1

Chapter 5 - Referendum Battle Begins The magnitude of the SNP win in the 2011 Scottish election shocked everyone, even the Nationalists. To win a majority using an electoral system specifically designed to prevent it from happening was incredible enough, but to win in such a manner when the might of the media was set against you, well that de-fied belief. But a majority it was, and a referendum on Scottish independence was now a certainty. All that remained to be decided was the question and the date. BBC Scotland‟s reputation, especially amongst independence supporters, was in ruins. Its News and Current Affairs department under the stewardship of John Boothman had pushed a pro-Labour news agenda, headlining ridiculous anti-SNP smears and refusing to pursue stories harmful to Scottish Labour. On at least one occasion, namely Iain Gray‟s Montenegro insult, it had em-ployed a complete news blackout of a damaging Labour story. Hectoring and interrupting SNP politicians was now so commonplace that it had become the norm. It was highly unusual to witness a BBC interview of an SNP politician that was devoid of aggressive and sometimes provocative inter-ruptions. Other examples of the BBC‟s questionable approach to Scottish poli-tics included the crude marginalisation of positive news stories which led to bizarre prioritising of news items. BBC Scotland seemed to adopt a template that downplayed news stories beneficial to the Scottish government and in-stead prioritised stories harmful to the SNP administration. For example in October 2010 First Minister Alex Salmond addressed a mas-sive Renewables conference in Edinburgh, a conference attended by people from all over the world. Scotland‟s fledgling renewables industry was a critical component of the SNP administration‟s long term economic plans - the poten-tial was massive. But the conference wasn‟t mentioned on that evening‟s Re-porting Scotland or on Radio Scotland‟s tea-time news programme Newsdrive. Reporting Scotland did though find time to broadcast a petty item about someone who was unhappy about Donald Trump receiving an honorary de-gree. There was also a creeping habit on the part of some BBC Scotland presenters to use terms and phrases favoured by Unionists whenever referring to inde-pendence; „separation‟ and „break up‟ being favourites. Nevertheless, the ref-erendum campaign offered an opportunity for BBC Scotland to redeem itself. The broadcaster had failed to evolve following devolution. Operations re-mained firmly in the grip of London. Now, with Scots set to decide their con-stitutional future there was an irresistible argument for the BBC in Scotland to embrace and reflect the changes taking place around it.

2

The BBC had a moral obligation to acknowledge the radical shift in Scotland‟s political landscape. It ought to have set in motion changes to its structure that recognised the new tilt in the constitutional axis. A minimum would have been to have BBC Scotland management hold regular consultations with Holy-rood‟s Culture Committee where issues and concerns over political and refer-endum coverage could have been raised and addressed. BBC Scotland News and Current Affairs programming, long left to deteriorate, should have been revamped. Public forums could have been set-up, chaired by the National Union of Journalists, to allow perceived grievances to be aired and editorial decisions explained. But the BBC refused to adapt. If anything it became even more aloof and re-mote from the Scottish licence payer. The broadcaster‟s response to the SNP majority win and a referendum on independence was to apply the same tem-plates to its political news coverage that had led many to question its impar-tiality. With the whole Westminster establishment ready to wade into Scot-land‟s referendum campaign, it meant there would be no shortage of anti-independence output. Thus, BBC Scotland‟s coverage of the referendum was destined to become heavily reliant on statements and reports issued by establishment figures and organisations, most of whom had a vested interest in maintaining the Union. Lords, Lords‟ Committees, Think Tanks, UK Ministers, House of Commons Committees, former Prime Ministers, former First Ministers, lobbying groups, business leaders and others, became the bedrock of the corporation‟s referen-dum output. London based organisations and politicians appeared in more BBC Scotland news bulletins than their independence supporting counter-parts, but were scrutinised less. BBC Scotland‟s coverage of the independence debate would come to be marked by the sheer volume of scare stories, claims and politically motivated statements issued by Unionist politicians and their supporters. In September 2011 we were presented with an example of just how the BBC planned to cover the independence debate. On the 2nd of that month, Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander addressed the annual dinner held by business lob-bying group CBI Scotland. In his speech, Alexander attacked independence. The Liberal Democrat MP claimed an independent Scotland would have one of the largest deficits in Europe and that public spending would outstrip income. He ended by telling the audience:

“We are stronger together - and we are stronger when Scotland's two governments work together, pulling in the same direction for the peo-ple of this country.”

3

A Unionist MP attacking independence was as newsworthy as rain falling in Scotland. But within hours of Alexander making his speech BBC Scotland had placed a recording in prime location on its main Scottish online news page. Note, not an edited extract of the speech as was the norm, but the complete uncut address. It ensured that Alexander‟s anti-independence and anti-SNP views were made available to as wide an audience as possible.

But was it really news? Were the anti-independence views of a pro-Union MP really worth top billing? As far as BBC Scotland was concerned, the answer was a definite yes and it would become standard practice for the duration of the referendum campaign. BBC Scotland rarely scrutinised what was said by the Westminster establishment, it simply repeated it. Later that month, on Wednesday September 28th, another example of bizarre news prioritisation was witnessed when the former Vice president of the Unit-ed States, Al Gore, visited Scotland. The Nobel Laureate and Oscar winning environmental campaigner was speaking at the International Renewable Con-ference in Edinburgh where he praised Scotland‟s approach to green energy. Now someone of that stature visiting your country and praising your govern-ment had to be the lead item on that evening‟s Reporting Scotland. But the flagship news programme ignored the story completely, instead opting to re-port on some old firm fans who had displayed anti-SNP banners in protest at proposed anti-sectarianism legislation. Someone called Dr Stewart Waiton of Abertay University was shown criticising the Scottish government‟s plans. Quite why this nondescript academic was considered more newsworthy than a former US Vice-President, was not immediately apparent. A quick check re-vealed he had set up an online site called Take a Liberty which attacked SNP proposals such as minimum price for alcohol and anti-sectarianism at football. Waiton had launched a petition against the „Offensive Behaviour In Football‟ bill three months previously.

4

Waiton‟s website was not strictly anti-SNP or anti-independence, but his views were helpful to any organisation or group with an agenda. BBC Scotland was only too happy to provide Waiton with a platform to air his views. The visiting Al Gore was never heard. Perhaps if the former Vice-President of the United States had attacked the Scottish government, or set up a website attacking it, the BBC may have shown an interest in what he had to say. BBC Scotland had an aversion to new online media particularly if that media was sympathetic to independence. The BBC had banned mention of the online site Newsnet Scotland on its blogs, closing down accounts of people who per-sistently tried to circumvent the ban. Despite this, the corporation repeatedly denied pandering to Unionism or that it was promoting a pro-Union agenda. That denial took a bit of a dent on Friday September 30th when a barely believ-able „interview‟ took place on BBC Radio Scotland. A Scottish Conservative councillor had created a campaign website called One Dynamic Nation.

The site campaigned in favour of the Union, and contained the following:

One Dynamic Nation believe in the United Kingdom of Scotland, Eng-land, Wales and Northern Ireland. We believe each country within this union is unique and contributes its distinct cultural blend equally to our nation. We believe each part of this union brings strength, diversi-ty and drive to the whole nation. We are One Dynamic Nation and we will campaign to save our Union. The fact that Scotland receives more from the UK Treasury than she contributes does allow the disproportionate remoteness of some re-gions and the disproportionate economic disadvantages of others to be catered for. Most of the Scottish budget comes from a block grant from the UK Parliament, paid for out of taxes collected from across the UK. One Dynamic Nation will advance positive messages in general about the United Kingdom and each constituent nation‟s role in it. We will build up pro-Union affiliations and support for the UK nationwide. One Dynamic Nation will create a sense of community with people who share its aims.

5

The site asked for donations and volunteers to help spread its message. Big deal you might say, such sites were ten-a-penny and there were far more in fa-vour of independence than the Union. Yes, but the other sites didn‟t benefit from free promotion on BBC Radio Scotland. On the day of its launch, Conservative councillor David Meikle appeared on Good Morning Scotland to talk about the site. The interview, conducted by Gary Robertson, didn‟t probe Meikle on the many claims contained on his campaign website. Instead it took the form of a promotional piece. To all in-tents and purposes, it was an advert. The website itself boasted of the BBC Scotland appearance:

David Meikle from One Dynamic Nation was interviewed on the BBC‟s Good Morning Scotland today The point was made that One Dynamic Nation was a different initia-tive from any that could be launched by a political party in that it was cross party and grass roots. Any campaign by one of the three unionist parties would dilute the effort needed to fight an effective opposition to separatism and would exclude those who had no political affiliation. What was needed was a people led movement so that the voice of the Scottish people and not just the politicians could be heard on this vital subject. David also noted that this needed to be Scottish led as it would not be good if it were seen that London based politicians were leading any anti-independence initiative. He said that the United Kingdom was like a family and families don‟t just split up. Of course the movement by its very nature has to be political but he tried not to be drawn on negative “panic” arguments that of the kind that are being advanced elsewhere as part of the debate and focussed instead on the positive advantages of the Union. He said that One Dy-namic Nation wanted to run a positive campaign. Bottom line is that despite all the political debate a lot of people just like being Scottish and in the UK and are very comfortable with that.

It was quite a scoop, not for BBC Scotland, but for the pro-Union website. To have licence payers‟ cash used in order to promote its launch was something few other campaigns could boast. The pro-Union website even featured offi-cial images of the BBC Scotland programme on which Meikle had appeared.

6

Despite the free publicity at licence-fee payers‟ expense, One Dynamic Nation never did catch on. A petition on the site pleading with Scots to „Save the Un-ion‟ garnered a total of 187 signatures. It faded into obscurity. Online campaigns were failing but the ability of Unionist politicians to capture BBC headlines certainly was not. In October 2011, attacks on the SNP by La-bour MPs Jim Murphy and Tom Harris appeared in quick succession.

Both men were attacking the idea that a third option could be added to the ref-erendum ballot paper. The term Devo Max had entered the political lexicon proper after the 2007 Holyrood election. Loosely defined, it meant Holyrood controlling all powers except defence and foreign affairs. Polls consistently showed most Scots favoured it over full independence or the status quo. But Unionists were opposed to it being included as an option. In the Harris article, which appeared on October 25th, the BBC‟s introductory sentence was interesting:

The first minister has been warned that he has "no mandate" from the Scottish people to put a second question in a future referendum on in-dependence.

7

Harris wasn‟t just expressing a view. According to BBC Scotland the Labour MP was „warning‟ the First Minister. It was red-top tabloid style reporting de-signed to give the impression that Harris had status. The MP had already sig-nalled his intention to stand as a candidate to replace Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray. Gray had remained as caretaker leader of Labour in Scotland after his humiliating defeat in May‟s election, but was due to be replaced. Jim Murphy‟s attack, launched that same week, was even more interesting and included many claims against independence that would be repeated time and again. Indeed they were to form the basis of the entire No campaign. Murphy said:

“If you want to break up the UK, you have to answer to some of the big questions about currency, about membership of the European Union and social security, pensions and so much else besides. What is best for Scotland is to remain in the UK.”

Murphy had made the remarks in an early morning TV interview on the BBC. In another BBC interview later that same day Alex Salmond found himself having to address the „questions‟ posed by Murphy. This pattern of placing the SNP and wider Yes movement on the defensive after attacks from Unionists would be a running theme in the BBC‟s coverage of the referendum. Attacks on the SNP and independence were relentless in the Autumn of 2011. Days after the Harris and Murphy attacks, BBC Scotland headlined an inter-vention from former Labour First Minister Henry McLeish.

McLeish‟s intervention was less frenzied and appeared more reasonable than that of his Labour colleagues. Regardless of his more diplomatic approach, the former First Minister was still arguing against independence, or in this case the SNP, and still benefiting from BBC Scotland headlines.

8

In the space of four days, BBC Scotland had headlined attacks on the SNP and independence from two senior Labour politicians and a former Labour First Minister. Of course it wasn‟t just Labour figures who now commanded BBC Scotland‟s attention. Little known organisations were equally newsworthy if they opposed SNP policy as in the case of Take a Liberty, or advocated sup-port for the Union as One Dynamic Nation did. Some organisations even found themselves eclipsing significant announcements from the Scottish gov-ernment. On November 02nd 2011 a London based economist published a report in which he claimed the independence referendum was causing "huge uncertain-ty". Citigroup analyst Peter Atherton also warned against investing in Scot-land‟s renewable sector. Atherton‟s report said:

“Renewable investors risk seeing their assets stranded in a newly inde-pendent Scotland.”

[…]

“Utilities and other investors should exercise extreme caution in com-mitting further capital to Scotland.”

Despite urging investors not to invest in Scotland, the report was welcomed by Unionist politicians and splashed all over BBC Scotland news bulletins.

The BBC article reported:

A major finance group has urged extreme caution over investing in Scotland's renewable energy sector, partly because of the independ-ence referendum. Citigroup said the referendum process will create huge uncertainty at the moment when major decisions on green projects are needed.

9

The BBC article added: A new report by Citigroup analysts said SNP's two flagship policies - an independence referendum towards the end of the current parlia-ment and a big increase in renewable energy and green jobs - may be in conflict. It argues the referendum process will "create huge uncertainty" at pre-cisely the moment when big investment decisions in renewable projects will need to be taken.

The BBC coverage featured statements from several Unionist politicians. Iain Gray, who was still Scottish Labour leader, said the report showed:

“…the SNP's refusal to come clean about a referendum is creating un-certainty and damaging Scotland's economy….

…We have been warning about this for months and now we see a ma-jor global bank actually advising its clients not to invest in Scotland.”

Scottish Secretary and Lib Dem MP Michael Moore said that the report point-ed to a "perfect example of the referendum uncertainty". Scottish Conserva-tive MSP David McLetchie claimed the referendum was creating uncertainty among the business community. He added:

“We have repeatedly called for the SNP to set a single question and to set a date as soon as possible for the referendum so we can settle this matter once and for all. With businesses being advised not to invest in Scotland until this is re-solved we can ill afford any further delay. We need to start concentrat-ing on what Scotland needs, rather than on Alex Salmond's narrow minded independence agenda.”

BBC Scotland gave Atherton‟s report very high profile coverage across its en-tire news spectrum. The attacks by Unionist politicians also received wide-spread coverage. On the day the Citigroup report appeared, First Minister Alex Salmond was in Abu Dhabi on a trade mission. The First Minister was there to conclude a deal which would see £630m worth of investment in the North Sea. When he appeared on Radio Scotland just after 08:00 that morn-ing, Salmond could have been forgiven for thinking the interview would be upbeat. It was customary when political leaders went abroad and secured agreements or business deals beneficial to the nation, to allow them to bask a little in the afterglow.

10

What Salmond encountered was a belligerent BBC Scotland presenter armed with the report by Citigroup. Gary Robertson‟s initial questions on the in-vestment news were short, curt, and abrupt. When he finally engaged, it was to suggest a negative in Salmond‟s announcement.

“I know as part of your visit today you're marking the fact that the Weir Group are doubling the size of a facility it has in Dubai. Does that make any difference here in Scotland, we had an email from someone saying as a University Graduate, unemployed in Scotland, do I need to emigrate there to get a job?”

It was puerile and churlish. It was also indicative of the interview style of the BBC Scotland presenter when faced with SNP politicians. Robertson adopted a forensic and at times clipped approach with Nationalist interviewees, inter-jecting frequently and probing from all angles. Unionist politicians met with a less aggressive approach. The Salmond interview wasn‟t even half way through when Robertson brought up the Citigroup report. Robertson asked:

“You will know about this warning today from Citigroup that power companies should exercise extreme caution before investing in the re-newable energy sector, partly they say because of the uncertainty caused by your proposed independence referendum. You can understand why they might feel nervous can't you because there are lots of unanswered questions about taxation levels etcetera in a post independent Scotland if you win.”

The “lots of unanswered questions” phrase was classic Unionist rhetoric, al-most a campaign slogan. To hear it uttered so casually by a BBC Scotland pre-senter was worrying. Robertson had also used the phrase “your independence referendum” when speaking to Alex Salmond. This was also classic Unionist speak. Unionists were already trying to personalise the independence refer-endum by presenting it as Alex Salmond‟s alone. If the referendum could be presented as Salmond‟s, then a campaign to demonise him would lead to a ref-erendum pay-off. So, instead of expanding on the positive effects of the hundreds of millions of pounds worth of investment, BBC Scotland had chosen to push the opinions of a London based analyst few people had ever heard of. Salmond was forced on-to the defensive. Salmond‟s good news announcement had been spiked. Our own broadcaster, the one we paid for, was promoting the views of someone who was seeking to dissuade investment in our country. But what efforts had BBC Scotland made to ensure Atherton‟s report was sound, that his conclu-sions were worthy of massive news coverage?

11

The answer appeared to have been none, for within days of the Citigroup re-port appearing across BBC Scotland news bulletins it was savaged by industry experts. No sooner had the report been published, than two other figures en-tered the debate and comprehensively rubbished Atherton‟s claims. First up was Director General of the Institute of Directors (IOD) Simon Walker who described the Citigroup warning as “alarmist”. Mr Walker, who was also the former Chief Executive of the BVCA the organisation that represents Brit-ish private equity and venture capital, claimed that Citigroup had overstated concerns. Walker insisted that the green-energy sector offered investment op-portunities regardless of whether a nation was engaged in a constitutional de-bate or not. He said:

“I think that‟s an alarmist approach, I think if there is an independent Scotland then that will throw up opportunities as well as threats and I think it is alarmist and overstating the problems to say don‟t invest in renewable or any other area because of future constitutional possibili-ties.”

Walker‟s intervention received nothing like the BBC coverage enjoyed by the Citigroup report. Nor did a statement that same day from Roy McGregor whose firm Global Energy was reported to be bringing 2000 jobs to Easter Ross through the company‟s purchase of the Nigg fabrication plant. Com-menting at the time, McGregor said:

“Investment is happening in full knowledge of the Scottish govern-ment‟s planned referendum – and renewables are being deployed in part thanks to the First Minister, who has demonstrated the vision and ambition that investors want to see.”

There was more to come when international investment firm Altium Securities rubbished the research behind Citigroup‟s claims. The organisation, which had offices in eight different countries and experience in business deals worth billions, published a report which said that Scotland was the best placed na-tion in Europe to capitalise on the green-energy revolution. The report‟s au-thor, David Cunningham, dismissed the suggestion that an independence ref-erendum meant that investors risked being „stranded‟ should they invest in the Scottish green-energy sector. Cunningham said:

“The energy market is resolutely agnostic towards politics. Companies may take notice if they are operating in a country where there‟s a vola-tile situation, but otherwise it‟s immaterial if a country like Scotland is independent of the rest of the UK.”

12

Atherton‟s report was called further into question when Green Energy body Scottish Renewables released figures showing investment in Scotland‟s green energy sector already stood at £750m. In the Sunday Herald, journalist Jody Harrison savaged the Citigroup report, writing:

The problem with the report is that it makes no assessment of the likely revenue available to a newly independent Scotland. It assumes that the transition to independence would be revenue neutral, that there would be no revenue boost from Scotland's oil and gas resources. The Atherton report also assumes any future independent Scottish government would be happy to retain the flat-rate levy on consumers which pays for our electricity infrastructure. In fact, it is far from cer-tain the levy would be retained. There are other flaws in Atherton's report. He suggests, for instance, that England and Wales may eschew electricity exports from an inde-pendent Scotland, preferring instead to develop a new generation of nuclear power. Yet Atherton has repeatedly warned off investors from getting involved in any newbuild nuclear plants in the UK. In a note from 2009 entitled "New Nuclear -- The Economics Say No", Atherton says the "risks can be classed as corporate killers". His view of the investment landscape in nuclear has not moderated with a change of UK Government. "We think [nuclear] is "uninvestable' for public equity markets," he said in July of this year. Atherton also claims Scotland's dream of exporting power south of the Border could be scuppered by the development of a bountiful supply of shale gas in England. Shale gas is drawn from rock by a process called fracking. Atherton ignores the controversy in the US over the environ-mental impact of fracking, which includes pollution of water tables, and that shale-gas development in the US took decades. He also ig-nores data emerging from the US showing that, since many more wells have to be sunk, the cost of this gas is substantially higher than gas from traditional sources. He assumes the cost of wind power will remain at current high levels. But with major turbine manufacturers Siemens, Gamesa and Doosan Babcock currently evaluating sites to take advantage of offshore wind and many major players in the North Sea oil and gas sector currently diversifying into renewables, it is fair to expect the costs of wind power will drop. Indeed current trends suggest that is happening already.

13

But the Citigroup report prevailed. BBC Scotland‟s coverage had ensured it set the news agenda. A report by one lone London based analyst received massive coverage from the Scottish media despite counter claims from several industry experts, some who provided proof that Atherton‟s claims were groundless. The myth of uncertainty was allowed to germinate like a poisonous weed and so began the misinformation which would define the investment side of the referendum campaign. The episode highlighted issues with the editorial decision making at BBC Scot-land when deciding what was news. Atherton‟s report, regardless of his own motivation, was de-facto anti-independence campaign literature. It should have been recognised as such. Had BBC Scotland set up a referendum de-partment then these „reports‟ could have been filtered into special referendum programmes where they could be presented alongside counter material and debated. Authors‟ claims could have been probed and arguments challenged. The public would have been informed. The BBC, and indeed other news outlets, seemed unable [or unwilling] to ap-preciate that the referendum was different from other political campaigns. There was nothing to prevent establishment figures and organisations from using their status in order to try to promote their own pro-Union agenda. The practice of simply parroting everything these people said invited funda-mentalists to make ever more extreme claims. There were no checks and bal-ances. It you wanted to corrupt the referendum debate you couldn‟t have done a better job than the BBC was doing. Thus, reports and statements pertaining to the referendum became subjective and frequently predictable. Such reports should have been treated with ex-treme caution and not fast-tracked into that day‟s headline news bulletins. But that‟s how Atherton‟s report had been treated by BBC Scotland. It sent a signal to organisations that reports critical of independence were likely to be treated favourably by the corporation and there was no more powerful organi-sation than the House of Commons. European Union Membership On November 9th another attack on the SNP and independence was headlined. This time it was Secretary of State for Scotland Michael Moore‟s turn. A report by the House of Commons library had listed three scenarios it said might await a newly independent Scotland with respect to membership of the Euro-pean Union. The paper said EU countries with their own domestic concerns about "sepa-ratist movements" might argue that "Scotland should lose its membership on becoming independent, or hold up or even veto its accession".

14

The paper said:

If Scotland became independent, would it automatically remain a member of the European Union (EU) - or would it have to go through the whole accession process for new Member States, either alone or alongside the rest of the UK? This is a major question in the independence debate, and one to which there is no clear answer. There is no precedent for a devolved part of an EU Member State becoming independent and having to determine its membership of the EU as a separate entity, and the question has given rise to widely different views. There are at least three different possibilities under international law for a newly-independent Scotland: continuation and secession (the rest of the UK would retain its treaty obligations and membership of inter-national organisations, but Scotland would not); separation (both en-tities would retain them); and dissolution (both would lose them).

The paper led to a set-piece question/answer in the House of Commons in which Michael Moore raised the prospect of an independent Scotland being thrown out of the EU and being forced to re-apply for membership. At Scotland Questions in the House of Commons, the Lib Dem MP told MPs:

“The idea that the SNP is taking for granted that Scotland would enter into the European Union without negotiation and consideration of the EU issues is entirely fanciful. We need to get these issues sorted out. The uncertainty needs to be re-solved sooner rather than later.”

Moore‟s scripted answer allowed the BBC to introduce the issue of EU mem-bership into its news broadcasts.

15

The BBC Scotland report was noticeable for the way it worded the headline. The corporation presented the issue as a debate over EU entry. In other words the public was being invited to accept that a newly independent Scot-land would automatically be out of the EU. BBC Scotland had also used a rather pejorative term in its headline, referring not to an independent Scotland, but to „go-alone Scots‟. This was more classic Unionist terminology which sought to portray an independent Scotland as be-ing „cut-off‟ or „isolated‟. Indeed Unionists had increasingly refused to use the word „independence‟ preferring instead the rather more pejorative word „sepa-ration‟. The BBC news report, as ever, included further criticism of the SNP. Labour MP Margaret Curran, who was Shadow Scottish Secretary, said:

“Under the SNP plan there is a real risk that Scotland could end up out of the UK and out of Europe, or in Europe but obliged to immediately adopt the Euro. Both scenarios would be a disaster for the Scottish economy and Scottish exports. The fact that a separate Scotland would be a significant net contribu-tor to EU coffers and the Euro bailout fund is extremely significant. The UK's strength within the EU gives Scotland a negotiating and bar-gaining edge that others just don't have.”

Curran‟s claim that a newly independent Scotland would be obliged to “imme-diately adopt the Euro” was false. There was ample evidence to disprove the claim. A newly independent Scotland didn‟t even meet the technical require-ments for adopting the single currency. Besides, even new members were not obliged to immediately adopt the Euro, as Sweden had demonstrated. Sweden had joined the EU in 1995 and continued to use the Krona. The country main-tained that joining the European Exchange Rate Mechanism was voluntary and had chosen to remain outside pending public approval by a referendum. But as I have already explained, BBC Scotland was not in the job of scrutinis-ing claims or accusations - it had set itself up as an amplifier of politically mo-tivated commentary, most of it pro-Union. Labour MP Jim Murphy had brought up the issue of EU membership in October and it was headlined by the BBC. Here it was again, this time with more specific claims relating to what Unionists insisted lay in wait for an independent Scotland. What wasn‟t being reported, because it would have seriously undermined a key Unionist campaign plank, was that there was no mechanism for throwing existing members of the EU out of the organisation. Nor was there any mech-anism for stripping people of their EU citizenship. Indeed, the European Un-ion was an organisation based on expansion. It wanted to grow, not throw out one of its longest and most European friendly member nations.

16

It wasn‟t easy for an existing member to extricate itself from the EU even if it wanted to. Bolstering arguments that a newly independent Scotland would not automatically find itself outside the EU was the example of Greenland which is the only country to have left the European Union. Greenland secured autonomy from Denmark in 1979 and voted to withdraw from the European Union in 1982. But it was not until February 1985, after difficult and protract-ed negotiations, that Greenland formally left the EU. The country then re-associated itself with the European Union through the overseas countries and territories (OCT) mechanism. The Greenland example demonstrated that the European Commission could respond pragmatically to unanticipated situations. The Member States ac-cepted Greenland's modified status despite the fact that the EC Treaties did not make provision for such a change in status. The EU, if required, would ac-commodate a newly independent Scotland in the same way. The EU scare could have been dealt with relatively easily with informed debate and analysis. It didn‟t happen. Instead, BBC Scotland treated claims from each side of the referendum campaign as though each had equal merit. Expul-sion and continued membership were presented as equally possible, when they were very clearly not. Instead of treating the issue in terms of probabil-ity, the BBC covered it in terms of possibility. It was almost impossible to envisage a newly independent Scotland being thrown out of the EU, the practicalities and cross border complications would have been a nightmare. People would have been expatriated from Scotland to their European homelands and Scots all over Europe would have become ille-gal immigrants. The Spanish fleet would have been barred from Scottish fish-ing waters. Scottish EU citizens would have challenged any move to strip them of their citizenship. Scottish laws, which were already interwoven with EU law, would have to be untangled. What of Scots living in England and vice versa? To suggest an auto-EU exit for an independent Scotland was so im-plausible it was almost funny. But the BBC‟s coverage ignored the improbability of Unionist claims. To the broadcaster, a newly independent Scotland had as much chance of being thrown out of the EU as it did of remaining a member. The referendum campaign, in terms of media coverage, was descending into a white noise of pro-Union propaganda. It was relentless. Scottish voters were being bombarded with a non-stop conveyor belt of scares and highly specula-tive claims. Whilst the BBC was reporting the myriad press statements from Westminster MPs and London based organisations, it was also quietly closing down the one opportunity for the Scottish licence payer to challenge this nar-rative.

17

The BBC had been behaving strangely with respect to its Scottish blogs, in par-ticular the online blog run by its Scottish Political Editor Brian Taylor. Mes-sages had been disappearing and accounts were being closed. In November 2011, when people in Scotland were seeking to engage in debate at a time of great importance, the BBC took an extraordinary decision, it closed down its Scottish blogs. Across the UK in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, blogs remained open and members of the public were still able to post comments on current political issues. However in Scotland, the BBC had removed the right of reply. Complaints revealed that the decision had been taken by BBC Scotland online editor Daniel Maxwell. In a statement issued in response to complaints, Max-well admitted the decision had been taken in order to allow BBC Scotland to restrict what issues could be commented on. He said the corporation was working towards an “always live service” where people could comment live “on all BBC output”. No such service was ever implemented. The decision meant that Scottish based licence payers had been denied the same BBC service as other licence payers throughout the rest of the UK. It was discrimination. In the meantime BBC Scotland continued with its peculiar coverage of the in-dependence debate. On 13th November it was UK Chancellor George Os-borne‟s turn to claim the referendum was damaging the economy. According to Osborne, major companies had questioned whether they should go ahead with investment plans. The attack, like the Citigroup report eleven days earli-er, was slotted into BBC Scotland news bulletins.

Osborne told the BBC:

“The instability and the uncertainty that hangs over the Scottish econ-omy [is] because of [First Minister] Alex Salmond raising the prospects of independence without actually providing any detail of when he wants to have his referendum or what the question will be. I think that uncertainty is damaging investment in Scotland - and there are major businesses around the world who have asked me as chancellor in the last year 'tell us what is going on in Scotland - we're worried about making an investment in that country'.”

18

Osborne continued: “I have told them go ahead with the investment, but I have to say those questions are being asked, and I think it is having a direct impact on Scottish jobs and Scottish prosperity.”

Osborne refused to reveal the names of the companies that he claimed had spoken to him. There was no statistical evidence that businesses were delay-ing investment in Scotland because of the referendum. If anything, anecdotal evidence suggested inward investment was holding up, perhaps even increas-ing. But a senior Unionist politician had issued a statement, so BBC Scotland headlined it. Osborne‟s claims set the news agenda, and again the SNP was forced to provide figures in order to address the claims. It was Alice in Won-derland political reporting from the BBC that demanded evidence from the ac-cused but not the accuser. Earlier in this chapter I wrote that the headlining of the Citigroup report by BBC Scotland had sent a signal to organisations that attacks on independence were likely to be treated favourably. One of those organisations was a lobbying group called the CBI. You‟ll remember that it was at a CBI dinner that Lib Dem MP Danny Alexander had given a speech attacking independence. The BBC had broadcast the whole speech online. The CBI was a London based right wing organisation that operated a branch office in Scotland. The head of the CBI in Scotland was Iain McMillan, a ve-hement opponent of independence. McMillan had a curious relationship with BBC Scotland that stretched back years. BBC Scotland, for reasons that were not clear, presented the CBI Scotland head as a „Business Chief‟ and not simply the head of a lobbying firm. The broadcaster regularly headlined statements from McMillan who was also a critic of the drive for more powers. McMillan even issued his own „New Year Message‟ which was routinely picked up by the broadcaster. In his 2006 New Year Message, in the run-up to the 2007 Scottish election, McMillan had attacked the SNP‟s demands for more powers for the Scottish Parliament. The attack had resulted in headlines appearing on BBC Scotland. In December 2010, before the UK general election, McMillan issued another Christmas message and again attacked the SNP, this time over its National Conversation which had sought the views of the Scottish electorate on the con-stitutional issue. In late 2011, eleven days after Osborne‟s attack on the referendum, McMillan again waded in, this time „demanding answers‟ from the SNP on independ-ence. Not surprisingly his views were picked up by BBC Scotland and turned into a headline news story.

19

The BBC reported:

CBI Scotland has warned the Scottish government to answer "legiti-mate questions" about its plans for independence or face continued op-position from business leaders. In a major speech in Glasgow, director Iain McMillan said leaving the United Kingdom would be "a huge step to take". He argued answers were needed on issues such as currency and cross-border taxation ahead of a planned referendum.

In the BBC Scotland report, McMillan was quoted:

“The SNP leadership says that an independent Scotland would keep the pound sterling until such time as the euro may be adopted. But that begs the question - would the rest of the United Kingdom per-mit an independent Scotland to use its currency? It might not. And, if it did, there are likely to be strict conditions at-tached. So, has the SNP fully explored the currency issues?”

The BBC report, as ever, included statements from the Labour party, Con-servatives and the Lib Dems. The SNP was of course forced once again to pro-vide a defensive comment. BBC Scotland news reports on the referendum were now routinely biased in favour of pro-Union commentary, three pro-Union statements to one from the SNP. In the case of the CBI story, it was of course four to one in favour of the Unionist viewpoint. No official campaign groups had yet been set up by either side; Yes Scotland and Better Together would appear later. But already there was, if not coopera-tion, then a clear agreement amongst Unionists as to what issues they wanted to focus on. Business concerns, currency and membership of the European Union were emerging. The beauty of all three was that negative predictions relating to each were almost impossible to disprove.

20

We were only six months on from the 2011 Scottish election and it was already abundantly clear that this was how the BBC was going to conduct its coverage of the referendum campaign. There wasn‟t going to be any debate, just a steady stream of statements and claims from Unionists. All of the BBC reports listed were not isolated to an online article. They fea-tured on BBC Scotland radio and TV news and were endlessly discussed by panellists and pundits. The Unionist agenda was relentlessly driven home. Looking back it is clear that the BBC played a key role in ensuring issues thought key to the success of the No campaign were embedded in the national psyche. These mainly esoteric issues, for which certainty could never be given, domi-nated the BBC‟s referendum coverage. Alternative issues such as welfare and equality were effectively driven out of the independence debate as a result. BBC Scotland‟s referendum was being conducted by the rich and powerful, the establishment elite. These were the very people who benefited from the Un-ion. Although the referendum already dominated Scottish politics, it was not to the total exclusion of everything else. Domestic issues still offered an opportunity to place political opponents on the back foot. And there was no more potent domestic issue than the NHS. In late December 2011 the Scottish Labour par-ty issued a press release. The release - Exposed: New Research reveals Scotland is Superbug Capital of Europe - was from Scottish Labour‟s health spokesperson Jackie Baillie and attacked the Scottish government over the issue of hospital infections. The press release was embargoed until after the new year. On January 2nd 2012, embargo over, the Scotsman newspaper carried an arti-cle based on the press release. In the article Ms Baillie was quoted as saying:

“Being the superbug capital of Europe is an accolade no country wants. These figures show that, despite recent progress, the SNP gov-ernment still has a long way to go in the battle against healthcare-associated infections. Sadly, almost everybody knows someone who has contracted a healthcare-associated infection, like C.diff or MRSA. We must aspire to deliver the cleanest hospitals and the lowest levels of hospital-acquired infections in the whole of Europe - not the highest.”

Baillie had already appeared on BBC Scotland's early morning news pro-gramme Good Morning Scotland where she repeated the claim. No attempt was made to question her figures and no research appeared to have been car-ried out in order to ascertain the truth or otherwise of her assertions.

21

Comments made by the Labour MSP in the interview appeared in BBC news bulletins later on. But Baillie‟s comments should never have been given the time of day. You see two days before her claim found its way onto BBC Scot-land news, the SNP had issued its own press release which revealed Ms Baillie had made a rather embarrassing blunder. Her figures were out of date. Worse than that though, the Labour MSP had used figures compiled not from the SNP‟s time in office, but from a period when her own party were still in power. I had read the SNP press release at the time and frankly could not believe it when I heard Jackie Baillie‟s voice on BBC radio two days later making what the BBC must have known was a completely false claim. The BBC had to have seen the SNP press release; the broadcaster therefore must have known Baillie had made a monumental blunder. Indeed the bulletins also included a BBC Scotland reporter telling viewers and listeners that the SNP “claimed” the data used by Ms Baillie was out of date. Anyone listening to the BBC Scotland news bulletins would have been under the impression that Labour‟s accusation had some merit. The way the story was packaged would have left most people with the impression that the SNP were doing what political parties always do - denying a justified, albeit politically motivated, attack. If anyone at BBC Scotland had taken the time to check the SNP press release they would have realised the data on which the attack had been based was col-lated in 2005/6, a period when Jackie Baillie‟s own Labour party was in pow-er. In fact barely three months before Baillie‟s blunder, the Scottish govern-ment had published statistics showing that infection rates had decreased to historic low levels. So how did a politically motivated attack, using out of date data and out of date reports, end up being broadcast by the BBC? Especially when BBC Scot-land itself reported in October 2010, and again in 2011 that infection rates were falling to record lows? Moreover, why did BBC Scotland run the story despite being informed fully two days prior to the broadcast that Labour‟s claim was based on old data and old reports? Despite repeated calls from the SNP, Jackie Baillie never issued any correction or apology. The BBC ignored the SNP statements calling for the Labour MSP to apologise. No BBC Scotland presenter ever questioned Baillie on the matter. The corporation itself never acknowledged its news reports had been erroneous. In researching this book I was taken aback at the sheer number of anti-SNP/independence news reports that appeared on BBC Scotland in the last two months of 2011 and the beginning of 2012. As I located and researched one news report, I came across another, then another. But not all news stories were damaging to independence. Occasionally a story would break that was damaging to those who would oppose independence. But by the time it ap-peared on the BBC Scotland news, if indeed it ever did, it would be sanitised and minimised - its effect neutered.

22

On the 24th January 2012, just such a story broke. The story involved a Con-servative peer who had added three extraordinary amendments to the Scot-land Bill as it passed through the House of Lords. The Scotland Bill had come about as a result of the SNP‟s surprise 2007 election win. Unionist parties, afraid that Scottish voters were moving in a pro-independence direction, cre-ated a commission to discuss possible new powers. The thinking was that if Westminster granted some extra powers to the Scottish Parliament then this would arrest the growing support for the SNP. The Calman Commission made a number of recommendations, some of which were accepted by the Westminster parties. The Scotland Bill listed the new powers that would eventually come into force. However the 2011 landslide for the SNP had rendered the Bill obsolete before it could be enacted. The Scotland Bill was now seen by some Unionists as an opportunity to try to rig things in favour of the Westminster establishment. The Conservative peer‟s amendments sought to deny the Scottish people the final say in their constitutional future by insisting that any Yes vote in the referendum would only be binding if the rest of the UK agreed in another UK wide poll. The unelected peer had also called for legislation to be brought forward that could have resulted in a Northern Ireland style partition of Scotland. If Scot-land voted Yes to independence then, unless the islands of Orkney and Shet-land agreed with the national vote, they would be brought under London con-trol along with a rocky outcrop known as Rockall. It could mean that the vast oil, gas and renewable reserves surrounding the regions would no longer be-long to Scotland. It was quite a story. The Scottish people would be less than pleased at this bla-tant move to curtail their right to decide their own future. The plot to grab the natural resources that surrounded the Scottish sea bed, by effectively annexing Scottish territory, was also sure to provoke anger. The story was marginalised by BBC Scotland. But the corporation didn‟t ignore it completely. It appeared online where it was positioned low down the order of priority. But BBC Scot-land presented the story in a rather odd way.

23

The online article began:

A former Conservative minister has said Orkney and Shetland should have the right to remain part of the UK if Scotland votes for independ-ence. The Earl of Caithness has tabled amendments to the Scotland Bill, which gives further powers to Holyrood. He said a referendum vote favouring independence should not be bind-ing on the Northern Isles, unless the majority of islanders voted "yes".

The online article reported that SNP MSP Rob Gibson had described the Tory peer‟s proposal as a "bizarre contribution”. The story appeared on that even-ing‟s Reporting Scotland. The report, from presenter Jackie Bird, was quite incredible. Below is a full transcript of what the Reporting Scotland presenter told viewers that evening:

“A Tory peer says Orkney and Shetland should have the right to re-main part of the UK if Scotland votes for independence. The Earl of Caithness has tabled changes to the Scotland Bill stating that unless a majority on the islands vote to leave the UK they should remain in it.”

That was it. The report from start to finish took seventeen seconds. Bird made no mention of Rockall and no mention of the second UK wide referen-dum. Almost as bad as the glaring omissions was the way that the partitioning of Scotland was carefully presented as though the islanders were being offered a right. According to BBC Scotland, this wasn‟t an attempt to annexe Scottish territory, it was instead a generous offer to the people of Orkney and Shetland. Also conspicuous by its absence was any mention of the oil, gas and renewable resources that would be lost to Scotland. The only possible explanation for this clear manipulation of the story was that the BBC knew it would not play well with a Scottish electorate - thus, the parts of the story that could not be repackaged were simply ignored and the Orkney - Shetland aspect was sani-tised and reworked. Reaction from the SNP had been restricted to two words from MSP Rob Gib-son. It had been included in the online article but no mention of it in the very short TV news report. The contrast with other referendum stories which aimed attacks on independence was obvious. These stories usually found lengthy statements from the three Unionist parties.

24

But was Gibson‟s statement really that short? Well here is what the SNP MSP actually said:

“The Earl of Caithness has never once stood for election. His views have never, ever been endorsed by the voting public. He is a man who has had to apologise for his past parliamentary ethics, and was a key player in Margaret Thatcher‟s government. Northern Islander‟s will no doubt be laughing-off his bizarre contribu-tion to the independence debate as I speak. His opinions have left him isolated, and have been widely ridiculed in Caithness and the isles. The days of local Earls and Lords telling the Highlands how it‟s going to be are well and truly over. The Earl ought to butt-out. The truth is, residents of the Northern Isles need only look east to our Scandinavian neighbours for a vision of the personal prosperity they will enjoy under independence. The Northern Isles have reaped limited rewards from North Sea oil, but things could be so much better. I have a great love for the distinct Norse identity and culture in the Northern Isles, and many of my islander friends would describe them-selves as „Norse first, Scottish second‟. However, I have never once come across a Northern Islander with a hankering for London-rule over respect in an independent Scotland. My message to the Northern Isles is this - do not let London plunder your vast, vast natural resources any longer. Let‟s channel the Isles‟ potential to build a more prosperous Orkney and Shetland, because these two great island groups are as much Scottish as Thurso or Tain.”

BBC Scotland had used two words from this lengthy statement, not a para-graph or a sentence, but two words. Reporting Scotland had allotted seven-teen seconds to the story. The broadcaster adopted all sorts of different methods as it strived to limit the benefit the Scottish government might have received from positive news sto-ries. One week after the attempt to annex Orkney and Shetland failed to gen-erate significant headlines on the flagship tea-time news programme, another contrived news report was broadcast. On January 31st Samsung Heavy Industries announced that they would be in-vesting £100 million in the Scottish renewables sector. It was a huge story by any standards and a welcome counter to the negative claims on investment that had been standard fare from Unionists. The Scottish government had been promoting Scotland‟s vast green energy resources heavily against a back-

25

drop of Unionist claims that companies were wary about investing in Scotland due to the referendum. The size of the investment, £100 million, made it one of the biggest commit-ments in Scotland up to that date with the possibility of 500 jobs being creat-ed. It looked like a positive news story that couldn‟t be ignored and couldn‟t be manipulated. That was until BBC Scotland got a hold of it. That evening Reporting Scotland managed to contrive to give the impression that it had been a bad day for Scotland‟s green energy ambitions. You see, also published that very day was a report from a body called the UK Committee on Climate Change. The study contained the following:

“Our assessment of progress to date against milestones for 2020 sug-gests that good progress has been made on investment in renewable electricity, with capacity being added at a rate in recent years that is consistent with meeting the likely capacity required to meet targets by 2020. Preparations for CCS are progressing, and delivery against re-newable heat is currently ahead of the indicative trajectory towards 2020.”

The report was actually constructive and included a view from the authors that the Scottish government would have to implement some new policies if the ambitious climate change targets were to be achieved. It was a fair enough as-sessment, positive in tone and containing honest qualified opinions - nothing more. However, BBC Scotland used the report in order to turn excellent news on Scotland‟s renewables industry - and the ambitious carbon reduction targets - into bad news. Reporting Scotland presenter Jackie Bird introduced the news item with the following opening comment:

“The Scottish government is likely to miss what it described as its world leading climate change targets, according to a report by inde-pendent experts.

The UK Committee on Climate Change says more work will need to be done if greenhouse gas emissions are to be cut significantly by the end of this decade. The First Minister Alex Salmond has said he will listen to what the ex-perts have to say.”

The introduction was negative with no hint of optimism whatsoever. Jackie Bird then passed to BBC Scotland reporter Raymond Buchanan who contin-ued in the same pessimistic tone.

26

Buchanan, standing beside a screen on which large captions appeared, told viewers:

“It was hailed as Scotland setting an example to other countries across the globe. The target was to get greenhouse gas emissions down forty two per cent by 2020. So with just a few years to go, will ministers meet that ambition? Well probably not according to their official advisors. The latest Committee on Climate Change report suggests it‟s likely the target will be missed.”

The item then cut away and images of wind farms filled the screen with a voice over from Buchanan telling viewers that “windfarms have popped up in areas across the country”. A spokesperson from Friends of the Earth Scotland was heard apparently imploring the Scottish government to “make a concerted ef-fort” to meet its own targets. Back in the studio Buchanan ended his report by telling viewers a pilot scheme aimed at reducing car journeys and getting more people to cycle had not met with great success. Buchanan handed back to his BBC Scotland colleague Jackie Bird with a graceless sideswipe at the Scottish government‟s carbon emissions target.

“They weren‟t exaggerating Jackie when they said these targets were ambitious.”

So where was the good news about the £100m investment announcement in Scottish renewables from Samsung? Well squeezed into the negative report was a thirty second segment on Samsung. There was a clip of the First Minis-ter standing with officials from the company. The clip lasted twelve seconds and had a voiceover from Buchanan, but there was no mention of the £100m worth of investment. The item contained a vid-eo of the First Minister addressing the BBC‟s negative interpretation of the Committee report. Viewers heard nothing from Alex Salmon about the in-vestment. The impact of the Samsung investment was all but ignored as nega-tivity and doom pervaded the item.

27

The equivalent investment in England would have been £1.2 billion. Would the national broadcaster have treated such an announcement of inward in-vestment in the same appalling lopsided manner? Of course to have high-lighted Scottish investment on this scale may have damaged the impression Unionists were desperately trying to create, which was that the referendum had made Scotland a virtual pariah in terms of international business. The Goodwin Smear Earlier I made mention of moves by Unionists to try to portray the independ-ence referendum as somehow Alex Salmond‟s referendum. BBC Scotland pre-senters and reporters were also guilty of personalising the referendum in this manner. In order for the strategy to have the desired effect then the First Min-ister‟s integrity would have to be questioned. And for any smear campaigns to have any traction then BBC Scotland would have to run with them as well. And there was to be no shortage of attacks on Salmond. Indeed BBC Scotland was key to one of the first smears of 2012 when the UK government an-nounced its intention to strip one Sir Fred Goodwin of his knighthood. On January 31st 2012 former Royal Bank of Scotland boss Goodwin was stripped of his knighthood. Goodwin had come in for heavy criticism over his role in the bank's near-collapse in 2008. The public were angry that bankers, held responsible for the near collapse of the financial system, had got off scot-free. Politicians were coming under increasing pressure to take action. When it emerged Goodwin had left with a £300,000 plus per year pension, there was fury. There was unanimity amongst the UK parties when it was announced Good-win was to lose his knighthood. Labour and the Conservatives were at one as both issued a series of headline grabbing statements backing the move. In an online article, the UK wide BBC reported the matter in a matter of fact way, allowing each party leader, including Alex Salmond, the opportunity to issue a statement in support of the decision. The BBC article reported:

Both Mr Cameron and Labour leader Ed Miliband welcomed the deci-sion. "The FSA report into what went wrong at RBS made clear where the failures lay and who was responsible," Mr Cameron said. "The proper process has been followed and I think we have ended up with the right decision." And Mr Miliband said the public wanted to see further sweeping changes to boardroom culture and remuneration.

28

BBC article continued: "It is right that Fred Goodwin lost his knighthood but I think it is only the start of the change we need in our boardrooms. "We need to change the bonus culture and we need real responsibility right across the board." Deputy Prime Minister and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said Tuesday's announcement was the "right decision" while Chancellor George Os-borne described the decision as "appropriate". "RBS came to symbolise everything that went wrong in the British economy in the last decade," he said. Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said it was the "correct decision", since the knighthood "was for services to banking which could not therefore be sustained".

David Cameron and Ed Miliband appeared on TV broadcasts. Both men backed the decision and provided „regulation‟ statements which would sit well with public opinion. Goodwin had become a political football and politicians were eager to score as many easy „goals‟ as possible. North of the border though, the BBC had other ideas. In a separate interview for BBC Scotland Alex Salmond went further and said the UK government may have pushed for Goodwin to be stripped of his knighthood as a way of divert-ing attention from a struggling economy. The First Minister also drew atten-tion to the fact that there were other peers who were equally undeserving of their titles. It was an unsurprising interview. As I have already said, all politicians were playing to the anti-Goodwin gallery. There wasn‟t one of them not using Fred Goodwin‟s downfall to curry some favour with the electorate and make a polit-ical point. In keeping with the corporation‟s overall coverage of Goodwin with regards political leaders, one would have expected BBC Scotland to report the First Minister‟s concerns in an agenda free manner. But that‟s not what happened. BBC Scotland chose to marginalise the main thrust of Mr Salmond‟s comments regarding the knighthood loss and focus in-stead on an entirely different issue. The First Minister was asked about a let-ter he had sent to Fred Goodwin in May 2007. Mr Salmond had written to the former Chief Executive of the RBS Group wishing him good luck in the organi-sation‟s bid for Dutch bank ABM Amro, which at the time was seen as a sound business move. RBS were competing with Barclays Bank which was also after ownership of the Dutch bank. Barclays looked the likely victor until RBS stepped in with a better offer.

29

In October 2007, Barclay‟s conceded defeat and the consortium that included RBS, Fortis Bank and Banco Santander announced the formal acquisition of the Dutch bank. It was before the banking crash and few people were predict-ing the financial cataclysm that would later unfold. In 2007 a Scottish First Minister wishing a Scottish based company, even a bank, good luck was not controversial. Goodwin had been knighted three years earlier by the Labour government, his stock was high. In August 2010 the Herald newspaper reported on the letter‟s existence. It was used as a means of attacking Salmond at the time. But the letter was old news, so why was BBC Scotland drawing attention to it again? The first sug-gestion that BBC Scotland was up to something came in an online article head-lined: „Alex Salmond regrets past support for banker Fred Good-win‟.

The BBC Scotland article reported:

First Minister Alex Salmond has told BBC Scotland he regretted his previous support for the former Royal Bank of Scotland boss Fred Goodwin. Mr Salmond wrote to him when he was the bank's chief executive offer-ing the Scottish government's assistance in the takeover of Dutch bank ABN-Amro. That takeover contributed to the bank's massive losses and the need to bail it out with £45bn in taxpayers' money.

BBC Scotland had used Goodwin being stripped of his knighthood in order to re-introduce an eighteen month old story about a letter sent in 2007. It looked like an attempt to smear Salmond. But had Salmond actually told BBC Scot-land he „regretted‟ sending the letter? A read through the article revealed the First Minister never actually used the word. Indeed the video on which the ar-ticle was based showed Mr Salmond making several points. He argued that criminal convictions ought to be looked at with regards to removing honours.

30

The First Minister also suggested that the decision to strip Goodwin of his knighthood was more about diverting from bad economic news than about preserving the integrity of the honours system. It was only an edited section at the end that heard Mr Salmond say that with the benefit of hindsight that many people would have done things differently - a reference to the period be-fore the banking collapse. Here is what Mr Salmond actually said:

“If we all had our time again we‟d look at things differently. I think there are very few people who can justifiably say that they anticipated the full extent of the financial collapse - the financial crisis. I mean I know some people claim they did but I think if you examine the record you‟ll find there‟s very few people on the planet - and I am certainly not one of them - who anticipated it. So, yeah, of course, if we had the benefit of hindsight we‟d do things differently and I am sure that is true of lots and lots of people.”

There was nothing remotely newsworthy in the statement. It would have been news if Salmond had said he and others would not have done things different-ly. But BBC Scotland, rather than focus on the thrust of Mr Salmond‟s re-marks which were pertinent, instead chose to adopt a very subjective headline using a word that Mr Salmond did not use - „regret‟. So brazen was BBC Scot-land‟s manipulation of the interview that even arch-Unionist Alan Cochrane questioned the BBC‟s interpretation of Mr Salmond‟s remarks, pointing out that he never used the word. As ever, by the time the interview made that evening‟s Reporting Scotland, it had been edited to such a degree that the First Minister‟s criticisms of the UK coalition and the honours system were missing. Jackie Bird told viewers that Mr Salmond had “told BBC Scotland he regretted his previous support …”. Viewers then heard a BBC Scotland reporter say:

“At the time the First Minister wrote to Goodwin offering support for that takeover. Today Alex Salmond voiced his regrets.”

The First Minister‟s comments relating to some Lords who might be deemed not fit to hold honours - Labour and Tory peers with criminal convictions - was airbrushed out of the flagship teatime news. And so it was that most Scots who rely on Reporting Scotland for their daily roundup of the day‟s events ended up with a deliberately one sided and damaging image of Salmond. It was a smear.

31

It‟s important to note here that BBC Scotland was acting, not in response to attacks from Mr Salmond‟s opponents, but of its own accord. Someone had decided Salmond‟s five year old letter was going to become that day‟s main po-litical news story. Here‟s the issue I had. It isn‟t and wasn‟t the BBC‟s role to cherry pick parts of an interview in order to set the political agenda. The BBC‟s job is to report what is said, and if needs be, hold all politicians to account on our behalf. If the SNP was to have past „weaknesses‟ over the Fred Goodwin affair paraded on national TV then we needed to see objectivity and balance, and parade La-bour‟s weaknesses on the same show and submit their leaders to the same scrutiny. When he was First Minister, Jack (now Lord) McConnell had pushed for Goodwin to receive a knighthood, but there was no attempt made to question the senior Labour politician in the manner that Salmond had been questioned. Did McConnell regret lobbying on behalf of Goodwin? Similarly, where was the questioning of Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling over their own links to Goodwin? In 2006, when he was Chancellor, Gordon Brown had set up a group of senior representatives from the financial world. These experts discussed cutting fi-nancial regulation to ease administrative burdens. One of the experts who sat on the group was Fred Goodwin. Gordon Brown became Prime Minister in June 2007 and Alistair Darling took over as Chancellor. But Goodwin re-mained an official Treasury adviser. It wasn‟t until January 28th 2009, long after the financial crisis had hit, that Goodwin left the group. Salmond had written his letter before the financial collapse, but Goodwin was advising the UK Treasury on banking regulation when the crisis was at its height. If anything, Darling and Brown‟s judgement was more worthy of head-line news, but it was Salmond BBC Scotland was concentrating its fire on. The reporting of the referendum by the BBC was now giving grave concern to the SNP and it was thrown into the spotlight on Saturday February 4th. Scot-land was scheduled to play England at Murrayfield in a Six Nation‟s rugby in-ternational. Invited onto a BBC programme that day to give his views on the game was the First Minister. Such invitations had been extended to political leaders before and this was just another unremarkable pre-match filler piece. Or rather it would have been had the First Minister‟s appearance not been pulled at the eleventh hour. BBC political adviser Ric Bailey had blocked Salmond‟s interview because of ''heightened tensions'' over the independence referendum and the proximity of the local authority elections which were scheduled to be held that May.

32

Mr Salmond had been booked to appear alongside former rugby interNation-alists Andy Nicol and Jeremy Guscott. An email from BBC TV sport editor Carl Hicks had confirmed the booking after the BBC had been reassured that Mr Salmond would not make any mention of politics. However on the Friday before the game, the offer was blocked under the orders of Bailey. The BBC found itself on the back foot with a furious First Minister slamming the decision and claiming Mr Bailey had “panicked”. Salmond suggested that the BBC was taking guidance from Downing Street and described the situation as something that would be found in a "tin-pot dictatorship". An angry Salmond issued a statement which read:

“A journalistic decision has been over ridden for political reasons by political advisor Bailey. That‟s what you get in tin pot dictatorships - you are not meant to get it in the BBC. Bailey said in a phone call that, in light of the increased tensions, an appearance was politically sensitive.”

The BBC, sensing a blunder, moved to try to turn the story around. The broadcaster claimed it was Salmond‟s officials who had initially broached the issue of the First Minister‟s attendance at the rugby international. He had never been formally invited to appear on any programme, said the BBC. It lat-er emerged that the correspondence from the First Minister‟s office was an email confirming his attendance at the game. The communication was stand-ard practice when dealing with a high profile event. The BBC‟s protestations were severely undermined five days later when Prime Minister David Cameron was allowed to give his views on the England football team. Cameron‟s interview was broadcast by the BBC.

33

The Prime Minister‟s views, as well as being broadcast by the BBC, were tweeted by the corporation for good measure.

It also emerged that in a BBC Radio programme that same week, former La-bour spin-doctor Alastair Campbell had been allowed to promote Labour and attack the SNP despite being invited onto the programme in order to talk about his new book and his love of bagpipes. On Thursday February 9th, Alex Salmond met with the head of the BBC Trust Lord Patten where the rugby ban was raised. The meeting had been scheduled in order to address concerns over the BBC‟s reporting of the independence ref-erendum. The rugby ban ensured the meeting took on far greater significance. At the meeting Patten was handed a dossier of evidence which chronicled in-appropriate broadcasts by the BBC. The dossier also highlighted the practice amongst BBC presenters of using pejorative Unionist-coined terms and phrases in news reports. Salmond himself pointed to an increasing use of the word „separate‟ or „separation‟ when referring to independence.

Speaking in the Holyrood Chamber that day, Alex Salmond said:

“I think Scotland, I think journalists, have the right to expect better from the British Broadcasting Corporation.”

The First Minister was correct. Scotland did have a right to expect better from the British Broadcasting Corporation. But who was going to compel the broadcaster to provide this better, fairer coverage? Certainly not journalists most of whom were showing no interest in demanding balance from the state broadcaster. In the early part of 2012, the pro-Union media focused much of its attention on Alex Salmond. As I have explained earlier, a key aspect of the anti-independence campaign strategy was to portray the independence refer-endum as Salmond‟s alone. Running in parallel was a consistent attack on Salmond‟s integrity. If a story could be turned against the First Minister, it would be turned against him.

34

Even the blocking of the SNP leader from taking part in the pre-match BBC interview was turned on its head. Within a day of the ban being revealed, Salmond himself was attacked for his use of the word 'gauleiter' to describe the BBC official responsible. The term is commonly used to describe over-zealous and petty officials. However Unionists applied an obscure definition from 1930s Germany and accused the First Minister of calling Ric Bailey a Nazi. But there was much more to come. The smearing of Salmond was about to reach new heights … or lows. It‟s been touched on earlier in this chapter, but 2012 was council election year. The Scottish Labour party was in disarray fol-lowing its humiliation in May 2011. The local authority elections presented an opportunity to regroup. A solid performance would allow the media to present the party as in recovery mode under its new leader Johann Lamont. If the SNP leader found himself making the headlines for the wrong reasons, it would not only help the Unionists‟ referendum „war effort‟ it would also se-verely restrict the ability of the Nationalists to fight an effective local election campaign. Unionists needed an issue big enough to command headlines and malleable enough to accommodate an anti-Salmond narrative.