BBC still showing scant respect for SNP views

Regrettably the professional, respectful and seemingly impartial standards set by Robin Day as the first host of the BBC’s Question Time have continuously declined since his departure.​

Fiona Bruce hosts the BBC Question Time Leaders Special show in Sheffield. Photo by Jeff Overs/PA Wire

What we have now is a stage-managed farce presided over by a host who appears more concerned with promoting herself and news-breaking revelations than honouring those same standards.

Of course the dubious selection of audience participants and primary questions posed is in the hands of the programme management, as no doubt is the direction fed to Fiona Bruce via her earphone, but this does not excuse blatant political bias or professional incompetence.

While we have become accustomed to BBC political “shows” focusing criticism on Labour and the other opposition parties while Conservative MPs are often given free-rein to repeatedly express party-political sound-bites, even when making grossly misleading statements, Thursday evening’s programme descended to a new low.

​It was over 13 minutes into the one-hour show before Kirsty Blackman of the SNP was invited to speak by Ms Bruce as one of the five guests on the panel. Although one of three MPs, Ms Blackman was only invited to speak after Tom Harwood, Brexiteer and deputy political editor for GB News, had been given the opportunity to embark on his first right-wing rant.

Through the show Ms Blackman was persistently interrupted and her total contribution was limited to just over five minutes, while Mr Harwood was allowed nearly nine minutes of air-time, with comparatively few interruptions.

​Of course we have come to expect the marginalisation of the SNP on BBC political shows in spite of being the third largest party at Westminster but the increasing lack of respect for Scotland’s elected representatives will hopefully hasten the day when our country regains its rightful independence.

​Stan Grodynski

Longniddry

LGBT+ policy

I wish to comment on Vic Valentine’s article which sets forth the five points of commitment which various LGBT+ groups are asking the candidates for leadership of the SNP to confirm (March 3). Let me say that I support equal rights for all under the law and condemn discrimination and prejudice against minorities. Problems arise when some minorities demand to be “more equal” than others. It seems that some of the LGBT+ demands tend in this direction.

The first point is commitment to “ban conversion practices”. Extreme, aggressive, abusive means of trying to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity are already covered by the law. Such a ban as demanded would be in danger of criminalising helpful, empathetic prayer with and counselling of young people confused by such issues.

Second is a commitment to seek “revocation of the Section 35 order”. Apart from the need to ensure that the GRR Bill is consonant with UK law, there are good reasons to delay its implementation so that it can be suitably amended. The consultation was deeply flawed, as criticism of the Bill were ignored. Despite the Bill being passed by a cross-party majority, there is wide public outrage at the lack of protection for women’s safe spaces. Although the procedure could be simplified, there are good reasons for medical, psychological and psychiatric assessment, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and a more competent way of registering gender recognition than self-iD before the Registrar General. Biological birth sex should not be changed for “legal sex”, which is a legal fiction. Lived gender could be registered instead.

Thirdly, the commitment to “improve the help of LGBT+ people” is uncontroversial. It should be noted that the incidence of Autistic Spectrum Disorder and mental health issues are higher in children and adults with gender dysphoria than in the general population and this confirms the need for psychological and psychiatric assessment and help.

Fourthly, the commitment to “show leadership on improving attitudes towards LGBT+ people” could mean several things. At best it could mean encouraging tolerance, acceptance and protection of such minority groups, who, in turn, would refrain from threatening behaviour, verbal or physical, towards critics of some of their demands. At worst it could mean encouraging LGBT+ groups to increase their influence on education in order to squeeze out other views.

Finally, the commitment to “continue working on implementing LGBT-inclusive education” is more controversial. Like many people I object to the early sexualisation of children and the confusion sown in their minds about biological sex, sexuality and gender before they are able fully to understand and cope with the information. To me this is a form of grooming. Of course there should to teaching on diversity and tolerance, but children should not be encouraged to experiment in changing gender. Parents must be involved in policy making and in agreeing the content of any course in sex, gender and identity.

Regardless of previous SNP commitments, any new leader should be free to develop their own policy on such a controversial subject.

Rev Dr D MacDonald

Edinburgh

Not the same

During the debates about the Gender Recognition Reform bill, I was most impressed by the intelligence, clarity and courage manifested by Ash Regan, MSP, on the detailed issues. She made a very powerful speech at Holyrood and comported herself with the utmost dignity.

I had expected her to show the same qualities in her campaign for leadership of the SNP and, by extension, of Scotland. Alas, she is all over the place, especially with her claim, in an interview with Laura Kuenssberg, that a general election ‘is the same as a referendum, if you think about it’.

Well, I have thought about it, and it isn’t. The clue is in the name: ‘general election’. One votes for candidates to be MPs and for a range of policies on different issues. A referendum is a binary choice on a restricted question. Both are decided through votes in a ballot box, although Ms Regan appears to think that referendums are decided in some other way: ‘The gold standard here is not a referendum… [it] is the ballot box’.

Ms Regan adheres to the Salmondesque view of 50 per cent plus one vote being sufficient to declare Scotland a separate country. It is certainly not sufficient to give a new country a good start. Momentous constitutional change requires overwhelming endorsement. The alternative is a recipe for division and disaster.

Jill Stephenson

Edinburgh

MSPs take note

In 1980, when I was working in a town in Fiji, the district officer, an Indo-Fijian, invited me to be secretary of the committee organising celebrations to mark ten years of independence from the UK. Nobody saw the irony in the only Brit living in the town holding this position. My duties included writing a speech for the district officer to deliver at the big event.

English is one of three official languages in Fiji but, for most people, it is not their mother tongue. I may therefore have been a bit over-ambitious in including the phrase ‘on this auspicious occasion’ in the opening section of the speech.

As the district officer stood to deliver the speech I noticed a concerned expression on his face; he was clearly reading it for the first time. However, he ploughed on, tackling ‘auspicious’ with a hard ‘c’ such that he pronounced the word as ‘auspikious’.

This minor faux pas went undetected by anyone in the crowd (apart from me) and his speech was received with rapturous applause.

I was reminded of this episode as I read Brian Wilson’s column (Scottish Perspective, March 4). I agree with his criticism of MSPs (including government ministers) in Holyrood who read speeches, probably written by their staff, verbatim.

It should not be too much to expect that our elected representatives understand the topic on which they have chosen to speak and have sufficient clarity of thought as to the points they wish to make. As a result they should be able speak with conviction supported by, at most, a few notes to keep them on track.

George Rennie

Inverness

Rely on gas

A BBC reporter on March 4 described the proposed new gas power station with carbon capture at Keadby, Lincolnshire, as " continuing to burn the fossil fuels that got us into this mess" .

We have still some way to travel but by every metric like, for example, nourishment, health, sanitation, longevity, etc this young man's "mess" represents the best condition for humanity as a whole there has ever been, so on his behalf may I make apology to the millions of coal, gas and oil workers world-wide who over the past couple of centuries have provided the energy that makes that "mess" possible.

The programme then switched to another young man who stated authoritatively that further use of renewables backed up by storage and batteries was a far better way forward. May I inform him that we have four huge (hydro) power storage installations which – half a century ago – took about five years each to build at the cost in today's money of billions, something like 50 lives directly and hundreds of cases of lung disease.

In total they store enough potential energy to provide about half an hour's UK winter peak electricity. About a million tons of Li battery would provide the same, completely inadequate, amount of storage. I think we are going to need gas power stations for some time to come.

A McCormick

Terregles

Virus leaks

At long last it would appear that the Covid-19 coronavirus came from the Wuhan laboratories, China, as a leak to the outside world.

Similar cases of man-made viruses and work in the scientific laboratories of Porton Down, England (nerve gases and the anthrax studies) again lead to a number of leaks.

MICHAEL BAIRD

Bonar Bridge