WE have groups that support independence, many of them cross-party. They represent every part of the country and every section of society: pensioners, women, business. We have organisations devoted to research and to spreading the message through IT, and at least one newspaper which reports fairly.
We have leaflets, badges, posters. We have seized the Saltire, Scotland’s flag, as our banner and the positive “Yes” as our watchword. We turn out in our thousands to march in cities and towns throughout our nation. What we do not have is a song.
A song which can be sung by the marchers, thundering to the skies, or bellowed out in pubs or in the bath. A simple song, a cheerful song, a song of aspiration in which waverers can join. Flower of Scotland serves well at Murrayfield to drown out Swing Low, but we cannot march to it. The Proclaimers’ 500 Miles sets the tone of what is needed.
We are a land of bands and musicians: we need your music now. Music that can be played on guitars, fiddles, clarsachs, keyboards, even the pipes, but above all, sung! Burns could do it, complete with words, and our pipe majors wrote a rousing tune for every battle in which the Scots regiments took part. The words will come easy for the message is straightforward: “Walk tall, live free”.
Elizabeth Buchan-Hepburn
Edinburgh
THE claims in your story yesterday (QT secretly cut full SNP answer to Unionist ranter, February 14) are categorically untrue and the story is significantly misleading.
There was no “secret editing” as you claim and what the Cabinet Secretary said was not “chopped out in the final edit by the show’s producers”. To suggest that her response was “significantly longer” is not true. Nor is it true, as you claim, that she had “continued to reply at length but her answer was unable to be broadcast because Mitchell started to shout over her while she was talking”.
READ MORE: Revealed: Question Time secretly edited SNP answer to Unionist plant
Immediately following the Cabinet Secretary’s full response, Mr Mitchell interjected and made a comment that could not be broadcast for legal reasons. Ms Hyslop attempted to intervene on the comment being made by Mr Mitchell, and the two or three words she uttered were made at the same time that Mr Mitchell was speaking. This resulted in both briefly speaking over each other, at which point the Chair stopped the interchange and moved to a new topic and another audience question.
Ms Hyslop’s response to Mr Mitchell on the issue of independence was broadcast in full.
As to the question of “secret editing”, such a claim is baseless. As with virtually every television programme, all Question Time programmes undergo a degree of editing. However, panel contributions are routinely broadcast in full and to suggest otherwise is both misleading and disingenuous.
Ian Small
Head of Public Policy & Corporate Affairs, BBC Scotland
[Ed: It is disingenuous to suggest seven seconds constituted Fiona Hyslop’s “full response” while also admitting that she was interrupted at this point (when she was mid-sentence). It is disappointing that despite Mr Mitchell having significantly disrupted the production and denied Ms Hyslop her right to reply, the BBC still chose to broadcast in full his 68-second rant.]
READ MORE: Our questions for the BBC over Billy Michell's Question Time invitation
I AM absolutely appalled at the behaviour of the BBC which has now come to light following the controversy over last week’s Question Time. Fiona Bruce should have known the section where Billy Mitchell spoke over Fiona Hyslop would have to be cut as he had mentioned Alex Salmond. Mitchell should have been removed from the audience and Hyslop given an uninterrupted right of reply and an apology.
Further, I think the SNP MP for Motherwell should be allowed a question in the House of Commons to whoever is in charge of broadcasting to question the misrepresentation of her constituents and the persistent anti-SNP bias in the BBC, particularly regarding Question Time, and why Ofcom does nothing about it. This would bring the matter into the wider political domain.
Ann Rayner
Edinburgh
WELL done Lesley Riddoch for putting the whole BBC debacle into context (We shouldn’t let Question Time debacle obscure bigger problems, February 14). The Yes movement must remain focused. Opportunity is ours, especially if the other disgrace beginning with B gets (further) delayed.
Let Billy off to play his flute and his followers trail after him while we concentrate on “all the other big questions that get no attention while we’re all busy venting at Aunty”.
READ MORE: Why we shouldn’t let Question Time debacle obscure bigger problems
This statement becomes all the more important when we look at the column beside Lesley’s piece. A picture of Ruth Davidson singlehandedly holding up Edinburgh Castle under the heading “Davidson likely to be next FM”. Now, while we all know how valuable Carlaw’s inputs are, that certainly sharpens my focus!
And, Lesley, you are anything but “an ex-broadcaster”. You are, as always, spot on here. This is a timely warning.
Noirin Blackie
Haddington
HOW disappointing that the BBC did not consider changing more than just the presenter of Question Time when Dimbleby retired. If the Motherwell debacle has taught us anything it is that the “road show” aspect of the production is just a sham. If specific audience members are invited to add balance, and then these same audience members are given question opportunities, then the “local” aspect of the programme is irrelevant, providing only the same view points in different accents week on week.
How much more interesting would it be to have an audience which reflected the local area. Who knows, we all might learn something about the different opinions prevailing across the UK and understand why we might vote differently in elections and referenda. If this is too radical for the BBC then how about coming clean on the history and opinions of their seeded audience members?
The BBC’s reputation was already low in Scotland, and few would argue it is lower now.
Iona Easton
Glasgow
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel