the Scotsman (5 February) gave over its front page, quite absurdly in my opinion, to the anti-independence views of the chief executive of the oil and gas multinational corporation, BP.
Since the chief executives of other companies operating in Scottish waters have remained –silent, why should the thoughts of this particular “man in the corporate pub” be viewed as especially important?
All Bob Dudley tells us is that he would prefer no disruption to present arrangements – hardly surprising. We note that BP is so deeply concerned that it is nevertheless investing many more millions in exploration.
By contrast you afforded token coverage recently to the persuasive comments of Graham Avery – a Welshman – confirming, from the standpoint of a long career in the upper echelons of the European Union, that it would in reality move pretty smartly to ensure Scotland remains within the fold.
As the polls swing round in favour of the Yes campaign, I hope this does not presage even more naked bias in your reporting.
Battock Road, Brightons Falkirk
I believe it is considered ignorant for an outsider to stick his snout in where it does not belong. Such was the case with BP’s chief executive Bob Dudley this week.
Rather than dealing with things that his company reportedly may have some knowledge of (such as pollution, tie-ups with dodgy Russian organisations and subversion of sovereign governments by agencies such as the CIA) Mr Dudley decided to deal with the break-up of Great Britain.
He said Great Britain was great and should stay together. I agree with him. I doubt if anybody would say otherwise. The idea of the soil under my feet crumbling and England and Scotland parting after 400 million years together is not a pleasant thought.
If, however, he was intending to refer to the UK, would it not help if he mastered his brief before he pontificated to those who actually belong here? That way he might be on firm ground even if he is a slick operator.
Thomas R Burgess
St Catherine’s Square, Perth