Readers' letters: BBC 'not turning its back on Scottish talent by axeing River City'

Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie and culture spokesperson Neil Bibby hosted the cast of River City as they visited Holyrood yesterday to call on MSPs to back the campaign to save the Scottish soap opera (Picture: Lisa Ferguson)

Jackie Baillie MSP raises important points about the role which River City has played in developing screen industry talent in Scotland (Scotsman, 23 April). She is also understandably passionate about the BBC’s production having been based in her constituency. At BBC Scotland, we’re very mindful of our role in supporting and growing the creative industries, and equally passionate about making content which people in Scotland will love.

The decision to decommission River City is not based on the quality of the writing, the excellent performances of the cast or the high-quality work of the crew. It is a response to what viewers in Scotland are doing, which is moving away – in large numbers – from long-running formats to shorter-run dramas. BBC Scotland needs to make dramas that people want to watch.

River City now attracts an average audience of 200,000 per episode, while Granite Harbour attracts around double that figure, and Shetland, Vigil and Nightsleeper all average well over 700,000 viewers per episode in Scotland alone. We need to follow our audience’s behaviour, and believe that our three new dramas, which will be funded from the current River City budget, will meet these audience expectations.

The new BBC Scotland dramas will all be written by Scottish writers, they will employ a wide range of Scotland-based talent, will have training opportunities attached to them and will be made by producers with bases in Scotland – just like River City has been. They will sit alongside a raft of other BBC Scotland productions, in comedy, factual and entertainment, all of which will continue to develop and showcase Scotland’s talent, to audiences here at home, and to the world.

Luke McCullough. Corporate Affairs Director, BBC Scotland, Edinburgh

Running scared

Murdo Fraser (Scotsman, 23 April) is right to be concerned about a more fragmented Unionist vote giving the SNP an advantage at the Holyrood election. Where he fails to convince is in his analysis of Reform as bedfellows of the SNP, declaring that the parties are “in a symbiotic relationship, with a mutual interest in promoting each other”. The opposite is true. John Swinney’s summit was in part to “lock out” far-right Reform from Scottish politics while Reform see their exclusion by him as a denial of democracy.

There are three important facts that all parties need to consider. Firstly, an increasing number of voters like myself are disillusioned with Scottish party politics and feel they can’t trust any party to deliver. Secondly, Reform offer false hope to some of change and are taking votes from all parties including the SNP. Finally, the best way to defeat Reform is for parties to get their own houses in order. Labour, Tories and the Lib Dems need to prove they are credible opposition parties to the SNP.

Farage says the established parties are right to be worried. That is what he wants most and clearly Mr Swinney and Mr Fraser have fallen into that trap. Scots are concerned about immigration, according to Farage, but provides no evidence of this, nor does he adequately explain how he would restore farming and fishing, so badly affected by Brexit. Farage offers style but little substance. The only change he helped deliver was the disastrous Brexit with the help of the English establishment.

The traditional parties are running scared of Reform rather than working harder together for the Scottish people while Farage peddles his politics of fear to the disaffected. Holyrood needs to waken up and deliver for Scotland’s people as Reform certainly won’t.

Neil Anderson, Edinburgh

Unionist mindset

Murdo Fraser’s article in response to the summit on far-right extremism was enlightening. By stating that the rise of Reform in Scotland would benefit the SNP, he confirms that it is the Unionist/British elements in Scotland who will be attracted to Reform policies and that it is independence supporters who will resist their sinister attitudes.

Any article by Fraser would not be complete without his often used argument that supporters of the SNP sow division in Scottish society by their continuing campaign for independence. Given that support for and against independence sits at around 50 per cent each, it could be argued that the Unionist campaign to keep us under the control of the British state equally sows divisions in Scottish society.

Brian Kelly, Edinburgh

Swinney’s crusade

There should be little doubt, after the long and detailed discussion led by First Minister Swinney (Scotsman, 24 April), that the far right will not be welcome in Scotland. Indeed, the far and central left led by the SNP, along with other members of the great and the good, intend to boot Reform back to whence they came.

I’m intrigued how the likes of Reform stack up in their position of almost to the right of Ghengis Khan and surely a perusal of their objectives will guide us in that matter.

Obviously one can never judge a party by their promises, as we well know from recent events. However, we have to start somewhere so a quick look through Reform’s promises suggests an extreme right bias.

Examples run thick and fast, as the following snapshot examples demonstrate: 1. Restore law and order; 2. Repair public services; 3. Cut taxes; 4. Slash energy bills; 5. Control borders.

These few examples demonstrate why the SNP and Greens worry for the direction of travel of our country. No mention of protecting the environment or net zero, no mention of protecting people fleeing persecution from their home countries using fragile small boats. No mention of using debt to build more homes using greenfield land. No mention of protecting the rights of those convicted of crimes.

The list of areas of concern to counter the rising tide of the far right are almost endless. Therefore we have to hope and pray that the SNP and Greens gather sufficient support for their opposition to the far right to save us from purgatory.

A Lewis, Coylton, South Ayrshire

Left v right

I read in The Scotsman that in the meeting arranged by John Swinney, STUC general secretary Roz Foyer claimed we are seeing “a rising amount of dialogue and extreme right-wing ideology that is affecting our communities”. I would like to know which communities and what exactly she considers to be extreme right wing, as she says this with absolutely no examples offered.

If this is indeed the case, maybe they should have done more to prevent extreme left-wing views from infecting just about every aspect of our lives.

They seem to assume everyone is in favour of these left-wing views and policies just because they are. I would suggest a starting point for them is to get the tax bands changed back in line with the rest of the UK, I don’t think anyone should be paying 41 per cent of their wages on £43,000, which is not a great wage given the high cost of everythint today.

A Thorpe, Dunfermline, Fife

Democracy denied

Once again, I am left totally perplexed by a John Swinney statement. He said he was convening a meeting to gather together all opposed to the far right and Reform UK party.

Try as I might, I simply cannot see how excluding one party from a multi-view meeting “strengthens” – to use Mr Swinney’s own words – democracy. I would venture very much the opposite is the case.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh

Shared values

When John Swinney announced at the end of February that he would hold a “summit” to tackle the rise of the “far right” that would “provide leadership and stress the importance of our shared values”, he added that it would also “draw a line in the sand, to set out who we are and what we believe in”.

At the “summit”, Mr Swinney warned about “serious threats to our democratic system and our values in Scotland”. How exactly is our democratic system threatened? Could it be by a regime lasting 18 years whose Auditor General and others have accused of lacking transparency? That redacts huge and embarrassing areas of official documents? That insults MSPs instead of answering their questions? That tries to conceal its monumental incompetence? That is fundamentally unaccountable?

Did anyone discover at this “summit” what “our shared values” are? Where can we view the mythical line in the sand that it was supposed to draw? This surely is self-righteous nationalist piffle at its most grandiose.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh

Court in the act

Your editorial (23 April) is right to question Maggie Chapman’s claim that her comment that “bigotry, prejudice and hatred coming from the Supreme Court” did not refer to its judges.

It is reasonable to assume that what she means is that anyone disagreeing with her views on trans is automatically a transphobic bigot, even if they believe in sex chromosomes, which cannot be changed by a certificate, wearing a wig, or even by surgery. I hope that I am right, and that her views were not an attack on the independence of judges, a principle which is a bedrock of our constitution.

I declare an interest in that in 2023 the Supreme Court dissected in detail my work as an expert witness in a food poisoning case.

Lord Hodge’s judgement agreed with my findings in its 34-page report, which quoted many legal precedents going back to the 1820 trial of Queen Caroline for adultery.

Hugh Pennington, Aberdeen

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.