By Anonymous
Well here is another major problem with the BBC.
Statements from panel members on BBC QT that go unchallenged by the host.
Yet she, Fiona Bruce, often has notes that she refers to in order to challenge politicians on their answers, as obviously she is aware of what Q’s will be asked and so what topics will be discussed.
If she, Fiona Bruce, is unaware of the veracity of what is being said by a panel member then she should ask that person making the statement to provide proof via either providing stats or examples to verify their statement.
However we often see her, Fiona Bruce, sit on her hands and zip up her mouth, when Pro UK politicians on the panel make unfounded statements about Scotland to try and score a political point against the Scottish government (SNP).
I really think either someone from the Scottish Water board or/and from the Scottish government should publicly challenge Steve Reed’s assertion on our nationalised water when he said “and the’ve got the same pollution issues as England”.
You and I and many others know if that were really the case then , like Ferries, the condemnation and the series of both new and regurgitated stories via BBC Scotland news teams would be relentless.
I have yet to hear anyone, residents or visitors, in Scotland say they cannot, like in England, swim in rivers in Scotland as they are full of sewage.
Perhaps the public water champion in England Feargal Sharkey could take Steve Reed, and the Tory on the panel , to task on this. If , that is, even he is aware of the quality of Scottish water in public places. Or does he too see it as a UK wide problem.
No one is saying everything in Scotland is perfect but why is it English MP’s think they can comment on something they have absolutely no first hand knowledge of and really are only declaring something to be true to save their own embarrassment, in this case, it is the disgraceful state of their own country’s (England) contaminated public waterways.
Is this another example of when something is identified as bad in England it then becomes #UKBAD.
Yet when it is something they, media and politicians, declare as bad in Scotland then Scotland must take full ownership and never is it to be seen as a UK wide problem.
Someone should tell Steve Reed that with him trying to “excuse” the privatisation (and profits ) of Private English water companies obvious bad service (profit before people) in him attacking the nationalisation of Water in Scotland being supposdley just as bad as in England.
Then that is not a ‘Get out of Jail card’ for him as a minister in the new Labour government , or for the Tory on the panel with the previous Tory government or indeed the private Water companies in England who provide water and ‘sewage’ services (in fact more sewage than water it seems) and obviously are failing at doing the job well for English people.
I am absolutely sick to the back teeth of all of their sh*te, no pun intended.
Another complaint to the BBC which should be another one then put on the list within their Corrections and clarification section of their website.
However if we truly truly truly had real Scottish TV news channels and widespread actual Scottish newspapers, all supportive of Scotland, then it would be on the ‘news where we are’ condemning what Steve Reed said and declaring his , and also the Tory on the panel, statements on QT as a false equivalence aka lies.
As England’s mismanaged privatised water is not in any way comparable or equal to Scotland’s nationalised water where the quality of our water is not the one within the UK that is being questioned or attacked as being extremely #BAD.
Apart from , that is, always being questioned and attacked from pro UK politicians like Labour’s Steve Reed and others via different pro UK political parties whose only response upon anything from Scotland is always #SNPBAD.
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
I noticed Reed say that about Scottish Water being the same had me shouting LIAR at the TV and as you say no correction from Bruce or that no dividends payed put.
Its BBC all over.
LikeLiked by 6 people
There is a difference between English Water and Scottish Water, the former supplies water and dividends, the later supplies water.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Indeed John.
Then there is also the “difference between” how Scotland is seen and treated by Pro UK politicians and by those other politicians supportive of independence.
The former promotes lies , negativity and propaganda against Scotland while the latter promotes Scotland in a positive light as a country , both to the rest of the World , but also to the rest of the UK too.
LikeLiked by 3 people
So if they are not paying dividends it would be reasonable to assume that all profits are available to be ploughed back into the system e.g. for the major new sewerage installation along the Tay in Perth!
LikeLike
Edit : The former supplies water, dividends and many (unwanted) extras, the latter supplies water.
LikeLike
Can’t put my hands on it right now, but there’s a video of Feargal Sharkey making a fool of himself over sewage in Scottish lochs – Loch Ness from memory.
He was with some nonentity of a unionist MSP pointing it out on a map – and getting it wrong. Unless Loch Ness actually does start at Falkirk, that is…
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Can’t put my hands on it right now, but there’s a video of Feargal Sharkey making a fool of himself over sewage in Scottish lochs”
Aye namorrodor, and he also made a fool of himself in promoting Labour as being the best party to vote for in the last GE.
That is because prior to the GE he was so so so confident that Labour would fix the mess of the Private water companies contamination of public waterways in England (or perhaps he noted “in the UK” too) but after the GE he now says “Labour has no plan to fix ‘UK’ rivers”.
So he is another one who sees #BAD in England as then being #BADInTheWholeUK.
The INews did an article in August 2024, as in after the GE, where Feargal Sharkey said that “Labour has no real plan to tackle the sewage crisis damaging Britain’s rivers” .
So once again even he , a supposed authority and champion against how and where private water companies are contaminating rivers etc (in England) , assumes what is happening in England (via privatised water) must then also be happening in Scotland (via nationalised water).
Or is he yet another clueless person who lives in England but assumes Scotland is exactly the same as England.
Or is it a case of England , yet again, being seen as synonymous with the UK.
The rule seems to be never ever ever ever can Scotland be seen to be distinct from England or considered to be far better at anything than England.
However England can often be used as a template and referred to as an example in the UK of something positive or good that Scotland is recommended to follow.
(Scotland Tonight last week asked “Should Scotland do the same” when noting the Labour Health Secretary stating that if the English public shared their experiences on the NHS, they then could help fix the NHS).
Scotland Tonight promotes that it presents the news from a “Scottish perspective” well the above example proves otherwise as in them asking whether we , Scotland, should follow England’s example , that then has a very pro English perspective way of thinking , from what is supposed to be the ‘news where we are’.
So here is a Q why does the whole of England not follow Scotland’s example on reducing Knife crime instead of them pretending they , UK politicians and media , are flummoxed as to how to find a solution to what is the increase in and also constant tragic deaths of young people in England from Knife related crimes.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Well said.
Yet another example, and one that really irks me, is the Scottish Government’s plans to ban disposable vapes from April next year – England said no, we have to implement it in June as that’s when they implement theirs.
Why do we have to fall in line with them – why can’t they fall in line with us?
And why on earth did the Scottish Government just cave in without a whimper?
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m sick of picking these things up from my front door and garden I cannot wait till they are banned only thing anyone can do is put them in a landfill or take them to a shop that has a battery recycling bin. If the original owners weren’t so lazy there probably wouldn’t be a ban so in this case lazy ass users are the problem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Why do we have to fall in line with them” ?
Why indeed, yet we are supposed to believe that if Anas Sarwar wins in 2026 then a miracle will occur between the two parliaments, UK and Scottish one.
That is where supposedly things that previously the Scottish government, under the SNP, were not “allowed” to do or had to fall in line with the rest of the UK , then that would totally change if Labour were the new Scottish government.
Suddenly the ‘UK Internal Market’, also the one system required for immigration throughout the UK and many other decisions and policies would be referred to as being possible to change and be able to be ‘unique and separate’ in Scotland to the rest of the UK if Labour won the 2026.
That is they, as promises, would be declared as such in the election campaign by Anas Sarwar and the Labour party (as is that not what they did in the campaign for the recent GE on behalf of Labour UK).
God forbid, but if they, Labour, won in 2026, we would then see Labour at Holyrood emulate what Labour at WM have done and that is to declare that the “changes” planned by them are unable to be implemented because of the previous party in charge. (as in the mess left behind etc etc).
This is now textbook behaviour by Labour, where they make pledges and promises in their election campaigns , then if they win , the public sees either nowt happen or the opposite happen. (think 2014 in Scotland where what Labour told us would happen and what actually happened if we voted NO).
BTW I met a former colleague yesterday and we got talking about work etc and then he said “What about Labour then, God big mistake voting them in wasn’t it” to which I responded ” I didn’t vote for them as I knew they were liars”.
He then said “They’ve no chance getting in as government here in 2026”.
I said “Well that depends whether people here are willing to still be gullible and believe their lies”.
He said “Nah they’ve blown it. People only voted for them to get the Tories out but we seem have to elected a worse party than the Tories”
I truly hope many many others also concur with my ex colleague, who was not one who ever seemed interested in politics when I worked with him or ever formerly engaged in many discussions on politics and on the weaknesses or flaws of any political party.
Mind you his saying “big mistake voting them in wasn’t it” and also “we seem have to elected a worse party than the Tories” was a tad presumptuous of him in assuming that I too would have done , what I assumed he himself had done based on what he was saying, as in I think he must have voted for Labour, and now he has buyers remorse.
Hope in Scotland that buyers remorse is widespread with all who voted Labour in the recent GE here in Scotland to then put ,at last , the final nail in Labour’s political coffin here in Scotland.
Where , as a political party , they will then be way beyond resuscitation in Scotland so will never be able to still fool some either ‘some of the time or all of the time’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Since we are talking Labour party here then some home truths might be appropriate.
I saw this via a very good pro Indy Twitter a/c – as in Tradasro twitter account :
“19 years ago (Oct 2005), BP sold their Grangemouth assets to Ineos. The local Labour MP, Michael Connarty, claimed the sale was good news for the area and for Scotland. Unions had warned about asset-stripping & Pat Rafferty said only time will tell whether it’s good or bad news”
Also tweeted by them Tradasro :
“Losing Grangemouth means jobs gone at Scotland’s national fuel storage on the west coast at the Finnart Oil Terminal. Loss of a vital cross-country fuel supply pipeline – now, why would a Chinese state company want to do that”?
Can anyone verify or expand on this ?
I do know that prior to the UK GE the Labour Candidate for that constituency, Brian Leishman, who then won that seat had formerly stated via a tweet that :
“The SNP have done nothing. Only voting @ScottishLabour on 4th July can save the jobs at the Grangemouth refinery”
Now after the GE, and to save face, he was castigating the Labour party for reneging on a promise made and assured to be the case (also by him as well) prior to the GE.
BTW also attached to Leishman’s tweet was a video of him and Anas Sarwar.
In the video Sarwar stated this:
“one of those crucial parts of change is building that transition hub here in Grangemouth. That’s why we want to work directly with the workforce, the representative trade Unions and the companies to protect the jobs of the future”
Brian Leishman added in that video these comments:
“With the Labour government we are committed to investing in Grangemouth and making it the site for the future”
“The future” ?
Well fast forward and now Brian Leishman, the newly elected Labour MP for Grangemouth, tweeted on 20 October 2024
” Ineos are to close the Grangemouth refinery and put thousands out of work. And at the same time they benefit from taxpayer money. It’s all wrong”
Wait what about Labour UK’s supposed part in this, Anas Sarwar’s promises and also your promises too for jobs in the future for workers at Grangemouth Brian , but only if a Labour UK government were elected by Scotland in the GE , and especially in that Grangemouth constituency ?
Labour a Parcel of rogues ?
Seems very much so based on this and a number of other examples !
LikeLiked by 6 people
They f’n knew what they about to do to Scotland’s oil refinery, these England HQ’d LabCONS in Scotland are really pulling the wool over peoples’ eyes in Scotland and by christ if they take control of Holyrood the first thing they will do is sell off Scottish Water. Then they will reverse every single policy that the SNP have introduced to alleviate the EngUK regimes’ disgusting austerity assault on the poorest, just starting to repair some of the damage to Scotland after decades and even centuries of neglect, holding Scotland back to say the very least, while enriching the city of London and south of England while taking Scotland’s vast oil revenues to the tune of £trillions over the past few decades.
You could hardly make it up.
The BBC is a massive benefit for England’s government, many people forced by fear, to pay the ‘license fee’, so thereby watching the propaganda day in day out, brainwashed into accepting the lies about Scotland and the SNP. Scotland’s resources are huge, oil, renewables, and of course WATER, as well as essential minerals in the diverse Scottish rocks and you can bet there are companies chomping at the bit to get their greedy hands on that, the integrity of the environment would not be a barrier to fracking and massive mining, should any England HQ’d party take control of Holyrood.
As you mention China, they are known to take control and secure contracts in other countries, to mine their way around and make massive profits, (yes they are now almost green but mine other countries to kingdom come). No doubt they have come to an agreement with the EngGBUK gov, as the oil companies did in the run up to the independence referendum in winding down the oil industry to creat a completely false narrative to fool people into believing the oil was ‘running out’, was it heck, quite the opposite.
The EngGov (yes it’s at their behest) closing down of Grangemouth is a VERY sinister move, it’s political, as is the fake BBC’s narrative that Scottish Water is as sh*te as England’s privatised water when it most certainly is not.
Wake up people, and those who are awake do everything you can to wake those who are asleep, up, because Scotland will be destroyed if an English HQ’d party takes control at Holyrood in 2026, it’s not far off.
I hope the SNP start campaigning as soon as they can, give them £’s to do folks, they really will need it!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scottish water exported the world over.
London water recycled many times
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well said ArtyHetty.
Especially “many people forced by fear, to pay the ‘license fee’, so thereby watching the propaganda day in day out, brainwashed“.
That is exactly the position, paying someone to lie to you, with some too frightened not to pay for fear of what they, the BBC, say will be the consequences.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sourced this from Johnny Dundee’s twitter account:
“Which of these The Herald headlines (from today and from May 20th 2024) do you think pro-UK Government British nationalists in Scotland will find more pleasing”?
After reading both you will know the answer to that Q.
Brian Donnelly , apparently an “award winning” correspondent with The Herald, tweeted in reference to a Herald article today:
“Two-thirds of Scottish firms believe the SNP administration does not understand the business environment in Scotland”
Then in May 2024 the same Herald newspaper , via their Business Editor Ian McConnell , wrote an article headed:
“Scotland premier destination for investors as it keeps coveted UK spot”
The cringe seems a tad strong with Brian and may also be strong with some Scottish businesses too apparently.
Brian refers to the Scottish government as the “SNP administration” giving us a clue to his contempt for the SNP and also for our devolved government too.
Meanwhile it seems those Investors outwith Scotland believe in Scotland more as a better place to invest and do business with than some of the homegrown ‘Scottish’ businesses.
So do they ,as Investors, also then think that the SNP, as the Scottish government, do not understand business but somehow they , as investors, keep investing in Scotland ? (A mystery for sure and not one Brian Donnelly wants to solve).
Of course I assume then that all of these “Scottish businesses” are thriving post Brexit and so they think perhaps that pro Brexit Labour or the pro Brexit Tory party will , with retaining Brexit for the whole UK, “understand the business environment in Scotland far better than the SNP , who were and still are , very much against Brexit for Scotland”.
I mean that contradicts many reports that I have read about the negative impact of Brexit on many Scottish businesses , including higher costs, loss of EU Staff, excessive paperwork aka Red tape, loss of customers from the EU, difficulty sourcing materials and spare parts from the EU, increased waiting times for materials and parts from the EU etc etc
Also here was me thinking that the Daily Express was the King of conflicting headlines where they are often seen to contradict themselves in past and present headlines.
Now The Herald is closing the gap with them in their conflicting news on “investors choosing Scotland as the premier destination within the UK to invest” while 5 months down the line they write that Scottish businesses beg to differ.
Who to believe.
Well that’s not hard is it ?
LikeLiked by 5 people
I see Keir Starmer is now defining what he says, or thinks, is a working person.
In what is almost a ‘Know they place’ message from him.
Apparently you cannot be defined as a “working person” if you are a shareholder.
Well that’s news to me and my husband and I am sure thousands of other ‘workers’.
Because both of our employers (and others too) started up a shareholder scheme when we, as working people, worked for them as employees.
(So I am assuming then that whoever thought up this ridiculous idea within Labour , that they themselves have never been a “working man or woman” and know nothing of Employer shareholder schemes? )
In these hard times we are lucky as shareholders , as twice a year we get dividends from having these shares , which at least pays far more than any interest on savings we have, as the banks that we save with have failed to increase the interest rates on our savings, as in the same banks that increased the interest rates on borrowing, many many times.
(Also the same Banks that Labour have decided not to cap their bonuses, so that they, unlike the “working man”, will not suffer hardship but instead reap additional profits because of a UK government willing to look the other way).
A BBC article via UK politics on their website wrote ” Labour promised at the general election not to increase taxes on working people – but the party did not define who it had in mind”
Well who did they have in mind as those defined as a “working man” ?
Because times have changed and working people are now allowed to have those things that many many years ago were outwith their reach. (Such as having shares, stocks and also owning more than one property).
The BBC adds that “The prime minister insists working people will not be hit by these changes – but he has struggled to define who exactly he is seeking to protect from tax rises”
(Well it seems clear he intends mostly to protect those who donated large donations to Labour , and who are definitely not within the category of those defined as “working men and women”, but one could easily define as being the more wealthy within the UK, where any increase in tax , such as a wealth tax, would impact them very much).
The BBC continued in their article in stating:
“In an interview during a Commonwealth leaders’ summit, the prime minister was asked whether those who work, but get additional income from assets such as shares or property, would count as working people”
“He replied that they “wouldn’t come within my definition” – but warned against making “assumptions” about what that meant for tax policy”
“He said he thought of a working person as someone who “goes out and earns their living, usually paid in a sort of monthly cheque” and who can’t “write a cheque to get out of difficulties”.
“Speaking afterwards, his spokesman sought to clarify that those with a “small amount of savings” could still be defined as working people”
(Really ? only defined as working people if you have a small amount of savings. What about those who have a larger amount in savings through redundancy packages or retirement packages with lump sums involved. How patronising are Labour ?)
“This could include cash savings, or stocks and shares in a tax-free Individual Savings Accounts (ISA), he (the spokesperson) suggested”
“But ministers have been reluctant to translate these comments into numbers”
This is the Labour party now , who seem desperate to use any excuse not to increase taxes on the more wealthy , even telling working people that they can only be defined as working people if they fall into set categories of what and who Labour defines as being working people.
Meanwhile needy and poorer pensioners , WASPI women and those still suffering from the two child cap still being in place , all thanks to Labour , are then those who Labour, not only does not want to try to ‘define’ , but also it seems does not want to help.
“Labour ministers have not ruled out continuing to freeze income tax thresholds beyond 2028, a policy they inherited from the Conservatives, dragging more people into higher bands over time as wages rise with inflation”
(“Inherited from the Tories and so intend to keep ?).
Labour the party for the few not for the many (as in the working man and woman).
LikeLiked by 3 people
*Know they place ????
Obviously I meant “Know thy place”
Predictive text is at times very handy but then , if at times it is unnoticed, it is also a pain in the you know where.
I could pretend the above was the non working man’s way of saying that quote or as being pronounced by a non working man.
However I will just admit that I did not even notice that “thy” had been replaced by “they”.
Duh !
LikeLike
I think what gets me most is the sheer arrogance of it all – The public and electorate are mere playthings to government and it’s attendant media, “the news where you are” is now writ large, theatre…
As has been regularly observed elsewhere, Fiona Bruce not only has notes prepared in advance for the known questions to be called, but has on several occasions had a question of her own quite notably for a Scottish Minister… And do remember Bruce is not out there in front of camera on her own as is the schtick, she has an entire team in back feeding information through her earpiece, and undoubtedly plants in the audience ready for a signal absent the ‘orange jaiket’…
QT has long been political theatre – Despite my remaining politically agnostic, I felt increasingly offended of late as QT platformed inanities such as the ‘Tufton Street’ brigade or Farage or TAM Oakeshot types without challenge, yet Scottish Ministers hit the programme’s tripwire before they could even address the audience question.
I haven’t watched QT for ages, but I can almost guarantee when Steven Reed talked shite over Scotland’s pollution on QT in Plymouth, every member of the panel would have followed the script and nodded in agreement…. That’s theatre…
LikeLike
I think we should be way passed the point where we condemn government for raising taxes under the false premis that unless the government does this it won’t have enough revenue to fund its budget spends. This is clearly a lie and has been shown to be a lie multiple times.
Raising taxes for those least able to pay it is to ‘ cause harm ‘, create fear and doubt, increase poverty and the narrative fuels the perception that even limited services can’t be paid for without huge sacrifices demanded of the public. Kids go to school hungry, rents can’t be paid, oldies freeze, crime rockets and debt soars.
It’s insidious, it’s callous and it’s evil.
Golfnut
LikeLiked by 1 person
a few years ago, when Jeremy Corbyn was Labour leader they asked for my vote to allow them to bring the U.K.’s water supply back into public ownership. My recollection is that there was an outline of the U.K. mainland included.
I replied to them, saying that I fully supported this policy, as I thought that all utilities should be in public ownership and, as proof, they would be aware that Scotland’s water was in public ownership and performing much better than any of the privatised companies – less pollution, more investment and lower prices to consumers.
They didn’t reply to this, despite a couple of reminders that I expected them to (I can be a persistent PIA as John may remember). They threw away any chance of getting my vote – nonexistent, but they wouldn’t know that.
I suspect that the mere fact that I pointed out a “Scotland Good/England bad” fact proved to them that I was never going to vote for them and it wasn’t worth engaging with me. (They were correct, as it happens.)
A more confident party, with less hatred towards the independence movement would not have needed me to remind them. They would have been using Scottish Water as an argument for public ownership. But that would have implied that Scotland was doing something better than the rest of the U.K.
LikeLike