the clowning by the CBI HQ exemplifies London governance of Scotland from Westminster down: ignorant, arrogant and offhand.
On Good Friday, the CBI in London (pushing its “pretendy” Scottish sub- organisation to the side) declared it was registering as part of the No campaign, ignoring the fact that the referendum is a Scottish matter. Now it is trying to reverse this. I hope it’s withdrawal is refused by the Electoral Commission.
This is insulting to Scotland. According to recent statements from director-general John Cridland, the decision to register was taken by a junior official in London. There was also a claim that a final decision had been taken by CBI Scotland. We now get clarification that the “final decision” in Scotland was to support the No campaign, not to decide on registering.
This appears to be a mess-up in communication to the news media. Given that the CBI claims to be a lobbying organisation, isn’t clear, concise communication an essential basis for its existence?
Is Mr Cridland unaware what goes on in his own organisation? He claimed to know nothing until Good Friday, yet by Saturday morning (19 April) he had an assertive article in The Scotsman, in which claimed: “My job and the CBI’s … is to look at the hard economic and business facts.” Perhaps he would do better by looking at his own organisation before pontificating on the future workings of my country.
Later in the article, he goes on about business welcoming “a conversation” about which decisions should be more localised, unaware of the irony that he is doing the opposite in writing the article, as is the CBI in its decision-making.
The truth is that the CBI has treated Scotland like a colonial possession, shown itself to be a ramshackle group that can’t master its own brief, tried to cover its mess up with something less than honesty and made itself a laughing stock.
Any company in Scotland remaining a member will be looked upon with disdain for being part of Corporate British Idiocy.
Thomas R Burgess
St Catherine’s Square
IT IS absolutely ludicrous to suggest that the CBI has suddenly become political. For as long as I can remember, which is the best part of half a century, it has been little more than a cheerleader for the Tories. On then rare occasions it did not toe the current Central Office line, its opposition was so mild as to amount to constructive criticism. Which begs the question: why were such hives of industry as the BBC and the Law Society of Scotland members in the first place?
With regard to the latter organisation, in which I still take an interest, I wonder how many of my former professional colleagues were aware they were associated with such a body?
Magnus K Moodie