BBC Scotland’s new ‘Question Time’ show spurns numerous talented women and gets the ‘Sofa Lothario’ it deserves?


kaye.jpg hayley.jpg birdj isobel

Stephen Jardine is to host the new BBC Scotland ‘Question Time’ titled Debate Night’ on Wednesday 27 February at 22:45.

‘Housewives’ favourite’ at STV and regular presenter for the BBC for years now, Jardine writes on food and drink for the Scotsman and has presented on his other areas of expertise, clothes and cars. On leaving STV, in 2011, Jardine reflected:

‘I totted it up and I’ve sat on the sofa with 25 female co-hosts. That’s quite a tally. I guess that makes me a bit of a sofa lothario! I’ve loved them all in different ways.’

Jardine, 56, will need to watch his words now with probable guests like Kezia, Ruth or the First Minister.

He is also founder of a PR company where wife ‘Sheila Jardine’ is on the staff:


Like all PR companies, Taste is prepared to defend companies against the work of real journalists who have investigated and exposed their dishonesty:


How would Taste help with stories of health risks from their products? Scottish Rapeseed Oil is one of their customers. The controversy surrounding rapeseed oil is extensive and heated at the moment. The Taste client list is saturated with many producers of alcoholic drinks. What role have they played in the debate on minimum pricing?

So, steeped in food, alcoholic drinks, cars, business interests and with a pro-business mindset, does Jardine possess the impartiality not to mention the intellectual depth required?


Is the SNP really not doing enough or is that just media neglect?


By Contrary:

Looking at the wider context like this helps us to see the array of forces that may want to act against Scottish independence – I think it is something to be conscious of, but not fearful of. The political route to independence is the best route – I don’t really believe the likes of the US state are really that interested, except in the context of working with the UK state, so it is the UK state backed by much money that is the main issue still – politically there is more manoeuvrability and we have legal considerations on our side, and so the UK government cannot be seen to deny Scotland a choice politically (though it appears to be doing that just now, it is a can-kicking-down the road exercise really).

The way the UK government has ignored Scotland; politically that is a huge mistake on their part (one I am sure they think the can remedy by the usual methods, at a later date, when they are finished with this current fiasco). They are keeping the SNP at arms length and trying to ridicule them (more than usual) because the SNP keep trying to present plausible solutions and occasionally making sense (can’t have that, when you are trying to cause chaos). Unfortunately, politically, the SNP cannot be seen to cause the ‘distraught’ uk government any more upheaval,,, than it has already caused itself. Is the SNP getting rubbish advice? Meh, maybe. But maybe not. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place at the moment. Internationally, I think public opinion and a fair few EU politicians, would see any move towards independence (referendum) at any point as positive – but that isn’t to say the big boys/girls (and all variations in between -rolls eyes-) at the UN would be sympathetic, or, more importantly, that our own swithering electorate would be sympathetic. Politically, it does have to be timed right. We have the full array of BritNat propaganda to contend with as it is, we do not need the entire Westminster politicians as well as our own BritNat Scottish ones howling about how inconsiderate the SNP is, on top. To swithering voters, it would seem valid.

There is no doubt we have a majority in favour of independence at the moment, but not by much (which I wonder about, it really should have been gaining traction and steadily rising, so what IS stopping people?), and not enough to weather the storm of -media negativity-looming emergencies-fear-idiot BritNat reasoning- etc. There is potential for the uk government to actually start a war – or similar major crisis, we really don’t have that much armed forces left to go do war things – to avoid the inevitable. The numbers should be firmly near 60% in opinion polls to allow for any potential drop. Is it essential? Well, only if we feel the need for it to be successful right now.

I personally would just go for an independence referendum now, but I know there are too many people in Scotland that have never really experienced hardship, have no concept of struggling (I believe it is the middle classes that swither the most, and have fully bought into the neoliberal ideology) – they are the ones that need to feel the pain of no deal Brexit. Then there are those people in increasing numbers that do experience hardship and poverty but tend not to vote because certainly the system is not working for them – would they go out and vote? What would be the motivation? The swithering masses that can’t be predicted.

If you consider the amount of money thrown at the leave campaign, it seems remarkable we had a 62% vote for remain, but then we had all our politicians supporting remain,,, this is good in that (a) it isn’t just money, but political ideology can still influence people, and (b) none of the Scottish politicians were in the loop at the time (re destabilisation of the EU). It means that, if Scotland was left to its own devices when debating independence, we will not have to contend with too many sinister motivations. It makes you think too, what would be the result of an independence referendum if all our politicians actually had Scotland’s best interests at heart and supported independence?

A thought on the plan to disrupt the EU: it isn’t working, so does that mean the UK decides to stay in to carry on disrupting from within? (Then, do we have a harder time getting our referendum?) Or, are they that desperate to keep trying, and the uk goes down the no-deal route? (Independence a certainty).

Anyway, I don’t have any viable alternative to the SNP, and even if they are not seen to be doing ‘enough’, it is the path they have chosen – much of the perception of not doing ‘enough’ is because of (lack of) media coverage, and our own frustration – there are a lot more factors at play this time around, and we won’t get the breathing space for reasonable debate that we had at the start of the last campaign (it all got a bit shrill and irrational towards the end, so I’m guessing it will ‘start’ in that vein this time round). To tell the truth, we don’t need much debate time, a couple of weeks should do it.

Anyway, the SNP are trying to be a representative to everyone, which isn’t a good thing for a political party because you just please no one in the end, and I certainly don’t fully support Nicola Sturgeon’s strange ideologies personally, but I don’t have to, to support her in the main task, and we do alright from the SNP in the Scottish government – they DO have Scotland’s best interests at heart, and the DO run things well – but that won’t get us independence. I suspect there is a lot more going on in the background than we would want to know – the SNP continually pushing to get article50 extended makes me think there is a need for it (from a Scottish perspective, not just to be nice to the non-Scottish parts), so it might get messy. We are going to be countering a lot a moronic BritNat bile, repeatedly, very soon and need to keep at it however tired it gets, so I think resting up for the next couple of weeks would be a good thing.

How Reporting Scotland is damaging the mental and physical health of many Scots in the interests of Unionism

6d4c59ac-6310-44d5-8e5f-bad54b5e3b19 abusercaught bullyingsuicide gungangs.png

mheslthtargets.png pigeons scothnsmissed

waitnigmuissed health cris suicideagain.png

Is the editorial tendency for Reporting Scotland to regularly headline, in the early morning, traumatic, anxiety-inducing, yet statistically insignificant, events, like those above, making a major contribution to generalised anxiety and to levels of clinical depression and anxiety in its audience? Is this motivated by a recognition at senior levels that an anxious electorate is more controllable?

I’m grateful to Cameron Brodie who provided the link to this research in a Wings comment and to TuS Mental Health Correspondent, Contrary, who shared it with me. Cameron’s short comment, based upon but not a quote from the research, which triggered this longer piece here, was:

‘Individual self-determination depends largely on maintaining a positive personal psychology. That’s why the BBC in Scotland makes you want to self-harm. Achieving a sense of positive emotions not only strengthens our cognitive abilities, it improves our ability to cope with change. Once again, this all boils down to the architecture of our brains.’

As always, I feel the need to head off accusations of conspiracy theory and of consequent paranoia. I’m suggesting rather that those who work in the news section of BBC Scotland, know, often unconsciously and running in the grooves of a long-established culture of behavioural and cognitive habits, what to report and how to report it, such that the overall coverage works toward reinforcing often imaginary benefits of the Union and equally imaginary risks in independence. So, we get repeated cases of individual health or personal security trauma rather than the more meaningful wider trends because the former produces, over years, a brain architecture where constitutional change seem dangerous while the latter might make the status quo seem so.

In my earlier writing on this, I’ve tried to support the above notion with evidence. There is admittedly very little and little of that is empirical and thus evidence-based. There is of course likely to be no hard evidence that editorial decision-making at a public service provider or state broadcaster such as the BBC is damaging mental health. Which institution would dare fund such a thing?

This research does not, of course, do that but it does offer clear evidence of the damaging consequences of ‘perceived threat.’ We can implicate BBC News in feeding this sense of threat in its broadcasts because we know that its audience tends to be older and thus more isolated and vulnerable with the former broadcasts playing a large part in construction reality for them. Clearly the authoritative tones of BBC News as it foregrounds tales of murder, of violent crime, of cases of tragic death and illness in hospitals, of apparent failure or delays in the very services they often rely on, overwhelms what little they can garner from their few other sources, to produce a world where depression and anxiety are the predictable outcome and where, constitutional change become contaminated with a sense of danger.

In this peer-reviewed 2010 research study we hear:

‘These coordinated and cascading response tendencies are preserved in modern-day humans having been sculpted over millennia by natural selection to support efficient and appropriate responses to ancestrally recurrent opportunities (e.g., the kindness of others) and threats (e.g., the disdain of others). Various forms of perceived opportunity give rise distinct positive emotions (e.g., joy, interest, contentment/serenity), whereas various forms of perceived threat give rise to distinct negative emotions (e.g., sadness, fear, anger). Although all emotions serve adaptive functions under certain circumstances, negative emotions, in particular, can become a source of dysfunction. To illustrate, the negative emotions of anger and fear each involve neural, cardiovascular, endocrine, and muscular changes, alongside changes in thought and action tendencies patterned from primitive urges to fight or flee. Such negative emotions also often co-occur with dysfunctional social interactions, which can perpetuate psychophysiological reactivity and trigger destructive behavior toward self and others.’


Upward Spirals of Positive Emotions Counter Downward Spirals of Negativity: Insights from the Broaden-and-Build Theory and Affective Neuroscience on The Treatment of Emotion Dysfunctions and Deficits in Psychopathology



Far Right gruppe in failed attempt to undermine Scotland as it is praised by rabbi


The gruppe are not named in the Freedom of Information report but we, of course, know who they are (more below). The gruppe requested answers to these questions below and received the appended answers. The media headlines (italics) that the gruppe clearly hoped for and which our NoMedia would have loved, but did not get the evidence for, have been constructed by TuS junior staff after a training workshop delivered by Scotsman Education Ltd.


  1. She [the First Minister] was accompanying a party of school children. Was a PVG done for this trip?

The First Minister was not responsible for the supervision of the young people on the visit. They were supervised by teachers and educators who will have undergone checks as part of their job role. There was therefore no requirement for her to obtain PVG clearance.

Sturgeon risks emotional trauma for Scottish kids!

  1. Was she invited to visit and by whom?
    3. Did she just take it upon herself to accompany the schoolchildren?
    6. Who paid for the trip?

The First Minister participated in this visit to Auschwitz at the invitation of the Holocaust Educational Trust. She travelled with the other participants and incurred no direct costs or expenses.

Nicola goes on jollie to death camps!

  1. Who authorised STV cameras to accompany them?

The Holocaust Educational Trust authorised STV to accompany the visit.

STV revealed as biased in favour of Nats!

  1. Did they get permission from the Trust at Auschwitz to take the television cameras and use the visit for promotion of Ms Sturgeon?

The Holocaust Educational Trust sought permission from the Auschwitz Museum for STV to film during the visit.

Sturgeon exploits images of dead Jews to hide anti-Semitism in SNP!

Some more background detail on this from the National:

An SNP spokesman said people in the party were disgusted by his latest missive. “Scotland in Union are beneath contempt,” the spokesman said. “They should have listened to the First Minister on Thursday, as she reflected on her visit, the lessons we should learn from the horrors of the Holocaust and its enduring relevance to this day.

“It’s utterly inappropriate to abuse such serious matters for petty political reasons.”

A spokesperson for Scotland in Union said: “It is disgusting that the SNP has sunk so low to use such a sensitive and important issue to attempt to attack Scotland in Union.

“It reeks of utter desperation and is frankly beyond the pale.

“The Nationalists only resort to this because they know we speak for the majority who know that Scotland is better off in the UK.”

But then, from the Jewish News:


Finally, new BBC Scotland channel to give Scotland in Union their own series.



SNP Government to fund UK’s biggest carbon capture study five years after Tory betrayal


The most likely location at Peterhead

In Energy Voice yesterday

‘Scotland is to plough a six-figure investment of pubic (sic) money into the UK’s biggest ever carbon capture and storage (CCS) research study. The Scottish Government, the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) and Scottish Enterprise confirmed last night they will each commit £50,000 in an effort to reduce carbon emissions and halt climate change. The £150k fund will go toward the formation of a research partnership involving several Scottish universities, including Aberdeen and Robert Gordon University (RGU). The cash injection also aims to bring together industry and government through the Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage (SCCS) knowledge exchange partnership.’

A quick explanation and link:



Fel rhech mewn pot jam!* A&E Scotland under SNP almost 12% ahead of A&E Wales under Labour

*Useless like a fart in a jam jar! Or, a Llafur stock?

As we await the January figures for A&E Wales, which are anxiously anticipated, a wee reminder for Richard Leonard and his diminishing band of supporters on how effective Labour branches cannot be.

In Wales, 77.8% were seen within 4hrs in December 2018.

In Scotland, typically colder and icier, 89.6% were seen within 4 hours in December 2018

Crisis in English A&E far greater than confused reporting suggests and 11% below NHS Scotland


It’s even worse than the reporting suggests and a dramatic 11% worse than in Scotland. As before, the reporting uses the NHS England figure for ‘all’ A&E departments when only the Type 1 departments are meaningfully comparable with those in Scotland, N Ireland and Wales and the latter two are even worse than those in England!

The BBC is aware of this:


The average for NHS Scotland in January 2019 was 87.2% seen within 4 hours.

The figure for A&E in England is 76.1% seen within 4 hours and not 84.4%. See this:



  Percentage of attendances within 4 hours
Percentage in 4 hours or less (all) Percentage in 4 hours or less (type 1) Percentage in 4 hours or less (type 2) Percentage in 4 hours or less (type 3)
Nov 18: 87.6% 81.1% 98.6% 99.1%
Dec 18: 86.4% 79.3% 99.1% 99.0%
Jan 19: 84.4% 76.1% 98.7% 98.9%

The figure for all A&E departments is distorted by those for the walk-in-centres and minor injury units.