Wednesday, 27 July 2016

NICE TO SEE THE BBC REMAINS AS IMPARTIAL AS EVER


35 comments:

  1. As ever the devil is in the detail. The word Mr Neil uses is "compiled". The question is "Who collects and collates the data?".

    The information is there in GERS although it is not very visible. That is why I have always wanted a line by line symbol marking to explain the source.

    I would have a Saltire for data collected and verified by the Scottish government and a Union Jack where the data is derived from UK collected data. This latter category would need a further breakdown as to accuracy/quality of the rUK/Scotland split. A V for verified as accurate from source, an E for estimated, and a G for (Pure) Guesswork.

    I think the General public would then see how inadequate a tool GERS is for measuring the Scottish economy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that's fair enough.

      I remember that Ian Lang (now an aristocrat) who introduced GERS did so (as he said in a memo to Major, afterwards leaked) that the figures were intended to put a poor light on the Scottish economy and discourage any thoughts of independence. The original tweeter was making just that point. GERS figures should really be stopped.

      My point in this post, though, was to show the snippy bitchy way in which Neil referred to the Scottish government. You'd have wished for something a little less biased from such a leading light of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

      Delete
    2. "A leading light of the British Broadcasting Corporation."

      Surely should be;

      A leading propagandist of the British Narrow-casting Corporation.

      He knows fine well the GERS figures are incomplete at best, and downright misleading; but that won't fit in with his personal bias towards the union, which has served him well, as he has served it.

      Delete
    3. Well, I was speaking loosely ...

      :)

      At least he likes to think he is, and as you say, they have served each other well at licence payers' expense.

      Delete
  2. I have noticed that both ITV and BBC news reporters refer to the SNP rather than the Scottish government.
    They never refer to the UK government as the Tories however.
    Strange that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. And when it's Union Jackie Bird saying it, you can actually see her lip curl in disgust.

      Delete
  3. Come on! Andrew Neil had a point! His job is to educate, highlight important information in a professional way. If you are going to criticise Mr Neil's professionalism, be sure you know what you're talking about! (this chap clearly did not)

    A cybernat complains GERS figures don't include key Scots data, only to be told it was actually compiled by his own side/gov.

    Neil was correct, he cybernats ignorance was irritating. He was caught looking for 'gripe and grievance'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The GERS figures don't include Scots exports through English ports, that's a lot of revenue lost to GERS and accredited to English revenue.

      What I find totally irritating, is being governed by Tories that the Scottish people reject time after time.

      Delete
    2. Jim, in a democracy you don't always get the government you voted for. I, likewise, have been irritated between 2011-2016, being governed by a majority NAT gov't that the majority of Scottish voters didn't vote for in 2011.

      You see, it cuts both ways. It is important we respect the result as they are, keep campaigning for what we believe.


      Putting all that aside, the twitter chap stated that he thought the GERS figures were a 'tory tool' designed to 'confuse'.

      Clearly, given GERS are compiled by the SNP that is a nonsense argument...unless he seriously thinks Sturgeon is some variant of Tory...

      Delete
    3. Its fine folks. Andrew Neil wasn't being dishonest, he was just being disingenuous. His job is to educate, just not with *all* the information. He only needs to offer enough to lend credence to his sophistry... And by sophistry, I mean professionalism...

      All totally fine, nothing to see here, move along etc... I mean, we knew what the original tweet meant, but Neil has a duty to literal accuracy, he's not qualified to analyse or in anyway extrapolate anything that is said to him so that he might get to the heart of the matter - I mean its just not his job...

      Frankly...

      ;-)

      Delete
    4. Dean. Tell me you know how GERS is 'compiled' - specifically where the figures come from to are plugged into the calculation in the GERS report?

      I can't decide if you're being obtuse (very obtuse) or ignorant of the details.

      Delete
    5. One Tory MP elected to Westminster, and Scotland gets a Tory government, democracy? I don't think so, as long as Scotland is in a Union with England, we shall get the government England votes for.
      Ian Lang devised GERS, with the aim of misleading the people, regarding Scotland's fiscal health. So the "cybernat" was kinda right don't cha think?

      He's now known as Baron Lang of Monkton, for services rendered.

      Delete
    6. 1 MP elected by 430,000 Scots
      31 MSPs, elected by 23% of the Scots electorate.

      If anything, we're chronically underrepresented in WM

      Delete
    7. You are quite correct, as in Scotland is underrepresented at Westminster, as Westminster cares not about Scotland's representatives.
      Though the snp are at least making an effort, something the previous incumbent bench warmers failed to do.

      Delete
    8. Dean: I didn't think Fluffy got all these votes? :)

      You must remember that the SNP and the Liberal Democrats wanted to change the voting system so that parties got a more representative share of the seats, but that your Mr Cameron fought against it most valiantly.

      It was a scandal really, that in the UK elections the SNP got 50% of the vote in Scotland and over 90% of the seats.

      It was a scandal that UKIP got far more votes than the SNP but only 1 seat. (Like them or loathe them, they got the votes. There should be probably 100 UKIP MPs.)

      I repeat, the SNP and the Liberals were firmly for, and remain firmly for, proportional representation.

      Incidentally, regardless of that, whatever was put forward by Scottish MPs during the Scotland act debates, it was turned down by the UK. So they didn't even respect the number of votes, never mind the number of seat (gained under THEIR system).

      Delete
    9. That's true Jim. At least the SNP MPs are working for Scotland, unlike the incumbents of the seats previously.

      Delete
    10. And right again, Jim. His Nobleness came up with teh scheme, the Scottish Office was supposed to work out these figures, and they would show Scotland off to as disadvantage. This was admitted in a memo to his boss, John Major.

      I don't know why Neil didn't know that.

      Delete
    11. Dean: I'd be grateful if you could answer Pa's question. Maybe you do have some inside knowledge about their compilation that would counter The Noble and Rt Honourable Baron's memo.

      Delete
  4. If Andrew Neil's job is to 'educate' and not, as in this case, pontificate then he should be doing so from an impartial perspective and his employers have a duty to ensure that he does so from a neutral view-point. However, given his previous employment with right-wing newspapers, his close association with Murdoch and the Barclay Brothers and the fact that he is a self-confessed unionist would suggest that being impartial/neutral is not part of the conditions of employment imposed on him by his employers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He has that in common with many, if not all, his BBC counterparts, John.

      BTW, I read your article and commented, and I put you back on the blog list, from which some evil troll had removed you. I blame the Russians!

      Delete
  5. Where to start? Andrew Neil became editor of the Scotsman in 1996. From a well respected newspaper it became a parody of itself within a very short time. He reintoduced a court circular FFS. He's a Tory arsewipe, end of story.

    Yes. I'm angry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did he not make a mess of the Sunday Times too? Wasn't the Times/Sunday Times once considered a newspaper of record?

      Didn't he have something to do with that disappearing down the pan?

      Delete
  6. Tris, why the big brown blocks down your blogroll?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. seems to have been a problem with the linked graphic on the Dugs blog and pictish beastie has doubled the problem by reblogging

      Delete
    2. Yep, I'm hoping soon that Paul writes a new article and that will sort the issue.

      It's really annoying but there's nothing I can do about it.


      Scroll across Conan... The Dug's lovely, but it makes a mess of the blog.

      Delete
    3. I thought you were being sabotaged by Niko?

      Delete
    4. You really think Niko cold manage that by himself... or that Taz would help him?

      Delete
  7. When HighlandArab was referring to a Tory Tool, was he talking about GERS or Andrew Neil?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL... Trust you!

      Delete
  8. Ignorance Stupidity according to Brillo / Neil.
    Using his superior arrogant tosh.
    It's not compiled by the SNP government or by the present coalition government. No overall majority old boy!!!!.
    I think the Civil Servants actually compile the figures.

    Been imbibing on the Blue Nun in the USA.
    Condescending P!ic*
    Independance for Monaco is his only care!
    Serial tougher.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Point of order: it's not a coalition government, it's a minority government.

      Delete
    2. Yep. I think he's won the battle for independence in Monaco...

      Imagine that. Monaco is independent but we're too wee to manage!

      Delete
    3. Indeed Unknown. Minority government, the way it was supposed to be.

      Delete
  9. Tris, I think the 430,000 our resident troll Dean is alluding to is the Total Tory vote of 434,097 or 14.9% of the vote in the GE 2015. it was the worst Tory performance in Scotland since 1965. With regard to UKIP. They did indeed poll over 4 million votes but that was spread over every constituency in England and Wales and only accounted for the same percentage as the Tories in Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
  10. LOl Hoots, I knew that. I was being a bit naughty with old Deano.

    Yes. You're right. It was indeed their worst performance in decades.

    I know, you're right about UKIP, but there is an anomaly there. In our UNITED kingdom, one party gets 4 million votes and 1 seat, and one gets 1.5 million and gets 56 seats. That can't be right. No matter what we think of UKIP.

    ReplyDelete