O, wad some Power the giftie gie us/To see oursels as others see us!

In other bias-related news, a survey for The Herald shows that 36% of Scots think the BBC is biased against independence. 

I can't say that comes as particularly surprising news, but the other figures - 23% disagreeing and 41% neither agreeing or disagreeing - are still striking.

Less than a quarter of Scots were prepared to give the BBC the thumbs-up in this survey. 

That's not good for the BBC, is it?

Questions, questions

Following on from the previous post...

I suspect that some of you might find the following links - and the discussion below the posts - highly interesting: 

Up In Lights

Diplomatic Derek

In a nutshell, it concerns Derek Bateman - a leading BBC presenter in Scotland who quit the BBC before the Scottish independence referendum to support the independence cause. His blog regularly (and wittily) lays into his former employer, the BBC, over what he sees as the corporation's anti-independence bias, and his insider revelations caused the BBC establishment in Scotland a wee bit of embarrassment over their links to Labour. Naturally, he became popular with those BBC-hating Scots nationalists often described as 'cybernats'. 

Derek and some of his loyal readers have had something of a falling-out this week. They (the loyal readers) think the BBC has "a plan to tilt opinion against the SNP and independence" and that "BBC journalists are willing participants or perhaps convenient stooges" in this "conspiracy"; He (Derek) thinks that "not true" and "not possible":

Anyone with common sense or any experience inside an organisation understands there is a collective ethos or corporate mindset and subconsciously follows it – which does happen at the BBC whose origins, management configuration and internal protocols tend towards reflecting a status quo. In this case that means Britain.  

But that’s not the same thing as journalists conspiring to twist announcements to read like criticisms of the SNP. That needs a structure in which word comes down through layers of staff to the journalists. It means telling a journalist what to say or what to write even against his better judgement. It means over 200 staff keeping quiet and never spilling the beans. It suggests all staff are party to an undeclared plan and word doesn’t leak out. Nobody complains. Everybody is malleable or has no political views of their own.

His readers, overwhelmingly, disagree. The common refrain is, "Sorry Derek, I think you are way off the mark here." They do think that the BBC has "an agenda", that "the BBC controllers have a bias and do control the agenda of what makes the news and the order and orientation of the presentation", that  the BBC is engaged in "a deliberate attempt to discredit independence".

That, of course, is a familiar issue of considerable relevance to the BBC's present behaviour over Brexit.

Is the BBC being anti-Brexit because of many at the BBC sharing a collective ethos and subconsciously following the corporation mindset (against Brexit)? Or are the BBC controllers actually pursuing an (anti-Brexit) agenda in their choice of news stories and their presentations of those news stories in order to discredit Brexit (as those Westminster parliamentarians in the previous post suspect)?

Or is it a bit of both? (I'm discounting the 'Or neither?' option!)

Those Westminster parliamentarians that David at News-watch has been hearing from are making the claim that some of the top brass at the BBC appear to be deliberately attempting to discredit Brexit. Could this be true?

The bit I missed from that quote from Derek's blog was this:

This idea of conveying the coherence of the UK is now written into the new charter settlement. It means that when there is a threat to the status quo, as there was in the 90s over a Scottish Six [ie. a Scottish BBC One News at Six] the Director General went to the Prime Minister to move jointly against it in case it threatened the Union. Which makes you think about the indyref.

Is something like that also informing the BBC's biased behaviour against Brexit? 

Nick Robinson v the cybernats (Part 54)

Today's big 'stooshie' on Twitter (regarding BBC bias) concerned the sudden flaring-up again of the deep, historic enmity between Nick Robinson and the cybernats.

If you recall, Nick Robinson had asked Alex Salmond a question at a press conference during the referendum debate which didn't go down very well with either Mr Salmond or his supporters (to put it mildly). Some pro-independence supporters 'went their dinger' so much that they swarmed around the BBC's Glasgow HQ demanding Nick Robinson's 'heid' on a platter.

Speaking at the Edinburgh International Book Festival this week, the BBC's former political editor said he regretted phrasing his question badly but added that Alex Salmond had exploited his question as a diversionary tactic. 

He also compared those protests to something out of Putin's Russia:

Alex Salmond was using me to change the subject. Alex Salmond was using me as a symbol, a symbol of the wicked, metropolitan, Westminster classes sent from England, sent from London, in order to tell the Scots what they ought to do. 

As it happens I fell for it. I shouldn't have had the row with him, which I did and I chose a particular phrase we might explore badly in terms of my reporting and that is genuinely a sense of regret. 

But as a serious thought I don't think my offence was sufficient to justify 4,000 people marching on the BBC's headquarters, so that young men and women who are new to journalism have, like they do in Putin's Russia, to fight their way through crowds of protesters, frightened as to how they do their jobs. 

That, you may agree with me or disagree with me, is not how politics should operate either in the UK or in future independent Scotland if there is to be such a thing. 

We should not live with journalists who are intimidated, or bullied, or fearful in any way.

This will run and run (and run).

Meanwhile, in another universe...

The cybernats are not happy bunnies today. 

They are (as ever) very active on the Twitter hashtag #bbcbias, busily tweeting each other messages like the following:

Proof of #bbcbias entire interview subliminally captioned as "SNP Threat" on #bbcdp Impartial and unbiased eh? ”

wow the #bbcbias channel now trying subliminal messages. It's not done in error

@BBCNews @BBCNewsnight @BBCPolitics your bias against the SNP is the REAL THREAT to democracy! #BBCBias

Stewart Hosie interviewed by BBC yesterday surely positive proof of BBC bias? 

More incredible BBC bias. They don't even try and hide it anymore. (Too funny) 

#BBCBias introduce latest series for their  #ProjectDemonizeSNP

If you needed proof of BBC bias toward SNP, here it is @boycottTheBBC @daily_politics @theSNP @afneil 

And what exactly has got their goat today (mixing my animal metaphors)? Well, this:

Now, I think I know what the BBC's trying to say with that caption but I don't think the cybernats would entirely buy that explanation.

Anyhow, you're now beholding an image (above) which is surely destined for thousands upon thousands of tweets and re-tweets from now till infinity...or at least until Scottish independence.

As the polls close...

As the polls close in the Scottish independence referendum, here are a selection of topical jokes that you are very unlikely to have heard on Radio 4's The Now Show. 

They might be Frankie Boyle jokes. Or they might not be. Probably the latter...

Hearing the independence vote is going to be incredibly tight. So definitely Scottish then.

How many Scots does it take to screw in a light bulb? None. From Thursday they will be back to candles.

Alex Salmond needs to find a way of keeping voters out of pubs and get them into the polling stations in Glasgow on Thursday. The police helicopter is gonna be busy .

I asked Abdul next door if he thought Scotland should be independent. "Of course they should," he said, "what right has a minority group living there got to try and make them live by their rules and culture. It's disgraceful."

I was talking politics in the pub with a Scotsman today and he said, "They can stick their referendum where the sun don't shine!" I replied, "Er, it's already being held in Scotland mate."

There was a further setback for the Scottish Independence campaign today. The Loch Ness monster has stated he's relocating to the Lake District in the event of a Yes vote.

I thought that Alex Salmond had a huge chip on his shoulder but I now realise that it's his massive potato-shaped head.

The Scottish Referendum. The NO campaign has had a huge boost as Greggs the Bakers threaten to quit Scotland if they gain independence.

A poll of people in London on Scottish independence has been released. 25% think Scotland should vote no to independence. 25% think Scotland should vote yes to independence. And the rest of London don't give a toss so long as they follow England towards being an Islamic state.

If Scotland gains its independence after the forthcoming referendum, the remainder of the United Kingdom will be known as the "Former United Kingdom" (F U K). In a bid to discourage Scots from voting 'yes' in the referendum, the Westminster has now begun to campaign with the slogan: "Vote NO, for F U K's sake."

Some thoughts on Scottish independence and BBC bias

Given that both Sue and myself have - in our own different ways - had an absolutely crazy, hectic, unforgettable week this past week (massed cellos, new-born twins, overtime, exhibitions, Edinburgh...oh, yes, new-born twins!...), it's not surprising that Is the BBC biased? has been very quiet over the last few days (for which, apologies)...and might very well be just as quiet next week too (for which further apologies...but, fear not, our vast legions of readers, we will burst out with renewed vigour and purpose next month)...

As I've a spare few hours I intended to write about so much tonight, especially given the stomach-turning news from Syria, but instead I've got stuck [given time restraints] on the issue which is presently obsessing me...the potential break-up of my country within the next week. 

So...

I see that the article Scottish independence: Crowd protests against 'BBC bias' has been kept well away from the main headlines of the BBC News website home page this evening. It even took a wee while to spot it on the site's Scotland page.

The article is initially just as coy about exactly which side is protesting and what they are protesting about:

A large crowd gathered outside BBC Scotland's Glasgow HQ to protest about coverage of the referendum.

Police said up to 1,000 people took part although other observers suggested a much higher figure for the crowd.

Only in the third paragraph is it made clear:

The protesters said BBC coverage had been biased against independence.

This is only the latest protest in an ongoing series of anti-BBC demonstrations from pro-independence supporters. As far as I am aware, there have been no such sizeable anti-BBC demonstrations from 'No' supporters. 

Similarly, Facebook, Twitter and the blogosphere are full of 'Yes' supporters facebooking, tweeting and blogging en masse about BBC bias against Scottish independence. 

The 'cybernats' have pretty much succeeded in  monopolising the social media debate over BBC bias, and blogs like Newsnet Scotland and that of former BBC presenter Derek Bateman have been highly effective [and in my Mr Bateman's case very amusing] at amplifying those complaints against the BBC from the 'Yes' side. 

Now, there have been occasional stray unionists (like Lord George Foulkes, Alan Cochrane or David Vance) claiming bias in the opposite direction - and one-off media upswells like the second Salmond-Darling debate [the one hosted by the BBC] which saw more pro-independence questions/heckling from the audience than otherwise - but the complaints of Scottish politicians, commentators , activists and (apparently) ordinary folk criticising the BBC for bias have come Overwhelmingly [capital  letter deliberate] from the pro-independence side (including Jim Sillars and Alex Salmond in recent days). 

There's even been a widely-aired study from Professor John Robertson claiming clear evidence of such bias. 

This huge imbalance suggests that one side really thinks it has a case against the BBC while the other side sees little problem with the BBC. This indeed appears to be the case. 

Some might, therefore, take that as evidence that there is bias against Scottish independence at the BBC. 

That, of course, is to fall into the trap of thinking that just because the 'Yes' side are so vociferous and numerous with their complaints that those complaints are in any way justified. It could be merely because they are loud, numerous - and wrong. After all, the large demonstrations against BBC bias over Gaza came from just one side (the pro-Palestinian side), and were completely without substance.  

All of these 'Yes' supporter complaints could all be (as the BBC says they are) completely false charges of bias. Professor Robertson could be no better than Greg Philo and his colleague Mike Berry at Cardiff University - an activist in academic's clothing. (I don't think he is though. Even though he is open in being pro-independence himself, his methodology and results look much stronger than theirs. They certainly rattled the BBC.)

Still...

I never really looked into it myself, regrettably, other than dipping a little toe in from time to time. 

All I can say I what I see, and I began by examining James Naughtie's Today interviews with politicians from both sides and found - in the early stages - that, for example, the ones with Alistair Darling were noticeably gentler and less-interruption-ridden than those with Nicola Sturgeon.

However, that was early on and I failed to follow up on it. I've heard a lot of James Naughtie pieces since then though and, as time has passed, I've rather come to agree with Rod Liddle that "Jim Naughtie’s stuff from north of the border has been admirably meticulous and even-handed". 

Yesterday's Today (minus Jim) couldn't have been more scrupulous, despite Sarah Montague's scrap with Jim Sillars [which was at least as much down to him as to her], with Justin Webb's interview with the three elderly voters an exemplary piece of interviewing. [I can imagine some 'Yes' people quibbling that Justin did adopt a surprised tone and also ask one slightly tougher question to the pro-'Yes' lady than to the 'No' man and the 'Undecided' man, but that really would be quibbling].

This week's PM saw Eddie Mair interviewing both Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond on one day. Both interviews had tough passages and both had somewhat more relaxed passages of interviewing. Eddie did get much more personal with Mr Salmond than with Mr Darling, doggedly questioning his personal honesty (though not quite going so far as to call him "a nasty piece of work", as he did with Boris), though he then eased off somewhat. Mr Darling was probed more quietly (though there was a passing dig at his poor performance in the second TV debate), but Eddie put plenty of pointed questions to him and interrupted him more often. [Eddie managed to sneak in more digs at Boris though, oddly]. 

I analysed the reaction to these interviews on Twitter and was intrigued at how varied and contrasting the reactions were. Some pro-'Yes' people denounced Eddie Mair, some praised him. Some pro-'No' people denounced Eddie Mair, some praised him. There was no strong trend of denunciation or praise either way, just lots of differing, strongly-held opinions.  

Criticism and praise from both sides? BBC getting it about right? In Eddie Mair's case there, I'd say yes. 

The much-derided new-look, touchy-feely Newsnight of Ian Katz has also been on good form, with far-from-touchy-feely interviews with politicians from both sides of the Scottish independence issue. 

Those complaining (elsewhere) that having 'orrible lefty Ken Loach and pretentious lefty Ekow Eshun on to discuss Britishness in the light of the referendum is proof of BBC bias ignore the fact that other Newsnight discussions this past week (on similar themes) featured counterbalancing right-wing pro-British guests (including Niall Ferguson and Fraser Nelson), and that out-of-Scotland unionists and English reactions were also spotlighted. By dipping in so randomly and them shouting 'Bias!' such people risk making fools of themselves (and their/our cause) as the BBC has them absolutely banged to rights. 

On a sort-of-related matter, a highly-rated comment at another blog ['The Other Place'] includes the charge that 

"...the BBC’s activists...have...for some considerable time been further to the left than even Miliband’s Labour Party...and it’s no surprise that was reflected in the ‘Scotland Decides’ debate last night with an unbalanced panel of:

• The Scottish Green Convener Patrick Harvie (impeccable left wing CV)
• Sturgeon (Left wing SNP)
• Galloway (Left wing – from some party or other)
• Ruth Davidson (Tory)"

That comment has 33 'likes'. Another comment from last night, responding to the above and linking to Harry's Place, has 0 'likes'. It says:

The answer, unfortunately, had nothing to do with BBC as the ever reliable Harry’s Place testifies. The Better Together mob chose him as one of their 2 spokespersons.

Indeed. Harry's Place says:

Last night the BBC carried a major debate on the referendum from Glasgow – with the audience specifically Scotland’s youngest voters. Both ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ were allowed to nominate two people for the debate.

The SNP and Green party represented the Yes campaign. The ‘No’ ( Better Together) chose the leader of the Scottish Conservative Party and incredibly George Galloway leader of the tiny far-left Respect Party. Just let that sink in for a minute. To defend the union – they chose not a representative of the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats but a man who has shown nothing but contempt for the British state they seek to maintain.

One lesson here? Bloggers and commenters about BBC bias beware: Always check before you make serious charges of bias against the BBC lest your assertions are based on quicksand and you end up looking silly as the incoming tide draws near. The other lesson here? People who agree with you on blogs (your 'tribe'] will keep 'liking' you regardless...which is nice.

From dipped toes to Toenails...

What to make though of the Nick Robinson affair? 

The anti-BBC protestors outside Pacific Quay are calling for his sacking. Why? Well, follow the link here to Russia Today and watch both videos and (once you get over the deep, deep irony of Russia Today complaining about media bias from another state broadcaster!) you'll see for yourselves. Nick Robinson is being accused of lying about Alex Salmond, by claiming that Mr Salmond didn't answer his question, and the BBC is being accused of editing that report to make it look, indeed, as if Mr Salmond didn't answer Nick Robinson's question. A non-BBC video shows the whole exchange and shows Mr Salmond answering Nick Robinson at considerable length. Further exchanges, which Alex Salmond later described as 'heckling' from Nick, have also caused controversy. (The BBC is, of course, standing behind Nick 100%.)

I've got my fair hat on today, so I will say that the BBC's defence that Alex Salmond didn't answer that part of the question featured in Nick's highly-edited report - the one about why politicians should be believed over businessmen -  has some truth to it. Mr Salmond didn't directly answer that one (though his whole answer can be read as an indirect answer to it.) 

However, that part of the question was only one part of Nick Robinson's initial question to Alex Salmond and Mr Salmond did answer all the other parts of it and - keeping my fair hat on - probably felt he was addressing the serious parts of Nick's question. Nick Robinson's "He didn't answer", therefore, made it sound as if Alex Salmond ignored his whole question, which is far from the truth, and the report's editing [which ignored the other parts of Nick's question] strongly reinforced this false impression. 

Well, that's my take on it, and I think the BBC should 'fess up and admit that the editing of this report, at least, could have been much, much better.

By chance, I myself went to Edinburgh this week and found something curious - which I'm passing on just for the sake of it, as bloggers do...

I saw very little visible evidence that there was that a dramatic and highly historic referendum campaign going on there. 

I will admit that I was expecting to find the campaign hard to miss, but in all the time I was there I saw just four buildings across the whole of central Edinburgh with campaign posters up (three 'Yes', one 'No') and a 'Yes' sticker on a statue of Adam Smith [as if he were wearing it proudly]. Two small groups of 'No' campaigners were handing out leaflets to the vast hordes of shoppers and strollers on Princes Street (few of whom seemed very keen to take them, or to talk to the campaigners). A 'Yes' protest banner (denouncing Trident) was manned by two people at the foot of Arthur's Seat, just round the corner from the Scottish parliament, but was studiously ignored by everyone else - all of whom appeared intent on enjoying a lovely sunny afternoon in the scenic parkland and countryside into which Edinburgh opens at Holyrood. People were obviously chatting amongst themselves about it, at home and in pubs, rather than flooding the streets of the Scottish capital for political reasons during weekdays. 

Of course, they could have been talking about it whilst shopping or lying around in Holyrood Park or climbing Arthur's Seat and Carlton Hill...

Incidentally, it did strike me whilst exploring the area around the striking Scottish parliament building that Scottish parliamentarians couldn't have a better place to work. They step outside and there's Holyrood Palace directly in front of them, they go a couple of minutes round the corner and they are at the foot of Arthur's Seat, they walk a minute on and a lovely park unfolds before them. Wander in the other direction and you're at the bottom of Carlton Hill in about fifteen minutes, climb it in ten. Take along a fine whisky kickback and, wow, the world's your oyster! [Watch out for the BBC cameramen though. They are always up there.]

Thoughts on Scottish independence and the BBC

What would Scottish independence mean for the BBC (an organisation famously founded by a Scot)?

I will admit that, until I was prompted to think about it, the fate of the BBC was pretty low down my priorities when it comes to thinking about the possibility of Scotland becoming independent from the rest of the United Kingdom. 

Though English, I'm roughly one-thirds Scottish (a Scottish granddad from Glasgow, plus more distant Scots on other ancestral branches), and we holiday in Scotland more than anywhere else, my childhood dog was a tim'rous West Highland called Robbie, I buy a Scottish Sunday newspaper every week ('The Sunday Post', if you're wondering) and, I feel I must add as a sand grown 'un, the braw seaside town of Morecambe has long been a home-from-home (work-wise and holiday-wise) for lots of Scots - and long may it continue. So the thought of Scotland divorcing from the rest of the UK and leaving me semi-orphaned should, I think, make Alex and Nicola feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves. (Should I ask some grubby UK lawyer - Michael Mansfield? - to sue them for emotional abuse then?)

The present Scottish government's cunning plan appears to be to transform what is now BBC Scotland (lock, stock and several smoking barrels) into a brand new broadcaster called the Scottish Broadcasting Service. This includes retaining BBC Scotland's existing staff and being given all of their assets. This new entity would continue to be funded by means of the license fee, albeit a brand-spanking-new Scottish version of the license fee. 

Sounds easy doesn't it?

Well, presently Scottish license payers account for some 9% of the total, contributing around £350 million to the BBC's coffers. That sum of money would make me happy if I won it on the lottery but (as numerate types will know) it's not a huge amount of money to run an ambitious national public broadcaster - as can be seen if you compare it to, say, the cost of BBC Two along (some £545 million). The SBS might well struggle to punch above its weight then, and adverting and/or state funding (i.e. direct taxation) would probably eventually prove irresistible for any post-independence Scottish government (especially an SNP one) seeking to boost the new national broadcaster's prestige (and, maybe, such things might very well work). 

That £350 million is obviously money that would be lost to the rump BBC in the remaining parts of the United Kingdom, but that rump BBC would still be a very large rump, with 91% of UK license payers remaining to fund its services - and rather fewer services at that (goodbye Gaelic language stations, for example). It would also continue to hold the vast bulk of the corporation's existing assets. 

There's bound to be some squabbling if an independent Scotland seeks a parting share of BBC Worldwide's massive profits from commercial sales but, even if they got it - given  that they would be setting up a breakaway broadcaster - it would surely be a minor windfall that could be enjoyed but once and ne'er again, and BBC Worldwide's profits would, thereafter, be only at the disposal of the continuing (non-Scottish) BBC. (Wouldn't they?)...Or would there be years of further squabbling to try to get a share of that overwhelmingly non-Scottish media equivalent of North Sea oil (over the profits gained from sales of ex-BBC-Scotland programmes, for example)? 

Looking at it, it seems as if the BBC south of the border, across the other border into Wales, and across the Irish Sea (to Northern Ireland) would pull through pretty much in tact financially - unless the government of the day at Charter Renewal proved surprisingly tough. The new Scottish Broadcasting Service would, therefore, have to be either very bold and imaginative - or stubborn (stupid) and statist - to avoid being a mere minnow swimming alongside a (red, white and) blue whale of international repute. 

What would that Scottish Broadcasting Service be able to offer? A Scottish Radio 4? A Scottish Radio 3? A Scottish Radio 5 Live? Who would get custody of James Naughtie, Nicky Campbell, Ken Bruce and Eddie Mair? 

The SNP government argues, in the modern world, with its plethora of easily available digital channels, that the beyond-the-Scottish-borders BBC would still be easily available to Scottish viewers and listeners. Plus there's the internet and the i-Player. Thus Radio 4, Radio 3, Doctor Who and Strictly would still be there at the click of something or other to Scottish viewers. Or so they say (and they could very well be right).

Scotland, however, would then be a foreign country, and wouldn't it be subject to the same charges and blocks that other foreign countries are subject to (as far as I am aware)? Would the rump UK want to allow an independent Scotland unfettered access to its BBC without them paying a penny towards it? Why should they have free access to what would become our license-fee-funded delights, like Doctor Who and The Big Questions? 

Do the Scots even want rid of the BBC though? If you believe Twitter, Newsnet Scotland and Biased BBC, you'd be mad not to want rid of the biased BBC (though Twitter and Newsnet Scotland see the nature of bias very differently from Biased BBC), but - as per the Guardian - a fairly recent British Social Attitudes survey found that 61% of Scottish viewers wanted to keep the BBC and saw no need for a new Scottish broadcaster and a mere 11% opted for the replacement of the BBC with an independent Scottish broadcasting service. 25% said they’d be happy to have both the BBC and an independent public broadcaster. That survey pre-dated the recent, long referendum campaign and views may well have shifted dramatically - but it's hard to believe they've shifted that dramatically.

Lots of people (most people?) are, of course, full of conflicting, contradictory thoughts most of the time - I know I am, and wouldn't have it any other way - and, thus, all such polls are best treated as only partially reliable guides. Still, I'd say the evidence strongly suggests that the new Scottish Broadcasting Service won't be greeted with unalloyed joy even among those who voted for independence (if the result goes that way) - but, if people in Scotland vote 'yes', that's probably what they'll get.

It's a curious thing but, in the small part of the blogosphere that I inhabit (the 'Biased BBC' part), the idea of scrapping the BBC is a very popular idea. It's not one either Sue or myself have ever been keen on (though I would do some drastic things with the BBC's funding and stamp on its monopolising tendencies), so we're apparently with the bulk of Scottish opinion there (and, therefore, ranged against the cybernats and B-BBCers.) I'd personally like to see the BBC radically transformed throughout the UK - a UK that includes Scotland - but I don't want to see the BBC broken up. Or the UK broken up for that matter. 

I've been drinking a fine single malt whisky tonight, so if the thread of this post is beginning to lose its focus, then it be os it...

...but I'm drinking to the friendship of Scottish, English, Welsh and Ulster license payers, and long may we continue to celebrate together as a nation whilst listening to Barry Cryer's laugh on I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue! 

And here's an Englishman on Orkney to pipe us to bed. Goodnight...

Rigged BBC audiences?

Another group who have a habit of gathering outside BBC buildings to noisily protest against what they see as BBC bias are Scottish nationalists. They have held many a demonstration outside the BBC's headquarters in Scotland at Pacific Quay, Glasgow over the past year.

Another protest will probably be on the way then if today's Sunday Times is anything to go by:

Better Together ‘tipped off’ on BBC debates

SCOTTISH nationalists have voiced fresh concerns about the BBC’s approach to the independence referendum, suggesting a production company organising debates for the corporation gave advance notice to the No campaign.

Emails seen by The Sunday Times show a senior member of staff at Mentorn Media, which also produces Question Time, alerted a Better Together regional campaign organiser 10 days ago of forthcoming televised debates.

A note from its producer, Sheena Lahive, says this would give the organiser “a head start in spreading the word” to get supporters to apply to join the audiences in Stirling, Inverness, Edinburgh and Aberdeen.

A Yes Scotland source said the nationalist campaign appeared to have received no comparable message.

If this is so, it would surely contravene the BBC’s guidelines for covering the referendum state, which state that, “Care must be taken over the course of the campaign to ensure that any one individual or perspective — or any one strand of argument — is not unduly favoured at the expense of other parties or perspectives.”

And, of course, it would give credence to the belief that audiences for programmes like Question Time are rigged by the BBC.

The BBC, naturally, rejects the charge completely:

A BBC Scotland spokesman said: “The BBC is committed to ensuring balance in all aspects of the Referendum Debate programmes, including an audience with equal numbers of Yes and No voters. We have been meticulous and successful in this regard in the shows so far.

“In order to ensure we can achieve this, we have occasionally contacted groups on both sides of the argument to ask if their supporters would like to apply to take part.

“Every applicant is vetted and selected using the same process, after filling in an online questionnaire and speaking to our audience producer.

“We will continue to produce our audiences in the same way for the remaining debates, in order to ensure both sides of the argument are properly represented.”

So did Mentorn Media also contact organisers at Yes Scotland? That's the question, I suppose. 

Kirsty Wark on Nigel Farage

We were treated to the deep political insights of Newsnight's Kirsty Wark during the newspaper review on this morning's Broadcasting House. And what a treat it was! 

Paddy invited her to reflect on the latest opinion polls showing UKIP doing very well indeed, and this was her reflection on the whole phenomenon:

I just can't get over the..kind of..Nigel Farage here in Scotland. Do you remember when he came up and he got attacked outside a pub? {laughter from Lord Ian Blair} This is my..kind of..abiding image of Nigel Farage.

But the thing is, you know, he is making headway and, as opposed to what's happening in Scotland, I think it's quite an interesting kind of dichotomy for people in Scotland because what he is saying is that, you know, an independent Scotland would then have to..er..you know, it would be out of the...would be out of the EU as well, you...presumably...and I think he's getting everything mixed up, Nigel Farage. I don't actually think he understands what's going on in Scotland.

Well, with all due respect to Kirsty Wark (which, of course, is Journalese for 'with no respect whatsoever'), her shallow contempt for Nigel Farage and her (and Lord Blair's) amusement at that attack on him last year, suggests bias.

Plus, it appears to be her - a Newsnight presenter - who's got everything mixed up, as evidenced by the barely coherent way she expressed herself there [though her contempt for Nigel Farage couldn't have been much plainer, could it?] 

Reading what the UKIP leader told Scotland on Sunday, it seems pretty clear that Nigel Farage understands the logic of Alex Salmond's position rather better than the BBC's Kirsty Wark, and that Mr Farage wasn't saying what she thought he was saying. 

Alex Salmond's position is predicated on the presumption that Scotland will automatically remain inside the EU if there's a 'yes' vote in the referendum. His unionist opponents believe - as Kirsty appears to believe - that it won't, and that it will have to reapply. 

Nigel Farage was clearly taking Alex Salmond's starting point with regards to Scotland's EU membership after the referendum and running with it, turning its logic against the SNP leader. 

You may not buy Nigel's own starting point that you cannot be an independent country if you're inside the EU, but it's a popular one - even with a sizeable minority of Scots - and there's nothing illogical about the point he's making.

Here's how Scotland on Sunday reports his remarks:

SCOTS should be offered a referendum on European Union membership if there is a Yes vote to leave the United Kingdom, Ukip leader Nigel Farage said last night.

Claiming that Scotland would not be a truly independent nation unless it was out of the EU, Farage attacked Alex Salmond for failing to offer another referendum in the event of a Yes vote. In an interview with Scotland on Sunday, the Ukip leader said Scots were being denied “true independence” by Salmond.

...as Salmond was delivering his keynote speech in Aberdeen, his vision of independence came under attack from Farage, who said it was “unacceptable” that Salmond’s independence white paper made no provision for an EU referendum.

Farage said: “It seems to me that it would be completely wrong for Scots not to be offered a referendum on EU membership if they vote for independence. Salmond is not offering true independence. Most of our laws and regulations now come from the EU.”

EU membership has been a vexed question for the SNP. The party’s position – that Scotland would automatically be included on independence – has been strongly disputed by EU officials and Salmond’s political opponents.

Last night the SNP dismissed Farage’s intervention in the referendum debate. An SNP spokeswoman said: “Ukip support a No vote in September’s referendum, and one of the reasons why a Yes vote is essential is so that Scotland doesn’t risk getting dragged out of the European Union against our will in a Westminster in/out referendum.”

What in any of that suggests that Nigel Farage is "getting everything mixed up" and doesn't understand what's going on in Scotland? 

Let's 'replay' Kirsty's comments again in the light of that. 

I'd say that she's  the one who's getting everything mixed up and who doesn't seem to understand what Nigel Farage is even saying, or even what Alex Salmond believes will happen after a 'yes' vote:

But the thing is, you know, he is making headway and, as opposed to what's happening in Scotland, I think it's quite an interesting kind of dichotomy for people in Scotland because what he is saying is that, you know, an independent Scotland would then have to..er..you know, it would be out of the...would be out of the EU as well, you...presumably...and I think he's getting everything mixed up, Nigel Farage. I don't actually think he understands what's going on in Scotland.

Kirsty Wark is clearly confused (well, confused about this story, if not about her own negative feelings about Nigel Farage.) 

Maybe, Kirsty wasn't just pretending to be a zombie last year.

The latest stooshie

That report, which I mentioned a few posts ago, from the University of the West of Scotland which claims to have found empirical, statistical evidence that the BBC is biased against Scottish independence is now available to read online, and is pleasingly compact. 

Whatever your views on Scottish independence, the ensuing stooshie [noun (Scotland): the disruption caused by a disagreement or misunderstanding] has been interesting. 

The BBC is not happy.

According to (pro-independence) former BBC Scotland host Derek Bateman, the BBC is doing what it always does when presented with empirical, statistical evidence of the kind of bias it doesn't want to be accused of: (a) trying to hide it from licence-fee payers by not reporting it, (b) contacting the university concerned to object, and copying in the university's principal ("a classic piece of low cunning to intimidate an academic by referring it to his boss"), (c) merely asserting their own doubts about the factual accuracy of the report and (d) playing the man rather than his argument:

There is little doubt that John Robertson’s illuminating report has found out the questionable management of news at Pacific Quay when [Ian] Small [BBC head of public policy there] says the report is  “highly subjective and questionable analysis of our news output.” Those are, in my view, spiteful and insulting accusations against a Scottish academic for which Small has no evidence whatsoever. Are you getting the impression of an arrogant, out-of-touch, superior organization resentful of criticism and unable to defend itself without resorting to personal vilification?

Sounds familiar.

Proof of anti-independence bias at the BBC?

The pro-independence website Newsnet Scotland is reporting the findings of a year-long study into TV news coverage of the Scottish independence debate. 

The research, conducted from September 2012 to September 2013, has been carried out by a team at the University of the West of Scotland headed by Dr John Robertson. Unlike the highly suspicious BBC-funded Cardiff University research published last year, which purported to find that the BBC was actually biased towards the Right, I can find no evidence of partisanship and political activism on Dr Robertson's part. And, unlike the narrow (month-long) time-frame of the Cardiff study, the UWS examined 730 hours of early evening TV news coverage broadcast by the BBC and STV (Reporting Scotland and STV News) - a much better sample. 

As Newsnet Scotland is far from being an unbiased source I wanted to read the full report for myself, rather than just their take on it. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be available online yet. So, here then is Newsnet's summary of the UWS findings:

- Reporting Scotland broadcast 272 news items deemed favourable to the No campaign against only 171 favourable to Yes.  STV was only marginally less biased with the 255 for No and 172 for Yes.

- Statements which made use of academic, scientific or 'independent' evidence favoured the No campaign by 22 to 4 on BBC Scotland and by 20 to 7 on STV.

- Personalising independence arguments as being the wishes of Alex Salmond appeared 35 times on BBC and 34 times on ITV with no such personalisation of any of the No campaign's arguments.

- Broadcasts containing language that was considered insulting to independence campaigners occurred on 18 times on both BBC Scotland and STV but language interpreted as insulting to pro-Union campaigners appeared only 3 times on each broadcaster’s news reports.

- Finishing a broadcast item with anti-independence claims which were unchallenged happened 28 times on BBC Scotland and 34 times on STV whilst ending items with unchallenged pro-independence claims occurred only 8 times and 17 times respectively.

The report's conclusion is: 

So, on the objective evidence presented here, the mainstream TV coverage of the first year of the independence referendum campaigns has not been fair or balanced.  Taken together, we have evidence of coverage which seems likely to have damaged the Yes campaign.

Another quote from the report also struck me as interesting (and perhaps suggestive of where Dr Robertson comes from on the political spectrum):

On the tendency to personalise the case for independence using Alex Salmond, the report said:

"Personalisation of political issues is long-established strategy to weaken arguments, shifting focus from collective reasoning or shared values to supposed personal desires and personality traits.  Historically, this tendency or strategy has been used to demonise and to undermine numerous political figures in the UK including Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock."

The issue of personalisation reminds me that one of the most recent items about Scottish independence on Today was precisely such a piece about Alex Salmond from James Naughtie. It painted a mixed picture of an impressive, intelligent politician who is highly ambitious, and rather cold and calculating behind his apparent public charm. The chosen talking heads were former SNP leader Gordon Wilson, Fraser Nelson of the Conservative-leaning Spectator, Alan Taylor of the Labour-leaning Herald and Margo MacDonald, an ex-SNP critic of Mr Salmond's from the Left.

Maybe this blog should follow suit and track the coverage of  the campaign on, say, Today. So far in 2014, this is all there's been (according to the programme's day-by-day running orders):

17 Jan 2014

0634

Foreign Secretary William Hague is to travel to Glasgow to argue that an independent Scottish state may not be able to negotiate the same terms of EU membership as the UK. The Today programme’s James Naughtie explains.

0751

Foreign Secretary William Hague is to travel to Glasgow to argue that an independent Scottish state may not be able to negotiate the same terms of EU membership as the UK. Mr Hague speaks to presenter Justin Webb.

14 Jan 2014

0835

Presenter James Naughtie meets Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond, as the country’s independence debate continues [actually a profile, not an interview].

It's too soon to draw any conclusions from such a small sample though!

To quote John McEnroe....

For those of you eagerly following the 'Scottish independence/BBC bias' debate, you might enjoy reading BBC in cahoots with SNP? – You cannot be serious from the pro-independence, pro-SNP Newsnet Scotland website. 

Labour are getting in on the act vis-à-vis accusing the BBC of bias - in this case pro-independence bias. Newsnet Scotland, who spend a good deal of time and energy chronicling what they see as the BBC's anti-independence bias, are incredulous.

One of the commenters there makes a point you might find familiar from other contexts:

This latest accusation is as transparent as it is cynical. It is designed to give the BBC monopoly a 'get out of jail free' card to divert accusations of bias by declaring both sides have accused the BBC of bias.

Whether Labour or the SNP or the BBC are right in this instance, debates about BBC bias often seem to go down this route: One side complains heavily for years. The other side then starts complaining too, albeit less strongly. The BBC calls it a draw, and declares its impartiality proven as a result.

James Naughtie: Mr Impartiality?

Last Wednesday marked the start of a year's worth of BBC coverage of the September 2014 Scottish independence referendum.

Leading Radio 4's coverage of the story will be Today's very own Scotsman, James Naughtie. He will still be doing Today, as well as presenting a twice-weekly stint on Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland, and acting as Radio 4's chief reporter on the story. So a busy year for him then.

Last Wednesday's Today kicked things off Jim's big year, and gave Radio 4 listeners their first chance to here how even-handed James Naughtie would (or wouldn't) be in reporting the story. 

Jim is known for his Freudian slips (if that's what they are). There was Jeremy...er...Hunt, of course, but also his classic "If we win the election..." to Ed Balls in 2005 (hastily amended to "If you win the election"), suggesting (to many) where his sympathies lie.

Would his interviews with two leading figures from either side of the independence argument on that morning's Today demonstrate that James Naughtie is likely to be scrupulously unbiased over the coming year - barring Freudian slips?

Please listen for yourselves to both interviews:

The interview with Alistair Darling, Labour (anti-independence)

The interview with Nicola Sturgeon, SNP (pro-independence)

If you have listened to both interviews, you won't need me to tell you that they were very different types of interview. The one with Alistair Darling was gentle, almost cosy, nearly a fireside chat compared to the tough, interruption-laden scrap with Nicola Sturgeon which followed. 

That was down to James Naughtie, and the tone he chose to adopt with each guest - collegial with Mr Darling, antagonistic towards Ms Sturgeon.

You would have thought that he would have sought to showcase his even-handedness on this of all programmes. He chose not to.

It doesn't bode well, does it?

'Sunday' from Pacific Quay

Time for this week's review of Radio 4's Sunday - a special edition from Glasgow.

What drew Edward Stourton to the city? It certainly doesn't appear to have been the lure of a million shops. (Well, it felt like a million to me after I was dragged round most of them recently). Nor was it the city's fascinating mix of old and new architecture (the splendour of Kelvingrove v that thing which looks like a hypodermic needle).

No, it was (a) the Liberal Democrat Conference (well, who could have resisted that?), (b) the installation of a new Catholic archbishop in Scotland to replace the disgraced Cardinal Keith O'Brien, and (c) it being almost one year to the day until the Scottish independence referendum. Being Sunday and Edward Stourton, there was a particularly strong emphasis on (b), Catholic matters.

7.10 Introduction

7.11 Liberal Democrat Conference. The Lib Dem Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, recently declared that "God must be a Liberal", so Edward Stourton interviewed him about that - and about Sarah Teather. [Edward himself, I suspect, believes Him to be a small-'l' liberal, in the U.S. sense of the word]. Mr Webb's basic theological point is that freedom to choose (which he thinks is what his party is really about) is important to human dignity, and that this extraordinary freedom lies at the heart of the gospels. He said that the Lib Dems have a reputation for being a secular party, but he's wants Christians to feel at home in his party. 

Edward brought up Mrs Thatcher's use of religion and said that 'the gospel of the poor' was something that backs Labour's position [what, still?]. As for Sarah Teather, she'd written a piece in Steve's book saying it wasn't Christian to be mean to immigrants and benefit scroungers [I paraphrase somewhat], noted Edward. Steve Webb said she was pretty much right about that.

7.15 The Pope's Astronomer. An interview with Brother Guy Consolmagno, papal astronomer, on the question of the relationship between the Vatican and science? 'Why does the pope have an astronomer?', asked Edwards Stourton. Brother Guy said that the official answer is to show that the Catholic Church supports science, but the 'real reason' is that "it's one of those things that makes us human". He himself joined the Peace Corp and went to Africa, where people wanted him to teach them astronomy. Their interest in astronomy was his inspiration. 

He explained that the post of papal astronomer arose in the 1500s to help reform the calender and to work out a simple formula that would help the Church get the date of Easter right. Edward raised Galileo (of course), and Brother Guy claimed that much of the story of the Church's ill-treatment of him is a 19th Century myth. [Really?]. Edward also said that the Church was anti-science in late 19th & early 20th centuries. Brother Guy said, no, it opposed things like eugenics but wasn't opposed to science in general. Does the "practical" Pope Francis [as opposed, presumably, to the intellectual Pope Benedict?] approve, Ed wondered. He "understands what we do", replied Brother Guy.

7.21 Deprivation in Scotland. This was a report by Edward Stourton himself on a Church of Scotland project to tackle poverty, in Scotland. As it says on the programme's website: "Passage from India is a charity who are working to combat poverty with support from the Church of Scotland. Edward meets the volunteers in Glasgow to discover how a journey to India inspired them." 

The results aren't perhaps what you might be expecting [from a BBC report.] One volunteer said that people in Scotland are "held captive within the benefits system", which results in despair. A couple of women involved in the project then described how it works. Its aim is to build up people's savings by raising funds through things like lunch clubs, ironing, sewing, etc. The target is to boost people's savings to £5000, then encourage them to invest in a business. The two women in question want to open a launderette. Sounds good, doesn't it?

7.26 Chancel repair liability. Returning to a subject discussed last week, Edward read out two e-mails. One described it as an "insidious church tax" and has launched a Facebook campaign against it. A second, a parish councillor, said they wouldn't pursue the matter, except in the case of wealthy landowners, from whom they ask for voluntary contributions.

7.28 A new Catholic leader for Scotland. As the blurb puts it, "Edward speaks to the new Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, Leo Cushley, who will replace the disgraced Cardinal Keith O'Brien, to find out what his vision is for the future of the Catholic Church in Scotland."

Edwards opening question to Mgr Cushley was, "You're returning to a Church in crisis". He denied that, saying just "one or two individuals" were to blame. Edward pressed him on this, and on the allegations of priestly abuse. He replied that it's the Vatican that is responsible for investigating senior Church leaders. His task is to find out personally what happened.

What about an apostolic visitation? "Many people" don't think that's enough, said Edward, and want an independent inquiry. Leo Cushley rejected both ideas as being an "exaggerated" response. Edward pressed him on it.

What about the return of Keith O'Brien to Scotland? After some pressing, he said he thought it was unlikely to return he'd return and that it would be wiser and more helpful if he were to stay away from Scotland.

On the independence referendum, he said the Church has nothing to say.

Edward speculated that a 'yes' vote could put at risk the tradition of faith schools. Mgr Cushley said the Church would fight hard to protect them.

What about bigotry in Scotland? He said he's disturbed by anti-Catholic bigotry but isn't sure how big a problem it is, having only just arrived back in the country.

And what of celibacy, about which Cardinal O'Brien had been mooting a change? Mgr Cushley replied that he's "happy with celibacy".

What about women in the Church? "A lot of people" are interested in that, says Edward. Ed pressed him over the issue of leadership roles for women, laughingly pointing out that they don't want just to arrange flowers. Mgr Cushley said, indeed not but there aren't going to be any women priests.

7.36 Catholic clerical abuse. Returning to last week's story about Fr Patrick Lawson, dismissed from his position in the Scottish Catholic Church for talking about his own abuse at the hands of a priest [and keeping on with the theme that interests Sunday more than most others], Edward talked to George Gardiner, a parishioner who is backing Fr Lawson and who protested against the move by walking out of a mass held by a stand-in priest. 

7.38 The State of the Catholic Church in Scotland. Gavin Walker reported. Beginning with the sexual scandal surrounding Keith O'Brien, we heard from the congregation of his former parish who are feeling "a mixture of excitement, trepidation and relief". We also heard from Stephen McGinty of The Scotman, who says that the continuing abuse stories are the main thing facing his replacement. Peter Kearney, a Catholic Church spokesman, said that the Church may not publish everything that it finds out about Keith O'Brien, as some of the information will have to remain private. 

What other problems face the Catholic Church? Edinburgh University's Prof. Tom Devine says its internal crisis is the biggest facing it since the Reformation and that the demoralisation caused by Mgr Cushley's predecessor was exacerbated by the fact that several other figures in the Church were also "actors in the process", leading the accusations against their former leader.

Prof. Devine pointed to a significant change in the Scottish Catholic Church's demographics. While it was predominantly poor, Irish  and working class back in the 1950s, by 2001 reached Scottish Catholics had reached "parity" with Protestants, becoming largely middle class. A Catholic Student Union said its membership has risen sharply recently. 

7.44 The Independence Referendum. In the wake of the vote, to be held on 18 September 2014, Edward Stourton talked to politics professor John Curtice, politics professor Tom Gallagher and Church of Scotland minister Sally Foster-Fulton about the state of religion in Scotland and the role that it may play in the run up to the referendum. [No open supporters of independence on that panel.]

Is Scotland a religious country?, wondered Edward.  Prof. Curtice said, "no". Even ten years ago 20% went to church, now that's just 12%-13%, and around 70% never attend a church service. So, it's become just as secular as England.

What about the Catholic Church's authority? Prof. Gallagher said it has "not enjoyed success" in persuading politicians for some time. Even before Keith O'Brien, the Church was already "marginalised politically".

Rev. Sally said the Church of Scotland supported the founding of the Scottish parliament but will stay impartial over independence, concentrating on consulting, encouraging and warning over such things as renewable energy, pay day loans, and welfare.

Prof. Curtice said that Catholics and those of no religion were slightly more pro-independence than Church of Scotland followers. That though was because Church of Scotland adherents tend to be much older and more wedded to their British identity. He didn't think religion would play a role in the independence debate.

What about sectarianism? Prof. Gallagher said it's a part of Scottish culture, that Scotland is "a distrustful, factional society". Prof. Curtice agreed, up to a point, saying that as far as day to day discourse goes, yes, it's still a problem for Catholics but as far as active discrimination over, say, jobs is concerned, no, it's no longer the problem it was. Rev. Sally agreed that sectarianism is deeply embedded in Scottish society, calling it a "symptom of a very unequal society".

Getting complaints from both sides

This week's Newswatch was a special from Glasgow on the BBC's reporting of the Scottish independence debate. 

Presenter Samira Ahmed said that "most of the complaints received by Newswatch" have accused the corporation of "an anti-independence bias". 

Some of those were read out :

Why should we, the Scottish people, pay a licence fee to be fed propaganda on a daily basis by an alleged 'neutral' TV channel? 

I am writing with regards to 'Reporting Scotland' and their constant negativity and 'warnings' about Scottish independence. I went into the referendum with an open mind, and the BBC are offering absolutely nothing to viewers like myself, who may be on the fence. 

When it came to the interview with the relevant BBC manager, John Boothman, Head of News & Current Affairs at BBC Scotland, Samira put the bias point to him. 

BBC managers often get mocked on BBC-monitoring blogs for always trotting out the same old line whenever the issue of bias is raised on Newswatch - 'We get complaints from both sides, which shows we're getting it about right'. 

Mr Boothman didn't disappoint in that respect. It wasn't long before he said,

"To be fair, we have complaints not just from one side, from both sides."

When Samira pressed him on the point, he simply replied,

"It depends who you talk to, and it an polarised debate you're going to get complaints from both sides."

And that was that. His expression said, 'Case closed.' Samira moved on.

Now, as I've noted before, there really does seem to be a lot more criticism of BBC bias from the pro-independence side of the argument - as can be seen from the wealth of websites and social media sites that campaign against the BBC on the issue. So the 'to be fair, we have complaints from both sides' argument doesn't necessarily hold water. 

You could have 1,000 complaints from one side, and 30 from the other. Those from one side could be genuine complaints while the ones from the other side could be essentially disingenuous. One side could outline specific, detailed examples of bias, the other could just make unsupported assertions. 

So, there's a quantity and a quality issue with regards to the BBC's habitual 'you're going to get complaints from both sides' defence. 

Plus, just because both sides say you are biased it doesn't necessarily follow that both sides are wrong. One side could be wrong; the other right. 

Still, none of that will prevent BBC editors from continuing to appear on Newswatch and repeating the mantra that 'We get complaints from both sides, which shows we're getting it about right', over and over and over again. They clearly think it's a knock-down argument. 

It isn't.

Scotland, the monarchy and the BBC

Following on from a comment on an earlier post about Newsnight Scotland, the programme began the week with a full-length debate on the monarchy, hosted by the BBC's Glenn Campbell.

The programme duly focused on the issue of monarchy itself rather than on Scottish independence but, given that the programme forms part of a series of specials in the run-up to next year's referendum, it's probably right and proper to include it in my review of Newsnight Scotland's coverage.

Did this edition display any bias - whether that bias be for or against the monarchy, or for or against Scottish independence, or for and against any particular party? 

Well, for starters, I must say that it was an interesting debate to watch, with more light than heat being shed - unusually for many a BBC current affairs debate. I enjoyed watching it. 

The range of opinions on the panel could hardly have been more carefully balanced. The panellists were (in order of introduction):

Jackson Carlaw, Conservative MSP - pro-union and pro-monarchy

Christine Grahame, SNP MSP - pro-independence and anti-monarchy

Vince Mills, Labour activist - pro-union and anti-monarchy

Michael Fry, author - pro-independence and pro-monarchy

There was, however, a fifth guest, who was introduced as the programme's academic adjudicator - its historically-informed referee - Dr Jenny Wormald of Edinburgh University. She said late on in the programme that she'd been asked to be uncontroversial by Newsnight Scotland but she expressed some pretty concrete opinions nonetheless. I'd have liked to have heard more from her as she was woefully underused; however, the things she did say left me in little doubt that she was pro-monarchy and, so, introduced a pro-monarchy imbalance. 

What of the questions from the audience? Did the programme select a fair spread of pro-monarchy and anti-monarchy questions?

Judge for yourselves. These are the six questions selected:

1. "What do you think we need a monarch for?"

2. "Does the panel agree that the monarchy more than pays its way when we compare the cost to the taxpayer to the revenues it brings into the country?"

3. "If the Scottish public were to vote yes in next year's referendum would the people of Scotland be given the chance to vote in another referendum on whether the monarch should remain as head of state?"

4. "In the past week my family has extended itself a bit further. My nephew's got a beautiful bouncing baby boy and my niece also delivered a beautiful boy as well, but none of these made the media or got any coverage at all. Curiously enough. Does the panel think the coverage given to the recent addition to the Royal Family was fair and balanced or was it indicative of an inherent bias in the BBC for all things royal?"

5. "We live in a multi-religious and non-religious society. Is it appropriate that the monarch is the head of the Church of England?"

6. "If we accept Dennis Canavan's proposal for an elected head of state whose name - other than the Queen's - would the panel like to see on the ballot paper?"

I'd say that's a reasonable mix of questions. 

Was the audience biased? That's hard to judge. The BBC insists it is scrupulous in balancing its audiences for these type of programmes, but quite a lot of viewers remain unconvinced. How to judge? Go by the applause perhaps? Well, the applause was rare but it went to pro-monarchy speakers. How about counting the pro-monarchy and anti-monarchy points raised by audience members? Sixteen audience members made points; however, some were rather ambiguous and hard to label as plainly 'pro-monarchy' or 'pro-republican'. Three were definitely pro-republican, five definitely monarchist, three more sounded as if they were republican questions and five more sounded like monarchist questions. Totalling up, that makes 6 anti-monarchy questions (I think) and 10 pro-monarchy questions (I think). 

Was the presenter biased? 

Again, how do we judge that? Perhaps by counting the number of times Glenn interrupted a panellist? Well, he interrupted the SNP's Christine Grahame most (6 times), the Tory Jackson Carlaw next (4 times), then Labour's Vince Mills (twice) and Michael Fry (twice)....yes, but, interruptions come in different shades, don't they? Were these contradictory/challenging interruptions or were they the kind of interruptions that the panellist on the receiving end of the interruption wouldn't mind at all (i.e. supportive, clarifying, joky interruptions?) Re-assessing the interruption count in that light and counting only the first category - the challenging/contradictory interruptions - reveals that Christine Grahame came out worst (5 such interruptions) with Jackson Carlaw coming second (2 such interruptions), with Michael Fry coming third in being on the receiving end of one such interruption and only Labour's Vince Mills escaping any such interruption from Glenn.  

Well, interruptions are one way of assessing bias. The other way is to assess who was on the receiving end of the questions (many of which didn't come about as a result of interruptions). Who, among the panellists, was 'in the dock?', so to speak.

The answer to that was clearly Christine Grahame of the SNP. Glenn Campbell questioned her far more closely than he questioned anyone else. 

So I say. But what evidence do I have for that (beyond the evidence of my own eyes and ears?)

Well, I could simply list all the points Glenn put to each panellist. Then you could judge whether I'm right - or not.

Points put to Christine Grahame:

"But why haven't you been able to persuade your own party of that? Obviously the party's position is for the monarchy to continue?"

"How quickly would you want that vote to take place?"

"OK, but the question was 'How soon would the vote take place?'"

"Don't you think that would bring in extra revenue?"

"Yes, but just looking at the numbers, Christine Grahame, that £200 million figure is a figure used the campaign group Republic but we've already quoted figures from the consultancy Brand Finance saying £1.5 billion."

"Visit Britain in 2010. Visit Britain estimating that foreign tourists visiting sites associated with the monarchy generated £500 million of spending."

"Christine Grahame, that was the policy of the SNP, which is obviously the main force in the independence campaign. Is it still the policy?"

"Can I just follow up with Christine here because you were quoted last year saying that there would be a referendum, that that was the policy of the SNP?"

"....but you were wrong?"

"But in fairness this is all channels, and all publications gave this major coverage."

"So you were watching!!!"

"OK, you can save the rest for her campaign - should it be required."

Points put to Vince Mills:

"The figures that I have here from a consultancy called Brand Finance estimates that the monarchy will contribute £1.5 billion to the British economy in 2013 and has a value going forward of more than £50 billion. That would seem to be good value against the figures that you've just quoted to us".

" And your view Vince on whether, if there was a 'yes' vote in the independence referendum, whether we should have a vote on the monarch thereafter?"

"You don't want referendumitis to set in?"

"But fair to say you disagree with your party leader on this issue, with your UK party leader on this issue, in the way that Christine does with hers as well?"

"And is the breadth of opinion, the range of opinion as mixed and varied as Christine says it is in the SNP within the Labour movement?"

"It was the days before that...there was quite a lot of airtime that seemed to be required to be filled."

"Are you happy with the monarch being the head of the Church of England?"

"So you would like the role dis(established?)..."

Points put to Jackson Carlaw:

"He's the chairman of the 'yes' campaign who says he favours a referendum after the independence vote"
"Wouldn't Jackson Carlaw be on the ticket as well - and win?"
"Is it OK for the royals to be part of our celebrity culture, if that's what you're describing it as?"
"But haven't they, in very short order, in consultation with all the other countries of the Commonwealth managed to change the nature of succession to allow first-born females to succeed?"
"Pretty swifly done, wasn't it?"

Points put to Michael Fry:

"There are occasionally royal scandals too!"

"I want very briefly...I want to ask you a slightly different question because we're running out of time on this question, that somebody who's pro-independence and pro-monarchy, do you think having the chairman of the 'yes' campaign throw in the idea of a referendum on the monarchy is helpful or not?"

"OK, you though the coverage was fair and balanced?"

As you can see the anti-monarchists got tougher questioning than the pro-monarchists and Christine Grahame of the SNP was interviewed much more challengingly than her Labour pro-independence colleague Vince Mills (indeed, some of the questions to Vince Mills were hardly that helpful to the SNP either).

Well, that's my take on things. Please make of it what you will.

The answers to the final question - "If we accept Dennis Canavan's proposal for an elected head of state whose name - other than the Queen's - would the panel like to see on the ballot paper?" - provoked some revealing answers. Jackson nominated Alex Salmond (in the spirit of irony). Christine went for Annie Lennox. Vince went for another singer, Michael Marra. Michael went for the Jacobite pretender Sophie von Liechtenstein.

Of that lot I'd personally go for Sophie. Hail Queen Sophie.