Will you vote for independence?

[danny la rouge]

Anyone hear the BBC Radio Scotland coverage of this story this morning? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23790083

Can anyone help me understand the way it was reported? The focus was: "Isn't it terrible! The Yes campaign paid an academic a fee to write a piece outlining his opinion."

First: is that terrible? Isn't that what happens? Don't all pressure groups and parties do the same? (The fee, Radio Scotland tells us, was £100).

And secondly, given the hacking scandal of recent years, why is the focus not on the fact that this information was gleaned from a hacked email account?

How is the No campaign going to get legal advice, for example, if it doesn't pay for opinions? Bizarre.

 

[danny la rouge]

More here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...fuels-the-sense-of-a-campaign-in-turmoil.html

That the Yes Scotland campaign accepted last night that it had commissioned, paid for and placed in a national newspaper an article supporting its aims is a truly shaming admission.

Seriously, is it? Is it a "truly shaming admission"? Am I maybe beginning from too cynical an assumption that this is just normal and expected?

Anyone?

 

[Frankie Jack]

I'm more concerned about the hacking that seemingly found this out. Seems to have been pushed aside in favour of this non story. The guy that wrote the article isn't just writing what he was paid to write. he actually has those opinions.

This Article says it for me.
http://www.betternation.org/2013/08/man-paid-to-write-article-setting-out-his-true-beliefs-shock/

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm more concerned about the hacking that seemingly found this out.

Well, quite.

The guy that wrote the article isn't just writing what he was paid to write. he actually has those opinions.

I know. It just seems bizarre that this is being presented as a big deal. Surely that's how academics and writers make their money?

And if the idea is that a campaign shouldn't be paying people, what do they do with all the money?

 

[Frankie Jack]

I'm sure Darling and Jackie Baillie write all their own Bitter speeches and campaign bumph or when putting articles in local and national media. All done in their spare time with no help whatsoever from any paid source or any of their political arsewipes.

 

[Frankie Jack]

Can't wait to see who did the hacking. if we ever get told.

 

[danny la rouge]

Maybe everyone who has been approached to write a piece expressing their opinion should come clean now.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm sure Darling and Jackie Baillie write all their own Bitter speeches and campaign bumph or when putting articles in local and national media. All done in their spare time with no help whatsoever from any paid source or any of their political arsewipes.

I happen to know for a fact that not everyone who writes speeches for politicians necessarily holds the views the speeches espouse.

 

[Frankie Jack]

Exactly. Another piss poor Bitters attempt to smear the Yes campaign. Lets have a price paid and by whom on all newspaper articles beside the date and time published

 

[Frankie Jack]

it was furriners that dun it..!! *daily Record alert*

Revealed: Yes Scotland email account was illegally accessed by foreign hacker, police believe

 

[Quartz]

Anyone hear the BBC Radio Scotland coverage of this story this morning? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23790083

Can anyone help me understand the way it was reported? The focus was: "Isn't it terrible! The Yes campaign paid an academic a fee to write a piece outlining his opinion."

The problem is that the article doesn't mention that it's a paid-for piece. If you look in print media you'll see editorials and articles and adverts that look like editorials or articles, but the last are clearly marked as advertisements. That's what should have happened in this case.

 

[danny la rouge]

The problem is that the article doesn't mention that it's a paid-for piece. If you look in print media you'll see editorials and articles and adverts that look like editorials or articles, but the last are clearly marked as advertisements. That's what should have happened in this case.

That's not an accurate comparison. In those cases the *newspaper* is paid to place a piece.

In this case an academic was commissioned to write a piece and submit it to the Herald. The fee went to the writer.

He was previously known for the views he expressed. They don't even uncritically support the Yes campaign.

I'd be amazed if this is a first. Nobody has ever been commissioned to write a piece and submit it to another party for publication? Don't believe it.
It never happened in any political campaigning before? During the AV referendum, for example?

 

[Quartz]

That's not an accurate comparison. In those cases the *newspaper* is paid to place a piece.

In this case an academic was commissioned to write a piece and submit it to the Herald. The fee went to the writer.

I disagree. It is an accurate comparison: money changed hands.

 

[danny la rouge]

I disagree. It is an accurate comparison: money changed hands.

Money changed hands for every article in your morning paper.

 

[danny la rouge]

Here is the "offending" article: http://www.heraldscotland.com/comme...onstitution-to-serve-the-common-weal.21596982

It was written by Dr Elliot Bulmer, of the Constitutional Commission. This is a pro-constitutional change for Scotland think tank, set up by Kenyon Wright (of the Constitutional Convention, that campaigned for a devolved parliament while the Tories were still in power. Wright backs further constitutional change, and indeed stood in my constituency in 2003), and John Drummond of the Independence Commission (a cross-party pro-independence group). A range of pro constitutional change ideas are promoted by the Constitutional Commission.

Dr Bulmer has a book out called "A model constitution for Scotland".

In the Herald article he expresses his ideas about constitutional change. He is mildly critical of the way the Scottish government is going about things. The piece is not particularly exciting.

The Yes campaign commissioned him to write that piece. So what? Were no pro AV academics commissioned to write pieces during the AV campaign? If not, why not?

I am quite happy to state here and now that if either side of this campaign wants to commission me to write a piece stating my views and submit it for publication, I am happy to do so.

 

[geminisnake]

More here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...fuels-the-sense-of-a-campaign-in-turmoil.html


Seriously, is it? Is it a "truly shaming admission"? Am I maybe beginning from too cynical an assumption that this is just normal and expected?

Anyone?

So the Yes campaign aren't allowed to advertise at all?? WTF??

 

[danny la rouge]

It wasn't an advert, it was an article they commissioned.

 

[geminisnake]

So they're not allowed to publish? Still Getting really sick of all the BS the Bitters are pulling.

 

[Quartz]

So they're not allowed to publish? Still Getting really sick of all the BS the Bitters are pulling.

Of course they're allowed to publish. They've just got to be open and honest.

 

[butchersapron]

Of course they're allowed to publish. They've just got to be open and honest.

And for no money to change hands right?

 

[danny la rouge]

Of course they're allowed to publish. They've just got to be open and honest.

I'm in the odd position of supporting people I wouldn't trust with a collecting tin here. But when asked, they said they'd commissioned the piece.
They're running a campaign. I'd think it was odd if they *didn't* commission academics to contribute to the debate. And I'd think it was even odder if a newspaper said "oh no, we can't take that, somebody put you up to it". How do you think pressure groups work?

 

[Quartz]

I'm in the odd position of supporting people I wouldn't trust with a collecting tin here. But when asked, they said they'd commissioned the piece.

They shouldn't have had to be asked.

They're running a campaign. I'd think it was odd if they *didn't* commission academics to contribute to the debate.

I agree, but the article should have said that it was commissioned. It didn't. Do note that the blame may lie with the paper, not Yes, Scotland: they may have edited out the relevant text.

Look at it this way. I'm a PC IT bod, so if I start wibbling on here about some widget for PCs, PC users are likely to pay attention. Suppose then you were to find out I'd been paid to wibble on about it? You'd think a lot less of me and the product, no matter how good the product might be. (And, in fact, as editor doesn't like advertising, I'd likely get a stern talking to.) It's the same thing.

 

[danny la rouge]

They shouldn't have had to be asked.

Look at it this way. I'm a PC IT bod, so if I start wibbling on here about some widget for PCs, PC users are likely to pay attention. Suppose then you were to find out I'd been paid to wibble on about it? You'd think a lot less of me and the product, no matter how good the product might be. (And, in fact, as editor doesn't like advertising, I'd likely get a stern talking to.) It's the same thing.

The article said at the bottom: "Dr W Elliot Bulmer is research director of the Constitutional Commission." So straight away we already know he is paid to wibble on (by employers other than the Herald) about possible future Scottish constitutions.

He has a book out saying in more detail what he says in the article. He is not some previously impartial innocent who suddenly, in this article, came out for independence. The conclusion of his piece is: "The priority is to prepare a robust interim constitution, ready to go from independence day. Only this can guarantee democratic principles and fundamental rights until the constitution is approved". That is the sort of thing the Constitutional Commission was set up to say.

He is not the equivalent of a dentist who prefers Aquafresh. He is a known advocate of constitutional change employed by a body set up by a man who favours independence (on offer) and another who personally favours federalism/English devolution (not on offer), but who is open to independence if that's what people want. In other words, his bosses don't want the status quo or even devo plus.

 

[Quartz]

The article said at the bottom: "Dr W Elliot Bulmer is research director of the Constitutional Commission." So straight away we already know he is paid to wibble on (by employers other than the Herald) about possible future Scottish constitutions.

But he wasn't writing on behalf of the Constitutional Commission. He was writing on behalf of Yes, Scotland.

 

[danny la rouge]

That was yesterday's chatter.

 

[DexterTCN]

5 years old...but a persuasive argument.

 

[geminisnake]

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/inde...nd-to-bring-labour-shadow-cabinet-to-scotland

This man is a moron, and copying Camoron again. So we're getting the Cabinet and the shadow Cabinet visiting just before a the referendum and they think that'll persuade more no votes??

 

[danny la rouge]

5 years old...but a persuasive argument.

I don't get Limmy, so I'm not sure if that's serious or a comedy routine. If it's comedy ignore the following.

Is he really arguing that we should base our votes on the fact that three celebrity morons have no idea that there's life outside their own egos? What actual impact does that have on real everyday lives? I don't give a fuck what Simon Cowel "thinks" about anything. I do think he's bad for music, but other than that, he could write 3,500 words a day on anything at all, and I wouldn't even glance at the title.

 

[danny la rouge]

Anyway, I cam to post the latest poll: No 59%, Yes 29%: Scotsman.

 

[geminisnake]

Anyway, I came to post the latest poll: No 59%, Yes 29%: Scotsman.

Do you really think the Scotsman is a reliable source for anything?? I don't, and how many people did they ask? It's owned by Johnston Press who are tories. The Scotsman is also massively in the red and have just devalued their assets. That is all.