Anti-English, Nazis and Crackpots

Chapter 8 - Anti-English, Nazis and Crackpots
In the last chapter we were entering spring 2013 and BBC Scotland had fixed
its gaze on the issue of membership of the European Union. I‟m going to return to the EU issue in the next chapter. However in this chapter I‟m going to
take you back a few months to the end of 2012 and a BBC Scotland morning
phone-in show called Call Kaye. But first let me set the scene.
For as long as anyone can remember, one of the most frequent charges hurled
at the SNP was that it was based on anti-English sentiment. The allegation
went back years and was regularly wheeled out by opponents. Below are three
examples from the past featuring comments from a high profile entertainer, a
contrived stunt by the BBC and a verbal assault from a Scottish Labour politician.
In 1999, just after the beginning of devolution, the BBC
headlined the results of a poll it
claimed showed two thirds of
Scots believed anti-English
sentiment was prevalent north
of the border.
The survey had been carried
out by the Daily Record newspaper.
In its online article, the BBC
reported:
A survey says many people in Scotland believe that an anti-English
feeling exists north of the border.
The opinion poll for the Daily Record newspaper found that 66% of
those questioned agreed with the statement: “Many people in Scotland
are anti-English.”
The article contained comments from comedian Billy Connolly who accused
the SNP of stirring up a “new racism” in Scotland. Connolly also described the
new Scottish Parliament as "a joke". Speaking about the SNP, Connolly said:
“They know damn fine where I'm coming from.
I'm an interNationalist. It's entirely their fault, this new racism in Scotland, this anti-Englishness.”
1
In July 2006 the BBC set up a stunt which involved a car festooned with England Flags touring Scotland. The ruse, which was designed to elicit a „reaction‟
from locals, took place during the staging of the World Cup finals when England was preparing to meet Portugal in an important game. The car was eventually „abandoned‟ in the Gallowgate area of Glasgow with the flags sticking
out of windows and doors. Hidden cameras filmed youths eventually vandalising the vehicle.
The item was shown on BBC UK
Newsnight and led to a stream of
complaints from ordinary Scots angry
at what they believed was a deliberate
attempt by the BBC to portray the nation as intolerant.
Defending
the
episode,
BBC
Newsnight Editor Peter Barron said:
“This was a legitimate experiment to test anti-English sentiment in
Scotland during the World Cup, following reports of a number of violent incidents.
Of course we thought the car might come under attack, that's why we
bought - at very little expense - an elderly banger, but there was no
pre-meditated intention to portray Scots as one thing or another.”
Whether a sinister attempt to portray Scots as intolerant of their southern
neighbours or just a childish prank, the episode left a bad taste in the mouth
given that Scots licence payers had partly funded it.
Scottish Labour politicians were also prone to making similar anti-English allegations against the SNP. In April 2008, speaking in the House of Commons,
the late Labour MP David Cairns, then a junior Scotland Office Minister, said
of the SNP:
“[Their] priorities are to spend money on a national conversation, to
support a website that is a forum for every swivel-eyed, bigoted, antiEnglish lunatic in Scotland and beyond to spew forth hate-mongering
and obscenities and to cast aspersions on the United Kingdom and its
flag.”
Cairns was referring to the National Conversation set up by the new SNP administration after its 2007 Scottish election win. The website was designed to
foster and encourage constitutional debate amongst members of the public.
Despite the attacks, by the time of the SNP‟s 2011 election triumph few people
treated accusations of a mass anti-Englishness sentiment amongst Scots with
any seriousness.
2
The SNP had promoted a civic nationalism which emphasised inclusiveness.
The inclusiveness message was echoed by the Yes campaign which was as
broad based a campaign as it was possible to imagine. But the referendum led
to a resurrection of the anti-English smears. Unionists were keen to portray
independence supporters as intolerant „Nationalists‟ whose desire for independence was fuelled by a dislike of the English. It didn‟t matter that the accusations were false, it mattered only that the media promoted the message.
And it did, with relish.
Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont suggested Alex Salmond had a “problem” with David Cameron because he was English. Tory Eurosceptic John
Redwood said he viewed nationalism in Scotland as an “anti-English movement (rather) than an independence movement”. It wasn‟t long before BBC
Scotland broadcast its own variation.
Call Kaye
On December 12th 2012 an official Scottish government report showed that
racist attacks against a group describing themselves as “white British” had increased by twenty four per cent on the previous year. The statistic resulted in
newspaper headlines suggesting that attacks on English people were on the increase.
3
A press release was issued by Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie expressing concern over “anti-English rhetoric” and “racist abuse towards English”.
Rennie said:
“We cannot allow anti-English rhetoric to creep into society and the
SNP Government must do all it can to combat this.
While racism against some ethnic groups is falling, it is still far too
prevalent in Scottish society.
This includes racist abuse directed towards the English, which cannot
be tolerated.”
That day, listeners to Radio Scotland‟s morning news programme Good Morning Scotland heard presenters reading out the aforementioned newspaper
headlines. Immediately after the ritual, the host of a radio-phone in show Call
Kaye, was introduced. Kaye Adams was providing a short trailer for her own
show. The show, she told listeners, would be discussing the increase in antiEnglish sentiment.
Adams told listeners:
“So, are we seeing a rise of anti-English sentiment in Scotland; up fifty
per cent apparently over the last seven years.”
When her radio phone in programme started, Ms Adams asked:
“Is anti-English sentiment on the rise in Scotland?”
Listeners were asked if they had witnessed examples of anti-Englishness in
their own area and urged to phone in to say what they believed the cause to be.
The show began with three specially invited guests who each gave their own
view. None of them challenged the claim that a rise in white-British attacks
meant an increase in anti-English sentiment.
Stuart Waiton from Abertay University instead appeared more eager to play
down the seriousness of any attacks. Alastair Pringle from the Equality and
Human Rights Commission also appeared to accept that there was indeed an
increase but sought to try to partly explain it by suggesting the rise was linked
to attacks on English police officers.
Conservative MSP John Lamont similarly didn‟t challenge the suggestion that
there was an increase in anti-English attacks. However Mr Lamont would later say that the increase could be nothing more than friendly banter and further
analysis would be necessary in order to determine whether the independence
debate was the cause of the rise.
4
There was a general acceptance conveyed by the programme that Scotland was
in the midst of an upsurge in anti-English sentiment. With the agenda set and
listeners primed, the show kicked off and a predictable stream of callers and
texts messages were aired that sought to give examples of this apparent „rise‟
in anti-English sentiment. Many also sought to apportion blame.
The first caller was from Hertfordshire. Keith alleged he had been on the receiving end of indirect intimidation from an obnoxious barman on a ferry
sometime in the 80s or 90s. The caller‟s story was bizarre, not least due to his
attempt to link the barman‟s boorish antics to Margaret Thatcher. The caller
was quizzed by the programme host.
Kaye - “Keith that was quite a while ago yeah?”
Caller - “I think it goes back to the eighties … goes back to Margaret
Thatcher using Scotland as a testing ground for things like Trident and
the poll tax.”
Kaye - “Maybe a political edge there?”
I had suspicions from the outset about where this particular programme was
heading. The moment the host introduced politics into the mix my suspicions
heightened. Previous Call Kaye phone-ins involving politics or the referendum had tended to favour pro-Union callers and guests.
With an increase in anti-English attacks now established and politics having
been thrown into the pot, the show continued.
On cue, a text message attacking the SNP was read out by the show host:
“Well, well, well what a surprise. Anti-English hatred is on the rise, no
wonder with what‟s been preached from the SNP it‟s a worry”.
A second text message was read out:
“There‟s been an anti-English feeling in Scotland far away from sport.
That‟s the reason used by a large section of Scottish people who plan to
vote for independence, it‟s very, very scary we are a blinkered nation
unfortunately.”
When one of the invited guests suggested more analysis of the statistics would
be required before such conclusions could be reached, Kaye Adams responded:
“I‟m not sure what kind of further analysis we can actually do”
The show continued in this vein with callers using the phone-in topic to attack
the SNP and Alex Salmond.
5
The programme featured several callers claiming to have witnessed or suffered
anti-English abuse, with accusations that the SNP was to blame. Others
claimed that supporters of Scottish independence “used” anti-English sentiment as an excuse. The North East of Scotland was compared with Bavaria in
1932, a clear reference to the rise of Nazism, with the SNP again being blamed
for anti-English “bullying”. It was a shocking display of political bigotry, and
the worst thing about it was that it was based on a lie.
What listeners to the show were unaware of was that further analysis of the official figures had indeed been carried out. It showed that, over the period in
question, anti-English attacks in Scotland had not in fact increased. The analysis showed that such attacks had actually decreased by 17%. Anti-English
sentiment in Scotland had gone down, not up as the BBC was implying.
The additional analysis was included in a statement issued by the Scottish
government. In the official statement a spokesperson for Justice Secretary
Kenny MacAskill said:
“It was irresponsible and wrong of certain media outlets to portray a
rise in racist incidents against white people as an increase in antiEnglish discrimination when the original statistics release did not support that claim – and as this further analysis shows such attacks have
actually gone down.
Any racist incident is unacceptable, against any individual or group,
and will not be tolerated. Politicians and the media have a serious duty
of care to report and portray these figures in an accurate and responsible way.”
One of those „irresponsible‟ outlets was the BBC. It prompted a member of the
Newsnet team to make a formal complaint to the broadcaster regarding the
Call Kaye programme. Here is the original complaint:
The programme extrapolated a report on racist attacks in Scotland on
“white British” and implied this was evidence of “anti-English” sentiment.
Show host Kaye Adams, in an earlier trailer for the programme, stated
that “anti-English sentiment” was “up fifty per cent apparently over
the last seven years”. Ms Adams then used a decades old anecdote from
a caller to suggest a political link to this “anti-English” sentiment.
This was followed by several text messages and phone calls accusing
the SNP of being responsible for the apparent rise and being behind
anti-English bullying in the North east of Scotland. So bad were calls
that some people felt compelled to phone in complaining about unsubstantiated claims being made against the SNP.
6
Continued:
The whole programme was based on headlines in several newspapers
that claimed a rise in anti-English racist attacks over the last twelve
months. The programme made no attempt at providing an alternative
explanation for the increase in attacks on “white British”, the obvious
being that a sectarian explanation could have been responsible – Scottish Unionists and Orangemen frequently describe themselves as
“white British”.
In fact analysis of the official statistics revealed that anti-English attacks in Scotland had actually fallen by 17% over the last year. The
programme was dangerously tribal and encouraged politically sectarian messages and phone calls from members of the public, based on
an ignorant assumption backed by no evidence.
Here is the response from the show‟s producer:
Call Kaye which broadcast on Wednesday the 12th of December hosted
by Kaye Adams asked the question do you believe there is a rise in antiEnglish Sentiment in Scotland? Is this the case where you live?
This was a reflection of figures released by the Scottish government
which showed Racist incidents are up by 10% on last year with a particular spike in the number of “White British” victims, sparking fears of
a rising anti-English sentiment in Scotland. Over the past seven years,
the attacks on „white British‟ are up by fifty per cent.
The claim that these figures reflected an anti-English Sentiment came
from Liberal Democrat Leader Willie Rennie who said: “We can‟t allow
anti-English rhetoric to enter our country”. This view was refuted by
Englishman Stuart Waiton a criminology and sociology lecturer from
Abertay University who said that in his opinion this isn‟t happening in
Scotland
Throughout the item we made sure that the callers we put on air were
reflective of the correspondence coming through to the programme to
challenge the views put across by our panellists. Listening back, we
had three callers who said they thought there was anti-English sentiment, two of whom accused the SNP of stirring this up. Also on the
programme we had three callers who called this nonsense and that the
figures had been politicised by pro-Unionists. These callers were added
to a healthy mixture of texts and email traffic representative of both
sides of the discussion.
7
Continued:
The aim of our programme is always to allow the listeners to make
their own minds up from a broad spectrum of opinions and experiences.
I hope that this goes some way to answering your query and that you
will continue listening to the programme in the future.”
The first thing to note was the refusal to address the very specific quote made
by the show host Kaye Adams. In her pre-show trailer which had been broadcast on Good Morning Scotland Ms Adams had been quite specific that there
was a 50% increase in anti-English attacks over the previous seven years.
That part of the complaint - that the show host had asserted as fact something
which had yet to be confirmed - wasn‟t addressed by the show‟s producer.
Kaye Adams had, it has to be said, read out all sorts of statistics on the programme. But the general thrust of the complaint was that the programme had
been politically partisan and very dangerously tribal. Far from encouraging
mature and considered debate, it had encouraged politically sectarian responses from listeners.
Here is the part of the reply that defended the decision to discuss the apparent
growth in anti-English sentiment:
This was a reflection of figures released by the Scottish government
which showed Racist incidents are up by 10% on last year with a particular spike in the number of “White British” victims, sparking fears of
a rising anti-English sentiment in Scotland. Over the past seven years,
the attacks on „white British‟ are up by fifty per cent.
The claim that these figures reflected an anti-English Sentiment came
from Liberal Democrat Leader Willie Rennie who said: “We can‟t allow
anti-English rhetoric to enter our country.
Leaving aside the fact that Kaye Adams very clearly stated that there was a fifty
per cent growth in anti-English sentiment which the reply didn‟t acknowledge;
the phrase “sparking fears of a rising anti-English sentiment in Scotland”
needed examining.
Sparking fears amongst whom exactly? The statistics hadn‟t sparked fears
amongst anyone, apart from Willie Rennie and a few pro-Union newspapers
like the Daily Record. Rennie of course was a pro-Union MSP. It was well
known that Unionists were trying to portray the SNP as anti-English.
8
But why did the BBC automatically infer attacks on white British automatically
meant anti-English? In the complaint it was pointed out that there was another possible explanation for the rise in attacks against “white British”.
This is what the complainant wrote:
The programme made no attempt at providing an alternative explanation for the increase in attacks on „white British‟, the obvious being that
a sectarian explanation could have been responsible – Scottish Unionists and Orangemen frequently describe themselves as “white British”.
Now, there was no reason to believe that this was indeed the case. There was
no evidence pointing to a sectarian motive for any of the attacks. The purpose
of the alternative explanation was to demonstrate how prejudice could be applied to statistics in the absence of analysis.
History had witnessed similar prejudices applied to statistics. In the USA
those with an agenda have been known to seize on the number of African
Americans in prison as „proof‟ that African Americans are predisposed to
crime. The result of the Call Kaye programme was to give those with an agenda an opportunity to air their prejudices.
The programme lazily accepted a politically bigoted interpretation of statistics
and presented the conclusion as credible. This in turn fed a growing narrative
that Scots in general, and independence supporters in particular, were antiEnglish. The whole programme was built on a prejudice, one that led to politically motivated attacks on Scottish society and the party of government in
Scotland.
BBC Scotland had based a live phone-in programme on a press release from a
Unionist politician. Why BBC Scotland hadn‟t sought further information
from the Scottish government prior to selecting such a politically motivated
and potentially incendiary topic was never explained. Had it done so then
Kaye Adams may in fact have been inviting callers to suggest a reason for the
drop in anti-English sentiment in Scotland and with it, praise for the SNP.
The very first caller to the programme had hailed from Hertfordshire. I wondered how many other listeners to the appallingly misinformed programme
had tuned in from England. How many English people, having picked up the
„anti-English‟ misinformation from newspapers or listened to Call Kaye, had
had their own misinformed views of Scotland confirmed? Worryingly, how
many of these good English people had been left harbouring a grudge against
Scots?
BBC Scotland never issued an apology for the show. There was never any public acknowledgement that the show‟s agenda had been built on misinterpreted
data.
9
Nazis
One of the most insidious aspects of the referendum debate was the attempt to
demonise those on the Yes side. Equally disturbing was the media‟s willingness to embrace and promote this attempted demonisation.
This was best symbolised in April 2013 when a single image appeared in a
Sunday newspaper. The image, published by the pro-Union Scotland on Sunday, depicted the Scottish Flag. However in place of the St Andrews Cross was
a symbol recognised the world over as a potent representation of intolerance
and evil … the Nazi Swastika.
Beneath the image it read: „The dark history of how fascism exploited
the cause of nationalism in Scotland‟. The use of the word „Klan‟ was a
thinly veiled reference to the racist organisation the „Ku Klux Klan‟.
Unionists had for years compared Alex Salmond with fascist dictators like Hitler and Mussolini. Barely a month went by without a Unionist politician or
commentator likening the SNP leader to a totalitarian despot. It became an
occupational hazard for the First Minister. So prevalent were the smears that
they eventually ceased to shock and came to be viewed, by some, as acceptable.
10
In 2012 BBC presenter Jeremy Paxman likened the First Minister to African
dictator Robert Mugabe. Mr Salmond was being interviewed by the presenter
after delivering the Hugo Young lecture in London when Paxman remarked on
comments by the First Minister who had said an independent Scotland would
be a “beacon of progressiveness”. The BBC presenter told the First Minister
that Robert Mugabe had said the same thing about Zimbabwe. When
Salmond suggested to the Paxman that he wasn‟t doing himself any favours by
comparing Scotland to Zimbabwe, Paxman replied:
“No, I‟m comparing you to Mugabe”.
The BBC was inundated with complaints after viewers rushed to condemn the
slur. A BBC spokesman defended Paxman, saying:
“This was a good natured exchange between two experienced political
operators who often spar with one another. Jeremy‟s reference was
made within this context. While the comparison was not serious, he
was attempting to tease out details of an independent Scotland and
how politically progressive it could be.”
It was a joke. Just like Skintland. In October 2012 Paxman‟s colleague BBC
Scotland business and economy editor Douglas Fraser made a similar remark,
when, reporting on the SNP‟s conference he compared the SNP to another dictatorship:
“Is that a risk in the way that the SNP is perceived by the electorate
that there‟s not enough open debate, that they appear to be agreeing on
everything but in fact they also appear to have a sort of North Korean
tendency?”
North Korea had been in the grip of a totalitarian leader Kim Jong-il for decades. It was probably one of the most repressive states in the world. But
somehow it was acceptable to compare the party of government in Scotland
with a despotic regime. The worrying thing about Paxman and Fraser‟s comments wasn‟t that they had made them, but that they were totally relaxed
about it. In August 2013 another BBC Presenter Andrew Marr caused anger
when he claimed anti-English sentiment was “entrenched” in the SNP. Speaking at the Edinburgh Book Festival, the TV presenter said:
“There is a very strong anti-English feeling, everybody knows it, there
always has been,”
If you go back to the origins of the SNP, the origins of home rule, Anglophobia was as well-entrenched then as it is now.
I don‟t think it is particularly serious most of the time, but it can become serious, it can become toxic.”
11
Distasteful though the remarks were, they were nothing compared to the
smear campaign that was being mounted against the Yes movement itself.
Unionists homed in on those who supported independence and expressed this
view online.
This book has made mention of the Scottish media but hasn‟t focused much on
Scottish newspapers. The reason for this is that newspapers are private businesses; they are under no obligation to be balanced, we are not forced to pay a
newspaper licence. Throughout the referendum most newspapers refused to
back independence. Indeed almost all were vehemently opposed. The press
gave far more sympathetic coverage to the No campaign than to its Yes rival.
In short, the Scottish print media was biased.
In order to address this imbalance, the Yes movement created its own media.
The internet saw an explosion of Yes leaning blogs and websites. An alternative narrative to that being pushed by the main stream media began to flow
from these new web based outlets. As hitherto unreported information began
to circulate amongst users of these pro-independence sites so the traditional
media found itself being challenged.
Claims from the No campaign were debunked regularly. Lies were exposed.
Stories that would have previously lain unreported began to be circulated
online. Writers and commentators every bit as erudite and articulate as those
whose faces graced the newspaper columns and TV studios, were offering a
different viewpoint.
Scandals were exposed. On April 7th 2013, one online group, National Collective, revealed that the biggest donor to the official Better Together campaign
was the head of a company that had once paid a convicted war criminal one
million dollars. Ian Taylor was the chief executive of multinational company
Vitol and had given the Better Together campaign half a million pounds following a meeting with its chair, Labour MP Alistair Darling. However after
the donation was announced, it was revealed that Taylor‟s company had once
paid the notorious Serbian war criminal Arkan one million dollars
Arkan - real name Željko Ražnatović - was heavily involved in organised crime,
and was indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia for war crimes including „murder, wilful killing, rape and other inhumane acts‟. He was alleged to have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians. He was assassinated in Belgrade in January 2000.
Ian Taylor was Chief Executive of Vitol when Bob Finch, as Vitol Director,
went to Belgrade in the late 1990s. In 2001 an investigation by The Observer
newspaper established Finch had used Arkan as a 'fixer' after a controversial
oil deal in the former Yugoslavia collapsed.
12
It also emerged that Taylor‟s company had a track record involving fines and
controversial deals in Iran, Iraq, Serbia and Libya. Vitol had been fined $17.5
million after pleading guilty in the USA to charges of grand larceny relating to
allegations of sanctions busting and payments to officials in former dictator
Saddam Hussein‟s regime.
There was more. According to the Independent newspaper, the company had
also avoided paying tax on billions of pounds of profits - with the blessing of
HMRC. Taylor, who had become Chief Executive of Vitol in 1995, had previously made substantial donations to the Conservative party, and attended a
private dinner with Prime Minister David Cameron at Downing Street in November 2011.
In September 2012, Labour MP John Mann, a member of the Treasury Select
Committee, had accused Taylor‟s company of “backing corrupt regimes”.
Mann also described Mr Taylor‟s donations to the Tory Party as „dirty money‟.
The revelations about Taylor‟s company were damaging to the Better Together
campaign and hugely embarrassing for the Labour party. However the story
was given only subdued coverage by BBC Scotland. It received nothing like
the high-profile coverage previously given to baseless smears levelled against
Alex Salmond.
The story grew and threatened to inflict significant damage on the No campaign when lawyer‟s letters were sent on behalf of the Better Together backer
to National Collective and several other online sites which had picked up the
story. The letters threatened legal action. As a result, the National Collective
website was closed down.
A statement posted on the site said:
“On the 9th April 2013, Lawyers – Collyer & Bristow acting on behalf
of Vitol and multimillionaire and principal donor to „Better Together‟ –
Ian Taylor threatened legal action against the „National Collective‟
claiming that it was grossly defamatory.”
A pro-independence web site had been forced to close down. It had been silenced. Despite this intimidation, BBC Scotland still refused to treat it as a
major news item. Instead, in an interview on Newsnight Scotland later that
evening, journalist Severin Carrell actually blamed the National Collective and
the other sites for the situation.
According to Mr Carrell,
“[Independence] campaigners perhaps haven‟t quite had the experience, knowledge, legal advice that may have prevented some of the
problems they are now encountering.”
13
Had the site been pro-Union and the legal threats been made by someone who
had given half a million pounds to the Yes campaign, then past experiences
suggested BBC Scotland would have given the story top billing. Had the Yes
campaign‟s biggest donor headed a business that had avoided paying tax, had
given a million dollars to a war criminal and been fined for breaking sanctions
against Saddam Hussein, then the story would have saturated BBC Scotland
news coverage.
The threat issued to several online sites was indicative of the growing unease
with which those in the No campaign viewed the internet. It wasn‟t just blogs
and websites where the Yes community had grown. Social media platforms
like Twitter and Facebook were also witnessing massive pro-Yes referendum
participation.
A genuine pro-independence grassroots movement had
emerged on the internet. It was a major source of concern for the No campaign.
Cybernats
When an argument cannot be defeated then the best way to nullify its effectiveness is to discredit those making it. There was a considerable amount of
talent amongst pro-independence online activists. Some provided commentary, some news, some live broadcasts. Others were irreverent and satirical. It
wasn‟t just an online media evolution, it was a cultural evolution. It encompassed the arts and literature.
The internet‟s open access meant that there were no filters applied. Sitting
alongside the articulate and positive were those whose online contributions
were abusive and offensive. Both sides of the referendum had people who
posted offensive and obnoxious content on the web. For every poster who
called Unionists traitors, there was one who called Nationalists Nazis. For
every disgusting reference made about Nicola Sturgeon there was one made
about Johann Lamont. Both Yes supporters and No supporters could be
equally abusive - and were. No side had a monopoly on bad language, threats
and god-awful vitriol.
But only one side was singled out by the media. A derogatory term was coined
for Yes supporters. Anyone expressing online support for independence, or
who challenged the orthodox view being promoted by Unionists, was branded
a „Cybernat‟. The term was believed to have been coined by former Scottish
Labour leader Iain Gray. In November 2009 speaking in the Holyrood chamber, the MSP said:
“Back in May I asked Alex Salmond to get a grip of these 'cybernats'
bloggers. At the time they were spreading rumours about me and other
politicians as well. I think Alex Salmond has to come to parliament,
apologise, and explain just exactly what has gone one.”
14
Gray added:
“I wish to see these anonymous blogs rooted out and got rid of.”
The claim that Alex Salmond was somehow responsible for people who posted
messages on the internet would be a recurring theme of the independence referendum. Time and again Unionist politicians would issue statements denouncing internet abuse allegedly perpetrated by a Yes supporter, whilst
claiming Salmond was somehow to blame. Equally disturbing posts from No
supporters rarely, if ever, made the news headlines.
This was best demonstrated on May 1st, 2013 when a disturbing sounding story
broke. A comedienne had apparently received death threats after making a
few tepid jokes about the independence referendum. The story was broken by
the Scotsman newspaper in the early hours of that day. In an article headlined, Susan Calman: Death threats for independence satire, the
newspaper reported:
Comic Susan Calman has called for an end of "name-calling, swearing
and death threats" marring the independence debate after her satirical
contribution to a radio show triggered an onslaught of online abuse.
The alleged death threats followed an appearance on a BBC Radio 4 comedy
show „The News Quiz‟ in which the Scottish comedienne had poked fun at Yes
Scotland and also lampooned First Minister Alex Salmond.
The article led to other headlines that day, with the death threat claim central
to the reports. Newspapers portrayed the comedienne as a victim of „Nationalist‟ intolerance and „cybernat‟ hounding. Unionist politicians issued statements condemning the alleged threat and blaming SNP.
Labour MP Douglas Alexander issued a statement in which he attacked the socalled cybernats.
15
The Labour MP said:
“This truly appalling episode is just the latest example of the hate-filled
outpouring of the so-called 'cybernats', whose characteristic is general
intolerance to everybody and anybody who does not share their outlook.
How has Scotland - rightly proud of our openness and tolerance - arrived at a place where a comedian is smeared, bullied and even threatened for speaking out and making light of the pretensions of politicians?”
BBC Scotland picked up the story. It was covered that same evening by
Newsnight Scotland. The programme played a clip of Ms Calman delivering
her jokes on the radio programme. The clip was accompanied by some melodramatic claims regarding abuse she had received. According to presenter
Gordon Brewer the perpetrators were all „Cybernats‟.
In the clip, viewers heard the following:
Brewer: “It all began when the comedienne Susan Calman poked fun
at the Yes campaign on a topical news quiz…”
A clip of Calman on the Radio 4 programme was then played,
She was heard saying: “They're not going to build a border. We're
going to keep the pound. We'll still have the Royal Family. So I'm not
sure what's going on.” [Audience laughter]
Brewer: “That was enough to attract the full ire of some proindependence campaigners who she says accused her of betrayal and
racism towards her own people.”
The abusers, according to the BBC Scotland presenter, weren‟t just cybernats,
they were pro-independence campaigners, and it wasn‟t the first time the derogatory term „cybernat‟ had been used in the programme in order to attack
Yes supporters. Speaking on an earlier edition former Labour party advisor
Simon Pia had been allowed to launch a similar politically motivated attack.
Pia said:
“The cybernats have operated below the surface in Scottish politics for
the last few years. It's very nasty and abusive stuff.”
In a later programme former Labour MSP David Whitton said:
“Another thing [the SNP] has to do is to stop these kind of cybernat attacks on anybody who criticises them.”
16
Brewer himself had used similar language, saying once:
“What we have seen this week, to be fair, are senior people in the SNP
saying to some of these commentators on the internet, cybernats as
they are called, you know look, stop it.”
The cybernat term wasn‟t restricted to guests and presenters on Newsnight
Scotland. Debates in the House of Commons would also see use of the term by
the BBC.
Journalists too were allowed free rein to level accusations. In 2012 speaking
on the Shereen Nanjiani show on BBC Radio Scotland, journalist Magnus
Gardham called for action over anonymous independence supporting “trolls”
he claimed were responsible for spreading “hatred and bile” on the internet.
The former Daily Record reporter, who had just joined the Herald, said:
“In Scottish politics there is a huge problem with internet trolls who
target journalists who are perceived to be critical of Scottish independence, who hide under a cloak of anonymity and spread bile and hatred
and abuse and intimidation.
If a precedent can be set in this case which shows that it‟s not acceptable and there are sanctions then I think that will be entirely healthy.”
It was clear that the BBC wasn‟t shy in promoting, or in allowing to be promoted, the falsehood that the Yes campaign, and only the Yes campaign, was
awash with abusive, intolerant nutcases spreading bile and vitriol across the
internet. On the contrary, the corporation was more than happy to legitimise
the term.
17
The „Calman Death Threat‟ story was a godsend to the Scottish media. It
helped sustain the anti-Yes „Cybernat‟ campaign and was key to getting the issue onto the BBC again. But was there any truth to the news reports?
The Scotsman article had contained apparent quotes from Ms Calman, only
one of which made mention of death threats:
“If we could stop the random name-calling, the swearing, the death
threats (real or otherwise) then perhaps we could get somewhere. Bullying is not a way to stop people speaking out. Bullying is the last resort of those who don‟t want to enter into a reasoned argument.”
It was from the comedienne‟s blog. The blog had been published after her appearance on the radio programme. But the comment made no specific claim
that she herself had received a death threat. Some people began to question
whether death threats were received at all and asked the comedienne for evidence. Despite widespread media coverage and accusations against Yes campaigners, nobody could locate any evidence of a specific death threat having
been sent to the comedienne.
Newsnet Scotland decided to do a bit of digging…
A member of the team contacted the Scotsman newspaper to ask what evidence they had uncovered. There was no reply. The member tried to contact
the comedienne herself but failed. In the meantime her blog had been taken
down.
However a question to her agent was acknowledged. The reply served only to
confuse the situation further. Her client had been invited to appear on
Newsnight Scotland to discuss the issue, but had turned down the invitation.
Vivienne Clore said:
“Newsnight Scotland invited her to appear on the show and she declined because she doesn‟t want to make any further comment on the
matter at the moment so I really am sorry but I cannot help you.”
Despite contacting the police and the procurator fiscal‟s office, no evidence of
any death threat could be found. Indeed no evidence confirming that Susan
Calman had received any threat to her life was ever found.
The Scotsman newspaper responded to the lack of evidence by publishing a
„cartoon‟. It depicted Yes supporters as grotesque mutants marching with
burning torches chanting „Susan Calman, Susan Calman‟. In the background
were caricatures of Alex Salmond, John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon. Clearly
visible was a gallows, with a noose fashioned in the shape of an SNP logo.
18
The BBC wasn‟t driving the „Cybernat‟ agenda. That was being done by newspapers like the Daily Record, Herald and the Scotsman. But the broadcaster,
by allowing its own presenters and guest pundits to throw the term around
with abandon, was complicit in its spreading.
Internet
It wasn‟t just those who were engaging in debate on the internet who were
coming under attack. In one particular episode, the internet itself was
smeared as an unreliable source of information.
On Friday November 28th 2013 the BBC found itself at the centre of an attack
on the Scottish government over a document that cast doubt on Unionist
claims over the EU membership of an independent Scotland. The episode began when Alex Salmond was facing Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont at
First Minister‟s Questions. Lamont pressed Salmond on the issue.
Lamont said:
“Yesterday, the Spanish prime minister made it clear that, by leaving
the UK, Scotland would also leave the EU and have to re-apply as a
new member.
What part of that statement does the first minister not understand?”
Lamont‟s questions were based on comments reportedly made by Spanish
Prime Minister Mario Rajoy. According to the BBC Rajoy had claimed a newly
independent Scotland would be thrown out of the European Union.
19
The BBC Scotland online article reported:
The Spanish prime minister has suggested that an independent Scotland would have to apply to become a member of the EU from the outside.
Mariano Rajoy said that if a "region" opted to leave a member state,
then it would "remain outside the European Union".
However, in a surprise move Salmond produced a communication written by a
European Commission official that blew apart Rajoy‟s claim. According to the
EC official, there was no legal barrier to post-Yes negotiations taking place
whilst Scotland remained inside the EU. The communication backed up the
Scottish government‟s stance.
The communication had been drafted by Mario-Paulo Tenreiro, who was responsible for institutional questions at the Secretariat General of the European
Commission. Mr Tenreiro had replied to a question from a member of the
public.
20
Mr Tenreiro had been asked the following:
“Does the President agree with me that, given Scotland is already in
the EU and therefore meets criteria for membership, an independent
Scotland would be able to negotiate its terms of membership of the European Union within the European Union?”
In his reply, the EC official said that whilst a change of treaties would be required - needing the approval of other members - that:
“…as you say, it would of course be legally possible to re-negotiate the
situation of UK and Scotland within the EU.”
The communication blew a gaping hole in claims being made by Unionists,
which was that a newly independent Scotland would automatically lose its EU
membership and have to re-apply. Mario-Paulo Tenreiro‟s opinion was devoid
of the political motives that potentially undermined comments from Mario Rajoy, who had a vested interest in promoting the idea of EU expulsion. In
Spain, Rajoy was fighting the independence movement in Catalonia.
In BBC news coverage of Mario Rajoy‟s remarks, the Spanish Prime Minister
was the focus of the bulletins. The online article was headlined: Mario Rajoy says Scotland would be ‘outside EU’. If BBC Scotland was going to
apply balanced coverage of the referendum then the Tenreiro communication
should have resulted in similarly styled news reports.
So how was the story presented by BBC Scotland? I‟m not going to mince my
words here. BBC Scotland effectively sabotaged the story by inserting a blatant lie regarding the means by which the Scottish government had acquired
the communication.
BBC Scotland refused to report the EC official‟s communication in a similar
manner to that of Rajoy. The corporation instead portrayed Salmond on the
defensive, rejecting „fears‟: Alex Salmond rejects EU membership fears
21
The BBC article began:
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has accused rivals of "scaremongering" over the nation's position in the EU under independence. His
comments came after the Spanish prime minister suggested an independent Scotland would have to apply to become a member of the EU
from the outside.
Mr Salmond said Scotland's membership would be negotiated "from
within". Opposition leaders accused him of being an "amateur" and
"the Northern Hemisphere's worst negotiator".
The exchanges, during first minister's questions at the Scottish Parliament, were prompted by comments from Spanish PM Mariano Rajoy
on Wednesday that, if a "region" opted to leave a member state, it
would "remain outside the European Union".
Rajoy‟s claims were again the main thrust of the report. How could this be?
Where was the communication from the EC official? It was halfway down the
article before the BBC mentioned the communication.
Mr Salmond said a letter from the office of the EC secretariat general
stated it would be "legally possible" to negotiate from within, adding
that Prof James Crawford, who had advised the UK government on
Europe, said the timescale "seems realistic".
His comments sparked a row in parliament over the source of the letter. Ms Lamont said it was discovered following a "trawl of the internet" and asked whether it was appropriate to conduct "government by
Google", although the document was genuine.
An official communication from an EC official had been suppressed by BBC
Scotland. Instead of it forming the thrust of news reports, the corporation had
buried it. BBC Scotland was also diverting from the contents of the letter by
claiming there was some kind of row over its authenticity. This appeared to
have been inspired by a smear propagated by Scottish Labour which claimed
that the Scottish government had acquired the communication by trawling the
internet.
Lamont said:
“This is an amateurish and shameful attempt by Alex Salmond to mislead the people of Scotland.
It seems Salmond is basing Scotland‟s future on his ability to Google.
What other parts of the White Paper rely on random websites?”
22
The Scottish Labour leader added:
“The First Minister just can‟t seem to tell the truth when it comes to
Scotland and the European Union.
Did Alex Salmond write to the EU Commission to ask for this opinion?
No. Did the Government? No.
The fact is we do not know who wrote the original letter or what they
asked because Alex Salmond pulled the letter off the internet.”
Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson levelled a similar accusation:
“Alex Salmond‟s position on Europe has become increasingly desperate
that he has been forced to resort to printing off a letter from a proindependence website.”
In news broadcasts BBC Scotland presenters repeated the claims. BBC Scotland political editor Brian Taylor went a little further, reporting that the communication had been “lifted from the internet”. In an online report on the
day‟s exchanges in the chamber, he wrote:
“Mr Salmond replied that he had a letter from the secretariat of the
European Commission. He did indeed. But it was not written to him.
Rather it emerged later that it was lifted from the internet, having
been addressed in response to an unnamed interlocutor.”
On Friday, Mr Taylor‟s colleague, BBC Scotland reporter Niall O‟Gallagher
made exactly the same „internet‟ claim when giving his own analysis of the exchanges at Holyrood, stating the missive had been “lifted from the internet” by
the Scottish government. The phrase “lifted from the internet”, dove-tailed
nicely with claims from Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont her Scottish
Conservative counterpart Ruth Davidson.
So according to BBC Scotland, the communication had been lifted from the internet. According to Johann Lamont, the communication had been Googled
from random websites and according to Ruth Davidson, Salmond had printed
the letter off from a pro-independence website.
Before I go any further it‟s worth noting what had happened with respect to
the BBC‟s news coverage that day. BBC Scotland was continuing to make remarks from Mario Rajoy the thrust of its news coverage. Those remarks favoured the pro-Union argument. The content of the letter, which undermined
claims from Unionists, was being marginalised. Thus, in place of the incendiary communication from an EC official with no political axe to grind, were
several smears from Unionist politicians.
23
It was no secret that the Scottish media was a pro-Union beast, it had been
that way for as long as anyone could remember. However its reporting of the
Tenreiro response defied the very tenets on which journalism was supposed to
be based. Newspapers took their lead from BBC Scotland and launched an
unprecedented attack on the SNP leader for daring to reveal what they themselves should have already reported - official confirmation that claims from
Unionists were nothing more than vacuous scares.
The Daily Record, the Scottish Sun, the Scottish Daily Mail, the Herald, the
Express and the Guardian all launched attacks on Mr Salmond. The Daily
Record headline read: Alex Salmond accused of ‘government by
google’ after pinning an independent Scotland’s EU membership
hopes on internet letter.
The Scottish Sun shouted „Eck’s EU net gaffe‟ and led readers to a two page
spread headlined „SALMOND IN PARLY EU LETTER BLUNDER’. The
paper also repeated the claim that Mr Tenreiros‟s communication had been
“lifted from the internet”. The other newspapers continued in the same vein,
with not one acknowledging the extent to which the contents of the official reply damaged the claims from the No campaign. It was as though the communication contents weren‟t important.
What we had was a subtle variation on the „Cybernat‟ smears. Instead of Yes
supporters being maligned, it was the internet itself which was being demonised. It ought not to have mattered how Salmond came to be in possession of
the communication drafted by Mario-Paulo Tenreiro. What should have been
of importance was what Mr Tenreiro had said. But we were in the world of
propaganda where the information was deemed less important than the route
by which it came.
But were claims that the communication had been lifted from the internet or
printed off from a pro-independence website true? The answer was no and the
team at Newsnet Scotland knew the claims were untrue because a copy of the
communication had been sent to the Scottish government by a Newsnet Scotland team member. Newsnet Scotland had exclusively revealed the existence
of Mario-Paulo Tenreiro‟s communication on October 9th, almost seven weeks
earlier.
24
The article is reproduced in full below.
Scotland can legally negotiate a continuation of its current membership from within the European Union following a Yes vote, an EC official has confirmed.
Mario-Paulo Tenreiro, who is responsible for institutional questions at
the Secretariat General of the European Commission has said it would
be “legally possible” for such negotiations to take place whilst Scotland
remained an EU member.
The official was responding to a direct question from a member of the
public, who asked: “Does the President agree with me that, given Scotland is already in the EU and therefore meets criteria for membership,
an independent Scotland would be able to negotiate its terms of membership of the European Union within the European Union?”
In a letter of reply, Mr Tenreiro said that whilst a change of treaties
would be required – needing the approval of other members – that:
“…as you say, it would of course be legally possible to re-negotiate the
situation of UK and Scotland within the EU.”
Official confirmation that there is no legal bar to negotiations taking
place after a Yes vote will be seen as a significant blow to opponents of
independence who have claimed that a Yes vote would see Scotland
thrown out of the EU and having to re-apply.
Former Scottish Secretary Michael Moore claimed that an independent
Scotland would find herself outside the EU having to negotiate its way
back in. Better Together head Alistair Darling claimed that any application for EU membership could see Scotland waiting up to nine years
before being allowed back in to the EU. Speaking in February this
year, the Labour MP – who leads the anti-independence alliance Better
Together – said that an independent Scotland, “would face a lengthy
application process to the EU.”
The EC Official‟s response supports the conclusions of the Law Society
of Scotland which, in August, published a report that also concluded
that Scotland‟s membership of the European Union would encounter
no legal barriers.
The legal paper pointed out that Scotland already complies with EU
treaties and acquis and therefore qualifies “in legal terms for EU membership in its own right.” and added that “Scotland would have the capacity to be recognised as an independent state”.
25
Continued:
In July, leading academics and politicians from Denmark insisted that
a newly independent Scotland would encounter no problems continuing its membership of the European Union. MP Rasmus Helveg Petersen said Scotland would find the process of acquiring its own membership “fairly quick” and a “mere formality”.
The Danish government official said: “It would be very clear […] it
could happen overnight.”
The spokesman on foreign affairs for the Denmark‟s Social Liberals
added: “The criteria is very objective, Scotland would qualify. If Scotland wants it, yes. It would be a mere formality.”
Earlier this year the Scottish government published a list of 30 countries that have become independent since 1960, with an average of only
15 months from the referendum date to full independence. The Scottish
government has set a timetable of twenty months within which it says
EU membership can be negotiated.
It was a hugely significant story. An image of the actual letter was published
alongside the article. The significant part of the letter was highlighted. It is
reproduced below.
But there was a twist to the story. The day before Newsnet Scotland published
the article, it sent a copy of Mario-Paulo Tenreiro‟s communication to … BBC
Scotland. Here is an exact copy of the email:
We believe this may be the first official confirmation from an EC Official that, following a Yes vote, there would be no legal bar preventing
Scotland negotiating its continued EU membership whilst remaining
within the EU.
26
Continued:
An image of the official letter (minus the identity of the individual who
requested clarification) has been attached.
The question asked was: "Does the President agree with me that, given
Scotland is already in the EU and therefore meets criteria for membership, an independent Scotland would be able to negotiate its terms of
membership of the European Union within the European Union?"
This is a Newsnet Scotland exclusive and it is embargoed until 06:00
Wednesday.
So BBC Scotland knew of the existence of the letter almost seven weeks before
Alex Salmond produced it at First Minister‟s Questions. The corporation thus
had ample time to check on the veracity of the communication. Also sent a
copy of the communication was the Scottish government. It was never „lifted
from the internet‟, and BBC Scotland knew it.
BBC Scotland‟s morning radio show Good Morning Scotland received a copy
prior to the story appearing on Newsnet Scotland. The purpose was to alert
the BBC to what Newsnet Scotland believed was a significant development in
the debate over Scotland‟s membership of the EU after a Yes vote. Up to this
point there had been no official communication from the EC which supported
the Scottish government‟s stance.
But BBC Scotland ignored it, as did every Scottish news outlet. Nearly seven
weeks later this same broadcaster provided wall to wall coverage of comments
from Spain‟s Prime Minister that were contradicted by the contents of the
communication. Indeed BBC reporter Gavin Hewitt was scouring Brussels
looking for officials prepared to echo Rajoy‟s sentiments.
The Scottish media had a choice to make when Spanish PM Mariano Rajoy
made his intervention. It could act in the interests of journalism and by extension the Scottish public, or it could act in the interests of Unionism. That it
opted for Unionism wasn‟t surprising given it was itself an expression of that
Unionism. Once that decision had been taken, then the Tenreiro response brought into the media arena by Salmond - had to be undermined and its contents discredited. The First Minister himself and the Scottish government had
been subjected to false accusations from Unionist politicians and media reporters.
Newsnet Scotland contacted BBC Scotland reporter Niall O‟Gallagher correcting his “lifted from the internet” claim and informed him his own colleagues at
BBC Scotland had been sent a copy of Mr Tenreiro‟s reply seven weeks ago.
There was no reply.
27
On the day of Niall O‟Gallagher‟s report, Newsnet Scotland sent the following
email to Good Morning Scotland:
On the programme this morning the EU letter read out by the First
Minister yesterday was described as having been “downloaded from
the internet” by the Scottish government. This is not true.
The letter read out by the First Minister was sent to GMS on 8th October. Can someone explain why its existence was not reported by the
programme?
James Naughtie in his review of the newspaper headlines described the
letter as having been acquired from a “pro-SNP” website. This appears
to be a reference to Newsnet Scotland.
We have no links to the SNP and would ask that this be pointed out live
on air. Our news site does indeed have a pro-independence editorial
line. We note that the BBC never refers to other news vendors in this
manner and would ask why we have been singled out in this way.
The email was ignored by the programme. However another email questioning why the existence of Mario-Paulo Tenreiro‟s communication had not been
reported by BBC Scotland, despite a copy having been sent, elicited an interesting response from a BBC Scotland official.
He said:
“Off the record I‟m afraid I can only vaguely recall reading it so the
reasons are somewhat muddy. At a guess, I imagine it seemed like a
somewhat nuanced intervention in the debate and we just don‟t have
the space to cover every twist and turn.
To be frank if the contents of the letters had been truly incendiary I
would have expected the Scottish government would have jumped on
them but to the best of my recollection they didn‟t attempt to suggest
that this was the proverbial „smoking gun‟.”
Newsnet Scotland never published the reply, deciding instead to respect its „off
the record‟ nature. It is reproduced here in order to demonstrate that BBC
Scotland was indeed aware that the communication existed well before
Salmond revealed it seven weeks later. The excuse for not reporting the contents of the letter was rather lame. There was nothing nuanced about the intervention. On the contrary, it was crystal clear. There was no legal barrier
preventing Scotland negotiating its membership of the EU from within following a Yes vote.
28
BBC Scotland had resource to cover every utterance from Spanish Government and EC officials when the statements attacked the independence case.
Yet here was a contradictory opinion from an EC official - the first such opinion that supported the Scottish government‟s stance - but it was deemed not
worthy of reporting.
Whether Alex Salmond may have „jumped on‟ the contents of the letter or not
was not the point. BBC Scotland had a duty to report on the communications‟
existence. It didn‟t. Instead the corporation allowed smears to take root, one
of which saw the integrity of Newsnet Scotland called into question.
On November 29th the Daily Record published the following editorial:
Deflect and deny
THE Daily Record desperately want a fair and open debate on independence. We were disappointed that this week‟s White Paper from
the Scottish government fell short of this benchmark.
It provided guarantees on issues like currency, NATO and EU membership – on which guarantees can simply not be given.
Yesterday, the SNP‟s determination not to admit to any weaknesses in
their independence case led to the ludicrous spectacle of the First Minister relying on an email downloaded from a crackpot website to back
up his shaky claims on Europe.
Alex Salmond could have taken a different approach and admitted
Spain‟s position makes EU membership complicated but, on balance,
the evidence shows Scotland would be welcomed.
This would have been a fair reflection of the facts. Instead, Salmond
decided to deflect attention away from the issue by quoting a letter
sourced from a website that regularly engages in paranoid conspiracies and personal attacks.
Scotland deserves better.
This was the level that so called professional journalism had sunk to in Scotland. Newsnet Scotland had revealed the existence of a letter which challenged claims being made by foreign officials relating to Scotland‟s EU membership status should Scots vote Yes. One would have thought that a Scottish
newspaper would have embraced the apparent good news. The Daily Record
didn‟t. It instead spewed false claims and potentially defamatory allegations.
29
The traditional media in Scotland was having great difficulty in coping with
citizen journalism. Sites like Newsnet Scotland were highlighting an ever
growing manipulation of news and a reluctance to scrutinise pro-Union
claims, some of which were demonstrably false.
But BBC Scotland was about to discover it could not manipulate its referendum output with complete impunity and it was the issue of the European Union that would provide Yes supporters with some payback.
30