came to Scotland because......
43

Highland Mighty,

13/06/2008 11:27:01
In conclusion, this is yet more delusion from those who actually believes the world is interested in the SNP.

Recently, there was one nat wondering why the world's media was not covering "the global event" that was the SNP Annual Conference!
44

 Ayrshire Scot™,

13/06/2008 11:31:30
48. You seem mighty interested, to the point of a weird obsessive complusive disorder, with the SNP...
45

Shredder,

13/06/2008 11:53:09
#49: That sounds like one hell of a psychiatric complaint, Dr Ayrshire!
46

Alan B,

13/06/2008 11:55:43
#AM2

"Despite generally very good international news coverage from the BBC"

would have to say i do not think the BBC international news is good. i would actually say it is poor.

but international news is not really the issue. the issue is uk news ignores issues that are not english. this recent report shows that.

the question is how ur resolve it. i do think there is anyway that u will sustainably get a london based news to give scottish, welsh or NI stories the same prominence as english and probably more accurately london based issues.

The big problem is the english viewing public are generally are not seen as being interested in the details of scottish, welsh or ni political activity. A such english political stories are carried by uk news to the exclusion of political stories from the other nations.

I remember being alot better inform about NI when i lived for a short time in the republic of ireland than i have ever been living on mainland uk, due to the nature of the news we see.
47

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

13/06/2008 11:55:54
Of course you could always do what I did over 4 years ago!

What did you do, Neal, what did you do?

I got RID of my TV.

Yes folks,I do not own one, watch one or need one. I have a PC with DVD player, Music and Games.

For News I go Online to places like this.

Get rid of your TV's - think of the Money you'll save!!
48

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

13/06/2008 12:00:59
"But what will we do instead?" I hear you cry.

"Read Books, Go Out, Spend Quality Time with your Family, you know, like your Parents and Grand-parents used to do!"

"But what about the Soaps and such?"

"Don't be so sad, it's NOT REAL"

"But that means I've got to talk to Him / Her"

"Good, perhaps there'll be less Domestic Break-up then"
49

European Scot,

13/06/2008 12:02:31
46/47

"How about Dutch national elections? Icelandic national elections? Belgian national elections?"

Yes I watch such items on Euronews, it tends to give a wider, more European look to its news. You in your more parochial, insular little 'UK' World, perhaps wouldn't be quite so aware of that wider scenario.
Interesting to see you mention German Lander Elections, US State Elections and Australian State Elections.
What do State Elections have to do with a Country's Elections ?
Still dredging up this comparison of a Country with a State.
The Scottish Elections were indeed followed by International Broadcasters, it was the local one that played them down.
Your post at 46 starts with 'Utter Rubbish', that certainly proved to be an accurate headline for what followed.
50

sigholm,

ayr 13/06/2008 12:09:07
We pay the exhorbitant licence fee,we pay the obscene salaries of what the BBC deem to be,entertainers.
Yet these mindless politicians have the cheek to tell us what is best for us to view.
Get them on a public platform, so we can have a verbal go.The Idiots.
51

Vincent-W,

13/06/2008 12:55:12
Euro Scot - the state of California would rank as the 9th biggest economy in the world. Bavaria's economy is five times Scotland. Even Swabia can boast as many inluential people as Scotland. Scotland ranks about 55th below Kazakhstan, Peru and Algeria.

No dredging - it's a justifiable comparison.

52

Jock MacTamson 2,

Highlands 13/06/2008 13:00:34
I personally use Google News via a customised preference to read my International News. I also watch CNN/FOX/Aljazeera/Euro/CCTV in order to get a balanced and mixed view of world news events. I certainly do not trust outletslike the Scotsman and its sickening anti-scottish stance to report facts and details. I come here for the comments pages and to monitor the progress of the Scottish people towards independence while getting to hear the points of view of the Labour diehards and unionista.

53

European Scot,

13/06/2008 13:35:19
56 Vincent W

Here we go again, so now it's all to do with physical size.
Tell me should Portugal and Spain unite and call themselves Iberia ?
It would be much bigger, and Geographically it would look so much neater !
California is not a country, it's a State.
Bavaria is a State.
Scotland is a country.
California for all I know may be Geographically bigger than the whole of Britain, but it is still a State.
We are talking of comparing apples with apples.
Not throwing in some pears and then trying to make comparisons with apples.
There is no justifiable comparison between the status of a State and the status of a Country, they are two different things.
Portugal and Spain are at the United Nations.
California isn't, neither is Bavaria, etc.
Although not yet at the UN, Scotland is still a Country, it is not a State.
Much as you Unionists would like it to be !
Interestingly, and more in line with this thread, many of these States have their own Broadcasters, unlike Scotland, where it's not allowed.
Off to Lunch.
54

Shave,

Edinburgh 13/06/2008 13:45:41
#60 European Scot - "many of these States have their own Broadcasters, unlike Scotland, where it's not allowed"

Erm, STV?
55

Vincent-W,

13/06/2008 13:57:37
Euroscot - you are one for making assumptions, what makes you think I'm a unionist? There are more than two sorts of people in the world you know.

The point I'm making is that in terms of their impact on world events, to an internationalist like myself, news from Bavaria, California, Kazakhstan, and Peru is very important.

Seeing as your knowledge is so poor, let me tell you there is a sizeable independance movement in California. If she did secede from the Union then Californian affairs would certainly be near the top of my 'desired news' list.

Nationalism (not just Scottish Nationalism) does worry me because it can be non-constructive.
56

Davie08,

Edinburgh 13/06/2008 14:56:09
68 Jackie you deserve a medal for replying to AM2. Personally I have got to the stage where I can't get to the end of his posts without being overcome by an overwhelming torpor. I fear that he is depriving a saloon bar somewhere of its bore.
Concerning BBC bias may I suggest that those of you watching the European Championships play 'jingo bingo.' See how long into the match it takes the commentators to mention England or the premiership and how often. The record stands currently at one minute and twenty eight seconds when in the Germany match the commentator started waffling on about today should have been the day when the nations (sic) pubs should be filling up and the offices emptying to watch England against Germany.
57

,

13/06/2008 15:05:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
58

European Scot,

13/06/2008 16:31:38
63 Vincent-W

" you are one for making assumptions, what makes you think I'm a unionist? There are more than two sorts of people in the world you know."

Firstly, allow me an attempt at a grovelling excuse, I was trying to answer your post in a hurry, as I was rather late for lunch.
So as far as my assumption is concerned, well that was based on countless posts from Unionists on here, who continue to compare Scotland with States, or Regions.
As it appears my assumption was wrong, I'll apologise, and withdraw that one.
I agree about the importance of International News, and would want a Scottish News Service that reflected that.
As for your comment about California, and its Independence movement, yes I was aware of that, but that doesn't change where we are at right now.
California remains a State, and at this moment in time, it is not a country.
Scotland is.
So I'll repeat, let's compare apples with apples, please.
For 'Nationalism' read positively supporting the Independence of your country.
I wouldn't support any extremist form of Nationalism, nor would most members of the SNP, which is a left of centre Democratic Party.
Finally, you made a statement about my knowledge being so poor, well that's as maybe, but at least I can spell Independence ! !
59

European Scot,

13/06/2008 16:44:10
61 Shave

"Erm, STV?"

Erm, No.
As far as I am aware 'STV' is a commercial station, it is not a State Broadcaster.
Scotland does not have its own National Broadcaster.
Broadcasting is 'reserved' to Westminster.
That's why you have 'BBC Scotland'.
60

European Scot,

13/06/2008 16:59:04
66 AM2

"Bavaria was an independent country until 1871. A great many Bavarians have a distinctive national identity. There is a Bavarian independence movement; Google "Bayernpartei". Just curious, but on what basis do you deny Bavarian nationhood?"

Good Evening AM2, shouldn't there be another 6 ?!
Friday 13th, oh dear is this visitation an 'Omen' ?
No I certainly wouldn't deny Bavaria, or any other part of the World, where the majority of its people voted to be an Independent country.
The question isn't about what might be, or even will happen, it's about what actually exists at this time.
As far as I know Bavaria hasn't as yet applied to the United Nations.
This is all about Scotland, being compared with States or Regions.
That is not a correct comparison.
Anyway, what about little old Ireland shaking up the EU ?
Now that's what I call democracy.
I support the EU in many ways, and I do hope that Scotland will be a member soon, but it does seem that this Treaty may have been a step too far.
It will be interesting to see what happens next.
Mustn't be late for the Footie !
61

Enigma,

13/06/2008 17:55:50
No suprise to see the usual rent a mob of tub thumpers indulging their daily dose of anglo bashing. Roll on independence from these petty minded bigots.
62

McMadman,

Saor Alba 13/06/2008 18:32:00
Hello again Enignorant. Or is it Enignoranus ? Both apply to your last post.
63

McMadman,

Saor Alba 13/06/2008 18:33:43
AM2

"Q: How proud are you of being British, or do you not see yourself as British at all?
• Very proud 23.8%
• Somewhat proud 40.9% <<< ME
• Not very proud 13.2%
• Not at all proud 4.8%
• Not British 16.3% <<< YOU?
• Don't know 0.9%"

Hardly conclusive proof. It depends on the question put. If maintaining "britishness" as an identity was so vital and people were so proud of it, how come support for maintaining the union was only 33% at the last holyrood elections ?
64

Enigma,

13/06/2008 18:38:28
79

See you are still rude and too stupid to realise it.
65

Enigma,

13/06/2008 18:42:09
79

And how eloquently you make my case, but probably to dense to realise it.
66

McMadman,

Saor Alba 13/06/2008 18:53:56
#81 and #82,

Calling you ignorant and an ignoramus is neither rude nor ignorant. It is completely accurate.

Neither is intended as a comment on your intellectual capacity, though your post #78 is a liitle lacking in sparkilng repartee.

"Ignoramus" Latin - literally "we are ignorant" - applies to you and your ilk and their constant postings, like your no 78, long on invective, short on rationale and evidence. "Ignorant" - same common root as "Ignoramus;" from "ignorare" (not to know) and "ignarus" (not knowing).

I think this sufficient explanation from someone "to dense" according to you.
67

Enigma,

13/06/2008 20:12:48
83

Your pseudo intellectual eyewash is as much use as a chocolate fire guard.

My `invective`has nothing to do with `repartee`, what`s the point? Your `ilk` are concerned with nothing more than brainless and purile anglophobia, the problem lies in your own country, you want independence, so do it, we`re not stopping you.
68

McMadman,

Saor Alba 13/06/2008 20:17:48
#83

Check out a dictionary. Like it or not, #83 is absolutely, factually correct.

You, on the other hand, post a lot of unevidenced, unsupported p'sh wich most other posters disagree with. You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the @rse.
69

Enigma,

13/06/2008 20:24:18
83

Most `other posters` who by definition happen to be anglophobic, just like you.

You wouldn`t know `evidence` if it hit you in the face, despite being a bloody rude `ignoramus` `ar.....e` and all round pratt.
70

McMadman,

Saor Alba 13/06/2008 20:28:17
It's not "anglophobic" to point out you are talking chite, just the truth.

I have posted evidence of your ignorance, by giving you a definition, and an onward referral to any dictionary of your choice. If you have a compelling counter argument, post it with some evidence, or go away, frankly.

By the way, it might be argued you are "scottophobic" when you post "No suprise to see the usual rent a mob of tub thumpers indulging their daily dose of anglo bashing. Roll on independence from these petty minded bigots."

If you get a hard time as a result well, you only have yourself to blame.
71

Enigma,

13/06/2008 20:36:27
87

What evidence? Your opinion maybe, which is highly subjective but I`ve not seen `evidence`. Perhaps you have double standards as well.

I couldn`t care less about `a hard time` from you and your fellow anglophobes,it`s par for the course and reinforces what I wrote.

I wrote what I meant and what is evident from this site, if you think it was offensive then how strange, seeing as you vent so much spleen against the English.

72

McMadman,

Saor Alba 13/06/2008 20:50:27
#88.

I have made no reference to your nationality. Nor indeed your intellect; I will let others determine that from your posts where you are highly insulting of me without justification or evidence.

I called you ignorant and an ignoramus, gave you a definition to check out, and that was accurate and evidence.

In return, you have called me "rude" "stupid" "dense," accused me of "psuedo intellectual eyewash" because you don't like the truth of the definitions of ignorant and ignoramus (thus I suppose the editors of the dictionaries concerned are tarred with this same brush by you). Lets not forget "brainless" and "pureile anglophobila" "bloddy rude" and "an all round pratt."

Note, no mention of your nationality, which until you mentioned it in your last post (oh, if only this was literally true) I had no knowledge of. In fact, as I have posted many times, I have many English friends and some relations there and I have regularly said I support English self determination.

I'm not criticising you for being english, though you insult me many times over. You are, factually, Ignorant and an Ignoramus. I have posted independent corroborative evidence of that (any dictionary you like). You have insulted me many times over with no evidence or justification.

Grow up, go away, and come back with some reasoned, evidenced argument. If you can cope with this.
73

Enigma,

13/06/2008 20:58:51
You have repreatedly refered to me as an `a..e` and an `anus` I think that says it all, that you can ignore this is laughable. You are not only rude but a hypocrite to boot. Your views are irrelevant.

74

McMadman,

Saor Alba 13/06/2008 21:07:48
# 91

No, sorry, I have not referred to you as an @rse or an anus. Read the posts. I called you an Ignoramus, and called you Ignorant. Supported by the dictionary. You have insulted me on several occasions and indeed accused me of racism in doing so.

On that basis I am owed several insults to you. So far I choose not to do so.
75

McMadman,

Saor Alba 13/06/2008 21:14:36
90

Hi AM2. It was though a measure of support for all of the options available.

You are being a bit disengenious. Be accurate here.

17% of all of those eligible to vote voted independent. 33% of those eligible to vote voted unionist. This was the result reached by the electoral system agreed by Holryood.

There is no more a majority of the electorate explicitly in support of the union than there is a majority for independence. Be honest now.

Fact is 50% did not vote so failed to support either. You need to try to convert this 50% to your cause as do I to mine. Good luck to you even though we fundamentally disagree, but be at least a little more balanced.
76

McMadman,

Saor Alba 13/06/2008 21:57:50
Hey AM2, we nearly agree.

But, let's really go for agreement.

You quote from fairly selective opinion polls that support your perspective. Fair enough. I am well into a decent bottle of glenfiddich 12yo malt so cannot be @rsed to do the same; save me the grief and acknowledge that I could probably do the same.

That would mean that we would essentially be having a "who can p'ss the highest up the wall" argument over opinion polls. These polls are distorted by the question put and by the tiny number of persons interviewed.

We are not totally agreed tho. Yes twice as many people voted for a unionist party as a nationalist one. But most people didn't vote for anything.

Lets both see how we do about converting these to our cause at the next elections. If I lose or the proportion swings your way I'll stand you a decent drink. You willing to do the same ? Leave the opinion polls out of it for the reasons given in this post.

77

McMadman,

Saor Alba 13/06/2008 22:16:05
AM2

Not prepared to put a pint on it then ? Booo.
78

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 14/06/2008 00:18:48
AM2

You have turned this thread into a stat-fest again. And one which doesn't even concentrate on the article. In fact, your stats @ 90 are inconsistent when added together. You may as well say 24% of the UK electorate put Labour in power at the last Westminter election.

Please be more pertinent next time. As you already mentioned in your first post...

"So in general terms I would agree with those nationalists who claim that the BBC hasn't yet fully adjusted to the realities of devolution, and it's high time that the corporation addressed such criticisms properly".

This is an important point that could have been discussed without all the nat-baiting.
79

McMadman,

Saor Alba 14/06/2008 19:39:08
AM2

The point I am making is that you are well known for selective use of data favourable to your argmuent. Besides, opinion polls are drawn from a relatively small base of people.

In the most recent elections in this country, the facts were as per my post #90. Sorry to inconvenience you but there is no majority for unionism any more than independence, fact.

Sorry you can't accept this.
80

McMadman,

Saor Alba 14/06/2008 19:42:17
AM2

"#97 Andrew BOD

Read it again. The 65% is of the vote whereas the 17% is of the electorate. That's why McMadman objected to the post. If he hadn't overblown his complaint, I might have seen it as a fair point"

I objected because you are deliberately being misleading. The facts:

SNP - 34% of votes cast
Unionists - 65% of votes cast

SNP - 17% support from all eligible to vote
Unionist - 33% support from all eligible to vote
No vote cast - 50% of all eligible to vote.

I know you are an ultraunionist, but please try to not be dieliberately misleading when posting.
81

McMadman,

Saor Alba 14/06/2008 22:06:58
101, AM2

Opinion polls are highly selective. The question put often shapes the response. I prefer the true test of opinion that is the ballot box.

Your point 3 is interesting, except you keep going back to the opinion polls. You simply cannot say the split will be 25,65,10, and indeed you will be aware there are other opinion polls putting support for independence at approaching 40%.

My point is, quit with the misrepresnting. When you post "But given that the three main unionist parties jointly polled 65% of the constituency vote, and that less than 17% of the electorate voted SNP, you're on very shaky ground trying to argue on that basis" you are misrepresenting facts and you know this full well; this is deliberately selective, when the reality is, as you well know, that the unionist support in the electorate was half your 65% quoted.

To be clear, the facts are, party support as a proportion of all eligible to vote

SNP - 17%
Unionist - 33%
No vote - 50%.

No amount of selected spinning from you or quotes from opinion polls (and you don't often mention those showing strong support for independence) can change this.

82

McMadman,

Saor Alba 15/06/2008 21:30:45
AM2

My objection is not with your figures, it is with the deliberately dissembling way in which you present them and then get ultra defensive when this is pointed out to you.

At the end of the day, I prefer the main opinion poll of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of voters. Not, at best, 1000 voters at the best asked a succession of completely different questions.

When you say in the same post "I said: "the three main unionist parties jointly polled 65% of the constituency vote", which is true. I also said: "less than 17% of the electorate voted SNP", which is also true" in the same post, you are being dissembling.

You are attempting to give the impression to the casual reader that the voting outturns were 65% unionist, 17% SNP. They were not.

In the vote, again, 65% of those voting in the last holyrood election voted unionist. 33% SNP.

As a percentage of all eligible to vote:

17% SNP 33% Unionist 50% not interested.

These are facts. Mixing up the two does not help your argument and by way of illustration, I could just have easily argued that in the last election, 67% of the electorate failed to support unionist parties,

This at least is perfectly obvious to anyone with no brain at all. Your polls that you use are selectively worded in favour of your own position. It is true that perhaps the same is true of those putting SNP support at 40%.

That's why I prefer not to rely on opinion polls, but the true poll of public opinion - the elections.



83

McMadman,

Saor Alba 15/06/2008 21:33:44
AM2

By the way, stop spinning, you will get dizzy at this rate.
84

McMadman,

Saor Alba 16/06/2008 21:56:48
AM2

Of course you're spinning. Don't forget the dissembling by the way. You are also in denial, not uncommon for unionists/

"the three main unionist parties jointly polled 65% of the constituency vote", which is true. I also said: "less than 17% of the electorate voted SNP", which is also true"

This is spin and dissembling. I have to keep posting this because you appear to be illiterate.

Again, the facts:

You are attempting to give the impression to the casual reader that the voting outturns were 65% unionist, 17% SNP. They were not.

In the vote, again, 65% of those voting in the last holyrood election voted unionist. 33% SNP.

As a percentage of all eligible to vote:

17% SNP 33% Unionist 50% not interested.

These are facts. Mixing up the two does not help your argument and by way of illustration, I could just have easily argued that in the last election, 67% of the electorate failed to support unionist parties.

You need to break your addiction to unionist phrased opinion polls and recognise - and correctly quote - the results of the last election. You're not unintelligent - why can't you accept this. Truth hurt ?
85

HEN BROON 5,

ALBA being held back by the UK 24/06/2008 17:16:59
OOOOOOOOOOOAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



HERES MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


British Pride,
11/04/2008 18:16:47
553. Whoa! Great! Such typical SNP incite. Fantastic! I only post as Highland Mighty, can you say the same you cyber-nay???
86

Incandescent with Rage!!!,

03/09/2008 10:15:38
The EBC should be pay per view, if that were the case I'm sure they would economise at the soonest possible time. In the 21st century it is a criminal act to force people to pay for a poor quality out dated service which they may not even intend to watch!

On top of that Joe public does not even have a right to decide the direction this group is taking. Only the elite have that right, the people of ‘Britain’, that area of land in the south east of England.

And Mr. Salmond when do you intend to right this wrong for the people of Scotland?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In