Not in the News - 6th of September Edition

Welcome to another edition of our weekly series looking back at the stories which the main stream media in Scotland didn't offer much attention to, and comparing them to those that hit the front pages. Our last edition can be found here.

  

Do you hate your children? You must be a Yes voter!

The No campaign, which had previously claimed that "the key factor (in determining how to vote) is the love of our families", made what is quite possibily the most ridiculous campaign poster since Mayor Quimby's disasterous "he'd vote for you" promise. "We love our kids. We're voting no thanks" (the obvious conclusion being that everyone voting Yes does hate their kids, even the ones who don't have kids!).

 

 

#Hamatime, #PatronisingBTLady and now #ilovemyfamily. The No campaign has been nothing but entertaining (really, they have been nothing!). We can confirm that this trend will continue, as we have seen a preview of their next poster campaign:

 

 

Taking it to the Max

Max Keiser, star of the internationally renowed Keiser Report and On the Edge, has previously stated his support for Scottish Independence. He confirmed that again with his website adding the following post: "YES! An independent Scotland would have the highest GDP per capita in the world. A 'No' vote is asinine".

 

 

No wonder he and his partner Stacy Herbert are considered the most dangerous people to the establishment in the financial media. Well done Max and keep up the great work you do!

 

Checking your purse before they check your pulse

The UK Government confirmed that the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (also known as TTIP) will affect the NHS. The details can be found in these articles by Unite the union and International Business Times.

 

  

Independent EU nations have the right to safeguard their health services if there is an existing state monopoly (i.e. if privatisation is not already taking place). Scotland can only have this protection if we vote Yes on the 18th.

  

The Pot and the Singing Kettle

Yes supporters in Scotland were buoyed by the latest figures from polling agency YouGov. Whether or not you believe the initial figures isn't very important (or even the notion of polling altogether) the evidence that the movement is towards independence is very encouraging.

  

And we know this is important because the BBC (that bastian of impartiality [sarcasm]) considered the massive jump in support for Yes as being less news worthy than the music group the singing kettle announcing that they will stop touring in 2015. Maybe they could have squeezed them both in by dropping the 'New Paranormal Festival for Scotland' story...nah [sarcasm, extreme sarcasm].

 

The reason why this is important is because belief regarding how most other people will be voting is a consideration made by a very large proportion of the electorate at every election. If our fellow Scots believe that Yes can win, then this will translate into more votes. It shouldn't be this way (and with independence we will gain a representative parliament where every vote carries the same value - unlike Westminster) but it is a reality we should recognise.

 

Heartless Vandals!

Evidence has emerge of terrible acts of vandalism against 'no' campaign signs! First Minister Alex Salmond has had to deny personal involvement! Additional statement which hints at, but doesn't make a specific allegation which would need to be justified or could be subject to scrutiny, the Yes campaign being evil and bad!

 

Have these cows fully appreciated the choice facing Scotland?

 

Scotland has value (something the 'no' campaign doesn't appreciate)

We wrote a while ago in our blog 'Nobody wants you so please stay with us' how the primary tactic of those opposed to independence is to portray Scotland as a land which has no intrinsic value. Westminster wouldn't want to treat us as equals because we have no value. The EU won't try to keep us in the club because we have no value. And then NATO would expel us because we have no value. Just follow the links to see why each of these arguments are nonsense.

 

In each case we have shown that this just isn't true, and today we had more evidence of this as a former UK ambassador to NATO, Mariot Leslie, stated her intention to vote Yes and her confidence in Scotland being warmly welcomed within the military alliance.

 

And on a little side story which Russia Today mentioned: a country can be a member of the EU and use the currency of another. Luxembourg, which was a founding member of the EU, continued to use Belgian Francs until 2002. Of course, to the 'no' campaign, Luxembourg has value but Scotland does not. There are only obstacles and problems facing us and no-one will do anything to make things easy or fair.

 

I'm not ready for my closeup, Mr Ponsonby

David Cameron spent Prime Minister's Questions accusing STV of chickening out of hosting a debate between himself and undecided viewers. His exact words were: "On the television programme, I offered them [STV] a date and indeed a format but they seemed to run away themselves which is a great pity."

 

Mr Cameron made a few interesting demands:

No questions from a journalist

No representatives from the Yes Campaign (which STV would have agreed to)

And only 'genuine' floating voters, which Downing Street would arrange (ie, Dave's team would pick the audience)

 

  

Despite attempts to put pressure on the channel by claiming that this 'debate' would take place on Sky News or the BBC (Mr Cameron has so far taken part in nothing), STV refused to surrender editorial control.

 

The offer for Mr Cameron to speak to undecided voters on STV is still available, but we suspect he won't be ready for 'genuine' scrutiny any time soon...

 
Every little hinders

The no campaign used a frankly bizarre claim in their literature recently that the cost of food in supermarkets would increase following a Yes vote. This doesn't make sense for a number of reasons (most of which are explained here and here) but the interesting part is the use of Tesco. The image below was taken from a no campaign leaflet and clearly shows that the supermarket will increase every price by 16%.

 

"I can confirm that this [16% higher prices] is not true as we've got a great business in Scotland and our job is to create the best offer for customers whatever the outcome of the referendum." Sue Whitaker, Tesco Customer Service

The problem for the no campaign was that someone asked Tesco, and they confirmed that this story was a lie. So, the no campaign have been caught making up nonsense (again) and hiding their scares behind someone else. I guess in their world, every little hinders.

  

This fake story, which has been introduced whilst votes are being cast, is clearly against election rules. But fear not! Below is a photograph which shows all the work we have seen that the Electoral Commission, who describe their own objective as achieving "well-run elections", is doing to ensure a free and fair contest:

  

  
Strategically positioned paperwork jobs

This map below, which was shared by the Wings over Scotland's twitter account, shows where civilian jobs for the UK military are based.

 

Civilian jobs within the military are very important but they can by and large be located anywhere. Why do these jobs (and remember that a population share of their associated costs are attributed to Scotland despite the obvious shortfall in jobs being based here) have to be concentrated in the south of England? Does this map look fair to you?

 

It reminds me of this article by Business for Scotland. The maps there don't look very fair either.

  

Eh...mass canvas?

We at Sign for Scotland do not share links to the Scotsman newspaper (see our blog 'I read it in the paper' for the main reason why), but even they were highlighting how hopelessly unsuccessful Johann Lamont's mass canvassing attempt in Govan was on Friday.

"But despite an army of Labour supporters knocking doors, only three residents engaged in conversation with her - while several even came outside to return the leaflets pushed through their letter boxes." Scotsman Newspaper

Ouch! The reason why senior Labour politicians are finding such a hard response from people in Govan and other predominately working class areas is because they are campaigning to keep a Tory government in Westminster in power over Scotland. The argument that we should 'vote no and then hope people in England vote Labour next year, (just ignore our commitment to matching every Tory public service spending cut)' is not as strong or as reliable as 'vote Yes and the people will always get the government they vote for'.

 

We can even save a fortune by not paying for what we don't need!

 

But if you are an undecided Labour voter, then please compare any speech by Johann Lamont to the words of Jeane Freeman and decide which one more accurately reflects the founding principles of the Labour Party. What future would you rather have?

  

Join us again on Sunday for our final look at what's 'not in the news' before the referendum!

Drew
 
If you like this blog, then please consider visiting our other sites:
Facebook - Sign for Scotland
YouTube - Sign4Scotland
Twitter - Sign4Scotland

Illogical logic

Illogical logic, or more accurately ‘logical fallacy’, is when an argument is presented as being based in logic when it is in fact devoid of reason.  This is something which voters in Scotland are being subjected to in our referendum campaign.  But how can we tell what is self evident and what is self interest?  We at Sign for Scotland have made a basic guide.

Step one: write down all the arguments you come across.  This applies to both the Yes and no campaigns.  Step two: check through the list below and remove the arguments which fail.  Step three: weigh the options of what remains.
  

1) The personal attack 

The football term would be ‘playing the man and not the ball’.  This is when you are asked not to believe something because of who said it. 

  

2) Tradition

Just because something has ‘always’ been a certain way doesn’t mean that it is right.  It is traditional in many countries for women to be paid less than men for the same job however few would suggest that ‘tradition’ makes this valid. 

  
3) I don’t like the idea of that

This fallacy is to refuse to believe something simply because you dislike the conclusions.  An example would be refusing to believe that successive UK Governments actively hid the value of North Sea Oil for generations.

  

4) But what if they…

This is when someone is threatened to support a point of view. This can be explicate (we’ll bomb your airports) or implied (wouldn’t it be terrible if none of us bought products from your country anymore).

  

5) Big Lie 

This is when a lie, slogan or deceptive half-truth is repeated over and over again until people believe it without evidence.

 

6) I support my party 

Believing an idea because that is what your favourite party, politician, celebrity or individual believes isn’t logical. Logic is coming to your own conclusions, not blindly accepting the conclusions of others.

  

"Can you prove that the moon isn't made of cheese?  There's too much uncertainty..."

7) Equivocation

Using words in a specific way to suggest something without actually lying. For example, suggesting that Scotland wouldn't be allowed to use the pound without stating how that's possible.

  

8) It's just like...

Comparing one thing to something very different in order to draw a false conclusion. An example would be saying that ‘Scotland would have been like Greece if we have been independent', when our economies are different.

  

9) Statistics, damn statistics and lies

Using numbers to prove unrelated claims. An example would be asking people in Scotland whether the UK should have a nuclear deterrent and then claiming that those who support the notion automatically support keeping Trident at Faslane.

 

  

10) We don’t know enough yet

Claiming that all information needs to be presented before a conclusion can be made is an example of logical fallacy. This is because it is impossible to have 'all' information on a given subject (especially on something as complicated as how a future government that is yet to be determined will run a nation).

  

11) What about the children?!

Arguing purely on emotion isn't logical. An example would be saying 'think about our shared history'. History won't change based on where political decisions are made.

  

12) A rose by any other name

Using a different term to give a positive or negative spin to a story. If a celebrity were to say 'I'm pretty sure an independent Scotland would be successful', then a negative spin would be 'celebrity has doubts as to how successful a separate Scotland would be'. The statement isn't untrue, but changes to the wording or context give a different impression from that intended.

 
13) Red Herring
Bringing up another topic to distract away from the issue at hand.
   
14) Shifting the Burden of Proof
In the referendum debate, both sides need to state the case for their viewpoints. Stating 'the other side has questions to answer' but offereing no answers from their perspective, is an example of logical fallacy.
   
15) You can't say that!
Saying that certain viewpoints or topics cannot be discussed is a type of logical fallacy. This includes banning discussions in public forums.
 
Both sides have used some if not all of these tricks, but that doesn’t mean that they are as bad as each other.  It is up to you to do your own research and to come to your own conclusions.
   

It is said that truth is one but wisdom is many.  I believe that to be a good place to start when critically evaluating opposing viewpoints.  It is easily possible for two seemingly incompatible opinions to be party or wholly truthful.  And it is possible for people to be honest, even when they slip one of the above fallacies into their statements.

There are many reasons to vote Yes which don't rely on logical fallacies, including a written constitution which will safeguard our rights, a more representative democracy and the removal of nuclear weapons from Scottish territory.

 

So before you vote in 2014, remember to check whether the arguments you come across fall into one of the categories above.  Ignoring the ones that do is the only logical choice.

  

And if that doesn’t convince you, I have a muffin cannon.

 

Drew

If you like this blog, then please consider visiting our other sites:
Facebook - Sign for Scotland
YouTube - Sign4Scotland
Twitter - Sign4Scotland

Second Not in the News for April

So much has happened in the last few days that we had to make an extra entry into our monthly 'not in the news' series. In this edition, we are only looking at the stories which have taken place from Saturday, the 26th of April to Tuesday, 29th.

 

Bum notes?

A prime example of why Scotland needs to represent itself internationally came on Sunday, the 27th of April. Despite assurances from UK environment secretary Owen Paterson MP to highlight concerns held by the Scottish Parliament regarding Genetically Modified crops at a European Union meeting on the topic, the minister failed to do so.

Mr Paterson said: "...we [self and Scottish Environment minister Paul Wheelhouse] agreed the speaking note and I have to confess I think I read the preceding one."

More bum note incompetency from people who don't want us representing ourselves. [As a side note, the position of the UK Government over GM Crops is different from that of the Scottish Government, making this 'error' even more significant].

 

Dramatisation

Don't watch that, watch this!

First Minister Alex Salmond made a speech in Bruges, Belgium on Monday, the 28th of April. He spoke of the historic connections between the city and Scotland, of duel nationalities and the positive contribution that new Scots have made to our nation, the democratic deficit that we face and the desire to make a positive contribution to Europe and the world at large.

"Scotland will ask for continued membership on the basis of “continuity of effect”, and at no detriment to other members.

So there need be no reopening of the EU budget agreed last year to 2020. Scotland would take responsibility for its share of UK contributions and receipts – which means that we would still be a net contributor to the EU. We would remain within the Common Travel Area of the British Isles, as we are at present. And as a senior UK Government minister acknowledged to the Guardian newspaper last month, “of course” we will continue to share a currency with the rest of the UK.

We propose a practical, common sense approach to membership, which means that there is no detriment – none whatsoever – to any other member of the European Union as a result of Scotland’s continuing membership." First Minister Alex Salmond, 28th of April

Most people will not have come across this speach because another story 'broke' at the same time. "Fury as 'insensitive' Salmond praises Putin for restoring Russian pride in itself" was the headline in the Mail online. This came from an interview by GQ Magazine from the 14th of March (over six weeks earlier and before the situation in Crimea - or put another way before we wrote the Not in the News - March edition). But let's see the vile, insensitive quote:

"Obviously, I don't approve of a range of Russian actions, but I think Putin's more effective than the press he gets, I would have thought, and you can see why he carries support in Russia.

He's restored a substantial part of Russian pride and that must be a good thing.  There are aspects of Russian constitutionality and the intermesh with business and politics that are obviously difficult to admire.  Russians are fantastic people, incidentally; they are lovely people." Alex Salmond, 14th of March

The story seems even stranger when you consider that this is the same Vladimir Putin who Prime Minister David Cameron was appealing for support from back in January (see: "Cameron's plea to Putin: help me stop Salmond" and "Putin's strange intervention over Scottish independence" and "David Cameron accused of trying to recruit Vladimir Putin's support in the fight against Scottish independence"). And other prominent 'no' campaigners have recently been speaking of looking at closer military ties with Russia (a month later than Alex Salmond's interview and in the middle of the Ukraine crisis).
 
Even some of the newspapers hold Vladimir Putin in great esteem (well, he was announced as the Times newspaper's International Man of the Year on the 30th of December 2013 - yes, the same Times newspaper that used the headline 'Scottish Ukrainians hit out at Salmond over praise for Putin' - we're certain that their apology is in the post!).

 

Of course, we're talking about the Scottish Media, so these facts aren't in the news now.

Donzilla!
Another secret radiation leak story came to light, this time in Aberdeen harbour.

"An investigation by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) found one “gross” breach and several “major” breaches of the firm’s operating conditions.

However, the public was never told about the leak, which continued unchecked from November 2011 until April 2012, and it also appears that the Scottish Government was not informed either." Scottish Express, 26th of April

The resultant 10 fold increase in emissions was kept secret from the public and the Scottish Parliament and comes shortly after the discovery of a cover-up over a radiation leak at Dounreay power station.

Dramatisation

BBC and Big Business Chums!

On Tuesday, the BBC announced that they had been members of anti-independence group the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) for 'at least 10 years'. But investigative work from BBC reporter James Cook found that 'at least 10 years' was is reality at least 34.

Perhaps this long standing relationship explains headlines such as "Scottish Independence: CBI U-turn 'not due to pressure'"

The BBC hand over £22,191.94 of our money per year for membership of the officially anti-independence CBI however no reason has been forthcoming as to why the UK state broadcaster is a member at all. The National Union of Journalists expressed their concerns by stating that their impartiality "is entirely undermined by the BBC retaining a link with an organisation allied to one side of the independence debate." Even when the CBI announced that their members were backing a no vote, the British Broadcasting Corporation stood side by side with their Big Business Chums. We can only speculate as to why.

 

(A little side note: although £22,191.94 looks like a lot of money, it is small change compared to the £193 million per year the BBC stands to lose with a Yes vote!).

Debating courage
Another day, another debate that the 'no' campaign doesn't want to take part in. The Electoral Reform Society Scotland were asked to chair an event between representatives of Yes Scotland and Better Together at a public meeting in Glasgow. A neutral mediator and a public forum is surely fair, right?
 
Well no, the no campaign didn't want to take part. They stated that because Yes Scotland had made the arrangements that they wouldn't be involved. We're certain that this is a sincere excuse and that an event that was mutually organised by both sides would meet their approval...right...right?

"Questions from the public? And we have to answer them? That's not fair!" No campaign objection (probably)

Join us again for a full 'not in the paper' review in May!
Drew
 
If you like this blog, then please consider visiting our other sites:
Facebook - Sign for Scotland
YouTube - Sign4Scotland
Twitter - Sign4Scotland

Not in the paper review - April

Welcome to the fourth of our monthly series looking back at the stories which the main stream media in Scotland didn't offer much attention to, and comparing them to those that hit the front pages.

Letter from America

There were two speeches made in the United States of America in early April: one was by a democratically elected politician who was acting in his capacity as head of a national parliament, the other by an unelected lord who has as much significance and relevance to Scotland as a turnip. Which do you believe received the most coverage from STV, the BBC and the papers?

Passing Wind

Claims from Westminster that energy prices in an independent Scotland would skyrocket were quickly and decisively rubbished this month. In the words of Professor Peter Strachan, Professor of Energy Policy at Robert Gordon's University:

"...under no scenario can I see in an independent Scotland electricity bills increasing. In an independent Scotland, even with an integrated electricity market, Scotland would be able to sell its electricity at commercial rates. What would also be very helpful for Scotland's renewable energy industry as well is that an independent Scotland would also be able to offer discretionary spend, so that you could see a great expansion, for example, of offshore wind.

At the moment, what we are seeing with the coalition government is the offshore renewable industry effectively being strangled at birth..." BBC Radio Scotland interview - 9th April 2014

Penny wise, pound daft

Attacks on First Minister Alex Salmond from the Telegraph aren't unusual, but this month saw a story which was stranger than most. It's 'reveal' was to say that the First Minister and his wife stayed in a nice hotel in Chicago at a cost of £750 per night for 4 nights whilst arranging multi-million pound trade deals for Scotland.

 

As a comparison, the same newspaper back in June last year attempted to justify a £100,000 refurbishment of the toilets within the House of Lords. Could they be experiencing the Goldilocks Axiom!

 
Two faces on every politician, three eyes on every fish

Scotland's energy minister, Fergus Ewing, was on the receiving end of intimidation in April over the controversial nuclear power station in Hinkly Point, Somerset. If the Scottish Government were to get involved in the EU investigation into the nuclear power station, it would be viewed as a 'hostile act' by Westminster.

  

It is great to know that the union is a partnership of equals and that the UK Government have absolutely nothing to hide!

Oh yeah, there was someone who once raided pension funds talking about pensions...

Are they even pretending to be serious anymore?
We don't need to say much about the Daily Express on Tuesday, the 22nd of April.

Scottish Daily Express - the edited voice of a new Scotland

Yes, both of these newspapers were published on the same day, by the same organisation. The one of the left was for most of the UK, highlighting the deteriorating condition of pensions following decades of mismanagement under the UK, and the other was for Scotland, saying how much safer our pensions would be under that same UK system they were lambasting everywhere else. Another case of the Goldilocks Axiom, or perhaps they require a reminder about the principles of journalism.

 
Public meeting (but we won't tell you where!)

Labour Party Leader Ed Miliband hosted a 'public' meeting in Motherwell in April. If you didn't know about this before the event then you weren't alone.

"...we can’t find a single advance reference to the venue we think that may be a rather loose interpretation of the word “public”." Rev Stuart Campbell - Wings over Scotland

"Residents of a row of neat housing association homes overlooking the community hall that hosted Mr Miliband in this town southeast of Glasgow were angry only to have learnt about the event when a satellite broadcast van turned up." FT, Friday, April 25th

The Confederation of British Flip-Floppers!

The Daily Express managed to take our comedy award for the month (see above), but they were pushed hard for the title by the CBI and the BBC.

 

The story began with the CBI (a group consisting of around 70 businesses and other organisations in Scotland) declaring it's support for a 'no' vote in the referendum. This triggered an outflow of members who wished to remain neutral in the debate. This included a number of universities, Scottish Enterprise and STV (the BBC eventually stated that they would remain in the 'no' campaign body until a few weeks before the vote, with the intention of rejoining immediately afterwords).

"Since announcing its backing for the No campaign, the CBI has been hit with a mass exodus of organisations in Scotland.  Broadcaster STV resigned immediately, claiming that the decision had compromised its own neutrality in the independence referendum." Newsnet Scotland, 26th of April

Just one week later, the CBI announced that they were withdrawing their application to the Electoral Commission to be officially part of the 'no' campaign.

“When the Sunday Herald contacted CBI Scotland director Iain McMillan, he directed all enquiries on the matter to the UK press office. Asked if the decision to register with the Electoral Commission was made after discussions with Scottish or UK members, a CBI spokesman said: “We have talked to members regularly in Scotland and across the UK at CBI events and via our system of committees and councils.”, He added that the “final position” was signed off by CBI Scotland’s council – its membership decision-making body.” Herald Scotland, 20th of April

"Following a review by the CBI board and in the light of legal advice from its lawyers and Queen’s Counsel it has emerged that the application should not have been made: it did not have approval under the CBI’s normal corporate governance procedures and was not signed by an authorised signatory." CBI Press Release, 25th of April

In just 1 week, the Confederation of Business Industry has gone from claiming it had consulted its members to ascertain their views (which they didn't) and that it's council in Scotland had signed off on the decision to join the 'no' campaign, to saying that the application was made by a 'unauthorised signatory'. It seems these people don't understand how to run an organisation!

 

But even more pressure may fall upon the BBC. The list of 25 questions from The Alderman Wotisname Memorial Playing Fields cover the vast majority of these, including 'why is the BBC a member of the CBI?', 'where does the BBC publish and publicise its membership of the CBI?', and 'during the time the BBC was aware of the CBI’s stance, how many times did it quote the CBI on the issue of independence?'

And perhaps most important of all, 'how will the BBC rebuild trust in its integrity?'

Join us again for our next 'not in the paper' review in May!
Drew

If you like this blog, then please consider visiting our other sites:
Facebook - Sign for Scotland
YouTube - Sign4Scotland
Twitter - Sign4Scotland

P.S We have added an extension to this article called 'Second Not in the News for April', which you can read here.

Not in the paper review - January edition

Welcome to the first of our monthly series looking back at the stories which the main stream media in Scotland didn't offer much attention to, and comparing them to those that hit the front pages.

Opposition unionist politicians vote against increased childcare provision and free school meals for Primary 1, 2 and 3 children

(You can find more details about the story here)

"Yesterday the Labour Party’s representatives in the Scottish Parliament voted against a motion to provide free school meals to all Scottish children in Primary 1 to Primary 3, and to increase childcare funding for two-year-olds. They did so barely 48 hours after angrily demanding that the Scottish Government provide better childcare, an issue which Labour had explicitly tied into the independence debate by using an opinion poll commissioned by the “Better Together” campaign." Reverend Stuart Campbell - Wings over Scotland

Afterwards, Labour Education Spokewoman Kezia Dugdale MSP stated:

"We had to vote against the government’s motion today because the last line of the motion said that you needed independence to ensure that kids in Scotland had the best start in life, the best opportunity to grow up in the best country in the world. We disagree, we don’t think you need independence to do that." Kezia Dugdale MSP - Interview on Scotland Tonight 7/1/14

Labour would only accept the added provision for childcare and hot school meals for young children if the following text was included:

S4M-08707.3 Johann Lamont: Scotland’s Future—As an amendment to motion S4M-08707 in the name of Alex Salmond (Scotland’s Future), leave out from “deplores” to end and insert “believes that the UK Government’s economic and social strategies have failed and threaten the progress made by the previous Labour administration in tackling child poverty; agrees that devolution allows the Scottish Parliament to take a different approach; notes that progress in tackling child poverty has stalled in Scotland under the current administration, and, while recognising the value of free school meals, calls on the Scottish Government to take action to deliver for children now, including providing 50% of two-year-olds with 600 hours of free early learning and care in 2014.”

The free school meals policy adopted by the Scottish Government will offer a great deal of help to the needy and avoid children being unfairly stigmatized. We can understand people standing on a platform that they believe there are more deserving causes, but we can't accept politicians who claim that they support a policy only to vote against it when it has a chance of becoming law.

The party which once coined the phrase 'Thatcher the milk snatcher' is gone, replaced by a leadership which say they will only support a motion on free school meals if they get praised for 'progress' they made whilst in office nearly 7 (Scotland) / 4 (UK) years earlier. The question we ask is would those in Labour for Independence have voted against extra childcare and free school meals?

Other stories which didn't make it

Quantifiable proof that the British State Broadcaster has been biased in its referendum coverage came to light following research from the University of the West of Scotland. STV was also found to be favouring the 'no' campaign, but not quite to the same extent. We first came across this story on Newsnet Scotland which was once again ahead of the mainstream media.

 

The research proves that the BBC broke article 1.3.2 of its own charter and it follows the revelation that BBC Scotland was found guilty of breaching editorial guidelines on accuracy by the BBC Trust, completing a miserable month for Pacific Quay.

 

Finally, the Office of National Statistics were forced to correct their own figures after having been found understating Scotland's economic growth since 1998 in an experimental report. According to the editor of the Financial Times, Chris Giles, this wrong data had the potential to change ‘the balance of the independence debate’. Once again, there weren't many articles in the Scottish media about this topic.

 
 
Glance over the BBC

While the story of Labour voting against their own policies (extra childcare provision and hot meals for young children) was taking place, another, vastly most important issue, was dominating the BBC News website.

  

Scottish Independence: Call for 'truce' during Glasgow 2014 was the big headline. The 'story' was about the sincere hope of Lord Jack McConnell, Baron McConnell of Glenscorrodale, that athletes won't be used for political gain during the upcoming Commonwealth Games. The story became embarrassing for the Peer when Westminster's Secretary of State for Scotland, Alistair Carmichael, made the following statement just a few days later:

Whether that's the British Lions [sic], or next month's Winter Olympics, or of course, our astonishing achievements in the London 2012 Olympic Games. At those Games, the UK won 29 gold medals. And over the Games, as the tally went higher, so did our collective sense of national pride. Chris Hoy, Jessica Ennis, Andy Murray, Mo Farah, Katherine Granger. Those outstanding athletes weren't cheered on by parts of the UK, but by all of us. They were our representatives. They worked together, they competed together – many had trained together at facilities across the UK. Their success fed our pride."

Lord Jack McConnell, previously using athletes for political gain

Although the Commonwealth Games will be a fantastic sporting event, we don't believe that the referendum debate should be put on hold (and we're not going to be influenced by 'Peer' pressure).

 
  
Glance over the papers

Our comedy headline from the newspapers comes courtesy of The Telegraph from the 29th of December 2013: David Cameron: I would check my wallet after a drink with Alex Salmond.

 

David Cameron said that, out of Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Alex Salmond, he would prefer to have a drink with his deputy Nick Clegg. This is presumably because Mr Clegg would be the most likely of the trio to act as waiter.

The Daily Record came a close second with the headline 'Alex Salmond admits Scotland could be forced to ditch pound if country votes Yes in September's referendum', even though Alex Salmond didn't say anything and Scotland can't be forced into using an alternative currency.

 

The very next day came a rebuttal from Lawyer George C Gebbie who wrote that instead of increasing the likelihood that the Scotland would drop the pound, the story was "...an affirmation of the use of Sterling now and in the future by the Scottish Government." At the time of writing, we aren't aware of any corrections made by the Daily Record.

 
Join us again for our next 'not in the paper' review in February!
Drew
 
If you like this blog, then please consider visiting our other sites:
Facebook - Sign for Scotland
YouTube - Sign4Scotland
Twitter - Sign4Scotland

Dome sweet dome

Those of us who have been in the ‘Yes’ campaign for a while will be familiar with this argument:
 

‘Spending in Scotland is higher than in the rest of the UK’.
  

This argument is an extension of ‘too poor’, as in ‘too wee, too poor, too stupid’, and the conclusion we’re supposed to make is that Scots could not afford to look after themselves, or would be forced to accept poverty under any system other than Westminster’s.  It depends entirely upon the Barnett Formula, which allocates how much money Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland receives as a consequence of expenditure in England.  Unfortunately for the no campaign, the conclusion they try to pedal is wrong.

Before we get into the Barnett figures themselves, we need to look at expenditure versus affordability.  Affordability is easy.  Let’s say that there are two houses on a street.  House A has 10% higher income, and 5% higher expenses, than House B.  We can conclude, regardless of the actual figures, that the first house is better off, but just to highlight the point we'll add numbers:
 

House A

Income £11,000 Expenditure £11,550 Deficit £550

House B

Income £10,000 Expenditure £11,000 Deficit £1,000
 

House A has higher expenditure, but it more than makes up for this with greater income.  This is the case with Scotland.  We contribute a greater percentage of the UK’s income than we receive in UK expenditure. 
 
This affects other unionist arguments, including Scotland’s deficit.  An independent Scotland may have had a deficit if it had been run the same way as Westminster (including the numerous wars and Trident), but our deficit over the past 30 years would have been much, much smaller.  The conclusion we should make is that even if the Barnett figures were telling the whole story, we would still be in ‘House A’, and financially better off with independence.

There is also the principle of Barnett.  At present, the first consideration is always ‘how much should we spend in England to meet England’s needs?’  Only after this has been decided does Westminster think ‘how much then do the Scots, Irish and Welsh receive?’  This isn’t how our government should operate.
 

A better solution would be for the money raised in Scotland to stay in Scotland, with our Government basing spending upon our needs and budget.  This is an option which Westminster will not allow, partly due to the vast income it receives from North Sea oil and gas, partly because they wouldn’t be able to neuter a free Scottish economy that could rival London’s hegemony, and partly because the people of Scotland would clearly see how much they are paying to be part of this union.  With our first set of accounts displaying vast sums of money heading south to bankroll wars we don’t want, the people of Scotland would quickly come to the conclusion that independence is the best option.

"Give all our money to Westminster for pocket money?  I don't konw, Davey."

Finally, let’s look at the numbers that are missing from Barnett.  There are numerous examples of ‘UK’ expenditure which does not trigger Barnett (and thus are not considered by unionists).  The Millennium Dome is a good example.  It was deemed ‘UK expenditure’, and therefore there were no payments to the ‘regions’.  The £4,200,000,000 (£4,200 million) London sewerage project was an even more expensive use of this trick.  The Jubilee Line, which cost £3,500,000,000 (£3,500 million) and the £1,200,000,000 (£1,200 million) being spent at Cheltenham on new communications headquarters are the same. The London Olympics is yet another example, with expenditure being classed as ‘UK wide’, despite only 0.04% of public sector spending reaching Scotland.
 

Then there is the redirection of national lottery funding, the dramatically higher Ministry of Defence spending in the South of England, and the multitude of civil service jobs that are based in London.  These things don’t count towards Barnett.  This additional expenditure, coupled with vastly superior infrastructure, the ‘London allowance’ and strong Government focus, is the source of the south east’s economic strength.  If anywhere else in the UK had the same systemic advantages, they would doubtlessly have the same success.
 

So the next time someone says ‘Scotland can’t cope without subsidies’, just remember that beneath the surface, the figures tell a different story.  Scotland doesn’t receive subsidies; we’re just getting back some of our own money.
 

With independence, we wouldn’t give it away in the first place.
Drew

If you like this blog, then please consider visiting our other sites:
Facebook - Sign for Scotland
YouTube - Sign4Scotland
Twitter - Sign4Scotland