Conspiracy theory? What are STV playing at?

I don't have much time for conspiracy theories. That is to say, I don't dislike them, I just find them entertaining rather than enlightening. This week has seen a great many thrown around, what with the announcement by President Obama, of Osama bin Laden's death at the hands of US forces. Any discrepancy has been pounced upon by an online community hungry for intrigue.

Obama's announcement was on Monday. It's now Thursday, and today, here in Scotland, we the public, have two ballots to consider. The Scottish Parlimentary Elections, and also the Referendum on Alternative Vote (AV). So in keeping with this week, here's my own little conspiracy theory.

Throughout the day, STV (the brand ITV uses in Scotland) have been posting links to promote their election coverage, on Twitter. Below is one.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/247075-voters-go-the-polls-for-scottish-parliament-election/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I'm reading the article, and what do I see alongside? 'Vote Labour. Vote NO to AV'. Wait, what?

The box you see on the bottom right of the image is an advert. Clicking on it takes you to the site below.

http://www.no2av.org/

The site itself contains the standard rhetoric the 'No to AV' campaign have been employing, but with an added twist. It purports that AV would be not only bad for the country, but 'bad for Labour'. There is a video of John Prescott, the Labour peer who has been campaigning for a 'no' vote in the referendum.

Out of curiosity, I check to see who the domain is registered to.

http://www.whois.net/whois/no2av.org

Charlotte Vere is a Conservative politician who achieved 3rd, standing in the 2010 general election for the Brighton Pavillion constituency. She's probably best known for being quoted in The Economist, describing the Green Party as 'hard left eco-fascists'.

Now, given that the 'no' campaign has recieved support from politicians across the spectrum, I don't think it can really be considered abnormal for Labour and Conservative polticians to be working together on this issue. Some might even cite it as a positive example of bi-partisanship in UK politics.

What I do find surprising is that a website paid for with Conservative funds, is actively promoting not only a 'no' vote, but encouraging Scots to vote Labour. And doing this by posting an ad on the pages of one of the main broadcasters of electoral coverage in Scotland, no less.

Regardless of how you view the Alternative Vote debate, regardless of whoever you vote for in Scottish or indeed UK politics, you must admit that this is all a bit odd.

Of couse, it's not unusual to find the impartiality of broadcasters being discussed online. Anyone with an interest in politics will no doubt have reason at some time in their life, to feel that their view is being under-represented by a particular broadcaster. Sometimes an interviewer can appear biased. Or a programme might seem to allocate a disproportionate amount of time to differing views.

But this is not what I am describing today. What STV have done is accept money from the Conservative party in order to tell voters in Scotland  to 'Vote Labour. Vote NO to AV'. On election day.

If that doesn't scream 'unionist conspiracy' to some people, I don't know what will. But the question I find most puzzling is what the hell are STV playing at? Surely campaigning this blatantly on behalf of a political party (whether you consider that to be the Conservatives or Labour) is against their constitution? Being subjectively biased is one thing, but actively telling us how to vote on the day of an election, and on the very pages of their supposedly impartial election coverage, is quite another.