Comments (0)

Leave a Reply to Doug Daniel Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Siôn Jones says:

    Paxo is worth every penny! 100 new SNP members following the program!

  2. Paxman and the BBC are a complete and utter joke, but it’s hardly suprising the BBC seem to have a policy of political bias against the SNP. Sadly I am sure we will see more and more examples of this in the run up to 2014. The BBC seem to forget that Scots have to pay the same licence fee as elsewhere in the UK therefore we are entitled to unbiased reporting.

  3. Welsh Sion (the other one) says:

    As I mentioned in another place – Pacman, a yellow open-mouthed greedy little monster, eating all the sweeties and still wanting more, lost in a (devo/indy) maze and beset by nasty, naughty cybernat ghoulies and ghosties.

    When confronted by humour (Alex Salmond) or cold, hard facts (Dr Eurfyl ap Gwilym) Paxo gets stuffed… 🙂

    More power to his (and the other Jeremys’ – Clarkson and Kyle) elbow in being recruiting sergeants for Scottish independence – and eventually ours in Wales too!

  4. David McCann says:

    I thought Gerry Hassan summed it up very well.
    “Paxman’s ‘interview’ with Alex Salmond on ‘Newsnight’ was one characterised by Paxman’s condescending, metropolitan media elite disdain for Salmond and Scottish independence (11). Paxman was clearly indignant at the positivity and optimism of Salmond’s Hugo Young lecture, and his call for Scotland to be ‘a beacon for progressives’, using this to invite a comparison between Scotland and Zimbabwe, and then following this, to sink even lower, comparing Salmond and Mugabe.”
    Read the rest here.
    http://www.gerryhassan.com/blog/the-battle-for-britain-a-note-for-independistas-and-anti-independistas/

  5. colm says:

    That’s actually not Paxman, it’s the latest model of a dual-use Paxman/Clarkson hybrid Cyborg presenter the BBC are testing when both these titans of broadcasting inevitably shuffle off the stage.

    It’s actually doing quite well considering the fact that in early testing the word “Mugabe” just triggered an override on the Clarkson subroutine into ripping its jeans off and windmilling it’s cock around shouting “GORDON BROWN GORDON BROWN HAS NO EYES, NON STOP FROWN”

    Like Question Time, Paxman is a pony whose race is run. Watching him last night as Paul Mason unleashed gales of well-informed, considered economic analysis you got the feeling he knows it himself.

  6. Edinburgh Quine says:

    I didn’t think this was as bad as all that. It showed The First Eck to be more than capable of dealing with tw*ts like this, and in the end, Paxo’s wry smile said it all. Though that might have been the assurance of his “stardom” would be safe, even after Independence. I though TFE was suitably patronising

    1. bellacaledonia says:

      Yes although its dreadful journalism – I mean we pay Paxman £800,000 a year – can you imagine what good journalist could do? – it was blatant goading and Salmond knows this game. I just find it childish and stupid. Why not explore what this means (good and bad)?

      1. Again missing the point – are you really that naive? Paxman is taking the piss – it was a great line on Mugabe! Salmond gets it completely and gives back as good as he gets…in a pub in Glasgow you’d call this banter here you get your handbags out…ya bunch of overly precious pseudo-intellectual jobby wheechers. You are missing the point!

        1. bellacaledonia says:

          You might be right. It’s quite funny in a way. I still think it’s bad – cheap journalism.

      2. Barney says:

        Shoodybong –

        I agree with your general sentiments about the pisstake and response.

        But is this really what the BBC’s showpiece political programme has reduced itself to – the level of banter in a Glesca pub?

      3. Thanks for the comments – I agree it is cheap entertainment and belittles the serious nature of the debate but my goodness Alex Salmond looks knackered.

  7. FrankyB says:

    We need to challenge the BBC with a freedom of information request to find out how many complaints they receive about SNP bias and just how many they actually act on. Or do they just delete the complaints?

  8. zedeeyen says:

    I don’t pay for it. Haven’t done so since the mid nineties.

  9. John Souter says:

    Paxman goads, it’s his style.

    Against most politicians it works because they have nothing but waffle to stand on. Against principle, purpose and commitment the quips are reduced to drivel.

    The thought of years of this rhetorical flim-flam could have a serious effect on the will to live.

    Can we get on to the series and more productive issue of creating a written constitution for the new Scotland.

    I know there are already versions filed away in the ‘to do tray’ but none that I’ve seen address the question of ‘financial privilege’ between commerce and State. Surely given the present crises where nations are being blackmailed by financial oligarchs and their institutions there is an crying need for definition on this issue.

  10. Donald Adamson says:

    John Souter,

    Couldn’t agree more. Bella’s discussion of Elliot Bulmer’s model constitution was scheduled for sometime this week. That doesn’t address the issue of markets holding countries to ransom, but Article IX ‘Fundamental Rights and Freedoms’ does address other issues which I’d like to see the independence movement, particularly the left, focus more attention on. As for the issue of debt and markets holding countries to ransom, there’s always the ‘Graebar solution’ which I personally like, though that would require a sea-change in our thinking.

    1. John Souter says:

      Donald -can’t believe I typed series instead of serious -anyway, it was Bulmer’s A Model Constitution which sparked my interest. It’s certainly a worth while contribution to the debate.

      As for the ‘Graebar solution’ equating anarchy to institutions is a volte-face to anarchic principles and while I’d have no problem with being classed as a philosophical anarchist I would argue our species is neither advanced nor evolved enough as yet to regard anarchy as possible let alone practical.

      So, for now the sea change I’ll look for is the turn from tyrannical ebb to democratic flood.

      1. bellacaledonia says:

        There’s a serious problem with Bulmer.

      2. Donald Adamson says:

        Mike,

        Is this a reference to his British military/intelligence background? If not, are you able to throw any more light on this on a public forum as I seem to remember that you made a similar point on another thread ? As for the model constitution itself, I can’t see anything seriously wrong with it, apart from Article II on ‘The Head of State’.

        1. bellacaledonia says:

          Yes the preface to the draft constitution says the author worked in ‘Black Ops in Iraq’ and he is listed as ‘Elliot Bulmer is a former Royal Navy officer’ which is normally shorthand for SiS. So the author of the Scottish constitution has this background (?). I’d like to know more about what’s going on.

      3. Donald Adamson says:

        It struck me as an odd background for someone who, in the book, seems broadly supportive of independence. Does what you say here mean that Kevin’s planned article on this has been postponed? Incidentally, for anyone who has the book, the offending information is on the inside first page not the preface itself.

  11. Donald Adamson says:

    John,

    Agreed again. As you probably know, what he advocates is what he calls a “kind of Biblical-style Jubilee: one that would affect both international debt and consumer debt” as a means of finally relieving our “debt slavery”. Although maybe too ‘radical’ for some/many, in the context of his discussion in the rest of the book, it’s almost mundane.

    For personal debt problems, as an interim measure, it’s also worth thinking about the late and great George Melly’s solution, as a response to threatening letters from creditors. I can’t remember exactly where he suggested this, I think it was his autobiography in the 1970s, ‘Rum, Bum and Concertina’. What he proposes is this. Tell your creditors about your method of debt repayment. That is, every week, you tear up little pieces of paper and on each piece you write the name of each creditor. You then put these pieces of paper in a hat, choose one of them and the one chosen is the one who will receive a payment from you for that week. So the next time that you receive a threatening letter from one of your creditors, you explain your method of debt repayment and tell them that, next week, your name will not be going in the hat!

    1. John Souter says:

      Donald – consider the concept of money having no (or very restricted) value other than a means of exchange.

      Where surplus money is directed to R & D, industry and the sciences and where the reward is a dividend from results. And in order to encourage that approach for ‘investment’ tax on any profit by money manipulation or hidden gain through grey or black markets are taxed at 90%, in conjunction with the word ‘Avoidance’ being removed from the tax lexicon?

      1. John Souter says:

        Bellacaledonia – I cannot see where, within the content or context of the book, the authors military experience has any relevance.

        Presumably it was the author who included the information?

        1. bellacaledonia says:

          It may have no significance whatsoever.

  12. Doug Daniel says:

    Within the first 17 seconds he’s already “accidentally” called Salmond “Moses” in a mocking fashion, as well as describing independence as a plan to “bust up the United Kingdom”. So it was no surprise the interview was going to be a biased load of nonsense,and so it proved with the same old tired, hackneyed arguments about how we’re going to pay for it which he seems to have read from the Daily Mail. However, comparing Scotland to Zimbabwe and Salmond to Mugabe crossed the line. That’s not just bias, that’s showing contempt for a part of the UK which people like him are desperate to hang on to.

    I’ll never get the Mugabe comparisons. What has he done to deserve them? Won an election? Oooh, how dare he! Excuse me Mr Paxman, but we elected the SNP in a democratic process – one that is far more democratic than the UK election process.

    The thing that really wrankles me is this – it’s really not difficult to find evidence that Scotland would be better off independent. So these journalists are either bad at their job, or they wilfully ignore facts in order to push an agenda. Either way, they’re doing a massive disservice to a once noble profession. They drag journalism through the mud.

    1. James Morton says:

      He gets the insults Doug, Because his party won. Nothing drives these Unionist parties to distraction more than the simple fact that the SNP won. You will not see a single positive story coming from the press about the SNP or Scotland from now until the vote 2014. They have never been challenged to defend the Union before and find themselves unable to articulate positive unionism.

      Salmond could easily have said, “if anything you said was true Jeremy: What does England get out of the union? – what does it say about the Union if you contend nothing has changed in Scotland for over 300 years?”

      The unionist camp has come straight out of the blocks with one fear story after another. These stories will die down for a while, then pick up as we get closer to the day – but they will become more surreal and nonsensical like paxo demanding how we would ship our share of the gold to Scotland?

      1. Doug Daniel says:

        I understand all that, and it’s very satisfying to know just how much we’ve gotten under the skin of people like Paxman, but here’s the thing James – the BBC are meant to be impartial. They are not meant to be the main cheerleaders for the union. They’re our national broadcaster too, so why should we just sit and accept this sort of anti-Scottish twaddle like good little Jocks?

  13. Tocasaid says:

    Paxman wasn’t that bad. It was a tough interview and I don’t think that Salmond expected any less. However, Salmond dealt with it easily and the following comment from the Irish journalist confirmed an easy away win for Eck.

    1. Donald Adamson says:

      Tocasaid,

      I agree, except it wasn’t so much an interview as a slapstick routine. Paxman does represent the views of the London-centric ‘high politcs’ set quite well, those ‘sophisticated’ metropolitans who find the very idea of Scottish independence utterly contemptible. I notice that a poster on Slugger yesterday recycled the old Irish response to this type: “Did you hear the one about the Englishman with the inferiority complex? No? Me neither”.

  14. Morag says:

    I saw a new one today in the Herald’s letter’s column. The writer is one Val Robson.

    “After another couple of years of “Yes, No, Nearlies” there will still be the most important single question to be asked of the Scottish people – should Scotland be independent? This will avoid the clever subliminal influence within the “Do you agree” type of question. It is the question which should be asked now, given that the answers produced would be much more relevant than those emanating from any current “big debate”.

    Alex Salmond is a persuasive, charismatic and confident leader who is growing more self-opinionated. His increasing power to influence many people has been well evidenced but maybe it is worth considering the words of Bertrand Russell: “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it isn’t utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” ”

    That’s right. We must ask the question NOW, without any further debate, because uninformed opinion is so much more “real” than informed opinion. And besides, the popular view is probably wrong anyway. And especially, we can’t possibly allow Alex Salmond to work his charms of persuasion on vulnerable voters.

    You couldn’t make it up.

  15. Pete says:

    Go Paxman – Salmond really is intolerable and a complete moron. I for one will be leaving the country to escape his supercilious ways.

    1. Siôn Jones says:

      I’m sure that you will (not ) be sorely missed. PS You don’t make ladies undies do you?

  16. Andy says:

    Just watched this for the first time! OMG!!! How that patronising, supercilious, overpaid, self righteous, intolerable excuse for a political journalist is allowed to get away with that drivel is beyond me. It gets worse though…As the title says “We Pay for This”

Keep our Journalism Independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address to subscribe for free here and receive Bella direct to your inbox.

 
Bella Caledonia