Everyone is watching what happens in Scotland. It is relevant to many other regions. Personally I always felt that there was more to be gained from creating unity and that division and Balkanization led to weakness and disempowerment. Look at Yugoslavia for case study. But these movements also are seemingly progressive in that it is reclaiming local people power. I need to think about this more.
Quote:
Europe's biggest rally ever? Up to 2 million Catalans march for Independence
Published time: September 11, 2014 14:23
Edited time: September 11, 2014 21:58 Get short URL
People form a "V" for "vote" in red and yellow, the colors of the Catalan flag, during a gathering to mark the Calatalonia day "Diada" in central Barcelona September 11, 2014. (Reuters / Albert Gea)
Hundreds of thousands of Catalans have flooded the streets of Barcelona in the region's national day to demand the right to vote on independence from Spain. The demonstrators have formed a big V in red and yellow, symbolizing "vote."
People who wanted to make their voices heard, were wearing red and yellow, the traditional Catalonian colors during La Diada, the Catalan National Day. Almost half a million Catalans have signed up to form a "V for vote," a show of support for the right to decide on their independence from Spain.
"It would be the people's triumph if we were allowed to vote. If we live in a democracy we should be allowed to vote," Montserrat, a 58-year-old homemaker, told Reuters.
Local leaders believe that the region is politically, economically and socially better on its own.
"We think that we could administer our own resources. We could do it better with much more proximity to the people and also we would have a better chance of meeting our needs," Alfred Bosch, a Spanish MP from the Catalonia Republican left party told RT.
"So especially in times of crisis when we feel the pinch of the economy and people are really feeling a pinch of this crisis," he added. READ MORE:Catalan leader defies Spanish PM to his face, pledges to press ahead with independence vote
Pro-independentists gesture at anti-independentists demonstrating for the unity of Spain in the centre of Barcelona during Catalonia National Day (Diada) on September 11, 2014. (AFP Photo / Josep Lago)
On Wednesday, Artur Mas, first minister of the relatively prosperous region in Spain's northeast, said that it was "practically impossible" to stop Catalonia from voting.
"If the Catalan population wants to vote on its future, it's practically impossible to stop that forever," Mas told AFP.
Spanish authorities, however, are opposing the independence referendum, saying that the referendum is illegal since the Constitution does not provide such an option initiated by a region, and needs to be blocked.
"I think it's absurd to pretend that could be so and I think the Spanish government will have to realize that," Mas said.
The vote is expected to be held November 9.
Catalans hold Catalan independentist flags (Estelada) during celebrations of Catalonia National Day (Diada) in Barcelona on September 11, 2014. (AFP Photo / Lluis Gene)
Catalans are not the only one who want independence. Scotland is also holding an independence referendum on September 18. The UK government in London opposes independence, calling on Scots to stay in the UK. However, it has said that it will respect the decision of the voters.
Spain's right-wing government in Madrid, however, has insisted that Catalonia's planned referendum in invalid. READ MORE:Please don't go': Cameron and Co. make desperate plea to Scots to stay in the Union
Anti-independence Catalans hold Spanish flags as they take part in a demonstration for the unity of Spain in the centre of Barcelona during Catalonia National Day (Diada) on September 11, 2014. (AFP Photo / Josep Lago)
"We want to decide our future. We don't understand why that is constantly denied. We look up to Scotland," Victor Panyella, a 50-year-old professor from Catalonia who was standing in the demonstration, told Reuters.
"They are so lucky to belong to a country that allows that kind of vote. That is a big difference between the two of us, but we are linked by the excitement of deciding our future," he added.
A biker with an independentist flag rides through Barcelona during Catalonia National Day (Diada) on September 11, 2014. (AFP Photo / Lluis Gene)
Xavier Trias, the mayor of Barcelona, wrote in an article in The Guardian that if Catalonia becomes independent, "it will be a new kind of state: European, open for trade, cosmopolitan and welcoming and protective of its many diverse inhabitants."
"This is not old-fashioned nationalism,' but a new vision of dynamic autonomy, in which a nation and its capital are able to take the right decisions for themselves: democracy on a human scale," he added.
According to Barcelona's mayor, to oppose the decision of the region to become independent "is wrong and divisive."
Trias added: "We must all evolve, to respond to a changing world but above all to meet the needs of people for economic security and prosperity and the democratic right to govern themselves as they the people see fit. Barcelona and Catalonia exemplify this approach."
The Catalan independence movement has grown from strength to strength over the last few years, gathering momentum against the backdrop of the EU financial crisis. The autonomous region of Catalonia has a population of 7.5 million and accounts for almost one-quarter of Spain's GDP.
Catalans holding Catalan independentist flags (Estelada) gather on Passeig de Gracia during celebrations of Catalonia National Day (Diada) in Barcelona on September 11, 2014. (AFP Photo / Josep Lago)
There has been growing resentment in Catalonia that their taxes are being redistributing to other parts of the country and 45 percent of Catalans believe the region would be better off on its own, according to an April poll.
Catalonia has its own language and culture. It was ranked the 64th largest country subdivision by GDP (nominal). Its light industry and heavy industry totals 37 percent, compared to Spain's 29 percent. Its service sector is almost 60percent while the whole Spain has 67 percent. Many banks are based in the region, 10 of the 46 Spanish savings banks have HQ there.Catalonia is not the only region of Spain campaigning for independence. The long-rebellious Basque Country has also called for a referendum to decide on their future in Spain. In late May, Basque lawmakers adopted a declaration of self-determination to follow on the footsteps of Catalonia.
Last month, at least 100,000 Basque citizens formed a human chain measuring 123 kilometers in solidarity with the Basque independence movement.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
There is now less than one week of campaigning remaining before the Scottish Independence Referendum, which takes place next Thursday, September 18.
The pro-union no' vote campaign is back in the lead this week after the latest opinion poll from pollsters YouGov put them at 52%, marginally ahead of the pro-independence yes' campaign.
The referendum question being asked is simply "Should Scotland be an independent country?"
After being ahead significantly since the outset of the independence campaign, the pro-union side was abruptly shocked last weekend when the pro-independence side took the lead based on an opinion poll result, also from YouGov, released on Saturday, September 6.
This forced the pro-union campaign into panic mode this week with the UK witnessing an unprecedented coordinated campaign between all the main political parties. who are pro-union, and a number of major UK companies to try to convince the Scottish electorate to stay in the United Kingdom.
Scotland's financial sector became one of the main battlegrounds this week, with many Scottish headquartered banks and financial services companies first threatening to relocate their headquarters to London and then actually announcing that they will move south if the referendum outcome results in a yes' majority.
The HQ move threats and announcements appeared to be part of an orchestrated corporate campaign run by the UK's Treasury department and the Treasury did not deny this.
According to the banks, they are seeking to move because an independent Scotland would create too much economic, regulatory and financial risk and uncertainty for their headquarters to remain there.
Amongst the banks, two of the UK's biggest banking institutions, the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), and Lloyd's led the charge. Crucially, since the RBS and Lloyds were both bailed out by the UK government during the financial crisis, the UK government is now a significant shareholder in both institutions, owning a whopping 80% of the RBS and 25% of Lloyds.
RBS has been headquartered in Scotland since 1727 and employs 35,000 north of the border. Lloyds owns various institutions including Bank of Scotland (not to be confused with the Royal Bank of Scotland), Halifax and Scottish Widows, the pensions and life insurance group.
Scotland's third biggest bank, Clydesdale, owned by the National Australia Bank (NAB) said it also planned to relocate its HQ to London, again citing the uncertainty that a yes result would generate. Other banks such as the TSB and Tesco Bank also followed suit and said they too would move.
Many of the banks' and asset managers' share prices had been hit on the London Stock Exchange this week due to the pro-independence movement's lead including the share prices of RBS, Lloyds, Aberdeen Asset Management and Standard Life.
Financial services giant Standard Life joined in, saying that it would relocate large parts of its operations such as pensions and investments out of Scotland if the country voted for independence. Dutch asset manager and insurer Aegon said it too would move operations to London.
Other industry leaders also sided with the pro-union alignment with the CEO of the UK's largest oil company British Petroleum (BP) saying that the company and the economy was "best served by maintaining the existing capacity and integrity of the United Kingdom".
Scottish first minister and pro-independence leader Alex Salmond said that the corporate announcements had been orchestrated by the prime minister's office in Downing Street in London, and that Treasury had been caught red-handed in a campaign of scaremongering".
According to the FT, a Treasury official admitted that "Danny Alexander and George Osborne have been making calls." George Osborne is the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Danny Alexander is his assistant at the Treasury. The calls to RBS would have been quite easy to make given the government's 80% shareholding. Likewise with Lloyds.
As RBS and Lloyds are already essentially run from London, the HQ move announcements do appear to have been more politically motivated than anything. HM Treasury does appear to have been bullying and pulling strings behind the scenes. On one hand it says plans by companies to move were understandable', while on the other hand it has been making phone calls encouraging companies to move.
Elsewhere, Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, became involved in the debate which is slightly surprising given that the Bank of England is supposedly neutral of political interference. Carney said this week that a currency union between Scotland and the rest of the UK is incompatible with an independent Scotland.
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch chimed in, hinting that he was on the side of pro-independence, most likely because of his current coolness towards the Westminster leaders, while financier George Soros weighed in on the pro-union side.
There is much to lose for the City of London's financial sector due to the economic uncertainty and sterling currency risk of an independent Scotland and the loss of financial power, international standing and resources that a smaller UK would represent.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) also became involved this week warning that "the main immediate effect is likely to be uncertainty over the transition to a potentially new and different monetary, financial and fiscal framework in Scotland."
The pound sterling has fallen and risen this week based on the prevailing sentiment expressed in the various independence polls. Sterling strengthened today following the latest poll but had touched an 11 month low earlier this week against the dollar.
In terms of sterling, the gold price has not really moved significantly over the last month, remaining in a £20 trading range between £780 and £760, although the price did fall from the £780 range on Monday down to £760 today, slightly more than the US dollar denominated price move in gold, but in in general sentiment to the weakness in the US dollar gold price.
Scotland's bid for independence has also crystallised nationalist aspirations in other countries, most notably in Catalonia which is on the brink of its own unofficial referendum to try to break away from Spain. Yesterday was National Catalan Day and millions protested across the region most notably in Barcelona.
There has been much speculation this week about how the UK's gold reserves would be affected if an independence result emerges. The UK Treasury said that all Treasury reserve assets would be up for negotiation. Since this is a very general statement it does not provide much clarity as to whether an independent Scotland would be able to take any of the UK s gold reserves, but this did stop various media outlets from appearing to think that Scotland would get its share of the UK gold.
At this stage it is best to adopt a wait and see attitude since there are too many unknowns for any factual conclusions to be reached on the future of the UK, let alone future UK fiscal plans.
Whatever the outcome of next week's independence referendum in Scotland, it has illustrated that the UK is a economic entity which is in some parts held together by groupings that do not have the same outlook. The closeness of the results for the two campaigns suggests that if the pro-union campaign wins, they will still have to address the concerns of the large Scottish independence movement, and calls for a future referendum on the subject may not go away.
Economic uncertainty in the UK will remain in the near term and it is hard to see the UK economic landscape ever being quite the same again after the heated campaigning on both sides of the independence issue. MARKET UPDATE
Today's AM fix was USD 1,237.25, EUR 957.11 and GBP 760.87 per ounce.
Yesterday's AM fix was USD 1,247.00, EUR 964.20 and GBP 767.53 per ounce.
Gold fell $7.90 or 0.63% to $1,242.10 per ounce and silver slipped $0.27 or 1.42% to $18.71 per ounce yesterday. For the week, gold is down 2.27% while silver is 2.56% lower.
Gold in US Dollars - 2 Years (Thomson Reuters)
The gold price closed New York trading yesterday at $1,240.10 and fell to a January low of $1,232 in Hong Kong overnight. Gold in Singapore recovered to test the $1,240 level but was turned back at $1,240 prior to going in to London trading where gold is flat.
Palladium fell 2.24% today to $829, and is down 6.53% for the week on profit taking after reaching a multi-year high the previous week. Platinum is trading at $1,364 and is down 0.94% since yesterday and down 2.98% on the week. FOMC Jawboning' Next Wednesday
A dilemma awaits the US Fed governors at the two day FOMC meeting next week (16-17 Sept) and at the end of meeting press conference, the FOMC members will have to decide whether to amend their interest rate forward guidance language which currently states that Fed funds rates will be kept near zero for a considerable period'.
Gold in Sterling - 2 Years (Thomson Reuters)
Although there are now a number of Fed governors on the hawkish side, such as the Philadelphia and Cleveland governors, will this be enough to sway a consensus towards amending the language, and would the phrase just be dropped or would there be conditionality added such as interest rates will remain as is until unemployment or inflation data justifies adjusting the current outlook?
There is a market expectation that some sort of fine tuning of the language will occur next week. The Fed will probably subtly amend the language while trying to keep their options open. If this happens it would cause a short term dollar rally since the market would then expect interest rates to rise at an earlier stage in 2015 than previously expected. And rising interest rates mean higher nominal returns for dollar denominated assets. In this scenario, the gold price would come under pressure due to a stronger dollar.
With the recent non-farm payrolls growth data coming out as weak, can the indebted US consumer and economy absorb an interest rate increase? When interest rates begin to rise its usually part of a rising trend, not just a one off rate rise. Are the Fed prepared to follow through with a change of course at this early stage? These are just some of the questions that may be answered by the FOMC press conference next Wednesday.
In our view, the Fed will probably adjust the considerable period' language at the FOMC meeting next week by adding conditionality to the language linked to an improvement of economic performance such as unemployment data.
If this occurs, the US dollar could have a short term rally on the back of the FOMC announcement since this is not yet fully priced in to the US dollar. This then is a real risk for gold because the gold price would most likely come under pressure as the US dollar strengthens.
Any US dollar rally would in our view be short-lived, since the Fed is not fully committed to increasing rates and is to an extent just engaged in the management of perceptions.
Therefore, any dollar rally would probably fizzle out shortly after it had begun. The fundamental reasons to own allocated and segregated gold remain intact. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-12...same-again
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
And they also didn't mention that the banks will leave London and move to Ireland if what is left of the Union leaves the EU
Quote:
BBC accused of anti-independence bias after editing out Salmond's reply to bank exodus' question
Published time: September 12, 2014 14:35
Edited time: September 12, 2014 17:39 Get short URL
Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond addresses the International Media Conference at the EICC in Edinburgh, Scotland September 11, 2014. (Reuters/Russell Cheyne)
The BBC faces accusations of anti-independence bias after its political editor, Nick Robinson, produced a report that wrongly claimed Alex Salmond had ignored his question during a heated press conference.
Calling into question the impartiality of the publicly-owned broadcaster, the veteran BBC correspondent edited out Salmond's lengthy answer, in which the First Minister claimed the BBC had skewed facts and colluded with the Treasury to undermine the "Yes" campaign.
The exchange between Robinson and Salmond came after the BBC reported that a UK Treasury source said the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) would move its headquarters to London if Scots voted for independence. At the press conference, Robinson asked Salmond how Scottish taxpayers would make up the loss of tax revenue.
Highlighting similar announcements from Scottish-based firms, Robinson said:
"Why should a Scottish voter believe you, a politician, against men who are responsible for billions of pounds of profits?"
What is not shown in Robinson's report is Salmond's reply and the heated exchange that followed.
In his reply, Salmond insisted that the economic significance of RBS, Lloyds Banking Group, Tesco Bank, TSB and Clydesdale Bank seeking to re-domicile to London would be minimal, as only banks' "brass plates" would be moving, while jobs in Scotland would remain secure.
When Salmond attempted to move onto the next questioner, Robinson repeatedly challenged him to answer questions about the banks' warnings.
The First Minister then went on the attack, calling for a leaks inquiry into who from the Treasury briefed the BBC about the RBS announcement.
He called it a matter of "extraordinary gravity" and said he was writing to the head of the British civil service to demand an investigation.
BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson (Photo from Twitter/@bbcnickrobinson)
Apparently pre-empting Robinson's line of questioning, Salmond held up a screen grab of the BBC story, saying that "you, Nick, or one of your colleagues" was responsible and that the leak was "as serious a matter as you possibly can get."
"I know the BBC in its impartial role as a public sector broadcaster will give full cooperation to that investigation," Salmond said pointedly.
He added: "This has been a lively campaign across Scotland with heckling at many meetings across Scotland. This is the first opportunity the BBC have had to heckle at a meeting," Salmond said, laughing.
The exchange took place during a press conference held in Edinburgh for international journalists covering the independence referendum.
Professor John Robertson, of the University of the West of Scotland, published a detailed academic paper earlier this year showing widespread bias in the BBC's coverage of the independence campaign.
"The use of dubious evidence and sources, the tough interviewing of Yes' supporters and the passive interviewing of No' supporters and the demonizing of the First Minister, Alex Salmond," were among some of Robertson's observations.
Dismissing Robertson's paper, a BBC spokeswoman told RIA Novosti news agency: "Our coverage of the referendum story is fair and impartial in line with the editorial guidelines."
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
I was bullied by BBC over academic report on indyref bias the Scottish media blackout must end
Academic: Professor John Robertson
Following a demonstration outside BBC Scotland's Glasgow headquarters this weekend, Professor John Robertson, media politics professor at the University of the West of Scotland and author of an academic study that claimed Scottish news broadcasts leaned more favourably towards the No campaign on Scottish independence, recounts the aftermath of his report and the implications for Scottish democracy.
When I published academic research at the beginning of the year examining the impartiality of broadcast news reporting ahead of the Scottish independence referendum, I didn't expect one of the subjects of my report BBC Scotland, no less to take such a strong reaction to the findings..
Senior BBC figures reported me to senior staff at my university and colleagues of mine were even warned to stay away' from me. I see this as a clear form of bullying by a powerful corporation. The great crime I'd committed was in publishing the results of a study which indicated that BBC Scotland's coverage of the Scottish independence referendum between September 2012 and September 2013 noticeably favoured the No campaign.
The Fairness in the First Year? Study was a year-long content analysis using fairly objective measures of fairness and balance to assess mainstream TV coverage of the Scottish independence referendum. The imbalance the research identified was more marked in the BBC/Reporting Scotland coverage than in the ITV/STV coverage, although both broadcasters fell significantly more towards favourable coverage for No than Yes statements.
The study found that, overall, there was a greater total number of No statements' compared to Yes; a tendency for expert advice against independence to be more common; a tendency for reports to begin and end with statements favouring the No campaign; and a very strong pattern of associating the Yes campaign arguments and evidence with the personal wishes of Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond. Taken together, the coverage was considered to be more favourable for the No campaign.
Though absent in mainstream media reporting, the research received massive interest online, especially and somewhat predictably in Yes campaign blogs. Newsnet Scotland reported 10,000 hits on the day it reported the findings, and I received more than 100 personal emails of support.
One email I hadn't been expecting came directly from BBC Scotland's head of policy and corporate affairs on 21 January 2014. He expressed serious concerns about the methodology, accuracy and language used in the report, and felt so strongly that he by-passed my head of school and dean of faculty and went straight to the university principal.
What triggered the head of policy and corporate affairs to write in such aggressive terms and to report me to my own employer over an academic study has never been explained to me, but needless to say I have received full support at all levels on my academic right to ask questions of power.
The first study prompted the commissioning of a second. Pro-independence website Newsnet Scotland crowdsourced enough funds to sponsor a study into the impartiality of BBC Radio Scotland's flagship politics show, Good Morning Scotland. The research was carried out by staff in the Creative Futures Research Institute at the University of the West of Scotland in Ayr, and it again indicated a problem in the balance of news reporting.
The broadcasts were balanced in crude, numerical terms, but in every other aspect were unfair to the Yes campaign and sat more favourably towards Better Together. Broadcasts began too often with bad news for Yes and featured heavy repetition of such messages over several hours in a manner conducive to unconscious absorption of warnings.
Statements from the Yes perspective were often reactive while those favouring Better Together were commonly initiating. Interviewers tended, too often, to adopt aggressive techniques with Yes supporters while only doing so on two recorded occasions with Better Together supporters.
Finally, in the selection and use of expert witness of dubious credibility and of evidence from partisan sources, the broadcasts were clearly unfair to the Yes campaign.
With only months to go until the independence referendum, the BBC clearly needs a system of monitoring and balancing its content to limit the admittedly unavoidable intrusion of bias to a minimum. It is worrying that research of this kind is required in a democracy, and it is similarly worrying that this report has been largely ignored by the BBC and mainstream media.
I fear we have witnessed the collusion of broadsheet, radio and TV journalists in their refusal to criticise each other's ethical behaviour. Until this point, I naively though Scotland was rather more equipped to expose elite collusions.
As for the BBC, the private attempts to quieten this research and their public policy of ignoring it are at odds. Indeed, when I was summoned in March to give evidence to the Scottish parliament's education and culture committee on broadcasting, the BBC remained silent despite being present at the committee and attempts by callers and audience members to raise the UWS study'.
The BBC's contradictory behaviour has helped fuel the eruption of protests outside BBC Scotland's Glasgow headquarters, but whether public distrust is enough to force the introduction of balance checks in time for the independence referendum remains to be seen.
Professor John Robertson has taught and researched in higher education for 30 years. He is especially interested in the relationship between media and other elites and in Western coverage of conflict in the Middle East and Central Asia. His interest in mainstream media coverage of the Scottish independence referendum began in 2012.
In Alerts 2014 Post 15 September 2014 Last Updated on 15 September 2014 By Editor Hits: 237
Established power hates uncertainty, especially any threat to its grip on the political, economic and financial levers that control society. And so it is with elite fears that the United Kingdom, formed by the 1707 Acts of Union, could be on the verge of unravelling.
No informed commentator doubts that elite interests will do all they can to maintain hegemony in an independent Scotland, should that historic shift occur following the referendum of September 18. But if it does happen, there will likely be significant consequences for the Trident nuclear missile system, the future of the NHS and the welfare state, education, climate policy, energy generation and other industry sectors, the media and many additional issues; not just in Scotland, but beyond, including Nato and the European Union. There is clearly a lot at stake and established power is concerned.
Just over a week ago, to the consternation of Westminster elites and their cheerleaders in media circles, a YouGov opinion poll showed that the 'Yes' vote (51%) had edged ahead of 'No' (49%) for the first time in the campaign, having at one point trailed by 22%. The Observer noted 'signs of panic and recrimination among unionist ranks', adding that 'the no campaign is desperately searching for ways to seize back the initiative'. The panic was marked by 'intensive cross-party talks' and underpinned George Osborne's announcement on the BBC Andrew Marr show on September 7 that 'a plan of action to give more powers to Scotland' in the event of a No vote would be detailed in the coming days.
Confusion reigned in the Unionist camp, and in media reporting of their befuddlement. According to the rules governing the referendum, the UK and Scottish governments are forbidden from publishing anything which might affect the outcome during the so-called 'purdah period' of 28 days leading up to September 18. So, how to reconcile the opportunistic 'promise' during purdah to grant Scotland new powers following a 'No' vote? BBC News dutifully reported the government sleight-of-hand that:
'the offer would come from the pro-Union parties, not the government itself.'
Voters, then, were supposed to swallow the fiction that the announcement came, not from the UK government represented by Chancellor George Osborne, but from the pro-Union parties represented by senior Tory minister George Osborne!
However, Alastair Darling, leader of the pro-Union 'Better Together' campaign, told Sky News that all new powers for Scotland had already been placed on the table before the purdah period. What had been announced was 'merely... a timetable for when the Scottish Parliament could expect to be given the limited powers already forthcoming.'
Thus, an announcement setting out a timetable for enhanced powers was completely above board and not at all designed to influence the very close vote on independence. This was establishment sophistry and a deeply cynical manipulation of the voters.
Media manipulation was exposed in stark form when Nick Robinson, the BBC's political editor, was rumbled by viewers able to compare his highly selective editing of an Alex Salmond press conference last Thursday with what had actually transpired. Robinson had asked Salmond a two-part question about supposedly solid claims made by company bosses and bankers - 'men who are responsible for billions of pounds of profits' - that independence would damage the Scottish economy. Not only did the full version of the encounter demonstrate that Salmond responded comprehensively, but he turned the tables on Robinson by calling into question the BBC's role as an 'impartial' public broadcaster. The self-serving report that was broadcast that night by Robinson on BBC News at Ten did not reflect the encounter which the political editor summed up misleadingly as:
'He didn't answer, but he did attack the reporting.'
The distorted BBC News reporting was picked up on social media and no doubt encapsulated what many viewers and listeners, particularly in Scotland, have been observing for months, if not years. One reader wrote an excellent email to us in which he said:
'Honestly, this is just ONE example of pathetic bias which more and more Scots are seeing through. I've long been a follower of your site, and I make a point of reading each and every alert. This is the first time I've taken to contacting you, and as I said, I imagine lots of others will be doing just that on the same subject.
'I've seen so much media bias with BBC Scotland since the turn of the year, but it's now getting to laughable proportions. And now that we have the entire London press-mafia crawling all over it too, it's daily headline news - all doom and gloom about how Scotland will fail, Scotland will be bankrupt, there's no more oil left, jobs will go, etc etc. It's been diabolical.'
The BBC's dismissive response to the public complaints about Robinson's skewed report concluded with the usual worn-out boilerplate text:
'the overall report [was] balanced and impartial, in line with our editorial guidelines.'
It is not only the bias in BBC News reporting that has alienated so many people, but the way the public broadcaster fails to adequately address public complaints - on any number of issues.
On the day following the YouGov poll result (September 8), frantic headlines were splashed all over the corporate media:
'Ten days to save the Union' (Daily Telegraph)
'Parties unite in last-ditch effort to save the Union' (The Times)
'Ten days to save the United Kingdom' (Independent)
'Scotland heads for the exit' (i, a tabloid version of the Independent)
'Last stand to keep the union' (Guardian)
'Queen's fear of the break up of Britain (Daily Mail)
'Don't let me be last Queen of Scotland' (Daily Mirror)
And, of course, the laughably over-the-top Sun:
'Scots vote chaos. Jocky horror show'
Corporate journalists pressed on with their scaremongering over Scottish independence. In the Telegraph, business news editor Andrew Critchlow intoned ominously:
'Scottish homeowners face mortgage meltdown if Yes campaign wins.'
The same newspaper published a piece by Boris Johnson arguing:
'Decapitate Britain, and we kill off the greatest political union ever. The Scots are on the verge of an act of self-mutilation that will trash our global identity.'
A Times editorial twitched nervously:
'The British political class is in a fight for which it seemed unprepared. It needs to find its voice'. ('Signifying Much', September 8, 2014; access by paid subscription only)
Larry Elliott, the Guardian's economics editor warned that an independent Scotland 'would not be a land flowing with milk and honey'. Jonathan Freedland, the Guardian's executive editor who oversees the paper's opinion section and editorials, bemoaned that:
'If Britain loses Scotland it will feel like an amputation...the prospect fills me with sadness for the country that would be left behind.'
Freedland quoted with obvious approval an unnamed 'big hitter' in the 'No' campaign who claimed:
'none of this would be happening if there were a Labour government in Westminster.'
This is the classic liberal-left fairytale that things would be different if only Labour were in power: a delusion that all too many voters in Scotland, as elsewhere, have seen through ever since it was obvious that Blairism was a continuation of Thatcherism.
Freedland sighed:
'When I contemplate the prospect of waking up on 19 September to discover the union has been defeated, I can't help but feel a deep sadness.'
Given Freedland's role as a Guardian mover and shaker, with a big input to its editorial stance, it was no surprise when a Guardian leader followed soon after, firmly positioning the flagship of liberal journalism in the 'No' camp. The paper pleaded: 'Britain deserves another chance'. But the pathetic appeal for the Union was propped up by a sly conflation of independence with 'ugly nationalism', notwithstanding a token airy nod towards 'socialists, greens and other groups'. The paper's nastiness continued with the unsubstantiated assertion that 'a coded anti-English prejudice can lurk near the surface of Alex Salmond's pitch'.
Ironically, one of the Guardian's own columnists, Suzanne Moore, had a piece published two days earlier that inadvertently preempted the nonsense now being spouted by her paper's own editors:
'The language of the no camp Westminster, bankers, Farage, Prescott, the Orangemen and Henry Kissinger is innately patronising.'
To which we can now add the Guardian.
She continued:
'Do not give in to petty nationalism, they say. Just stick with the bigger unionist nationalism; it's better for you.'
In the Observer, sister paper of the Guardian, Will Hutton was virtually inconsolable:
'Without imaginative and creative statecraft, the polls now suggest Scotland could secede from a 300-year union, sundering genuine bonds of love, splitting families and wrenching all the interconnectedness forged from our shared history.'
He ramped up the rhetoric still further:
'Absurdly, there will be two countries on the same small island that have so much in common. If Britain can't find a way of sticking together, it is the death of the liberal enlightenment before the atavistic forces of nationalism and ethnicity a dark omen for the 21st century. Britain will cease as an idea. We will all be diminished.'
Writing for the pro-independence Bella Caledonia website, Mike Small responded to Hutton's apocalyptic warnings:
'Unfortunately he has misunderstood the basic tenor of the British State, that is to cling to power, to centralise it, and to shroud it in obscurity.'
Small added that Hutton's caricature of the 'Yes' camp as 'the atavistic forces of nationalism and ethnicity' is 'such an absurd metropolitan misreading of what's going on as to be laughable.'
Small's crucial point is one we should remember when listening to senior politicans; that their first priority is always to cling to power. Craig Murray was scathing about the leaders of the main Westminster political parties, and their last-ditch desperate trip to Scotland last Wednesday to 'save the Union':
'Cameron, Miliband and Clegg. Just typing the names is depressing. As part of their long matured and carefully prepared campaign plan (founded 9 September 2014) they are coming together to Scotland tomorrow to campaign. In a brilliant twist, they will all come on the same day but not appear together. This will prevent the public from noticing that they all represent precisely the same interests.'
Murray nailed what is at stake when he said that the 'three amigos' 'offer no actual policy choice to voters', and he gave a list showing how tightly they march together:
'They all support austerity budgets
They all support benefit cuts
They all support tuition fees
They all support Trident missiles
They all support continued NHS privatisation
They all support bank bail-outs
They all support detention without trial for "terrorist suspects"
They all support more bombings in Iraq
They all oppose rail nationalisation'
In short:
'The areas on which the three amigos differ are infinitesimal and contrived. They actually represent the same paymasters and vested interests.'
These 'paymasters and vested interests' are surely trembling with fear at the power now residing in the hands of voters in Scotland. As George Monbiot observes:
'A yes vote in Scotland would unleash the most dangerous thing of all - hope.'
He expands:
'If Scotland becomes independent, it will be despite the efforts of almost the entire UK establishment. It will be because social media has defeated the corporate media. It will be a victory for citizens over the Westminster machine, for shoes over helicopters. It will show that a sufficiently inspiring idea can cut through bribes and blackmail, through threats and fear-mongering. That hope, marginalised at first, can spread across a nation, defying all attempts to suppress it.'
Whatever happens on Thursday, skewed media performance on Scottish independence - in particular, from the BBC - has helped huge numbers of people see ever more clearly the deep bias in corporate news media.
Is one reason all the English political parties are wetting themselves that Scotland will leave the Union today, possibly that this will result in demands by the rest of the British people to have a clear and direct referendum to leave the European union? I suspect there are real fears that pols have suddenly awoken to as a hitherto unforeseen danger. There is a vast anti-European feeling in the UK and were a referendum to be allowed (which is why it hasn't) a "yes" vote is certain.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
David Guyatt Wrote:Is one reason all the English political parties are wetting themselves that Scotland will leave the Union today, possibly that this will result in demands by the rest of the British people to have a clear and direct referendum to leave the European union? I suspect there are real fears that pols have suddenly awoken to as a hitherto unforeseen danger. There is a vast anti-European feeling in the UK and were a referendum to be allowed (which is why it hasn't) a "yes" vote is certain.
I'm sure you are right David. Exactly why the US wants Cuba crushed and why Yugoslavia had to go. It sets a bad example to ther small nations who might think they can do what they want. It is all over Europe for that matter. Anti EU austerity. And many of the votes are going to nationalist parties and neo nazi and fascist parties because they do run on that separatist type platform. I have no time for the SNP leader but many of the people voting yes seem quite progressive in their politics. They are anti austerity and wanting free education, a NHS and a more 'fair' economy. Clearly Tories are completely on the nose there and it all seems less nationalistic and more a rejection of the Westminster caste business as usual. Haven't actually heard any rah rah Scotland for ever jingoism at all from here. We have a live broadcast of the vote here because there are enough Brits living here and Australian's with close ties so it will be very interesting tonight.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Well, it is supposed to be a 'No' vote and maybe it is but it is hard for me to accept that it has been fairly run when there is this image from a Sky new live broadcast from Dundee showing a bundle of 'Yes' votes on the 'No' table. How many more of this sort of thing is there happening? The other thing that I found odd was how long it took to become clear which group was ahead. It was a very simple vote with just a 'yes' or 'no' outcome. Dead easy to sort and no room for doubt or confusion and only 5 million to count. I have done scrutineering and recounts in our elections here. We use a preferential voting system with hand written ballots. It can get messy with many boxes to choose from, adherence to particular protocols and many different piles to allocate papers to depending on what was selected. Yet we usually have a clear outcome within the first 2 hours. It just seemed to take so long in Scotland for them to unofficially declare.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Pro-independentists gesture at anti-independentists demonstrating for the unity of Spain in the centre of Barcelona during Catalonia National Day (Diada) on September 11, 2014. (AFP Photo / Josep Lago)
Catalans hold Catalan independentist flags (Estelada) during celebrations of Catalonia National Day (Diada) in Barcelona on September 11, 2014. (AFP Photo / Lluis Gene)
Anti-independence Catalans hold Spanish flags as they take part in a demonstration for the unity of Spain in the centre of Barcelona during Catalonia National Day (Diada) on September 11, 2014. (AFP Photo / Josep Lago)
A biker with an independentist flag rides through Barcelona during Catalonia National Day (Diada) on September 11, 2014. (AFP Photo / Lluis Gene)
Catalans holding Catalan independentist flags (Estelada) gather on Passeig de Gracia during celebrations of Catalonia National Day (Diada) in Barcelona on September 11, 2014. (AFP Photo / Josep Lago)
![[Image: picture-44273.jpg]](http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/pictures/picture-44273.jpg)
![[Image: goldcore_bloomberg_chart4_12-09-14.png]](http://dzswc0o8s13dx.cloudfront.net/goldcore_bloomberg_chart4_12-09-14.png)
![[Image: goldcore_bloomberg_chart5_12-09-14.png]](http://dzswc0o8s13dx.cloudfront.net/goldcore_bloomberg_chart5_12-09-14.png)
![[Image: bbc-scottish-independence-bias.si.jpg]](http://cdn.rt.com/files/news/2d/bd/00/00/bbc-scottish-independence-bias.si.jpg)
Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond addresses the International Media Conference at the EICC in Edinburgh, Scotland September 11, 2014. (Reuters/Russell Cheyne)![[Image: cucu-1.jpg]](http://rt.com/files/news/2d/bd/00/00/cucu-1.jpg)
BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson (Photo from Twitter/@bbcnickrobinson)![[Image: scotlandbias2.jpg]](http://rt.com/files/news/2d/bd/00/00/scotlandbias2.jpg)
![[Image: ProfessorJohnRobertson.jpg?itok=25dDn9T7]](http://static3.thedrum.com/uploads/opinion/172057/ProfessorJohnRobertson.jpg)
![[Image: news.jpg]](http://www.medialens.org/images/news.jpg)
