WATCHING Newsnight on Monday I counted six Conservatives being interviewed about Brexit before they wheeled on Nick Clegg (the LibDem enabler who made possible David Cameron’s 2010 government) to provide the BBC’s idea of balance. This was, however, just a particularly blatant example of a phenomenon which has been in place for several months now on all the BBC’s news programmes and politics coverage.

When an extreme Tory Brexiteer is interviewed, to counter this they overwhelmingly turn to another Conservative such as Dominic Grieve, Anna Soubray or Michael Heseltine to provide the Remainer or soft-Brexit viewpoint. For several years This Week in Politics has been fronted by right-wing Tory Andrew Neil and had as a permanent guest the right-wing Tory Michael Portillo. As a sop to the BBC’s skewed notion of even-handedness, there is always one other non-Tory on the sofa. However, most recently that someone else has been Liz Kendall, a Blairite supporter and the candidate who finished last in the Labour party leadership contest, rejected resoundingly as too right-wing by her own party.

We have known for a long time that BBC bias against Scottish independence manifests in its choice of news agenda and the framing of issues to cast the movement in a negative light. Any bad behaviour by SNP politicians or supporters is invariably covered at length, while Tory racists, misogynists and xenophobes slip under the radar. Interviewing only one party is studiously avoided, although it has never been averse to pitting one SNP spokesperson against three Unionists drawn from the Conservatives, Labour and LibDems, again in the name of that spurious balance.

However, when it comes to Brexit, not only does the London/UK national news seem to have forgotten that Scotland even exists, it now deems it perfectly acceptable to allow one political party to set the agenda and provide both sides of the debate. The BBC has a motto inscribed above the entrance to its London headquarters: “Nation shall speak peace unto nation”. I think that this now ought to be revised to read: “Tory shall speak exclusively unto Tory”.

Dr David White
Galashiels

TWO years on and the government’s internal Brexit wrangling continues – it is worse than ferrets in a sack. But seriously, the country is suffering the consequences with massive insecurity for business and future employment. Yet the latest breath-taking proposal from the Conservatives in Westminster is once again treating the country with contempt as it proposes to extend the summer recess of parliament! With the government in meltdown with nine ministerial resignations, surely this proposal can only be seen as a ploy to take the pressure off the PM. The current crisis in Westminster is entirely of the government’s own making and the honourable course of action would be to cancel the entire summer recess and get on with the business in hand.

Catriona C Clark
Falkirk

ISN’T Brandon Lewis reneging on his pairing agreement the final despicable example of the corruption of the Westminster political machine?

Westminster is now clearly a nest of vipers, playing games regardless of the effect they will have on us.

For goodness’ sake Scots, what are we waiting for? Why are we not seizing the initiative to put OUR interests first, and doing it NOW?

England is dragging us down. Do we have to fall to the bottom of the abyss before we get our act together? Doesn’t waiting any longer just make our task more difficult? Isn’t English Brexit the monkey we need to get off our backs?

Jo Swinson was treated with treachery. What more do we need to suffer before we do what we really needs to be done?

Jim Taylor
Edinburgh

LAST week I bought two DVDs without thinking particularly about the subject matter of either of them. Having watched them I realise the significant similarities between them. Viceroy’s House is set in India as Mountbatten arrives to take control and steer India towards independence. We know this was not Britain’s finest moment, as India was divided in a most brutal way to suit the politicians both here and there. Many of the problems were similar to the way the British had treated the people and created the countries of the Middle East a few years before, causing the current problems to be found there.

The other film was United Kingdom, which tells the story of Seretse Khama and Ruth Williams and the struggle for independence of what is now Botswana. Again the British establishment had only their own needs and desires in mind, not those of the people of Botswana.

Both these films take place with a Labour government in power at Westminster, though Churchill showed his nastiness in continuing to oppose the changes in Africa.

What is it about the British establishment that they cannot bear to see an independent Scotland? Is it simply the arrogance of the British upper-class public school educated establishment? Do they just feel that we are the last vestige of empire and to lose us will mean the end of the world if not the universe? What do so many of our ordinary, non-rich fellow countrymen see in the British establishment that they feel they cannot support independence for Scotland? Do they feel that our Scottish leaders lack the brains and the abilities of our southern neighbours? Do they even care that the Scotland that exists today will be gone in a few years’ time, when in the interests of the UK economy Scotland will lose its identity?

Robert Mitchell
Stirling