Scottish Independence: Media bias and UK Government Conspiracy

In the light of Brexit and the prospect of the UK splitting up, this post from 2014 has been revised and updated.

It’s often been said that the first casualty of war is the truth, in this case a propaganda war for the hearts and minds of the Scottish people. And it’s a propaganda war that has revealed the UK’s cherished institution — the BBC — to be a vehicle for the UK establishment, despite the BBC Charter stating:

The BBC shall be independent in all matters concerning the content of its output, the times and manner in which this is supplied, and in the management of its affairs.

Complimenting the Charter is an Agreement. Paragraph 44 of the Agreement details the ‘Accuracy and impartiality’ with respect to the fact that:

The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.

Paragraph 45 notes that The BBC must comply with The Fairness Code, which is regulated by Ofcom. The key principle of the Code is ‘To ensure that broadcasters avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes’.

The BBC Trust is responsible for running the BBC. All the relevant documents are available on the website.

So why am I laying out the regulatory framework of the BBC? Because there is convincing evidence that the BBC is in breach of its protocols with respect to its coverage of the Referendum (among other issues). Following is a video of research that was conducted by Professor John Robertson from the media studies department of the University of West of Scotland.

Robertson subsequently gave evidence to the Education and Culture Committee in the Scottish Parliament. OpenDemocracy has reported on his report in more detail.

More was to come in the campaign as these next two videos highlight. The incident involved Nick Robinson, the political editor for the BBC, who asked Alex Salmond a question at an international press conference on Thursday September 11. This is the version of the report that went out on national news broadcasts:

And this is the full version that was broadcast live on BBC News 24:

There is a stark difference between edited version and the full version. After receiving complaints about this the BBC glossed over the incident as reported in this archived complaint document.

So, who is Nick Robinson anyway? His biography certainly makes interesting reading and poses the question as to whether there might be a conflict of interest at the BBC. And given the fact that this isn’t the first time Mr Robinson has faced questions of political bias — its a valid question.

In 1987, after working his way up the ranks, he became Chairman of the National Young Conservatives. His affiliation with the Tories have been dismissed as historical. But during the 2010 elections he was accused of being biased in favour of the Tories. This prompted calls for his removal from the BBC.

In another controversial move the BBC reported ‘inside’ information on financial institutions moving south in the event of a yes vote (more on this below), which prompted Salmond to send a letter of complaint to David Cameron.

Such tactics of misinformation predominantly emanate from the right wing UK media. The BBC is less obvious, but it displays the subtlety of methodical manipulation as noted by Professor Robertson.

So how does one brush off the chaff released by the mainstream media? The simple answer is to avoid it. The internet provides many independent sources of information — some better than others. As far as the referendum is concerned, Wings Over Scotland provided a useful source of information for the Yes crowd through Its publication of The Wee Blue Book. Some of the issues raised by the Book are highlighted here.

Currency

There’s been a lot of coercion by the No camp around the question of a shared currency i.e. Scotland retaining the pound after independence. The Book states that ‘Sterling is what’s known as a “fully-tradeable” international currency, which means that any country can use it if it wants to, without requiring the UK government’s permission’. This statement is backed up by the Adam Smith institute:

As the American economist George Selgin has pointed out, what the Prime Minister really means is that the Bank of England would not act as a guarantor for Scottish banks or the Scottish government. Lucky Scotland: the implied promise of a bailout from the European Central Bank is exactly what allowed Eurozone banks and governments to borrow cheaply and get themselves into a debt crisis.

Scotland’s position would be closer to that of countries like Panama, Ecuador and El Salvador, which use the US Dollar without American “permission”, and, according to research by the Federal Reserve of Atlanta, consequentially have far more prudent and stable financial systems than if they were part of a formal currency union.

The Financial Times agrees and explores the issue in more detail. With George Osborn rejecting a currency union, the Times argues:

is this really the most sensible economic option for both parts of Britain post-independence or just a negotiation stance driven by politics? Look at the facts and I would argue (as I did recently in evidence to the Scottish parliament) that a successful currency union would actually be in the interest of both sides — and especially the rest of the UK.

Clearly rejecting a Union out-of-hand would be detrimental initially to both countries. The article concludes that:

the most damaging prospect to the rest of the UK from rejecting a sterling currency union is what it will do to its own trade and business activity. Whatever the political tactics involved, it would be tantamount to economic vandalism.

In addition there has been a lot of nonsense concerning the relocation of financial institutions to England. The fact is that RBS et al will not be uprooting lock stock and barrel. Here’s the reality. EU legislation stipulates that banks must locate their headquarters where they do most business.

‘Its our oil’

This has been the rallying cry from the SNP in the past. The big argument now is whether North Sea Oil would be a viable proposition in an Indy Scotland. The key point is the fact the North Sea oil is running out. That’s a fact of life. Its a finite resource. But what the No camp have failed to notice is the fact that oil reserves are dwindling Globally. Its called peak oil.

The Book argues that oil will still provide significant revenue for some years to come. As a resource becomes scarcer the economic reality is that prices will rise. It is likely that despite reduced overall North sea production, global price hikes will continue to make North sea production viable. Of course the best way to insulate against dwindling fossil fuels is to switch to renewables. However the Scottish Government has continued to back up oil production.

The real problem that rising oil prices have brought is increasing developments in unconventional oil and gas production. The economic logic here is that as easy to get at production fades, more difficult extraction processes become viable. This is reflected in increased attention towards deep water drilling, tar sands and onshore oil and gas exploitation such as fracking.

By continuing on a fossil fuel trajectory, the risk of irreversible climate change becomes a reality — a fact not lost on the Scottish Government when in 2009 it introduced the ambitious climate change act. But it remains on a fossil fuel trajectory, despite a prevailing climate emergency and the devastating impacts of COVID-19 on the industry. However an Indy Scotland would be more likely to move towards a carbon free renewable based economy in contrast to the UK Governments reckless drive towards its - currently aborted - dash-for-gas.

As for the proposed oil fund from the Scottish Govt. its debatable whether a long term pot can be developed. But as this article from The Scotsman points out it is likely that a significant income can be guaranteed, but only after new investment and regulation. But has Scotland missed the boat? As the Book points out:

The extent of Scotland’s wealth after the discovery of North Sea oil in the 1970s was so great that successive Labour and Conservative governments hid it from the Scottish people for three decades. When a 1975 analysis for the UK government by economist Professor Gavin McCrone was finally made public in 2005 after a Freedom Of Information Request’, the issue was picked up by The Independent. The article notes that, ‘It was a document that could have changed the course of Scottish history. Nineteen pages long, Written in an elegant, understated academic hand by the leading Scottish economist Gavin McCrone, presented to the Cabinet office in April 1975 and subsequently buried in a Westminster vault for thirty years. It revealed how North Sea oil could have made an independent Scotland as prosperous as Switzerland.

‘The “It’s Scotland’s Oil” campaign began in 1972. If only they had seen the professor’s research.

An independent Scotland’s budget surpluses as a result of the oil boom, wrote Professor McCrone, would be so large as to be “embarrassing”.

The discovery of further oil resources in Clair oil field off the west coast of Shetland that has the potential to supersede the North sea as a major source of oil production, has been a sweetener for the Scottish Government.

Trident

In 2009, Greenpeace produced the report In the Firing Line, which revealed the true cost of the Trident replacement program. This was how Greenpeace set the tone:

This week’s news has been dominated by debate about the dire economic outlook facing the nation, and the likely severity of the cutbacks we’ll need to make to pay down our now massive national debt. Ministers wring their hands about it but can’t escape the reality that Britain plc needs to make cuts across the board — unless, of course, it’s weapons of mass destruction that are under discussion.

‘New research from Greenpeace, using only the government’s own figures, puts the actual cost of building and operating Trident’s replacement at over £95bn, and also questions serious cost overruns in plans to build and equip two new ‘supercarriers’ for the Royal Navy, which are on order to help us maintain our ‘global reach.

The report notes some shifty twists and turns from the UK Government over its intentions for maintaining Trident. Indeed in a later article from Greenpeace, it was revealed that the Government was already purchasing parts for the replacement without parliamentary approval:

Through a Freedom of Information request we’ve learned that the MoD plans to purchase what they call ‘long-lead’ items, like submarine hulls, propulsion systems, and various other parts of the combat systems. The first of these purchases — buying the steel for the hulls — may be authorised by the MoD in the next weeks. In short, this is such a shopping list that there’ll be little left unspent on the Trident-wielding submarines by the time decisions are made in 2016.

In response, Greenpeace have sent a briefing to all UK MPs to inform them that it seems Trident are going ahead without their approval. Soon after, MPs acted, putting down a parliamentary early day motion (EDM 1477 — Trident Submarine Proposals) to protest this premature purchase of steel and to insist on more insight before the UK government are financially tied in to the purchase — just like the debacle with the aircraft carriers.

These MoD vanity projects are the last thing this country needs when we’re losing vital public services to spending cuts.

The Scottish Government has intimated its intentions are to scrap Trident. So the big question is, will Trident move south, if this comes to pass? As things stand it seems that US is taking cold feet over the UK’s cold war relic.

The Media Reaction

There was little doubt that significant UK media bias against Independence was unleashed against an unsuspecting Scottish (and British) public. Media analysts Media Lens looked at Professor Roberson’s study and the BBC’s reaction to it, which involved sending a:

6,000-word letter to Professor Robertson in an attempt to demolish his study and undermine his credibility, copying it to the professor’s Principal at the University of West Scotland. This unprecedented move seemed deliberately calculated to intimidate the researcher.

But in Roberson’s response he concluded:

I think I’ve answered all the questions needed to contest these conclusions. […] The BBC response is a remarkably heavy-handed reaction. Why did they not report the research, let their experts critique it on air and then ask me to defend it? Instead we see a bullying email to my employer and a blanket suppression across the mainstream media in the UK. I’m shocked.

The Media Lens article carries a remarkable account of the BBC’s high level response to Robertson’s research. Robertson’s summed up to Media Lens his thoughts about the whole debacle:

As a long-term adopter of the Propaganda Model‘s usefulness in other contexts, I’ve been naive about its usefulness in Scotland; no longer. It now looks a classic case of thought control enabled by self-censorship within elites and amongst those less powerful that they manage.

On the big day it was the No vote that clinched it - 45% to the Yeas and 55% to the Nays. Then the post-mortem began.

Russian observers were the first to step forward — as reported in the Guardian — to announce their reservations. In the wake of the propaganda storm perpetuated by the British media, the Guardian made this observation:

The Kremlin propaganda channel RT, meanwhile, speculated that the result might have been rigged and expressed surprise at the “North Korean” levels of turnout.

It was familiar hypocrisy from the British media. Given the revelations above, RT was one of the few media agencies that actually reported the referendum openly and transparently. RT gives an excellent summary of the campaign, noting that:

The referendum on Scottish independence will go down in history as a glowing testament to the virtues of the democratic process after it succeeded in capturing the imagination and participation of an entire nation.

The Referendum:

mobilized thousands of people across Scotland to produce such a groundswell of support for independence it rocked the British establishment to its very foundations. Who could ever have foreseen at the start of the 16-week referendum campaign, when the polls had the No campaign 20 points ahead, that in the final two weeks this mass grassroots mobilization would compel a Conservative Prime Minister and the leaders of the two main opposition Westminster parties to scurry up to Scotland from London in a panic stricken last ditch effort to save the union?

‘[T]he Yes campaign was undoubtedly one of the most vibrant, broad, and effective ever waged in Scottish and British political history, the No campaign will go down as one of the most limp, narrow and inept. The Better Together campaign was led by former Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling, a man who possesses all the charisma of a plank of wood. It was made up of an unholy alliance of Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems. It was so bad that at times you almost felt it was being secretly organized by the Yes campaign.

But It wasn’t just the media that interfered in the referendum. As the Herald revealed prior to the vote:

The Devolution Unit, created by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in 2012 to deliver abroad the "utmost co-operation", now appears to be at the heart of Westminster's anti-independence drive, amassing hostile reactions from overseas.

Then in 2015, Julian Assange, addressing a Commonwealth Law Conference in Glasgow, stated that suspicions that MI5 was conducting a campaign to thwart the referendum against a yes vote were correct.

These revelations shouldn't come as a surprise. The break up of the union is a national security issue and the evidence points to intelligence agency interference.

It goes without saying that in the event of an Indyref 2, the UK establishment will pull out all the stops to maintain national security. But with one major difference. The Scottish electorate will no longer be part of the EU. In 2016, Scotland voted 68% in favour of remaining in the EU in the Brexit referendum. Despite an 11th hour deal struck between Westminster and Brussels, the proof will be in the pudding as to how Brexit will impact the overall economic picture, especially given the impact of COVID-19.