TV Service providers, what laws

Nilrem

The "Scottish uni" one I'm aware of was from an avowed pro independence supporter, not peer reviewed and the actual methods not disclosed (all big no no's in any normal and respected study).

The consequences of an independent Scotland for the rest of the UK were pointed out several times prior to the vote, but the main issues were about the vote and it's consequences for an independent Scotland, and how the various claims weighed up.
Remember the question was should Scotland become independent, and a major part of the decision was going to be based on how well would an independent Scotland perform, and the Yes campaign were making wild claims about everything from it being able to join Nato and the EU (or indeed be in the EU from the word go) without any issues, that they could keep using the pound without an issues*., and from memory that the new impreoved super Scotland would welcome immigration, but that there would be no more issues than there are today with people going from Scotland to England, or the EU (despite the fact that any such policy would require border controls to be put in place, as it would go against rUK policies, and likely against policies required by the EU for it's members).


Unfortunately for the Yes campaign pretty much the only thing their politicians could come up with to support their claims about how well things would go, or how everyone else in the world would go with what the Yes campaign wanted, was to say "they're bluffing", or "they're scaremongering", when you have two people/groups making claims and one has facts and figures and actually answers the question concisely, and the other just says "they don't know what they're talking about", or spends several minutes going off on a tangent, that tends to get negative coverage (or at least the coverage is taken negatively).
For some reason most people tend to take an answer that actually is an answer as more reliable to "trust us, they'll do what we want, despite them flat out saying they won't".

Unfortunately for the Yes campaign, the media actually reporting what was being said by various big businesses, politicians and experts from outside of UK politics was not very favourable, not because the media were slanting it, but because pretty much all the comments from such organisations and businesses had questions about the claims, or were stating things that went against what the Yes campaign claimed (and from memory in at least one instance the Yes campaign were caught out in an outright lie about discussions with the EU).
Unless of course it would have been fairer for the voters to be going to the ballot without knowing that the claims of the Yes campaign were being queried by pretty much all the major financial organisations, the major political bodies and big businesses that Scotland would have to come to agreements with, or deal with upon independence.

If anyone has serious doubts about the reporting of any of the TV channels in the UK in regards to politics, you report them to OFCOM, as there are extremely strict rules about reporting in the run up to any vote in the UK, which is also part of the reason that the likes of the BNP now have to a free party political broadcast (IIRC their share of the vote is now just big enough to mean they qualify for the airtime).

However most of the claims from the Yes campaign about the broadcasters that I have seen, have been utter rubbish.
IIRC one such claim was that the BBC were unfair to the SNP because a No campaign advert was done at a BBC facility, which assuming the advert was in fact done at a BBC facility (and not just one in the same complex as BBC owned facilities, or indeed just one also used by the BBC), would have been done on the same basis that the BBC (and all owners of studio facilities) work - they hire out the facilities to anyone who has the money (for example the BBC has shows made in ITV owned studios, and ITV have shows made in the BBC studios, and both use independent studios).


*Completely ignoring that using a currency and actually having the controls that go with their own currency were very different things, and that whilst the rest of the UK could not stop Scotland using the pound (or the Dollar, Euro, Ruble, Yen etc), doing so without a currency union at the least would mean it had none of the normal controls that come with using a sovereign currency.

unholyangel

Nilrem wrote: »

The "Scottish uni" one I'm aware of was from an avowed pro independence supporter, not peer reviewed and the actual methods not disclosed (all big no no's in any normal and respected study).

We're talking about different uni's then. The one I seen gave specific examples and had a full section explaining how they conducted their study.

As for the rest....well each side can claim the other was talking nonsense - after all neither side knows exactly what an independent scotland would look like - unless they happen to have a crystal ball and some amazing psychic abilities.

Nor can you use scotlands finances as part of the UK as a basis for their finances outside of the UK - the two are very different.

Although just to play devils advocate.....if someone is notoriously bad with finances, would you then take their advice if they told you that your finances dont add up and you can't afford it? :P

In short, there was crap being spouted from both sides. Whole thing was a farce - one being positive beyond belief and the other being negative beyond belief.

Bantex_2

Nothing to do with the Scotch people then?

zagubov

Nilrem wrote: »

The "Scottish uni" one I'm aware of was from an avowed pro independence supporter, not peer reviewed and the actual methods not disclosed (all big no no's in any normal and respected study).

The consequences of an independent Scotland for the rest of the UK were pointed out several times prior to the vote, but the main issues were about the vote and it's consequences for an independent Scotland, and how the various claims weighed up.
Remember the question was should Scotland become independent, and a major part of the decision was going to be based on how well would an independent Scotland perform, and the Yes campaign were making wild claims about everything from it being able to join Nato and the EU (or indeed be in the EU from the word go) without any issues, that they could keep using the pound without an issues*., and from memory that the new impreoved super Scotland would welcome immigration, but that there would be no more issues than there are today with people going from Scotland to England, or the EU (despite the fact that any such policy would require border controls to be put in place, as it would go against rUK policies, and likely against policies required by the EU for it's members).

Unfortunately for the Yes campaign pretty much the only thing their politicians could come up with to support their claims about how well things would go, or how everyone else in the world would go with what the Yes campaign wanted, was to say "they're bluffing", or "they're scaremongering", when you have two people/groups making claims and one has facts and figures and actually answers the question concisely, and the other just says "they don't know what they're talking about", or spends several minutes going off on a tangent, that tends to get negative coverage (or at least the coverage is taken negatively).
For some reason most people tend to take an answer that actually is an answer as more reliable to "trust us, they'll do what we want, despite them flat out saying they won't".

Well you certainly believe what the media said, that's pretty clear. So that worked.

Nilrem wrote: »

Unfortunately for the Yes campaign, the media actually reporting what was being said by various big businesses, politicians and experts from outside of UK politics was not very favourable, not because the media were slanting it, but because pretty much all the comments from such organisations and businesses had questions about the claims, or were stating things that went against what the Yes campaign claimed (and from memory in at least one instance the Yes campaign were caught out in an outright lie about discussions with the EU).
Unless of course it would have been fairer for the voters to be going to the ballot without knowing that the claims of the Yes campaign were being queried by pretty much all the major financial organisations, the major political bodies and big businesses that Scotland would have to come to agreements with, or deal with upon independence.

If anyone has serious doubts about the reporting of any of the TV channels in the UK in regards to politics, you report them to OFCOM, as there are extremely strict rules about reporting in the run up to any vote in the UK, which is also part of the reason that the likes of the BNP now have to a free party political broadcast (IIRC their share of the vote is now just big enough to mean they qualify for the airtime).

However most of the claims from the Yes campaign about the broadcasters that I have seen, have been utter rubbish.
IIRC one such claim was that the BBC were unfair to the SNP because a No campaign advert was done at a BBC facility, which assuming the advert was in fact done at a BBC facility (and not just one in the same complex as BBC owned facilities, or indeed just one also used by the BBC), would have been done on the same basis that the BBC (and all owners of studio facilities) work - they hire out the facilities to anyone who has the money (for example the BBC has shows made in ITV owned studios, and ITV have shows made in the BBC studios, and both use independent studios).


*Completely ignoring that using a currency and actually having the controls that go with their own currency were very different things, and that whilst the rest of the UK could not stop Scotland using the pound (or the Dollar, Euro, Ruble, Yen etc), doing so without a currency union at the least would mean it had none of the normal controls that come with using a sovereign currency.

And the media just parroted the output from the various sources without mentioning or questioning the coordinated way they "spontaneously" popped up. Made them look like they were a gullible part of an anti-independence campaign. Shame, that.

bod1467

Conspiracy theories abound.

I guess a lot of YES supporters were also Celtic supporters.