Sir, – It may be time for former First Minister Alex Salmond to let go of his claim that the BBC showed unacceptable bias in its coverage of the independence referendum campaign (February 29).
He is on stronger ground though in making the case for the introduction of a ‘Scottish Six’ to replace the existing early evening news coverage north of the border.
He has some work to do if he is to convince everyone that the Scottish Government is not trying to control the output of a national broadcaster.
If the SNP can give that reassurance, there is a positive case to be made for an hour long programme with much more of a Scottish flavour.
The junior doctors dispute south of the border shows the problem with the existing schedule.
This industrial relations problem does not apply directly to Scotland, but is still of interest to those viewers here who want to know about how the National Health Service works.
It shouldn’t be beyond the wit of the broadcasters at Pacific Quay to present this in a way the Scottish public see as relevant.
The same amount of flexibility can be shown in the coverage of foreign affairs. It would still be important to convince everyone watching that the editorial decisions were being made in Glasgow and not in London.
It is a great challenge for the BBC to show that it can display a vigorous independence and yet deliver that Scottish-based output we might all appreciate.
Bob Taylor. 24 Shiel Court, Glenrothes.
Some respect for Swinney
Sir, – Many recent contributors to the Courier letters page and opinion columns urged the Scottish Government to adopt the responsibility granted under the new powers from Westminster and to accept the fiscal framework on offer from the Treasury.
Those “right minded” people would have sold Scotland down the river.
Facts concerning the year-long negotiations are now emerging and confirm that the initial reduction to the block grant was £7 billion, reduced to £4bn and now, following well founded argument by our finance secretary John Swinney, the deduction stands at £0bn.
Can we now expect the many detractors of the SNP logo “Stronger for Scotland” to write in to congratulate our Finance Secretary for standing up for the people of Scotland?
Duncan A Kennedy. Perth Road, Abernethy.
Serious threat of Big Brother
Sir, – I note that the SNP Government is still hell bent on pursuing their controversial and poorly thought out Named Person Scheme.
I also understand that among others, questions may be asked of children as to whether they are special and contented within their home.
Now let’s say that a child has a grievance against a parent who may have imposed reasonable parameters on the child that day, what an opportunity for the latter to impose pressure upon that particular parent, to gain redress by using its Named Person as a vehicle to accede to its wishes.
Equally all surveys will be carefully scrutinised and analysed and could be counterproductively used against perfectly good and respectable parenting.
The whole intention, in my opinion, is immoral, unjust and Dickensian and could place enormous pressure on professionals to become would-be spies and thereby read into situations which may not be there.
Now there is another anomaly upon the many anomalies: given that every child in Scotland will have an appointed “guardian” overseeing their progress, let’s explore the possibility that that individual has children.
They in turn will need an appointed independent Named Person, who again may have children and who will have another independent Named Person appointed.
The list can go on and on. It seems to me that it will be like a game of leap frog, and similar to that of a housing chain.
This scheme seems largely unworkable, intrusive, counter-productive and potentially costly.
I cannot see anyone agreeing to supervise without due reward, or will it be imposed?
Big Brother is seemingly alive, watching and kicking!
David L Thomson. 24 Laurence Park, Kinglassie, Fife.
Named Person plan a disgrace
Sir, – The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman responsible for overseeing the new Named Person legislation warns that the complaints procedure is set up in a way that if it needs to be improved, long delays could occur before it could be amended.
Presumably the SNP Government prefer not to contemplate such difficulties, as they continue to ignore the widespread concerns about this plan to introduce state interference into family life as the norm, rather than the exception.
State guardians are to be imposed for all children, justified on the basis of the need to protect a thankfully small minority of truly at risk children.
This new law appears to be as disliked as the poll tax was when it was being introduced.
We will no doubt need to see a change of government before this further example of the SNP’s controlling instincts is overturned.
Keith Howell. White Moss, West Linton.
Folly of climate change sceptics
Sir, – Yet again the global warming “sceptics” misrepresent the scientists.
Clark Cross (February 29) cites a report in Nature Climate Change to imply there is no link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate.
The report looks at reasons why the climate didn’t warm as much as expected, but as one of the authors said last week, “climate scientists agree that global warming has not ‘stopped’ global surface temperatures and ocean heat content have continued to increase, sea levels are still rising”.
The scientists are trying to understand what caused a partial flattening of the upward trend in global temperatures.
We know that greenhouse gas emissions will increase global temperatures.
We might not know exactly how badly and how quickly the outcomes will hit us, but the “sceptics” seem to believe that unless scientists can predict with perfect precision they can predict nothing.
This stance reveals their ignorance. The global climate is an incredibly complex system, with many factors at work.
The pretence of the global warming deniers that the climate is like a machine with a few inputs that lead to predictable outcomes is nonsense.
James Christie. 2 Dryburgh Crescent, Perth.
No excuse not to vote in EU poll
Sir, – With the EU referendum coming up in June, I am very concerned that there are people who will not vote and feel that it does not affect them.
Some areas of the country in general elections have a very low turnout. In the 2015 General Election, the overall turnout was only 66%.
That is completely unacceptable. It would be devastating if the referendum result was to remain in the EU and that result was of a low turnout.
There is no excuse not to go out and vote with postal voting and proxy voting available for those who find it physically difficult to access a polling station, it is a dereliction of public duty for people not to vote.
In Australia and New Zealand there is a $20 fine for those who fail to vote.
I think this should be introduced in the UK.
So while I understand there will be a lot of campaigning going on for both sides of the argument, can they please encourage people to make sure they are registered to vote and go out and do so whatever their decision is as it is too crucial a decision not to vote for the sake of this country for future generations to come.
There is no excuse for apathy.
Gordon Kennedy. 117 Simpson Square, Perth.
Let’s talk about EU bureaucracy
Sir, – As an undecided voter in the forthcoming European referendum, I would ask why the autocratic bureaucracy of the EU has not been questioned?
Is there any other political system that has a president, council, commission and a parliament?
It is worth noting the parliament, which is the only directly elected body within the structure, moves between Brussels and Strasbourg twice a year and has its vast administration in Luxembourg.
Tackling costs and accountability of the whole EU system should have been included in Mr Cameron’s talks.
Colin Topping. Crathes Close, Glenrothes.
Utter hypocrisy from Sturgeon
Sir, – Nicola Sturgeon marched in London on Saturday and says she will campaign in England for a Remain vote. At the same time, she has told David Cameron to stay away from Scotland during the EU campaign.
She seems unaware that her position gives her no standing in England, whereas Cameron is Prime Minister of the entire UK, including Scotland
Nevertheless, the freedoms we enjoy in the UK allow her to campaign in England as well as Scotland.
They apply also to Cameron.
The most sinister element in this is the dog whistle approach: Sturgeon’s words to Cameron give a clear signal to the rowdies among her following that, in her view, the Prime Minister will be fair game for harassment in Scotland, much as Scottish unionist politicians and Ed Miliband were in 2014-15.
This is an utterly irresponsible way for a senior politician to behave.
Jill Stephenson. Edinburgh.