By G.A.Ponsonby 
It’s been an interesting week in Scottish politics; The Unionists continued with the ‘investment uncertainty’ line whilst Amazon and Michelin opted for investment certainty.
Amazon’s new facility in Fife is the size of fourteen football pitches. In a first for BBC Scotland the broadcaster paid scant attention to a Scottish story with a football angle.
Meanwhile, Michael Moore, the man who wanted the post of Scottish Secretary abolished to save money, spent even more money creating a Scottish business group.
Why? Well your guess is as good as mine. Moore seems to have spent the last fortnight telling anyone who will listen that nobody will invest in Scotland until the independence referendum is out of the way.
Perhaps Moore’s business group are going to issue regular monthly press statements confirming that they are certain about being uncertain. Then Moore can cite them as proof of the uncertainty he is certain about.
One thing is certain though, as sure as night follows day the constitutional debate will receive the usual coverage from BBC Scotland as we have come to expect. The tabloidisation of the BBC in Scotland continues unabated.
As I sit here writing this piece late Saturday I had a look at BBC Scotland’s online news site and here is how it looks:

The top five stories involve death. Of the 10 top stories, seven involve someone dying and one other is a story about a violent knife attack. Is this really the Scotland I woke up to on Saturday morning? Are the tragic deaths of five unfortunate souls really the top news items in our nation?
There are two other stories in the online page that are treated as sidebar items when they should be big talking points; energy prices and the problem posed by the UK’s ageing nuclear submarine fleet. But hey, if you miss the real stories then you don’t have to analyse them. This is selective tabloid news at its worst and something we pay the BBC to avoid.
Here at Newsnet Scotland we do go on about BBC Scotland’s political coverage, and for good reason. As the independence debate gets going the BBC seem to have employed a one way filter that deems certain stories off limits.
That’s why when Alex Salmond revealed this week that a senior Tory in the north east of England had been lobbying against investment in Scotland, we noticed that BBC Scotland didn’t give it the coverage it deserved - if any at all.
Linda Arkley, Tory mayor of North Tyneside, wrote to the UK coalition complaining about the success of the Scottish government in attracting inward investment (no uncertainty there), the Mayor urged the UK Government to do more to help north-east England to “compete against its near neighbour”.
Ms Arkley - revealed the First Minister on Thursday - had also attended the Conservative party conference on October 5th where she lobbied the UK Chancellor George Osborne regarding the success of Scotland in attracting inward investment.
Afterwards, Ms Arkley said: “Ministers have agreed to look at this” – a statement described by Mr Salmond as “dangerous”.
The concerns raised by the Tory Mayor were followed by claims by George Osborne that global companies were expressing concern about investing in Scotland.
Osborne was joined by someone called Willie Bain, a Scottish Labour MP who claimed he had held talks in the boardrooms of respected financial institutions, the heads of which had also expressed concern.
Now, call me naïve but this revelation by Scotland’s First Minister of lobbying by a senior English Tory demanding the UK government address Scotland’s business ‘advantage’ just before Osborne ‘attacks’ Scotland’s investment credibility was surely worthy of significant coverage.
But no, this timely and topical revelation from Scotland’s First Minister was – how shall we put it … pretty much ignored by the BBC in Scotland. It's not as though Mayor Arkley's lobbying of UK Ministers was a secret.
It's bizarre but not unexpected. Attack Scotland’s economic credibility and one can be assured of uncritical wall to wall coverage, reveal evidence (albeit circumstantial) that the attacks might be politically motivated and nothing.
On the day of Mr Salmond’s 'revelation' BBC Scotland political editor Brian Taylor thought it better to highlight the Scottish Labour leadership contest on his taxpayer funded online blog. Blogging is an area that BBC Scotland presenters inhabit along with their ‘regional’ colleagues from other parts of the UK.
Which brings me to a rather insidious development in this particular area of cyberspace.
The blog (web log) allows BBC presenters and journalists to publish their opinions and views on topics of the day. Those views are commented upon, and occasionally challenged, by members of the public – it’s 21st century democracy in action.
There are blogs on sport, music and of course politics and all have a moderated forum that invites comment and debate from us, the licence payer. Or rather they did until very recently.
You see there is one section of the BBC’s blogosphere that, henceforth, public comment is to be disallowed. BBC Scotland has introduced a new policy that prevents public comment on opinion pieces authored by Brian Taylor and Douglas Fraser.
A virtual war of words has now erupted around this cyber-censorship amid claims of discrimination. It has elicited interest from Scottish politicians of all hues and looks certain to cause Pacific Quay not a little discomfort.
At a time when Scotland looks to its constitutional future and the clamour for debate begins to grow, it is highly suspect for our state broadcaster to adopt a backward step and eschew the benefits of modern technology.
The reason given, that comment will be opened up on selected (selected!!) news items is spurious – and begs the question, which stories and who will decide?
It’s a story that Scotland’s traditional news outlets won’t cover and it tells you all you need to know about the role of Scotland’s media. It’s not the act itself that is most disturbing, it’s the complete lack of interest from those employed to protect the right of free speech - licence fee notwithstanding.
In this age of apparent uncertainty, it looks increasingly certain that the opportunities of ordinary Scots to voice their opinions and concerns will continue to diminish as the referendum approaches.
Update:
On this morning’s [Sunday] Business show on BBC Radio Scotland we were treated to two media commentators discussing the ‘uncertainty’ caused by the prospect of independence. One of them was Peter Jones a journalist from the Scotsman newspaper, the other was Alf Young a former Labour party senior advisor.
Jones came across as objective and fair. Young was predictably critical of the SNP, repeating or referring to much of the Unionist arguments we have heard this last two weeks.
If the BBC continue to rely on commentary from former Labour party advisors then they should not be surprised when the views expressed are pro-Union. They should also not be surprised when members of the public complain about this kind of 'loaded' debate.
What are we as individuals supposed to do write to Points of View?
At least on the so called msm stories and views are obviously biased and attributable.
Thanks for getting in touch. I've decided to close the comments on the Brian and Douglas blogs as a rule of thumb. Instead I am opening up comments across all our content more regularly - that way I am giving people the opportunity to comment on a wider range of subject areas
In this age of apparent uncertainty, it looks increasingly certain that the opportunities of ordinary Scots to voice their opinions and concerns will continue to diminish as the referendum approaches.
Its up to us to spread the word that the BBC isnt what it used to be.
mountaincadre 2011-11-20 11:44
"Not sure i get where your coming from Exel, if i take your point correctly then we should keep paying the fee but keep righting letters to them in protest?"
What I am saying is, you have as much chance of changing, the msm bias, by writing to them, as you have of changing the anonymous, non attributable bias in the internet blog media.
Conclusions
This chapter has examined the Criminal Statistics far England and Wales between 1980 and 1994 in order to explore the criminalisation of female poverty in relation to television licence evasion. Despite the difficulties involved in understanding trends in prosecution and sentencing, it has been suggested that there have been real increases in this type of 'crime of poverty' over this period. It has further been suggested that perpetrators of television licence evasion are doubly punished through the imposition of fines, which they often cannot afford, and which may consequently lead to their imprisonment for fine default. Television licence evasion now constitutes the largest single instance of female crime, and after excluding motoring offences, accounts for the largest number of imprisoned fine defaulters. One possible solution which could end the criminalisation of people living in poverty would be to abolish the licence fee and raise the level of general taxation as an alternative method of funding the BBC.
I'm not sure they could. Media is a reserved matter, and I assume that ANY legislation in this arena would be similarly reserved. This should not prevent the SNP from raising this in Parliament.
One thing that frustrates me is that the SNP do not use FMQ as they do in Westminster and have more 'planted' questions. Many of the things we talk about on these pages will only see the light of day in the MSM if raised at Holyrood. Let's use FMQs as a way of exposing the hypocrisy in the unionist institutions.
it already is a CIVIL (not criminal) offence here in Scotland. Thats why BBC/TVL and their Capita offshoots are still resisting taking me to court. \i have not subscribed to this extortion racket since my student days in the 1980's when coverage of the miners strike by the BBC peed me off.
i have no objection of none payment of the BBC licence fee,but the twisters would use it against us saying we are criminals defying the law. more importantly it would in no way influence them to change tack,as they are government sponsored![/quo[quote name="rouser"]i have no objection of none payment of the BBC licence fee,but the twisters would use it against us saying we are criminals defying the law. more importantly it would in no way influence them to change tack,as they are government sponsored!
Please Sign up and pass on...
In his "wish list" letter to the chancellor, Mr Swinney has also urged the UK Treasury not to cut benefit incomes next year, to reconsider a decision to end tax relief for the video games industry and to look at measures to increase access to affordable finance for businesses."
In his "wish list" letter to the chancellor, Mr Swinney has also urged the UK Treasury not to cut benefit incomes next year, to reconsider a decision to end tax relief for the video games industry and to look at measures to increase access to affordable finance for businesses.
I'm not sure that any medium of communication can escape the "duty of fairness". The PCC does not only cover the public media.
Indeed, but the fact that the PCC like many other "watchdogs" in the UK, is toothless, is another scandal. Presumably the principle of fairness remains in law at some level, even if it is not honoured.
Jackie Bird's only mention of the choir was that if you want to see it you can see it on saturday at 5.40pm the next day! It seems incredible and beyond belief that they could do this to children.
I have just posted on the BBC Points of View message board about this link on the BBC website to a Labour petition.
For those that feel so inclined, please head over there and give me a little support. Here's the link:
bbc.co.uk/.../...