By G.A.Ponsonby
Videos released on youtube have appeared to cast significant doubt on the willingness and ability of the BBC to cover the independence referendum in an impartial manner.
The videos, containing presentations on Scotland’s forthcoming referendum, show four senior BBC presenters giving their views to what is believed to be an audience of junior BBC staff.
The presenters, including BBC Scotland’s political editor Brian Taylor, are shown attacking the fairness of the SNP’s proposed referendum question and claiming that Alex Salmond is “not impregnable”.
The First Minister is also accused of wanting a devo-max option on the ballot paper in order to give him a “parachute” should Scots fail to back independence.
In the presentations, Scotland is described as being in financial deficit and requiring subsidy. Claims are also made that the SNP are “changing policy in order not to frighten the horses”.
Brian Taylor is shown claiming that Alex Salmond wants to delay the referendum in order to “sow dissent” amongst Unionist parties, and says: “He [Salmond] wants a contest as close as possible to the next UK general election because he believes that by then his Unionist opponents will be fighting each other rather than fighting independence and Alex Salmond. He wants to sow dissent among them.”
Mr Taylor also claimed that the Scottish government’s proposed referendum question was not straightforward and simple. The BBC Scotland man suggested it was designed to elicit a positive response.
On the proposed question, ‘Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?’ Mr Taylor says: “Straightforward, simple – except it’s not.
“The word ‘agree’ according to psepholigists is a welcoming word, it draws people in. People like to agree, they don’t like to disagree so the word there is good.”
Mr Taylor added: “Why does Alex Salmond favour a second question, devo max, devo plus, why not just go for independence, which is the one he has the mandate for?
“He wants a fall-back, he wants a parachute should independence fail to win.”
The BBC Scotland political editor argues that there is a problem adding a second question to the ballot and claims that Scottish Government would have no mandate to pursue devo-max because they favour independence and Westminster does not want it on the ballot paper.
“What does devo-max mandate? Whom does it mandate?” asks Mr Taylor who adds: “Does it mandate the Scottish Government? Nope they can’t do it, it’s got to be Westminster.”
Edited clips of the presentation showing Brian Taylor and Andrew Neil
Dim lights
Embed Embed this video on your site
The videos also show former Scotman editor and now BBC presenter Andrew Neil launch a series of scathing attacks on the SNP’s stance on Europe.
Andrew Neil questions whether Scotland would be allowed to remain in the EU and claims it may have to join the Euro. The BBC front man also pours scorn on Scotland’s ability to maintain a stable economy and claims that the SNP are seeking to avoid accepting a fair share of UK debt.
Mr Neil is shown saying: “What does worry Alex Salmond is that an independent Scotland would have to apply again for EU membership … but if he has to apply as a new member then under the terms of application now he has to commit to the Euro and to Shengen.”
Mr Neil is also shown attacking Mr Salmond over the Scottish Government’s insistence that legal advice on EU membership remains confidential, in keeping with established protocols.
The videos also show BBC Economics Editor Stephanie Flanders claiming that Scotland is in fiscal deficit. Despite official statistics showing the Scotland in surplus, Ms Flanders claims figures show that Scotland gets ten per cent more from the UK Treasury than it puts in.
“So the question is: Does Scotland get more than she puts in? Answer, yes – about ten per cent more.” she says.
Ms Flanders goes on to claim that by remaining with Sterling, and having to agree a pact with the Bank of England, Scotland would be weakened in terms of the eyes of the world and would therefore have difficulty in obtaining a triple-A credit rating.
The videos, although part of an in house presentation and not for typical public consumption, reveal a group mindset that is almost overwhelmingly Unionist in its logic and conclusions.
Their publication will do little to quell growing concerns over the ability and desire of the BBC to present the referendum debate in an impartial manner. There will be fears that the presentations are part of a drive by the corporation to ensure its staff are ‘on song’ as the referendum debate moves on.
The release of the videos follow complaints by the Scottish Government over the conduct and presentation of the independence issue by several presenters at the BBC, in particular BBC Scotland.
See all four presentations
Dim lights
Embed Embed this video on your site
If you found this article interesting why not make a small contribution in order to help keep the site going – CLICK HERE
something was conspicuous by its absence. While these four journalists provided us with a 40 minute-ish trashing of the pro-independence position, no similiar critique was made of the unionist position.
This could easily have been a unionist strategy meeting.
Where can we download a hard copy of these?
The more I watch, the more astonished I am. Andrew Neil states that the act (he probably meant treaty, but doesn’t appreciate the difference) act of union of 1707 was a financial bailout due to Darien. Seriously, what a fool. Anybody who attempts to use Darien in 1698 as argument against Scottish independence needs their head read. Most of the people who signed it, were paid money (bribes), and some of those HAD lost their fortunes in Darien. It is important to note however, that at the time of union, Scotland was not bankrupt at all, and indeed tax receipts had just risen that year. You can read an excellent analysis of it here;
wingsland.podgamer.com/…/
However, I find it very odd, that a supposed political journalist such as Andrew Neil, originating from Scotland has such a poor understanding of the history of his own country. No wonder people in whitehall talk such nonsense about Scotland, if they are relying on factually inaccurate nonsense such as that from Andrew Neil.
You could say, that his opinion of the treaty of union is merely a very shallow and ill-founded verbatim recitation of the Britnat view of Scotland.
Never let the truth or the facts get in the way, eh Andrew?
Three important questions;
1 where were these indoctrination sessions held
2 Who was in the audience/what was the purpose
3 Were they paid for by the taxpayer??
Can we have answers from the BBC.
Very eloquently put.
As an aside, I did like the point that Stephanie Flanders made that when talking about Scotland the word ‘subsidy’ is used and when talking about the UK ‘deficit’ is used instead.
I agree about the paranoia but I find it incredible that the beeb are so open as to post them on Youtube, it’s almost as if they are quite proud of them.
If the BBC cannot produce similar presentational critiques of the unionist parties then this is a smoking gun.
Suomi.”I recall in the 1970’s that Helen Liddel on Newsnight Scotland ended her report on an SNP statement by saying: “Well they would say that wouldn’t they?’ At that time I didn’t know that she was a member of the labour party”.
Would that be The Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke?
Member of the House of Lords.
Afore that she wis High Commissioner to Australia.
Aye,she’s done well for herself. Labour.
Isobel Fraser definately has a more balanced approach than any of the other BBC presenters.
And well done to Alex Neil on the politics show today he fairly gave Willie Rennie and Richard Baker a pasting regarding the rises in bus fares. Also Richard Baker should be the next labour leader in Scotland, he would raise spluttering to new levels in FM’s question time.
I notice that Peyer Curran on his Moridura blog site is very supportive of the BBC and feels that a lot of conributors on Newsnet Scotland are overeacting.I have a great deal of respect for Peter,who is usually spot on in his analysis.However,while I agree with him that there are good journalists who are fair and balanced,and that some contributors may be too sensitive,I disagree with Peter on this one.It is not so much that people have their own political loyalty that is disturbing,it is the lack of professionalism and inability to conceal it,that is the concern.
Nope don’t see anything wrong with what you highlight. Am I supposed to think myself uncouth and lacking in manners or something? I’m not buying it.
The link is there, but not my post. Maybe I’m being a bit precious tonight. LOL.
“Cox” – who he/she?