Reporting Scotland ploughing its own narrow nationalist furrow

The BBC Scotland Business website, with some readers I feel sure, did headline the dramatic letter from Scotland’s food and drink sector, criticising the UK/Australia trade deal but Reporting Scotland last night, on the very day the letter is published, as often before, ignores a story that does not fit their hardcore loyalism and the nurturing of their uniquely elderly and conservative audience, essential to the No vote.

It’s hard to see the inconsistency between the website and broadcasts as anything other than political.

Imagine the same group had criticised the Scottish Government and the opposition parties were then able to blame the SNP for something? It would be the top story all day, at the very least.

Headlining unsubstantiated opposition accusations that young people are being ‘cheated’ by the schools assessment system, supposed concerns about the fan zones for Euro 2020 ignoring the clear-cut evidence that events outside offer far less risk and digging up anxieties about pregnancy and the vaccines, they find no time for the letter signed by 14 key players in the industry :

Image
Image
Image

What could be more newsworthy? Look a the list of signatories.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is untitled-28.png

14 thoughts on “Reporting Scotland ploughing its own narrow nationalist furrow

  1. Sheep and whisky, that’s all Scotland has to sell. With your tiny crofts, what you complaining about, be grateful we great British, very generous neighbours, are helping you sell your tartan sheep and cheap whisky! Where would you be without us, baaaa.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. The Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (SSPO) did not sign this letter: presumably imports from Australia have no direct consequences for its sector.

        However, the SSPO is commenting currently on the negative fallouts from Brexit. In this it is joining a growing chorus of business sectors in Scotland. Here are some of the Brexit negatives pointed to by the SSPO in this press release: https://www.scottishsalmon.co.uk/news/business/scottish-salmon-exports-hit-new-eu-high

        First the good news: ‘Figures compiled by the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (SSPO) from information supplied by all of Scotland’s salmon producers reveal that 19,410 tonnes of Scottish salmon, worth more than £100 million, were exported to the EU in Q1 of this year.’

        Then the but: ‘Intense competition in the marketplace however means that while volumes are up, values did not increase at a corresponding rate.’

        And it points to the efforts required to mitigate Brexit: ‘The figures highlight the resilience of the Scottish salmon farming sector and reflect the extensive preparation and additional resources the sector allocated to BEST MAINTAIN the smooth and efficient supply process it PREVIOUSLY ENJOYED.’ (my emphasis)

        ‘Tavish Scott, Chief Executive of the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (SSPO) said that additional bureaucracy, paperwork, delays and confusion arising from Brexit have left salmon farmers INCURRING COSTS of at least £11 MILLION ….’ Aka ‘unnecessary costs’!

        ‘Mr Scott said: “Salmon farmers REMAIN VULNERABLE to the PROBLEMS CAUSED BY Brexit. Export volumes to the EU may well be up for the first quarter of the year but INCREASED DELAYS in getting products to our EU markets HAVE KEPT VALUES LOW.’

        Lower value for what should be a premium product in a key export market; increased red tape for exporters; increased operating costs: the big net additional Brexit benefits for Scotland’s businesses are lurking somewhere, surely – but where?

        Diageo and its peers will grow their Australian market for Scotch at an even faster rate (see my comment elsewhere in this thread) – so that’s reassuring!

        Like

  2. I was interested to find how the ‘Scottish Farmer’ was covering this letter from industry leaders in Scotland. Couldn’t find anything (may be too early) but did find an article it published on 10 June under the headline: ‘Australian trade deal – whisky boost merits beef risk’. ‘Nice’ example of framing there!

    What follows are some extracts from this source: https://www.thescottishfarmer.co.uk/news/19362822.whisky-boost-merits-beef-risk/

    “A UK-AUSTRALIA trade deal could bring a major boost for Scotch whisky producers with the removal of the current 5% tariff on whisky exports.”

    “Mounting a spirited defence of the Department for International Trade’s ‘no barriers, no tariffs’ negotiating stance, UK Minister for Exports, Graham Stuart, visited Diageo’s Glenkinchie Distillery, near Edinburgh, last week, and insisted that Scottish farmers COULD ONLY GAIN from unrestricted trade with Australia.” (my emphasis)

    “Our assessment is that any increase in Australian beef coming here as a result of a new trade deal is more likely to displace the EU beef we currently import, as opposed to UK beef, ..”

    “Why are Scottish farmers worried?” asked Mr Stuart. “The meat market in the EU is expected to drop. If you want a future for your son or daughter on the farm, look to the fastest growing markets of the world!”

    And then we get an insight into the self-interest (again?) of the big drinks corporates!

    ‘Scotch Whisky Association chief executive, Karen Betts, commented: “Over the last 10 years, exports of Scotch Whisky to Australia have almost doubled. But they’re subject to a 5% tariff which we’d very much like to see removed, which would help to boost growth in our industry’s 8th largest global market.”

    So, not for the first time, we learn that whilst STILL WITHIN THE EU Scottish exports beyond the EU single market have faired well and in a ‘fast growing market’ – almost doubled in 10 years we’re told by Ms Betts – and amazingly, even with a 5% tariff barrier!

    So the Tories are using the benefits to Diageo to persuade us – and the readers of the Scottish Farmer – that all will be well. It is Westminster’s assessment of risks and of the trade-offs between Diageo’s interests and those of Scotland’s farmers that MUST hold sway. An that’s more than likely true due to our lack of agency!

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Did DRossy not become the spokesperson for Scotland’s farmers?
    “I’m for Boris, so you’re for Boris” (and the wondrous benefits of Brexit) or words to that effect.

    And, of course, Repressing Scotland gets its news from the absentee SoS, “Farmer Jack”. No?

    Like

  4. Off piste, but highly relevant:–

    OLD 1941 Atlantic Charter, article 3–
    “all people have a right to self-determination”.

    NEW 2021 Atlantic Charter, third part—
    “We remain united behind the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the peaceful resolution resolution of disputes”.

    Churchill detested the anti-colonial wording of the first Charter (he was forced to sign up to get US war support), but Boris has rectified this, by disappearing “self-determination”, so as to hold onto his anti-democratic position on Scotland, England’s first colony……………
    “We have catch’d Scotland a now we must bind her fast”.

    Like

  5. re. the removal of self-determination from the Atlantic Charter. Brexit represents an attack on democracy, as well as an attack on international law and order. Have no fear though, the SNP are hobbling Scots law so that it is powerless as a tool of defense against English Torydum. And you now risk imprisonment for defending a scientific world view. I telt you we were being fitted up to slip seamlessly into a state of totalitarianism.

    Finding International Law:
    Rethinking the Doctrine of Sources
    http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1935&context=fac_artchop

    Liked by 1 person

  6. If law and public policy hopes to support justice, it needs to be historically rooted, as well as sensitive to biology and aesthetic experience. So you’re simply on to plumbs if you live in Scotland, as neither Westminster nor it’s creation Holyrood, approach the law in a manner that respects material reality and international law.

    A hypothetical neurological association between dehumanization and human rights abuses
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5034371/

    Like

  7. “If law and public policy hopes to support justice, it needs to be historically rooted, as well as sensitive to biology and aesthetic experience.”

    At least that’s the way I understand things, as otherwise, law and public policy becomes divorced from public reason and democratic legitimacy (see Brexit).

    On the history of joining bio with semio: F. S. Rothschild and the biosemiotic rules
    http://www.zbi.ee/~kalevi/kull27.htm

    Like

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.