The BBC utterly fails when it comes to giving airtime to the SNP

As I watched it I was struck by how often Jo Coburn kept ensuring Alicia Kearns was involved in the debate either by direct questions or prompting her to offer an opinion on what someone else had said. On the contrary I felt Stephen Flynn was getting a raw deal in making himself heard, despite his best efforts, considering the only other politicians involved were both Tories.

It appeared that Craig Mackinlay was specifically on the programme to voice the alternative view on how to tackle climate change. He felt the costs involved of attempting to get to “net zero” in the UK would be too onerous for ordinary households. Nevertheless, it was still two Tories and one SNP MP which seemed at odds with the supposed “impartiality” of the BBC.

Rather than judge matters by gut instinct I decided a bit of science was in order, so with the stop-clock on my laptop and my Skyplus pause button at the ready, I trawled through the whole programme counting up every second each contributor made. I know, an extremely sad situation. I really need to get a life! It was soul destroying work and not something I’ll be doing again any time soon!

READ MORE: BBC is cheating us out of Scottish lunchtime news on a daily basis

My findings are as follows provided as a percentage of the total output of contributors, except for the presenter of course: Alicia Kearns 31%, Tim Marshall 27%, Stephen Flynn 20%, Craig Mackinlay 12% and Pippa Crerar 10%. That makes the total input from the politicians as 43% Tory, 20% SNP. A tad unfair surely!

Craig voiced his concerns about the cost to those on low incomes impacted by the transition away from gas boilers. He stressed only the “well heeled” could afford it. Stephen pounced on this utter hypocrisy with, “where I struggle about the argument Craig is putting forward is his notion that this is going to hit the poorest the hardest and let’s not forget the UK Government has just taken off £20 per week from the poorest in society in the midst of an energy price hike crisis.”

Craig either wasn’t listening to Stephen or his short-term memory left a lot to be desired because later in the programme as part of his response he stated, “I didn’t get elected to make my constituents both colder and poorer....”. Stephen followed and rightly pointed out to him his government had just done that! Stephen was swiftly put down by Jo in a very curt, “You’ve made that point”. None of the other contributors were treated in that manner throughout the programme.

Well done Stephen on shining a light on the sickening hypocrisy of Tories with their faux concern about the great unwashed (as they really see them).

We all know Johnson and his chums haven’t been kept awake at night prior to the Brexit vote at the plight of poorly paid British lorry drivers, hospitality workers and carers. The way they jump through hoops to try and keep appeasing the Brexit voters in the “red wall” is stomach churning.

This blatant hypocrisy is rarely highlighted however in UK mainstream media.

Having watched how such a nondescript lunchtime political programme treats pro-independence politicians we can only hold our collective breathe at the onslaught awaiting us come the next referendum campaign, when it happens.

Never mind, bring it on. “Dae yer wurst!”

Ivor Telfer

Dalgety Bay, Fife

BY virtue of the strange synchronicity that seems to run my life at the moment, I was drafting a personal idea which explained why people vote Yes or No when you published the Yessay by Dr Mary Brown, who turns her professional mind to that question. She asks what makes people see the world in the way that they do.

Electorates seem to divide into half: for instance Scotland, Catalonia, Quebec, and, in a larger scale, the USA. A clue to this conundrum came from a relative who, when given a copy of the winning Yessay and other pieces, said he did not disagree with the facts but arrived at different conclusions from me. So it seemed that the binary split in a population which is as various as the grains of sand on the shore is possibly dictated by one dividing characteristic.

This is known in Scots as “neibourheid”, the mutual obligations of the members of a community. This can be used to describe those who feel we should work together to look after the wanting, the ill, the old and the young, in an organised manner: in historical terms, socialist. The opposite of this is like my relative who feels himself subconsciously to be autonomous, slightly disconnected from society and able to look after his own family interests.

These types are translated into Yes and No by the circumstances of a referendum or election. The social types are anxious to care for their fellows and favour independence to allow this to come about without being prevented by the UK’s conservativism. The others already feel themselves to be independent enough for their own needs and are therefore not concerned by the heteronomy of Westminster, an extreme expression of Mrs Thatcher’s “no such thing as society”. As these beliefs are born, not bred, we should not be too confident that the demographics favour Yes as we cannot foresee how society will react under the stress of climate chaos.

As a further co-incidence Dr Brown writes warmly of Buchan and “Huntingtower”. I have enjoyed this book since I was a youth and have translated it into Scots under the name “Dalquharter”. My guid-wyfe has also written about another overarching theme of the story, which is that all the characters except the solid Dickson are damaged by the Great War, including the feral and fatherless Diehards. This is analagous to the societal stresses which we must prepare ourselves for owing to our looming planetary crisis.

“Bot ye’l no fikkil Tammas Yownie.” must be our hopeful slogan.

Iain W D Forde

Scotlandwell

ANDY Anderson makes some excellent points in his analysis of the forward march to independence in Scotland. Independence first and then the struggles for the new economic system, banking and financial regulation after this has been achieved.

My worries at the moment centre on how we will move to independence. For some time now I have been reflecting about the Treaty of Union and its place in our independence struggle. I tend to agree with those who argue for the withdrawal of our MPs from Westminster and a declaration of withdrawal from the Treaty of Union.

The Scottish Sovereignty Research Group argue for a quick entry into EFTA which would assist us with recognition from other small countries when a declaration of independence was made.

Others have argued for the SNP leadership to declare the next UK elections to be made a plebiscite election.

The current Conservative leadership have shown every sign of a rule-breaking mentality both internally and internationally. They have also shown that they will make every effort to change the narrative about devolution and strip away any small gains that the Scottish Government has made. They have lost no time in making changes with the Internal Market Act and the recent boundary changes.

I think that Professor Alf Baird has shown us that another referendum would not be a good idea on the basis of the changing demography of Scotland – more annual incomers mainly from the South and loss of Scottish born people through long established patterns of Scottish migration since the Clearances.

There is no doubt about the commitment of the Yes movement in all its diversity.

But whatever way we move, it will take courage and commitment from the leadership.

Maggie Chetty

Glasgow

ANDREW Tickell’s article on Sunday was excellent. Particularly for its accuracy!

However, can I please refer to the paragraph in the last column where he says: “Under 30 years and more of this stuff – under a man child PM who made his name in journalism by inventing entertaining lies about Brussels – we’re supposed to believe that leaving the EU is the moment which will help Britain grow up and grow out of it’s John Bullshit? Pur-lease”.

Well I am writing to say that though I do agree with all that AndrewTickell says, there is a major problem. And that is the “we” to whom he refers.

Mostly the “we” in Scotland certainly do not believe any of the nonsense, but mostly the “we” in the south do believe it. Hence the Tory government still ahead in the polls etc and if a general election were called tomorrow Boris would win again.

So, what could be a solution to this dilemma in Scotland? Let me think!

George Archibald

Lasswade

BUY-OUTS – whose aim is to return the lands, buildings and infrastructure of Scotland to the people of Scotland – are an essential for everyone in Scotland (regarding the query on this matter from Iain Wilson on October 15).

£500,000 may seem a good deal of money, and The Old Forge may be a pub, but is also an important local hub/ social centre, probably the only one for a great distance, and it could widen its usefulness to the community in many other ways ONLY when the local folk own it. A new external, possibly non-resident, owner would be interested in profit. There are many sad tales in the Highlands and islands of the damage done by landowners with no care for the people who live there.

READ MORE: Andrew Neil 'could return to BBC after GB News failure'

The fact that it is very remote, on Knoydart, in Lochaber, an area very ill-used in the past, penalised for “remoteness”, struggling to keep a community there, and needing the means to increase it, is a strong indication that such a buy-out should be supported.

The improvements in/for the community – whether numbers, health, well-being, economic activity etc – will also repay the taxpayers of Scotland in the future.

It is unfortunate that the taxpayers of Scotland have more than 40% of their hard-earned money kept by Westminster – to pay for nuclear weapons, the House of Lords, London Crossrail, HS2, the London weighting, to name but a few of the things of no benefit to the people of Scotland – but Westminster permits no reciprocal contribution FROM the people of England, even in cases where they might benefit.

Susan FG Forde

Scotlandwell

ALAN Riach on Scottish theatre richtlie rins owre the antecedents that pit thegither gied us the revolutionary phaenomenon – “the watershed” – that wes The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil. Ae element he obviously includes is “popular theatre”. Here, a mention micht hae been drapt in o the year (1972) afore,s The Great Northern Welly-Boot Show. It’s lang syne, but the myndin is o safter satire an smaw historical reference, but stowed wi Riach’s “working-class cultural conviction”.

Reid Moffat

Fawkirk