Herald journalist Magnus Gardham in BBC bias claim

Gardham accusing someone else of bias! Pot calling kettle black or what?

I hope that this isn't an indicator that the Herald's largely neutral position on independence is at an end and that we are going to get more pro-Labour nonsense from this excuse for a journalist in the future.

Leal
Spot on. And of course with Mr Gardham an ex reporter for that well known Labour comic we are well aware of his political bias.

Perhaps Mr Gardham would like to explain just how balanced he feels the Scottish Affairs Committe chaired by Mr Davidson, and its findings, are?

If you look at the make up of the committe, which includes several English Tories, and the nature and content of the written and oral submissions to it (all available on their website), and the people and organisations who gave these submissions, there has to be a huge question mark about partiality there.

It is certainly much more biased than the patenetly ridiculous claim that the BBC in general, or Isabel Fraser in particular, is biased against the Unionist parties. Any impartial observer can see that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly biased against the SNP, the cause of independence, and simply serves the interests of the Unionist establishment. Thus not one paper has come out in favour of independence, and only one (the Herald) appears neutral; how representative of the Scottish people does he think that is?

There is no pretence of giving equal air time or weight to those who represent pro independence (or even pro FFA/devo-max)... instead we are always treated to 3 or 4 spokespersons for the Tories, Labour and the LD's (or other Unionist inclined interest groups like the CBI, or Labour controlled Unions) and alone voice from the SNP.

The debate about the S30 order and the constiutional issue is a case in point. It is a total travesty for the SAC to claim that there is overwhelming evidence to support their point of view. Is there really? OK... lets have an exhaustive list of the constiututional experts they have consulted, and compare them with those who disagree with their point of view.

Let's also examine how many of these experts are in fact neutral or disinterested (from either side). No doubt there are many experts in other countries who could be consulted.

Davidson showed in his interview that he has no clue, and no wish to be educated, about the constitutional position.

The Scottish government should remain steadfast in its position that it is no part of Westminsters business to dictate when the referendum is held, how many questions there are, who gets to vote, or even who oversees the Election. All of these are matters for the Scottish Parliament to decide.

If Westminster tries to push the matter, it will simply play into the hands of the YES camp; nothing is more certain to convert undecided voters as Westminster being heavy handed and trying to ride a coach and horses through the Claim of Right and the Axa ruling.

Re biased constitutional experts according to Gardham - one only needs to utter one name - Curtice that well known supporter of Independence who must have graced BBC political programs hundreds of times.

Let's be reasonable here and suggest that perhaps it was only LPW's ghastly neo-Jacobinism that Davidson took most exception to?

When Jim Wallace and Ian Davidson signed the Claim of Right they might not have been aware of the implications of what they were helping to bring about.

I would contend that when Winnie Ewing said. “The Scottish Parliament adjourned in the 25th day of March 1707 is hereby reconvened”. With these words, they brought back to life our old Scots Parliament with its full legitimate powers and Constitutional Authority intact.

Our Scots Government; with that backstop, and with Westminster continuing to be difficult and insisting on this Section 30 with strings, our Government should tell them to get lost and will have the referendum any time we choose to without any interference.

Jim Wallace, and Ian Davidson says that it could end up in Court to settle this question of who is in charge of the Referendum. But which Court, a Scottish one or an English one?

I used to access the Herald occasionally to read certain articles by the likes of McWhirter or Hutcheson. However, now that this paper has seen fit to employ the blatantly anti-SNP, anti-Salmond, anti-Scottish independence hack Magnus Gardham, I will cease from all visits to their website, thus doing my small part in denying them advertising revenue. If others do likewise, then the loss of said advertising revenue might just persuade the editorial management think again about joining the pro-Union press and media cabal.

The spin on this is quite incredible. But it is classic Labour party procedure to deflect genuine criticism by making the object of that criticism into a victim. Hence Davidson became the ‘victim’ of a smear campaign over his ‘doing’ remarks and this is what we are getting again. The fact LPW is an SNP supporter is neither here nor there as he spoke the truth and Davidson did not. Did the beeb tell you the affiliations of Ashcroft, Curtice, McLaren, Young etc.? Of course not.
Labour have wheeled out the lunatic Kellys, Michael and Terry to provide contortions an Olympic gymnast would be proud of while Lamont hides yet again. Don’t let them away with it.

To illustrate Gardham's hypocrisy in calling someone else biased look no further than here - dailyrecord.co.uk/.../...

I think it is a gross error of judgement by The Herald to employ Gardham and must put down a marker for them about their perceived neutrality in reporting political matters.