BBC refutes suggestion of political partiality

The BBC has not refuted the suggestion. It has denied it, without providing any evidence to support its assertion of neutrality. Adding redundant superlatives such as "totally" and "entirely" strongly suggests that they are protesting too much.

The BBC has not refuted the suggestions. It has denied them, without providing any evidence to support its claim of neutrality. Including redundant superlatives such as "entirely" and "totally" does not strengthen its message.

The argument that the presentations have been online for weeks is irrelevant. If the BBC had put racist (as opposed to biased) views on its site I doubt this argument would have impressed the judge - or anyone else.

Perhaps they ought to explain as well why all their Scottish political bloggers have had the ability for readers to comment disabled. The same has not been applied to blogs concerning England, Wales or Northern Ireland. What, in the BBCs view, makes Scotland so unique that their political viewpoint should not be challenged by the public?

The BBC in Scotland presently operates as the main opposition to the SNP government.

To deny or refute their anti-independence stance, or whatever they want to call it, stretches the imagination to breaking point. With the main man, John Boothman, at BBC Scotland's News and Current Affairs being the partner of the former Labour minister, Susan Deacon, and with many of their people having close personal links with the Labour Party, I'll leave everyone to draw their own conclusions.

Let's have the facts, and let's hear what the SNP have to say. We've heard enough from the opposition to independence, thanks to the BBC.

Though, to be fair, Scotland's foreign-owned press isn't much better. We are bombarded day-in, day-out, by articles from London-based journalists who know as much about Scotland and Scotland's economy as they do about shinty.

Newsnet Scotland is not a pro-nationalist website, we have no connection to any political party. It has an editorial line that is pro-independence and pro-major constitutional change.

However we would like to thank the Drum for highlighting our article.

Newsnet Scotland

“All the presentations – which are entirely consistent with BBC editorial guidelines on impartiality and balance - have been Online and available for both staff and the public for some weeks. We totally reject any suggestion that they are partial.”

Explain this then. SNP Depute Leader Nicola Sturgeon was interviewed by BBC Scotland’s Brian Taylor as a prelude to the SNP Conference in Glasgow prior to their Spring conference Fully two days after one of the most blatant pieces of politically motivated articles ever published by the state broadcaster appeared as the number one story in Scotland, the corporation quietly removed the offending fiction and replaced it with fact. Check out the transcript here. http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4553-its-more-than...

BBC line - All the presentations – which are entirely consistent with BBC editorial guidelines on impartiality and balance - have been Online and available for both staff and the public for some weeks. We totally reject any suggestion that they are partial.

So answer me this then BBC. When Andrew Neil stated in his presentation that Alex Salmond had said that Scotland would take 'non of the debt but all of the oil' - can you show me one single interview in which Mr Salmond has taken that stance ?

To my knowledge, interviews I have seen with Mr Salmond both on the BBC and Ch4, and quoted in the newspapers, he has always stated that 'Scotland would take it's 'fair share of the debt'

To your mind, this may not be partial, but at the very least it is damned sloppy journalism that unfortunately appears all too often nowadays from the BBC. I note the standard answer reply from the BBC which as usual is doing it's best to ignore the issue. In reality this is what the BBC do, because with a completely useless system of complaint that takes months for a response, they have no pressure on them to provide any answers.

Difficult questions are ignored and fended off by the so called impartial BBC Trust.

Time to end this charade. Close the BBC trust and the Audience councils, give Ofcom some teeth and make the BBC accountable.

In reality television has held to account every single industry, organisation, charity, government, political party and so on for their actions, but when it comes to regulating the tv industry, the most influential player in the lives of the population, there is no regulation whatsoever.

And while I remember, the videos in question are all freely available on You Tube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UhHgvCLX8s

And consistent with the closing of the blogs on the BBC Scotland webpage, any comments posted questioning the accuracy of some of Mr Neils comments on the You Tube page are being modded out.

I consider the FACT (as opposed to the BBC claim of being unbiased) that the Scottish BBC editors blogs are closed to comment as proof of bias. No other BBC editors blogs are closed, except in Scotland.

No remotely convincing reason has been given for comments to the Scottish political editors blogs on the BBC being blocked in this way.

For a state funded broadcaster to block public comment in this way is a disgrace in a democracy.

So, if the political editors in Scotland are acting without bias, why not do what is currently the case in England, Wales and N.Ireland, and open the Scotttish political editors blogs to public comment?

Until this is done, it can only be assumed that the BBC politcal editors in Scotland are acting from a position of bias.

More repeating of labour lies re the Doosan postponement from D Fraser on the BBC news tonight. Surely the industry journal article over two months ago that announced the postponement is more accurate that labour propaganda.