The BBC's search for a new director-general offers a one-off chance

French public service radio and TV functions in the same way as French politics. Monsieur le President appoints the directors having the power, the money and the regions function, get a wee bit of budget money they can use, with the rest decided in a far-off HQ in Paris. Problems in Strasbourg are very different to those in Paris, but who cares? Sound familiar?

The current search for a new BBC Director-General and a new BBC Scotland director offers a one-off chance to modernise, to renew the internal and external thinking/ego, and to finally bring devolution to “the Beeb”.

Someone has to stand up to achieve new powers for Scottish broadcasting.

Glasgow knows better than London what Scots demand and want. The Glasgow PQ HQ must have the final power to decide, have the right to get a much larger chunk of the licence fee collected in Scotland. The PQ budget is no longer an alms simply handed over.

The new BBC Scotland director has to be somehow “a Nicola Sturgeon” figure – close to the people, talking to and involving the “clients” on a daily basis, listening and learning, sometimes stubborn but decisive, in a fighting mood angering “the enemies” and always standing up for Scotland.

Scottish broadcasting has to be decided and kicked-off in Scotland. Alone.

Famous London Scots are no longer needed to tell not-so famous Scots in Scotland what to do. The closer down-to-Earth ones knew better then and know better now. Figures. Editors and teams have to put their work to the test again. A flagship TV programme like The Nine has to reach hundreds of thousands. Start to rethink, invent in new ideas, ask the not-to-be-asked questions, scrutinise presenters, reporting and schedules. From scratch, if need be.

BBC Scotland must install a regular and trusted reportage of European and world affairs – it’s possible on BBC Alba. Four times Scots have voted pro-Europe. It’s not enough to occasionally send Glenn Campbell or others to the TV floors in Brussels and Strasbourg. A regular BBC Scotland reporter has to be based within the Europe of the 27, 47 and 57. Europe obviously plays an important role for Scots (see voting results), so BBC Scotland must start intensive reporting and explanation of Europe and the world – imagine independence.

Read the Scottish Government’s proposal for the last BBC Royal Charter Review. It´s all in there. The central London power has bluntly rejected it – Scotland naw …“F”(ederalism) nonsense.

Germany´s public service ARD radio and TV system works exactly like that proposal. The then BBC director-general Hugh Green installed it after the First World War. If you can drive our “B” Mercedes cars why not kick-off a new drive into your “B”(BC) system?

The digital broadcasting future does not wait, so get it done very soon to convince all (again) that you are needed and wanted. Do not forget to motivate and bring together your people for that. In a future public service broadcasting environment the BBC HAS and MUST have an important role to play. So too has BBC Scotland. An impartial and scrutinising journalism and society institution is desperately needed.

The annual licence fee enables the BBC and others to produce and present impartial, neutral “facts” and information. It forces “us in there” to daily and hourly convince our listeners, readers and viewers. You can trust us and we strictly follow our internal guidelines. We are there, for you!

Udo Seiwert-Fauti
Senior special correspondent for Scottish media on Brexit, Europe and Scotland affairs

STEPHEN Tingle’s and Solomon Steinbett’s excellent letters in Sunday’s National highlight the intransigence of the Tory-led Westminster government.

Both highlight the futility of the current impasse. One suggesting the SNP MPs should go in the huff, leave Westminster and concentrate their efforts at home. The other to Ignore Boris and seek approval from the UN to hold a referendum. We also read that while Westminster continues to block a trial to create a safer drug injection room some activists are considering to defy the law and provide the facility themselves. It’s this defiance I would like to highlight.

History is full of acts of deviance that have changed the world for the better. With regard Britain’s dictatorial colonial empire. Mahatma Gandhi’s 23-day salt march turned the tide of world opinion and led to independence.The Boston Tea Party was the key precursor to the American Revolution and independence.

Nearer home the aftermath of battle of George Square that transformed British politics, the rise of the ILP, socialism, and a fairer society ... It is so sad that, still to this day, faced with fair sound arguments, the government in charge, still dictate and won’t even permit a trial to explore an alternative! Thus forcing passionate people to break the current law and face possible imprisonment. So with regard introducing the drug safe environment (easy for me to say).

Go for it! ... With regards Section 30, I’m sorry Nicola, if history is to believed, your only route left is maybe civil disorder. But if imprisoned, I’m guessing and hoping it won’t be for long! But fingers crossed to prevent a martyr being created they maybe relent and finally allow Section 30. But then of course we would have to resist an almighty barrage of fear mongering and lies!

Robin MacLean
Fort Augustus

SUITABLY impressed by all of the No to Yes pieces. When you’ve collected enough (maybe you have already) why not print them all together over a couple (or more) pages as a “pull out”, which could be shown to random “wobblers” or even committed Nos.

When they hear from committed indy folk, there’s always the risk of the “well, you would say that, wouldn’t you” syndrome. Being able to show multiple folk who’ve made the transition fairly recently, will carry much greater weight.

Barry
Blantyre

I WANT independence for Scotland. I am frustrated by the lack of progress towards a vote for Scotland, but I cannot get on board with Christopher McEleny and Angus MacNeil, I’m afraid, and pursue the option of an SNP majority at Holyrood as a mandate for independence.

Our voting systems just don’t make it fair. We have to bring people round to independence, not have them feel it is being imposed on them by a voting system which essentially gives people two votes where those opposed to independence have their votes split across multiple parties.

Imagine at the last election Boris had taken a victory as a mandate to leave the EU with No Deal.

We’d have rightly been calling it unfair due to the voting system allowing him a majority with <50% of the vote.

The SNP achieved a Holyrood majority in 2011 with 45% vote share. Do we honestly think, hand on heart that would be acceptable to all if we achieved that success this time and declared independence?

And is your answer to that is yes, ask yourself again where the issue is one you don’t support?

I could perhaps get onboard if there was a caveat that >50 % of constituent votes went to indy-supporting parties, but given how difficult this will be, failure to achieve it will – as far as Unionists are concerned – be seen as defeat for another vote as well as an independence declaration. They won’t distinguish between the two.

As I say, I’m as frustrated as anyone, but we should be directing this frustration at the UK Government and exposing their anti-democratic stance, not moving the goalposts to suit our own objectives.

We need to stay objective and be fair to all of those with a vote or we risk alienating those we need to get onboard.

Maggie Rankin
Stirling

THE Tories have always worked on a divide and conquer basis, and, over the years, that has proved very successful.

They’ve demonised benefit claimants (work-shirkers) as a result of which, as is well-documented, we have more homelessness, more disabled people suffering, rise in food banks and so on.

They’ve demonised immigrants (stealing our jobs), as a result of which, again well-documented, we see increasing xenophobia and racism.

They’ve demonised Scots as a result of which many people, particularly south of the Border, have been buying into the “subsidy junkie” mantra (although how that squares with the desperation to hold onto us, makes this view point, self-evidently, arrant nonsense).

They now have a problem.

Pamela Nash, the chief executive of Scotland in Union, a campaign group, said: “Defending and building Scotland’s successful future in the UK must be a top priority for the Government, so clarification that a senior minister is responsible for this would be welcome.”

The problem is that, given they have been in power for 10 years, how can they seek now to defend, never mind build on, Scotland’s “successful” future in the UK?

What is their defence for allowing such a beloved and important part of the “awesome foursome” – and one which raises more in tax than it gets back for its own purpose and is, therefore, contributing in spades to projects deemed “national” such as Trident and HS2 – to require, according to their own rhetoric, subsidising?

A “senior minister” isn’t going to hack it.

Jean Dunlop
Via email

THE current situation in India is very worrying, reflecting the worldwide trend of the neoliberal establishment’s reaction to the climate crisis as one of right-wing entrenchment and not unity and solidarity between nations.

Modern India was founded as a secular nation with one of the most advanced democratic constitutions in the world guaranteeing the freedom and equality of religious expression.

The attempt therefore by the BJP government to enact Hindu supremacist policies and deny sanctuary to Muslims fleeing persecution from neighbouring countries is contrary not just to the founding beliefs of the nation, but to Hinduism itself as one of the world’s oldest and most peaceful and compassionate religions.

Supremacist ideology does not enhance the religion (or race) that it attaches itself to, but only serves to diminish that religion (or race) which it purports to support.

India, like Scotland, has a long and cherished history of providing sanctuary to all those who are persecuted in other countries. Rather than sow the seeds of violence and discord, the BJP government should instead strengthen India’s secularism by granting amnesty to all persecuted minorities from neighbouring countries, regardless of their religion.

I have long held the belief that the more secularly and non-prejudicially one acts outwardly, the closer to the divine one becomes inwardly.

This is also true of nations, and the more secular a nation is, then the greater is the unity which comes from diversity.

Solomon Steinbett
Glasgow