The New Unbalanced Douglas ross Show without Kate on BBC Scotland

Douglas Ross was schooled by the Finance Secretary

On Question Time, on Thursday night, Douglas Ross revealed himself stupid, duplicitous (again) or both, as he claimed that the UK Government had allocated £700 million for business support, thus dwarfing the Scottish Government’s £40 million.

The Finance Secretary corrected him, pointing out that the £700 million was also for health, transport and other things.

Playground style, Ross insisted it wasn’t. Forbes laughed and told him ‘The facts are there.’

The following day at 18.40, BBC Reporting Scotland allowed Ross to repeat his inaccurate claim:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000njwq/reporting-scotland-evening-news-16102020

The Finance Secretary was not invited to comment in line with the BBC’s supposed commitment to balance.

Ross, also made a well-worn but wholly inaccurate claim, on QT, that care home deaths had been higher in Scotland. The Truth is here:

https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/2020/10/16/care-home-deathsthe-lies-that-will-not-die/

This Tory fondness for just lying is well-known:

Douglas Ross was schooled by the Finance Secretary

10 thoughts on “The New Unbalanced Douglas ross Show without Kate on BBC Scotland”

  1. DRoss a liar and a fraud? Well, he IS a Tory.
    BBC Hoot’n’nannie in cahoots? Well, it IS a colonial service!

    They deserve each other.
    I fully expect Carlot on doing the weather, next–his big beaming face shining through the clouds.

    Would you “buy” a used weather forecast from this man?

    Liked by 2 people

  2. The Guardian has identified Mr Ross as one of the ‘rising stars’ of UK politics. Clearly the ‘progressive’ metropolitan British Nationalists have put him in the pantheon to replace the Baroness Colonel. He is ‘good’ because he is NOT Nicola Sturgeon and the British Nationalist in Holyrood are a drab, uninspiring, largely-ignored bunch of whingers.

    So, expect Mr Ross to be front and centre of the MSM in Scotland until next May.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. A few weeks ago when the BBC was forced to do a U-turn on their plans to stop televising the FM’s daily briefings they said the other parties would have a right of reply or some such form of words. The form of that ‘reply’ has now emerged – an uninterrupted party political broadcast on Reportinhg Scotland disguised as an interview.

    So far we have had Mr Rennie a couple of times giving his response to something or other. DRoss has been on and this week Sir Keir stating that the Covid-19 response was nothing to write home about and the Scottish NHS was imploding because of lack of support. Can’t remember if the Labour guy, what’s his name has been on.

    A couple of minutes each night to spout rubbish unchallenged.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Are we going to see the BBC in London inviting Sir Keith Starmer to rebut government statements regarding public health policies?
    I won’t be holding my breath on that one.
    The Westminster establishment and it’s proxies here in Scotland view our democratically elected government as a rebel organisation which has no legitimacy in their eyes.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. The polished t*rd that is DRoss is so no up to any job that requires actual
    intelligent dialogue. He has been plonked in place purely because he can be polished, for some reason, maybe they could not find anyone else, and he is just another nasty Tory thug. He reminds me of the polished t*rd the US installed in Venezuela to try oust the democratically elected leader of the majority party, Maduro. These people are paid highly, and expected to do the job they are trained for, suspect it’s an or else situation, in DRoss case, you won’t be getting near another job in politics nor a seat in the HOL’s if you don’t come up to scratch!
    He is trying, lol, but more, the state controlled media (including the pretendy lefty Guardian) have the golden boy on a pedestal, it’s truly sickening how they control the narrative, but heartening that it’s not working out for them, so far.

    Like

  6. Why can’t BBC Scotland’s Douglas Fraser just write the words ‘Douglas Ross was wrong’?

    In an article on the BBC News Scotland website dated 17 October, its business/economy editor, Douglas Fraser examines the claim by Tory Douglas Ross on BBC Question Time that a sum of £700m provided by Westminster to the Scottish Government is for business support and it is not being passed on by the Scottish Government (SG) for that purpose. You may recall this was refuted by the SG’s Kate Forbes.

    Source https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-54583106

    Mr Fraser examines the competing positions and provides (IMHO) a rambling account that – as shown below – essentially fails to substantiate, at the very least, Mr Ross’ claim whilst working hard to avoid actually saying so!

    Mr Fraser sets out the background. The SG’s finance secretary announced on 9 October £40m to help business through the October restrictions. On the same day the UK Chancellor amended his winter plan with the promise of grants to firms required to close down for infection control measures. At that time he announced £1.3bn additional money to be shared between the Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont governments, with Scotland’s share being £700m

    Mr Ross claimed that the SG is failing to help Scotland’s businesses with the £700m it was given by the Treasury. So the question posed by Mr Fraser in his article is: “.. is that £700m for business support, as Douglas Ross seemed to be arguing when on BBC One’s Question Time?”

    Whilst it is up to the Scottish government to decide how to allocate any such ‘consequential’ funding, regarding this £700m Mr Fraser notes: “… it is derived from a Scottish share of several allocations of newly borrowed funds to English spending priorities.” (You may need to read his phrase two or three times to ponder what Mr Fraser is telling us and what relevant information he is leaving out in the context of this article!)

    To me this seems like a ‘weaselly’ way of saying it is NOT a consequence of just additional funding allocated for business support in England. And if the £700m is NOT a consequential transfer from a business support fund only, then surely Ross’ claim has been shown here by Mr Fraser to be wrong? Given the question he poses initially, why does Mr Fraser shy away from saying so?

    And then Mr Fraser adds: “It is rarely made clear how that (i.e. additional funding from Westminster for Scotland) is derived, and it has become less clear since the Treasury started funding Covid crisis measures by raiding other unspent Whitehall budgets. The more they do that, the less consequence through Barnett.”

    So if it is ‘unclear’ how the funding is derived and if the Westminster government is viring funds in ways which avoid consequentials, how can the Tory government and the claims of the Tory leader in Scotland in terms of consequential funding be substantiated and held to account? Mr Fraser shies away from drawing the obvious conclusion.

    It gets clearer and clearer as we read through the article what Mr Fraser has found: e.g. “So far, a very large share of that extra funding has gone into matching England’s additional health service costs, for test and trace, which is costing an eye-watering amount, and personal protective equipment for those most vulnerable to infected people.”

    So would consequential funding for Scotland not have similar diverse calls upon it? Does this assessment not again suggest that Mr Ross’ claim that all of the £700m derives from just a business support fund is at best unsubstantiated if not plain wrong? Why does Mr Fraser not conclude explicitly that he has been unable to justify Ross’ claim?

    And then he adds: “A much smaller amount is associated with England’s business grants scheme. And big sums are required to subsidise bus and rail operators, for whom the current constraints on passenger numbers is leaving them with big losses”. He then surely he nails it in terms of negating Mr Ross’ claim: “Rishi Sunak has not said how much his grant scheme for businesses will cost.”

    But having framed his article in a way that set out to answer the question “…. is that £700m for business support, as Douglas Ross seemed to be arguing when on BBC One’s Question Time?” And despite in various, albeit oblique ways telling us, in terms, that either it has not been possible to substantiate Ross’ claim or that it is just wrong, Mr Fraser ends by diverting away from making a judgement on Mr Ross’ assertion on Question Time to answer a rather different – and a much less pointed, perhaps ‘safer’ for him – question.

    He says: “That makes it impossible to say if the £40m allocated by the Scottish government is more or less generous than the English one, as it only covers this month.”
    



    Like

    1. As aside, in his article Mr Fraser writes: “When the Prime Minister speaks to the nation, it turns out his message is only for one of four parts of the nation.”

      Mr Fraser is employed by the public service broadcaster whose Charter (page 52) states: “.. consider the need for the BBC to reflect, represent and serve audiences taking into account the needs of the diverse communities of the United Kingdom’s nations and regions”. And elsewhere (page 54): “Ofcom must impose on the BBC the requirements they consider appropriate, having regard to the needs of the nations and regions”. Words, and in particular plurals, have meaning and have importance here!

      Moreover the BBC Editorial Guidance has many references to a UK consisting of multiple nations e.g. “Content producers outside Scotland and Wales should inform the Director of the relevant nation in writing of their plans to produce programme material which significantly deals with national issues or themes, or which is based in the relevant nation.”

      How long has Mr Fraser worked for the BBC? Does he still not know how his employer is constituted, how it is operationally structured, and the nature of its editorial guidance? Does he not realise that implicit or explicit reference to a ‘one nation’ UK is now a partisan political message? Does he not know where he is?











      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.