Because I'm confined to barracks today I thought I'd have a listen to some of the debates and speeches from the SNP conference. which is currently taking place in Inverness.I've twice scanned the BBC listings for television and radio (including BBC Parliament), only to find there is nothing scheduled for today.
The BBC covered the labour, conservative and libdem conferences in England every day, so why not Scotland's governing party's conference here in Scotland?
OK, we all know how biased the BBC this really is insulting to all Scots, not just those who support the SNP. We need debate on the future of Scotland and if the SNP's voice is not being heard, then at least one third of the population of Scotland are being ignored.
If anyone can point me in the direction of online broadcasting I'd be grateful. Again today I'm having to limit my time looking at a computer screen.
Posts
29 comments:
Please tell me I'm paranoid. I keep noticing that the BBC always refers to 'the SNP government' - especially when it's a negative story. I don't recollect their predecessors being described as the 'Labour' or 'Labour/Lib Dem' government - they were simply the 'Scottish Government'.
I also noticed that when reporting MPs who were returning part of their expenses claims, Alex Salmond was described as being 'of the SNP' whereas the party of allegiance of the others was not mentioned, and although their photographs were shown, they were not named. This piece was followed by a clip of Alex saying he would repay the disputed £710. It looked like an attempt to spin that only the SNP were involved.
I guess the amin reason why the Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative conferences garnered more coverage is because they contest elections across the whole of the UK, excluding the anomoly that is Northern Ireland. They are nationwide parties and not confined to only one part of the country.
It does seem odd that the conference is not featuring more heavily in the schedules, however, and for that I do have some sympathy with your view. However much I detest the SNP they do have a democratic mandate from a portion of the Scottish electorate, and thus have a right to the airwaves.
Keith tell us why you detest the SNP from West Yorkshire?
Is it their platform of independence, or what they say on other issues, who says it?
Tell us more, please.
>>Keith tell us why you detest the SNP from West Yorkshire?
Take a look at his blog. He's a thicko. Thinks Angus Macleod of the Times is a useful commentator on Scottish politics. No, don't snigger...
No you're not paranoid Vronsky. I should have put that in the post about it being called the SNP government. Goes on all the time.
Then of course we have the ones who continue to call it the executive.
I didn't see that piece I don't think Vronksy, but I saw a bit where only the SNP MPs paybacks were mentioned. Alex managed at the end of it to say 'the total of the whole SNP party was less than the single payment of the PM' if I recall.
Hello Keith, I can assure you if this was any of the 3 UK parties, I was also be criticising.
Vronsky re Keith Ruffles
I found the Daily Rant, read it and had a guid laff. The boy wants to work for the Scotsman or make the tea for Angus Macleod.
I then read his one post on the anti SNP article (hardehar)from, a "John Ruffles," which could be a (close) relative or Master Keith has not yet mastered the art of blogging with multiple, but apparently unrelated, monikers.
I tried to post the following
"Jeezus there's two of them" but was unable.
I wonder if he works for Tesco?
BBC Biased? Now you're getting Glencambly SR
God forbid Dram! Even in the height of my fashionable youth I never wore winkelpickers with toes which turned up like his.
Naw, surely not.
The BBC hates the SNP. The presenters sneer as they mention them regardless of the story. That Jackie Bird woman has difficulty saying the three letters without vomiting. And that grim old dear from Newsnight, Joke's mate Wark, takes hatred to a whole new level. Unprofessional doesn't begin to describe her. I never quite worked out how she got on that programme. It certainly isn't intellect, charm, ability or looks. Connections? Maybe?
I truly believe that everyone in Scotland should stop paying the licence fee. In politics as in everything else, we simply do not get a fair deal from them.
It's disgusting tris and time the SNP used a little assertiveness.
Tonight I watched the Big Debate which was broadcast on BBC 1 on Wednesday with the winklepicker wearer as host.
His loathing of poor John Swinney was palpable as usual but John stood out as the professional, although the libdem chap wasn't bad.
Mundell and the Skull were just pathetic.
And there was me thinking nationalists were on the whole a civil bunch!
Billygoat, I dislike the SNP because they actively seek to dismantle the United Kingdom, a union of countries which I firmly believe work better together. If the SNP succeed in achieving Scottish independence it will effect me just as much in West Yorkshire as those north of the Tweed. I also have a sneaking suspicion that much nationalist rhetoric has overtones of an anti-English nature and find that SNP claims to "want the best for Scotland" to be disingenuous because they should also add the proviso "...as long as that's independence". I don’t see how a policy of secession at any cost can really be described in such a manner. I'm also disinclined towards nationalism as a political paradigm in general
Further, I really have no connection with any posts by a 'John Ruffles' - although that was my grandfather's name - so perhaps you could post a link? I'd like to check it out. And if you want to take issue with any posts in my blog then please feel free to do so, Scotland-related or otherwise.
Vronksy, if Angus Macleod makes some observations regarding Scottish defence policy that I find interesting and worthy of discussion and you wish to challenge then by all means do so. Simply dismissing those observations - that even an ardent SNP supporter might make - solely by declaring me a 'thicko' simply isn't good enough. You can do better, I'm sure.
Subrosa, I believe you, and I'm genuinely irritated by the lack of BBC coverage of the SNP conference. Funnily enough the Beeb suffers from similar criticism from those of a right-wing and/or Conservative background who see it as liberally biased, so at least Scottish nationalists are not alone...!
People who want independence for Scotland are, on the whole, a civil bunch Keith. Some just become a little emotional when they hear another, who doesn't live in their country, decry them.
You sound so much like some of my English friends here who came to settle in Scotland. Now they've lived here for some years they know the injustice dished out from Westminster and they sense the pure frustration within the people.
What I'm saying is it's fine to say we can work together from one section of the UK but if you've no practical experience of the other sections then it's rather difficult to make your argument stick.
If I were of a selfish nature, I would say to the people of West Yorkshire 'stick up for yourself and stop relying on Scotland' because you imply it's Scotland which affects W Yorks.
Angus MacLeod isn't the worst of journalists by a long chalk, but he's a unionist. He just cannot accept anything the SNP does has a positive effect. One day Angus and his ilk will have to accept the SNP because more and more Scots are supporting them but with having only perhaps two prominent journalists who aren't biased, it's a hard slog and has been for many years for the SNP.
I'll let the others answer their part Keith.
“Some just become a little emotional when they hear another, who doesn't live in their country, decry them”
If that’s the case I think they need to grow some thicker skin. I’m a member of a political party which is constantly bombarded in certain sections of the press, and when I come across opinions expressed in the public domain with which I disagree I like to challenge them, not personally abuse those that make them. That you have questioned some of the points on my blog - in a very courteous manner, I might add - as I have done here is what I think political blogging should be all about.
Further, as citizens of the United Kingdom we do live in the same country, and Scottish independence would profoundly effect England, Northern Ireland and Wales as much as it would effect Scotland itself. To be offered abuse for having an opinion on an important political process which will effect me and everyone around me - even if I don’t reside in Scotland - is outrageous.
“…if you've no practical experience of the other sections then it's rather difficult to make your argument stick.”
I disagree. Are you suggesting that individuals can only have a valid opinion on topics of which they have first hand experience? Can only Americans, for example, exclusively comment on US foreign policy, even as that policy impacts around the world?
Besides, how do you know that I don’t have this ‘experience‘? Granted, I have never lived in Scotland, but I have lived in Gwynedd in North Wales and still have strong family links in the area. Does that mean you now regard my opinion of UK constitutional politics as being more valid?
“Angus MacLeod isn't the worst of journalists by a long chalk, but he's a unionist.”
Perhaps - as is, for the time being, a large proportion of Scotland’s population - but I still don’t think that his arguments must be automatically discounted without examination or challenge as a result. Would it be reasonable for me to be equally dismissive of any points made by a political commentator if I suspected them of being of a nationalist persuasion?
Besides, the points in the article - and in my blog post referred to by the others above - could have just as easily been made by a staunch SNP supporter so this ‘argument’ doesn’t really wash. Anyone could look at the SNP’s policy on defence and find it wanting, whether they desire independence or not.
“…if you've no practical experience of the other sections then it's rather difficult to make your argument stick.”
Keith, this is where we'll have to agree to disagree. All my life I've thought Scotland should be an independent country but I spent much time abroad and didn't involve myself in Scottish politics for some years.
Upon returning here I was far more able to see the issues first hand and from all viewpoints.
Fair enough, that certainly shouldn't bar anyone having an opinion but for me it makes the personal knowledge slightly more authentic than the second hand.
Keith, we don't live in the same country. You live in England, that's your country. I live here in my country. Britain is composed of 4 countries. We only share the same islands in a similar manner to the Scandanavian countries.
I didn't suggest you should ignore Angus MacLeod's writings, I was only stating which side of the fence he leans on.
Defence has always been a very weak area with the SNP. Perhaps this is because they've never had to give it real consideration in the past. I would agree they certainly need to sharpen up a bit with it but I do know Alex Salmond meets regularly with heid bummers from the military.
Someone I think he makes policies with his tongue in his cheek. :)
>>I dislike the SNP
'Detest' was the word you used - backpeddling a bit now? Don't complain of immoderate answers to immoderate expressions.
You're a journalist, so you really ought to know Angus Macleod. He is not simply a unionist - he might not even be a unionist - he is simply a shill for unionism. By chance we were once guests at the same dinner table. We had a friend in common, and had never previously met. Up until then I had no particular knowledge or opinion of him.
It was shortly after the by-election in Perth and Kinross, when Roseanna Cunningham won the seat for the SNP following the death of Nicky Fairbairn. Macleod proceeded to regale the guests with tales of a rabble of SNP supporters outside the count, all of them roaring drunk. "I was there" I said. "There was one drunk - a Labour supporter - and you are a fucking liar." He shut up very sharply. So did everyone else, unfortunately.
Jings Vronsky, you bring back memories of that night. I was outside the count and to be honest I don't even remember anyone drunk. It was a cheerful wait and good spirits.
Maybe it was because I was with those who had a distance to drive home or the drunk was round the other side of the City Halls, but good for you sorting out MacLeod.
Don't remember seeing him outside the count, do you?
"We only share the same islands in a similar manner to the Scandanavian countries."
I'm sorry Subrosa but I really couldn't let this one go; I've responded to it at length at http://keithruffles.blogspot.com/2009/10/snp-likes-to-compare-scotland-to-norway.html
"'Detest' was the word you used - backpeddling a bit now? Don't complain of immoderate answers to immoderate expressions."
No backpeddling at all; I still detest the SNP, and in all honestly I can't see that view changing anytime soon. I've even attempted to briefly explain why. But your 'immoderate' answers were a personal attack, whereas mine were not. Grow up. Why is it I can withstand attacks on the party on which I support - which are numerous - without resorting to personal insults? Is it insecurity?
Or rather do you condone the use of personal attacks for all those that dare profess a dislike of political parties, whatever that party happens to be?
Wrong name but I really am a separate person and not an alternative name for Daily Rant. As it happens at this time of year I warm to the idea of Scottish independence - at least we (ie the rest of the UK) wouldn't have to put the wretched clocks back...
I bet Alex Salmond would still want a Scottish seat on the UN Security Council.. "We're equals!"
Keith, I'm sorry if you feel my answers were immoderate and a personal attack but I really don't see where it became personal. I know nothing about your background so I couldn't make personal attacks.
I've read your article and find it accurate in places. But it is written in present day's terms. Before Norway, Sweden and Denmark, Finland and Iceland became independent they were regarded as Scandanavia in a similar way in which the nations which compose of British are regarded as British.
If you asked any Norwegian, Swede, Finn, or Icelander if they were Scandanavian today they would be quite curt with you I should think. These days have gone where the people are concerned and they are all separate countries now.
Why do you point out that Norway, Sweden and Denmark are monarchies while others are republics? That's nothing to do with the discussion, it's the choice of the people of that particular country.
I don't think the UK is any more homogeneous than Scandanavia was once upon a time. England calls the shots because England has by far the largest population. Perhaps that's only fair in some people's opinion.
Thanks for reminding me London can abolish the little bit or power then have generously (although it was more the generousity of the EU) given to my country.
You speak as if Scotland has always been completely attached to the UK. Please remember it's just over 300 years since the Union came into being. Not so long really, perhaps around 5 generations of my family.
Yes we have a combined defence force which punching way above its weight in Scots. To say Scandanavia didn't have a combined defence force is being rather sparing with the truth. The countries of Scandanavia have always combined their defences to protect each other in the past.
You obviously want the Union and I'm happy to acknowledge that. I do not, think it no longer benefits the country of my birth and has not done for some years.
Dare I say, it's articles like yours which attract Scots towards the SNP which you dislike.
Unless you've been a member of the SNP, which you may well have been at some time, I would have thought it difficult for you to know much about it, partly because our media can be most biased.
Let me know if I've missed anything.
All countries should be equal Tom, but it's just that some think they're more equal than others.
I'm with you on the clock business. Being more of an afternoon/night person I'd prefer my extra hour at the end of the day.
"The countries of Scandanavia have always combined their defences to protect each other in the past."
Always? The Norwegians and Danes in the Second World War might disagree, given that Sweden stayed neutral while theirs were occupied. Realpolitik.
All countries should be equal of course, subrosa (leaving aside the vexed question of how you define a country), but haven't you noticed that we don't live in an ideal world? Given that, I think I am right in saying, Scotland has a similar population to Yorkshire's, I suspect there would be some sort of inequality after independence. It's a bit like a big kid and a little kid on a see-saw. Not equal; the little kid finds its legs dangling helplessly in the air.
Sorry Tom, I should have inserted 'usually' there. Of course you're right about Sweden during WW11.
My only excuse was tiredness as I'd just spent 4 hours at bridge tables.
The argument about how a country is defined will rumbled on long after I'm gone.
Would you say Sweden is a country? I think you would yet you deny Scotland is a country.
The population number doesn't matter Tom, it's whether the country's population are capable of sustaining and governing their country.
Do you think it otherwise?
Scotland's legs have dangled in the air long enough, time we had our feet on the ground.
"Would you say Sweden is a country? I think you would yet you deny Scotland is a country."
I think Daily Rant in his last blog entry has given a few examples of how Sweden - and the other Scaninavian countries - and Scotland differ.
"The population number doesn't matter"
Well I wonder about that. Countries with larger populations seem to have a bit of an advantage. That's why this affects the rest of the UK (and why an Enlgish opinion on the SNP is valid despite the insinuation that DR is not entitled to have a say from Yorkshire).
Tom, of course DR can have a say from Yorkshire. Goodness me I have folk from Canada, Germany and Australia comment on Scottish politics.
But DR suggests he knows all about the SNP and their policies and I challenged him on that, mainly because having lived out of Scotland for many years myself, I found it quite impossible to get an accurate view of the situation until I returned.
There are many countries with a population size of Scotland. Norway, Switzerland of course spring to mind. Why are they at a disadvantage?
England wouldn't notice if the 5m of Scotland dropped from their numbers surely? Many English comments I read on other blogs make that quite clear but some are perhaps more emotional than rational.
I'm sorry for the likes of DR if he's unhappy with Yorkshire's position within England. I lived in the county for some time and I have a great fondness for it, in fact it reminded me of Scotland much of the time - the people too.
Subrosa, I do apologise - my earlier comments regarding personal attacks were intended for Vronksy; in my haste I forget to add his/her name.
That's ok Keith. It's unusual for Vronsky to make personal attacks I assure you. May I ask you to forgive him in this case please.
Post a Comment