I WAS impressed by Stuart Cosgrove’s article in Seven Days about the state of political broadcasting in particular, as it chimed perfectly with the recent experience of a friend when visiting in England (TV debates prove broadcasters see the UK through a London prism, November 10).

His intelligent and otherwise politically aware friends were amazed at what he was able to tell them about the state of politics and political activity in Scotland, as virtually nothing about it appeared in any of the media from which they gathered their news and information.

READ MORE: Stuart Cosgrove: TV debates prove broadcasters see the UK through a London prism

There seem to be a glaring dichotomy in the thinking of the news providers of every type south of the Border. They firmly believe in the “precious Union” of which Scotland is an integral – and indissoluble? – part. Likewise, our elected MPs are an integral part of the UK Parliament at Westminster, by having representatives there, elected by exactly the same process as all the others. This means that in a vote such as on leaving/remaining in the EU, Scotland is unequivocally an integral part of the UK. But come a General Election, as now, the SNP, with the number of seats and votes that make it third-largest party at Westminster, seems not to be considered an integral part in either broadcast or print media, as it is not a UK-wide party!

Does this mean that Scots MPs are considered integral only if they represent one of the London-based parties? What if LibDems, for example, were elected only in Scotland and failed to win any English seats? Would they then cease to be an integral part of the UK and be excluded from media exposure? It is time the entire media world, but particularly the broadcasting section, decided whether Scotland is an “equal partner” in the “precious Union”, or not. If it is, we demand the representation in reporting that is due to our position as third-largest party at Westminster. This is not a “pick and mix” choice. They cannot have it both ways – integral when it benefits England and separate when it does not.

There is, however, a big wide world outside London, and if we continue to be short-changed and even ignored, we will have an even stronger case for deciding to join it instead.

P Davidson

SOME Scottish Greens local branches are showing good strategic thinking by not standing in some constituencies. Their co-leader Lorna Slater perhaps wishes to make a big impact with her article in Friday’s National (Asking us to stand aside in this election is absurd, November 8) but her reasoning that the Greens should not stand aside (her words) because the SNP did not do so in 1979 is extremely counter-productive on two counts.

1. It has taken the SNP 40 years to get close to their aim of indy. No-one can wait another 40 years to be carbon-neutral or independent.

2. The Scottish Greens will have far more influence, indeed power, in an indepedent parliament to legislate and lead to decarbonise Scotland.

This independent parliament is within our grasp NOW and I hope the Scottish Greens will help to bring it about.

Jim A

READ MORE: Asking the Scottish Greens to stand aside in this election is absurd​

THE purpose of “interest” parties like the Greens is that if they get a large number of votes then this tells the mainstream parties (Con, Lab, SNP etc) that there is a public interest in green policies.

Also, personally, I think climate change is a bigger issue than independence. Independence either makes us a bit richer or a bit poorer and presents various challenges and opportunities. Climate change could change the entire world, cause large-scale starvation and migration, not to mention considerably more extreme weather than we currently get.

Frankly, anyone demanding that the Greens stand aside for the greater good needs to ask themselves why a) they feel that their own position is so weak that the Green vote (which is tiny) could impact it, and b) whether the greater good is really served by excluding discussion on green issues.

Pete Bell
via thenational.scot

WITH Nigel Farage now saying the Brexit Party will not contest any Conservative-held seats at the General Election, I hope they won’t be on any leaders’ debate and I don’t see the need for Nigel to be on TV news every night, except maybe to explain why the Boris deal that was worse than PM May’s deal last week is suddenly OK and not worth fighting against this week.

David Ritchie
North Ayrshire

BORIS Johnson and his Unionist acolytes (by which I include Labour and the LibDems) repeatedly insist the 2014 independence referendum was to be a once-in-a-generation occurrence. Could Mr Johnson please refer us to the written directive that makes this explicit? Or is this just another example of an argument based on a tenuous understanding of the truth, like the majority of Unionist arguments?

Solomon Steinbett
Maryhill, Glasgow