THE BBC advertises itself as an impartial broadcaster when it very clearly is not. Thursday’s Question Time was supposed to have been filmed in Dundee and therefore should have had an audience representative of the political framework of Dundee. Had Dimbleby not said “We are in Dundee” there would have been no way of knowing, as the audience appeared mainly Unionist, which is not representative in Scotland’s largest Yes-voting area.
Also, two members of that audience who were allowed to ask questions were failed Labour candidates: Braden Davy, from Morpeth in Northumberland but now moved to Aberdeen; and Kathy Wiles, who David Dimbleby identified as “Kathy Olibierti”. Wiles quit as Labour candidate for Angus after smearing some small children who took part in a protest at the BBC’s Scottish headquarters in Glasgow as being like the Hitler Youth.
John Swinney was the only guest who was not allowed to complete an answer without being interrupted, and several lies – including the one that we all knew there would be a referendum on Europe before the Scottish referendum – were not only allowed by Dimbleby, but promoted by him!
The panel were also heavily weighted against Scottish independence supporters and included a public-school English Unionist Tory from The Telegraph, in the form of Tim Stanley.
Scotland is not well served by the BBC and I will never in my life willingly pay any kind of license fee to support such an institution.
Mark Harper
Dysart
ON Thursday night I watched an episode of Question Time that could well become one of the greatest catalysts for a second indyref. In the full knowledge that the questions to be posed would heavily feature the independence issue, QT loaded the panel with four arch Unionists. The choice of a non-politician could have easily come from a myriad of backgrounds to ensure balance, but instead they pulled in a Telegraph journalist with extreme Unionist credentials. Four Unionists (five if you include Mr Dimbleby) to two independence supporters.
If the panel was loaded, that was nothing compared to the carefully selected audience. I don’t believe I heard a single Dundee accent all night, and very few Scottish ones. Getting on to a QT audience is difficult at any time as the vetting is severe, so they cannot contend that they had no idea about the profile of this audience.
The most aggressive contribution, however, did not come from either the panel or the audience. Mr Dimbleby has demonstrated his Unionist credentials on many occasions previously, but last night he seemed to lose all sense of balance as he tore into Mr Swinney and at one point and appeared to lose any ability for composure. He then allowed others to speak over Mr Swinney’s responses at every opportunity.
I hope this had a large number of Scottish viewers, so that they could see how the very British BBC is prepared to act to protect its own and to support the Unionist cause.
Alasdair Forbes
Farr, Inverness-shire
YOUR editorial headline ‘If named person policy saves one child, it’s worth it’ (The National, March 9) has two messages.
(1) It blackmails opponents with the charge that they don’t care if children die, and (2) It implies that without the policy, children are more likely to die – and conversely that, with it, unnecessary child deaths are likely to be prevented. The premise is conveniently neither provable nor disprovable, relying as it does on unknowable future events and causal relations.
Another headline-above-the-headline on the same theme, ‘Protest cannot be allowed to endanger vital work’ (‘This legislation lets us do best we can for children’, March 9), echoing the SNP’s well-known enthusiasm for freedom of dissent, arrogantly proclaims the Scottish Government’s determination to ram through this programme despite any attempts at obstruction by the ignorant public, who just don’t understand how wonderful it is. Like the editorial headline, its tone is one of intimidation.
It’s frightening that The National is using such rhetoric to promote the Scottish Government’s piously denied, but all too evident, war on parents.
Katherine Perlo
Prestonpans
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here