I hesitate to say so because I don’t want to continue a hostile debate, but one of the consequences of not writing clearly enough is that it gives readers side tracks to run down. I accept this is my failure to explain myself. God knows I should get it right after 48 years.
First, I am not dictating anything. Can’t. Have no such intention…When I write words like: what we need to do, it’s me saying this is my personal opinion. It’s on my blog so that should be taken as read. I think some action or other might be a better approach and it’s something we can think about. I do not claim to be right. I do not claim authority over others who must pursue their objectives as they see fit.
I did not and do not say there is no bias at the BBC. But I am pointing out that many No voters don’t see bias, at least not in the blatant, one-eyed way many Yessers do. And I’m trying to understand the doubters’ perspective. It seems anyone questioning the deeply-held belief, that the BBC skews its coverage in one direction, is now treated like a heretic. Yet the inability to see another man’s point of view is a blindness that endangers our plans. The fury behind this is revealing and rather makes my point. Angry yelps of outrage at online headlines or throwaway words in live broadcasting – or maybe reacting to a weak interview – don’t impress swithering No voters that we are sensible and rational people ready to run a country.
The piece above here says we should not stop pointing out deficiencies and contradictions and things that look eerily like imbalance. It is this very ability that is the hallmark of Stuart Campbell who has made possibly the most influential contribution to the campaign of one individual outside the realms of payroll politics.
What I am doubting is the worth of a relentless barrage of BBC bias material to sway swing voters. As Angela Haggerty says, it also implies No folk aren’t clever enough to work it out for themselves…not a winning message, instead an insulting one. In fact, I credit them in the previous blog with the intelligence to assess both arguments and make up their mind based on the evidence. And it was on the hard evidence that we failed. So a nuts and bolts economic plan (coming to a studio near you soon – perhaps) should be accompanied by voices that make them welcome. Voters like to be lured, not grabbed by the throat.
I understand that many, probably most, No voters won’t switch, including the army of confirmed British nationalists who know who they are and what they want – and whom I respect for their conviction. I suspect many comments are aimed at this bloc of die-hards who are lost to us and will remain so. However, I’m talking about those who are sometimes looking for a reason to support independence and yet allow themselves to see only the negatives. A group of shrill voices claiming injustice and distracted by resentment – for that is how it can seem – gives them reason not to move over. At least it’s one reason.
And it doesn’t mean dull. The energy is needed and so is the colour but, at the risk of trivialising the cause, a marketing man would demand a change of tone and some new ideas before a product relaunch.
There is something in Doug Daniel’s question: Are we fighting against the BBC or are we fighting for independence? There is a glittering prize to be won and, make no mistake, when John Curtice opines that Scotland could assume the UK’s EU membership, its gleam is upon us. I want to be dazzled by the great prize, not blinded by resentment.
The first referendum was an emotional affair of the heart. (It wasn’t for No voters). That was indyref1 when we needed to give people the confidence in our country and belief in themselves. That was achieved. Now we need to demonstrate competence and rationality to cope with the technocratic issues of EU engagement, trade relations, currency and economic development. That I think is the key to winning next time. We’ve had the nationalist referendum. Now it’s time for the utilitarian referendum.by