Can we trust the Scottish media in the independence debate?

[NickB]

.
A new Panelbase poll covering some very interesting questions pertaining to the independence debate was published on Friday. Here are just a few of its findings:

• 36% of Scots are currently planning to vote No in the referendum, with 34% planning to vote Yes and 30% undecided.
  (14% plan to rebel against the position of the party they support.)
  
  67% of Scots do NOT believe the Scottish Parliament will be granted any additional new powers if there is a No vote in the referendum.
  (And over a quarter of those people believe Holyrood’s powers will be REDUCED.)
  
  If Scotland was currently an independent country, only 18% of Scots would vote to join the Union.
  (With 55% against and 28% undecided.)
  
  Not one of the prominent members of the Yes or No campaigns is believed by a majority of Scots to be “always or mostly telling the truth” about independence.
  (But the No camp’s leaders are three times as distrusted as the Yes side’s.)
  
  Over 80% of Scots who have heard “Better Together” campaign director Blair McDougall speak think he’s always or mostly lying.
  (The most trusted figures are Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.)
  
  Only 6% of Scots think the Scottish media is doing an adequate job of giving them the facts about independence.
  (Almost six times as many think the media just prints what it’s told.)
  
  Only 13% of Scots think the Scottish media is unbiased.
  (Over three times as many think it’s biased AGAINST independence as FOR it.)

Every other Panelbase poll on the subject has been seized on avidly by the media. This was a slow news weekend yet none of the Sundays ran with it, neither has it appeared anywhere this morning. The poll was commissioned by a pro-independence political blog, but the methodology was entirely Panelbase's - including their insistence on seeing any interpretation of the results before they were published.

Panelbase results in full HERE

By deliberately choosing to ignore this poll the Scottish media - particularly the taxpayer-funded BBC - must surely be failing in their duty to provide full and unbiased information on independence issues.

So - do you trust the media to report impartially and tell you the truth in the run-up to the independence debate, and if not where will you look for information to help you make your decision?

[longshanks]

.
Every other Panelbase poll on the subject has been seized on avidly by the media. This was a slow news weekend yet none of the Sundays ran with it, neither has it appeared anywhere this morning. ?

I fail to see why anyone should be surprised that intelligent people ignore anything which Rev Stu at Wings Over Scotland comes up with.

He's the nutter who blogged that he laughed with joy at the site of the twin towers falling on 911.

He runs a rabid anti-British website which is only read by a few of the same strange mind.

His poll is massively biased (he chose the questions, not Panelbase). One example:

Which of these do you think represents a significant threat to Scotland in your lifetime?
1. A Conservative Government elected by the rest of the UK.
2. Being attacked by terrorists
3. viz N. Korea
4. viz Iran
5. viz Space Monsters
6. viz China.
7. viz Russia

No self respecting editor would touch this nasty little man and his work with a bargepole.

If you really think Opinion Polls are important then look at something a little bit more reliable.

IPSOS-Mori latest poll:

Yes : 28 %
No : 57 %
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/S ... opline.pdf

Long View (Opinionated by choice)

[NickB]

.
Fantastic kick at the man, not the ball, Longshanks. Bizarrely, the only reference to your Twin Towers accusation I can find is on a revolting blog with the bizarre strapline 'Hate Blinded Idiocy From the Vaults of the Politically Disenfranchised'. The blog is written by a person calling themselves Longshanker, who also tweets as @Ergasiophobe I really hope that the name is just a coincidence, but as this is the only place that can have been your source I am surprised you have been trawling around the depths of the political blogosphere after your previously expressed contempt for it.

He's the nutter who blogged that he laughed with joy at the site of the twin towers falling on 911.

This was obviously said in tones of deepest irony - as anyone reading the remark in context would realise. It was made on a gaming blog in 2007. I must say it takes a really obsessed stalker to find something like this and quote it out of context)

He runs a rabid anti-British website which is only read by a few of the same strange mind.

Nothing anti-British about Wings Over Scotland - unless all people intending to vote YES are anti-British. As to numbers, the site had over 70,000 unique viewers last month, and over one and a half million page views

No self respecting editor would touch this nasty little man and his work with a bargepole.

Wrong again - lengthy (and fair) interview on the BBC on Saturday 17th August. Professor John Curtice seemed to find the poll eminently reasonable, though he offered some tips for the next one.

If you really think Opinion Polls are important then look at something a little bit more reliable.

Oh really? The poll you link to three months old

But enough of refuting your unpleasant personal attacks. Who commissioned the poll is irrelevant. It was conducted to exactly the same standards and in exactly the same manner as every other Panelbase poll. Your implication that the fact that the organisation that commissioned the poll chose the questions in some way renders it invalid is nonsense. The questions are always chosen by the organisation or person commissioning the poll - as you well know.

The facts are:

~ a randomly selected sample of 1015 Scottish residents took part in this survey conducted by a reputable polling organisation
~ they were asked a variety of questions around the subject of the independence debate
~ the answers were, to say the least, interesting and worthy of discussion
~ this poll - conducted in exactly the same way as previous Panelbase polls on the subject - has been universally ignored by the Scottish media

Let's try to stick to the facts in the debate.

[longshanks]

.
Bizarrely, the only reference to your Twin Towers accusation I can find is on a very ranty blog with the bizarre strapline 'Hate Blinded Idiocy From the Vaults of the Politically Disenfranchised'. The blog is written by a person calling themselves Longshanker, who also tweets as @Ergasiophobe I am sure the name is just a coincidence, but I am surprised you have been trawling around the depths of the political blogosphere after your previously expressed contempt for it.

Thanks for posting the link. Yes, I do have contempt for the extreme ends of the blogosphere and you have saved me diving into its murky depths to confirm the varacity of what I posted about Wings over Scotland and the 'Rev' Stu Campbell's nasty little mind.

Your link took me, after a short but messy excursion through Rev Stu's rantings to this:

(out of context quote redacted by admin)

and to this summary of the man behind Wings Over Scotland's sad mindset:

As a quick reminder, without wanting to make too much of a meal of it, here are some ‘highlights’ of Stuart Campbell’s ahem, ‘professional’ journalistic integrity:

All alleged quotes redacted by admin after previous warning re. ad-hominem and off-topic posting

....and you wonder why Scottish editors choose to ignore anything that sick man produces ?

As to your implication that I am some kind of blogger; heaven forbid !

And, no, I am most certainly not the Longshanks who has recently appeared on For Argyll and who seems to get his/her kicks out of constantly insulting the journalists on that respected No leaning News Site.

[NickB]

As to your implication that I am some kind of blogger; heaven forbid !

I am most certainly not the Longshanks who has recently appeared on For Argyll and who seems to get his/her kicks out of constantly insulting the journalists on that respected No leaning News Site.

After the outburst above one might be forgiven for thinking you were taking a real delight in plumbing the murky depths of the blogosphere and quoting the ravings of some of its more dubious denizens. Delighted to hear that Longshanker isn't you - he sounds like a really nasty piece of work. Not sure what a 'no leaning' site is though.

Anyway . . . still determined to play the man not the ball I see. It was a poll of the Scottish public, not readers of a particular website. The inescapable fact remains that a Panelbase poll of Scottish voters asking significant questions about independence - and with some interesting answers - has been published and the mainstream media have chosen to ignore it.

What do you make, for example, of the poll's finding that 67% of Scots do NOT believe the Scottish Parliament will be granted any additional new powers if there is a No vote in the referendum?

What does anybody make of it? Should we believe the 'jam tomorrow' promises, or should we be more worried by the likes of Michael Kelly, who said in the Scotsman today:

When Yes loses, as it will, its supporters should not be awarded the consolation prize of additional powers for Holyrood. . . . Losers should lose. The dream consequence of this loss should be a steady erosion of Holyrood’s powers until it can be abolished and the previous efficient unitary form of government restored.

[NickB]

.
Hooray for John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde and regular commentator on independence matters on Newsnight Scotland and Scotland Tonight.

He at least has had the honesty to look at the latest Panelbase poll and its interesting results in some detail on his studiously neutral 'What Scotland Thinks' blog.

Wings Over Scotland Crowdsource Funded Poll

[longshanks]

NickB........you started this thread because you wondered why Scottish media have ignored the Rev Stu's Wings Over Scotland poll.

I think I have answered that by using your research to illustrate the mindset of that particular cybernat through his vile sentiments posted on blogs, twitter etc.

Panelbase's involvement in the man's poll is merely to ask the questions he has chosen of 1,000 or so people and report back to him the answers.

It is the Rev Stu who devised the questions, the Rev Stu who analysed the answers and provided the conclusions.

Editors' need to ensure their sources are not questionable. Scottish editor's wpould not touch Wings Over Scotland and the man behind it with a bargepole therefore no coverage. Its so simple I'm surprised it puzzled you.

How can anyone take a poll seriously when a question about the biggest threat to Scotland includes the options of a Conservative Government or attacks by space monsters ?

If Wings Over Scotland is representative of the cybernats trying to persuade us to vote Yes then Salmond might as well pack his bags now.

[longshanks]

Oh, and the Ipsos-Mori poll {YES 28%; NO 57%} you refer to is hopelessly out of date. It was conducted over three months ago, from 29th April – 5th May 2013.

The only events of significance to the referendum since that poll appear to be the revelations of Salmond's bullying of members of Aberdeen Council, his flouting of child protection procedures, and proof of his lying (again) about the school visit being private.

I see no reason that the May poll results may, if taken today, be any less depressing for the Yes sector.

[NickB]

It is the Rev Stu who devised the questions, the Rev Stu who analysed the answers and provided the conclusions.

The source of the answers to the questions is the Scottish voting public. Who devised the questions is irrelevant, it is the responses to them that are both interesting and relevant. At least, Prof. Curtice seems to find them so.

Editors' need to ensure their sources are not questionable. Scottish editor's wpould not touch Wings Over Scotland and the man behind it with a bargepole therefore no coverage. Its so simple I'm surprised it puzzled you.

Oh dear. Does this mean that Prof. Curtice, everyones' favourite pundit. will no longer be invited on the BBC to comment ? Has he become irreversibly tainted by dint of his acknowledgement of this poll?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re. your continuing attacks on Stuart Campbell, someone I believe to be a man of considerably more integrity than yourself . . . a wee quote attributed to Cardinal Richelieu:

“Qu’on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j’y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre”
(trans: If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him)

[NickB]

Oh, and the Ipsos-Mori poll {YES 28%; NO 57%} you refer to is hopelessly out of date. It was conducted over three months ago, from 29th April – 5th May 2013.

I see no reason that the May poll results may, if taken today, be any less depressing for the Yes sector.

You have a very short memory if you don't remember how quickly the polls changed in the run-up to the May 2011 election.

Here's the last ten weeks before the election:



And with polls showing up to 30% still undecided it's very much all up for grabs. My reading of the situation is that the YES 'sector' as you call them are far from depressed - in fact the mood is very upbeat. It will be interesting to see how many turn out for this year's Independence Rally on the 21st September . . . that might be a good point - with a year to go - to gauge the mood of the nation.

Anyway, I'm sorry but I'm afraid I find your attitude depressingly negative - though I'm sure you don't mean to be - so for now, unless there is more news on this particular subject, I will leave it to others to take up the discussion should they wish to do so.

Have you signed the mobile phone petition btw?

[longshanks]

Oh, and the Ipsos-Mori poll {YES 28%; NO 57%; UNDECIDED 15%} you refer to is hopelessly out of date. It was conducted over three months ago, from 29th April – 5th May 2013.

I see no reason that the May poll results may, if taken today, be any less depressing for the Yes sector.

Anyway, I'm sorry but I'm afraid I find your attitude depressingly negative - though I'm sure you don't mean to be - so for now, unless there is more news on this particular subject, I will leave it to others to take up the discussion should they wish to do so.

Have you signed the mobile phone petition btw?

My attitude is only negative if you think its a good thing to break up the United Kingdom. I have now come to the conclusion that separation (unlikely as a Yes vote may be) would be totally disastrous for us.

So no need to apologise.

Tell you what. Lets be mature about this. How about we meet on the day after the referendum in the TnT at 6.15pm. If its a Yes victory I'll wear an "Alex Salmond is a hero" t-shirt and pay for all drinks for the next hour for everyone in the pub. If its a No victory you wear a Union Jack t-shirt and you pay for all drinks for the next hour for everyone in the pub.

Fair enough.

Witnesses on here please.

As for the mobile phone petition you ask if I've signed (as if its any of your business). Maybe.

[Pentlandpirate]

Nick, I have no doubt you wouldn't be questioning the media if they agreed with your views on independence. It's just that you don't like what you're hearing. This is a free country and you can say pretty well what you like. The reality is that your views are those of a minority at the current time. Your voice will only become louder if and when more people share the same opinion.

Yes, Alex Salmond has set Scotland on a dangerous path by insisting on a vote for independence. He got greedy, going for independence, when he should have gone for DevoMax (which he probably would have got). Now, it's looking increasingly likely that there will be a No vote, the Scottish Government will not get additional powers, the SNP will fracture and break up, and the status quo will be re-established for the next three hundred years.

It seems you accept you are looking at a No vote and using the 'Scotland will be hung out to dry' threat if the people vote No as the only way of persuading an electorate they should vote Yes. It's clear independence is unlikely to be won based on a coherent and credible plan to make Scotland a better place to live in. Folk are already fed up of the stupidity and waste of the independence referendum. The greatest risk is that they become so sick and fed up of the matter that they can't be bothered to vote on polling day. That's the real risk, that the Yes campaigners win a majority based on a very low turn out and an even lower percentage of the population in favour of independence. Such a result could tear Scotland apart in civil strife. Don't believe it? You're living in cloud cuckoo land if you don't.

[NickB]

.
What Scottish media do you access on a daily basis, PP ?

The poll has finally seen then light of day - in the Scottish Daily Record, in Joan MacAlpine's weekly opinion column, not in the news where it belonged. Still, better than nothing. Click the pic to read the article.

[longshanks]

Ah, Joan McVulpine; charming lady I'm sure.

FIREBRAND SNP politician Joan McAlpine has been named as the “other woman” in a divorce case.

The MSP is accused of adultery with shamed political activist Mark McLachlan.

His wife Jane has filed for divorce claiming he had an affair with former journalist McAlpine, now one of Alex Salmond’s most trusted advisers.

At the time of the alleged affair, Mark McLachlan was working as a political adviser to Constitution Minister Mike Russell.

He was forced to resign in November 2009 after being exposed as the man behind a scandalous blog which smeared political rivals.

The Universality of Cheese blog, run by McLachlan under the pseudonym Montague Burton, contained false allegations about the sex lives and behaviour of Labour and Tory politicians.

Mrs McLachlan says her husband and McAlpine spent a weekend away together composing an article to defend the blog.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... ed-2142938

[NickB]

Ah, Joan McVulpine; charming lady I'm sure.

.
'McVulpine' eh?

Strangely, that is exactly what Longshanker, the unfortunately named author of the truly dreadful 'AhDinnaeKen' blog, calls her in his latest out of control rant which, co-incidentally, is on the very same subject as this thread.

Click the pic to read the article :



While I am quite happy to accept that this 'Longshanker' business is just an unfortunate co-incidence namewise, I am a little disappointed that you choose to get your political ammunition from such a revolting site, a site which would seem to epitomise everything you profess to despise about political blogs.

[longshanks]

That's the real risk, that the Yes campaigners win a majority based on a very low turn out and an even lower percentage of the population in favour of independence. Such a result could tear Scotland apart in civil strife. Don't believe it? You're living in cloud cuckoo land if you don't.

I agree with your point but a low turn out is seen as very unlikely and I agree.

Bookies are only offering 8/11 on a turn out over 64% and 4/1 on a turn out less than 60%.

I see it as a 60% turn out being the minimum for a safe No vote but expect a turnout in the 8o%s.

The odds now offered on the outcome are very telling.

Even at 1/8 for a No vote there have recently been two bets in excess of £200,000 !

Yes is 9/2.

It is clear what the professionals are expecting. A large turn out and a decisive No vote. Bookies are very seldom wrong.
.....................
Interesting that NickB has failed to put his money where his mouth is in respect of the friendly wager I offered.

[NickB]

It is clear what the professionals are expecting. A large turn out and a decisive No vote. Bookies are very seldom wrong.

Bookies adjust the odds continuously to minimise their exposure to risk.

Here's a strange story from Paisley MSP George Adam's blog from June 28th:

‘I was very surprised that one of my constituents wanted to show me his betting line but after he explained the situation I became very interested.

‘My first thoughts were that I was happy that he had almost as much confidence as myself in Scotland winning independence following next years vote.

‘I was then told that he had tried to put a £1000 bet on the referendum outcome at　 William Hill in Gilmour Street in Paisley.　 After a member of staff made a few phone calls the constituent was told that the maximum amount they would accept was a bet of £250.　 This from the same chain of shops that accepted the £200,000 bet on a ‘No’ vote.

‘This is not the only betting shop to refuse a bet according to my constituent.　 Coral in Gauze Street in Paisley refused a £2000 bet and would only allow a wager of £200 to be placed, once again after phone calls to management.

‘It seems both these large chains are happier to accept money for the ‘No’ vote.　

‘I think they’re more confident of holding on to that money.’

Whatever. It ain't over 'till the electorate sings, and anyone who thinks they can predict the result now is kidding themselves.

I've put my bet on with Paddy Power for a YES vote at 4-1 . . .

[longshanks]

While I am quite happy to accept that this 'Longshanker' business is just an unfortunate co-incidence namewise,

Good.

For Argyll also, now, has a "Longshanks" posting !

What is strange there is that he/she appeared very soon after another poster, "webcraft", went off in a huff. They have remarkably similar styles and sentiments, both continually criticising the journalists their for the anti-SNP/Yes stance.

It gets more bizarre because "webcraft" first appeared after another poster "scotsrenewables" too went off in a huff. He too had remarkably similar styles and sentiments, also continually criticising the journalists their for the anti-SNP/Yes stance.

Now, get this, for a short time between "webcraft" huffing off and "Longshanks" starting up a "HerbyDice" posted. Yup, you got it..remarkably similar style and sentiments, also continually criticising the journalists their for the anti-SNP/Yes stance.

ps
Now you've laid your bet with PaddyPower are you ready to accept my fun wager ?

[NickB]

Not sure what you are saying regarding the ForArgyll blog. I'm pretty sure it wasn't our own Herby Dice, the moderator of this forum, who was posting there. Here's some examples of the alleged Mr. Dice's postings - certainly doesn't sound like me, he's apparently very anti-SNP and claims to have a son in Wales.

I don't bother posting on ForArgyll any more, either as Webcraft or Scots Renewables, as I find Lynda Henderson's endless shrill polemics very tiresome. Not sure what you mean by 'the journalists' - there are no journalists on the site as far as I can see. I did look in a couple of times recently when someone told me a 'Longshanks' was posting, but I realised immediately it was not you - he/she was far too reasonable. Looks like someone or someones may be impersonating fictional characters from this forum. A little weird, but I don't see it as anything to get worked up about, do you? It's the internet, not real life.

I don't want to bet with you, but I'll happily buy you a drink out of my winnings

[longshanks]

Not sure what you are saying regarding the ForArgyll blog. I'm pretty sure it wasn't our own Herby Dice, the moderator of this forum, who was posting there. Here's some examples of the alleged Mr. Dice's postings - certainly doesn't sound like me,

So you are Herby Dice then !.

You always used to deny that; saying that Herby Dice was a friend. Well done for finally admitting it, albeit unintentionally.

The admission does, though, make some of your previous posts on here rather weird in relation to Herby.

Strange place the internet.
.................

Shame you won't accept my wager. Only a bit of fun but looks like you don't have that much confidence in the Yes vote. Ah well.