Open Letter to BBC Scotland - Colin Campbell
To Mark Leishman - Head of Corporate Affairs BBC Scotland
Dear Mr Leishman,
I welcome your response in last month's Scots Independent to my criticism of Headlines, as encouraging evidence that the BBC is prepared to deal more openly at last with viewers
and listeners concerns. However your mere assertion: that political balance is maintained over the year in the programme's panel membership can not in itself settle the matter. The reason for this is that I based my criticism after monitoring the programme, on a random sampling basis, over a number of years and from this evidence drew very different conclusions from your own.
As an ordinary person who has other commitments I have not been able to listen to every broadcast of Headlines and thus I have not got a complete record of all those who have taken part during the period of my survey; but I have monitored 35 individual broadcasts between October 1993 and August 1995. For your information I am sending you separately a list of the panellists who participated--together with notes of their political allegiances as known to the informed public. The political balance, as observed over these 35 Headlines programmes was as follows: LABOUR 31; TORY 32; SNP 8; Lib Dem 14; OTHER 15.
Now of course, because I have not been able to record a complete tally over the years it is inevitable that the balance of opinion will be somewhat different from that mentioned above; but by using random sampling over so many broadcasts it would be surprising if the correct assessment of party political representation was significantly at variance with my own findings. Fortunately for both of us, instead of having to rely on mere assertion and counter assertion, there is a means by which we can calculate the exact balance over a year's worth of Headlines broadcasting; and it is surely in all our interests, including the BBC's, to elucidate the exact position from a historical viewpoint. Accordingly I now invite you, as Head of Corporate Affairs, to produce the BBC's, own actual record of panel membership on Headlines over a 52 week period starting retrospectively from 5th April 1996. In this way we would have the most recent picture available of a full year's worth of broadcasts. Just as I have copied my sampling list to yourself, and to my editor, I would ask that you would extend to me the same courtesy in reply. I would also ask that you would agree to us publishing the end result in the Scots Independent. May I also suggest, in the interests of perceived fairness, that the task of identifying the political leanings (of panellists active in politics) be given to the Electoral Reform Society, or to some other mutually agreed independent adjudicator?
I give you my assurance that if the findings of this simple survey disprove my allegations of political imbalance I shall give you and the BBC an abject apology, and make a full retraction of my charges in the earliest available issue of the Scots Independent. I trust however that should the findings support my criticism the BBC will equally tender me an apology--but, much more importantly, take immediate steps to secure a proper balance in Headlines--and all other politically sensitive programmes in the future--including those broadcast in Scotland on Network programming. I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely
Colin Campbell
London Levy Damages Highlands
Previewing a campaign SNP video, their prospective Parliamentary candidate in Inverness East, Nairn & Lochaber, Fergus Ewing attacked the "London levy'' which Scotland pays within the Union, pointing out that the extra tax which Scotland pays in petrol duty discriminates against Highland communities, and the extra VAT on fuel which we pay hurts pensioners. Mr Ewing told the SI:
"The people of Scotland, and Highland areas in particular pay a 'London levy' within the Union which damages our communities and hinders our economy. On the Government's own figures, Scotland pays a 'London levy' of £10 per tax- payer per week in extra taxation.
''In a whole range of areas, the 'London levy' hits Scotland and the Highlands hard. Our pensioners pay over the odds in VAT on fuel because of our colder climate. For every pound in VAT on fuel paid in London, pensioners in Inverness pay an extra 13 pence.
"And hikes in road fuel duties by successive Tory Chancellors mean that Highland motorists, often with extensive distances to travel, pay an extra £150 a year for their petrol. And higher transport costs feed into higher retail prices in Scotland.
''It is a disgrace and an indictment of the Union that a na- tion which has generated £100,000 million of oil and gas revenues for Westminster should be forced to pay through the nose for our fuel. Only with an independent Parliament can the people of the Highlands and Scotland ensure that our energy wealth benefits the people, and not Westminster.''
Supporting Mr Ewing was SNP leader Alex Salmond MP:
''Inverness East, Nairn & Lochaber is a key marginal seat with the SNP in second place on the new boundaries.
''At the last General Election, the SNP was the only party to increase its share of the vote, as the Unionist parties all fell back. Subsequent successes in council elections and
boundary changes have also favoured the SNP. Inverness East Nairn & Lochaber can help take all of Scotland forward by voting for the SNP and Fergus Ewing."
Book Review by James Halliday
STRATEGIES FOR SELF-GOVERNMENT - Dr James Mitchell Two generations of academics and intellectual journalists allowed the Scottish National Party to come into being to survive and--slowly and painfully--to grow, without paying any attention. Space would always be found for any tales of absurd behaviour or utterances by persons claiming to be Nationalists, and space would be found to report the doings of any group or faction which was Nationalist but outwith the SNP. Come to think of it, these seemingly two categories were often one and the same. As a result of these years of averted scholarly eyes, we now find generation of younger writers telling the story which their elders should have told, racing against time before all the witnesses are dead. No doubt as always, better late than never, but a great burden is placed upon these younger writers as they use their energy to research and their reason to interpret the evidence they find.
We had a fine history of the rise and early days of modern nationalist politics in Scotland from Richard Finlay in his ''Independent and Free''. He ended his study in 1945. Now with some slight chronological overlap, Dr James Mitchell analyses the happenings and ideas of the period since. His book is a most admirable companion volume to Finlay's. We have had to wait, but now these two men have given us the biography of our cause and our organisation which we have lacked until now.
Dr Mitchell in speech and in print has always been lively, alert and shrewd in his judgments, and all his qualities are on convincing display.
Where Dr Mitchell's references can be checked against memory or documentation, they stand up well, and many of his comments convey the great pleasure we all feel when an honest and intelligent observer is brought by the evidence and his own reasoning to arrive at the same conclusions as ourselves.
There is more to the book than its main narrative. We are given much to think about by the author's comments on general political issues. Some of these comments are palatable, some less so. He can, as an uncommitted observer, make statements with the chance of being believed while such statements, coming from us, would be dismissed with ''well they would, wouldn't they?" The essential futility of pressure-group organisations and all-party approaches is something we have all seen for ourselves, but we have not secured an admission from our own people that we have been always on the right lines. Dr Mitchell has a better chance of being trusted, when he states that commissions, committees, conventions and the like are seen as, and used by, Unionists as mere devices to serve their own purposes.
He has some useful things to tell us about some of our own shortcomings. For instance, only recently have Party members dared to refer to the economic progress and general success of independent Ireland, having instead to find comparisons further afield in Norway, Denmark and the like.
Dr Mitchell reminds us that church affiliation is a factor in many European countries. How could it be otherwise when Christian Democrats rule in Germany and in Spain, and have done in France and Italy and may well do so again. Grow up, and stop chasing sectarian bogeys is his advice.
He takes some pains to emphasise a vital point which all too often we leave unspoken --that the Union was made before democracy, before industrialisation, before urbanisation, before a popular British Press, before broadcasting. It must never be seen as resulting from an informed decision by anything resembling the contemporary Scottish community. His explanation of the vital distinction between groups of persons linked by shared self-interest and groups for the pursuit of some purpose is very helpful to all of us who have to pick our way around the merits of appealing to interests or appealing to issues. He has some interesting things to say on culture in politics, and on Labour's damaging conviction that welfare must come before self-government and cannot co- exist with it.
The less palatable parts? Like most of his generation he sees more merit in gradualism than I do, and he can take for granted the possibility of a "broad front'' of Home Rule allies, whereas I see no honest commitment to Home Rule from anyone but overselves, while our supposed possible partners are explaining that the purpose of their policies is to save the Union. And there is a very jolting statement that political scientists nowadays do not regard self-determination as applying only to nations. This may explain what has been puzzling for a few years--the hostility towards the principle from people whose sympathies might have been expected.
So, Dr Mitchell has not only done us a great service by giving us this book. He has given us the chance to think about and debate about the issues involved in our cause at an enhanced level of understanding. You will know our Party better for having read this excellent work.
Strategies for Self-Government:
The Campaigns for a Scottish
Parliament, James Mitchell,
Polygon 350PP £11.95
Editorial - New Labour, New Ball Game
As we approach the final months of this Government's life there appear to be some uncanny similarities to previous occasions when the fortunes of the governing party have been at their lowest ebb. Admittedly the trough in which the Tory party now languishes is deeper than ever before, and admittedly the Labour party looks unstoppable with its present momentum. However two factors with historical resonances should be borne in mind before the result of the next Election, whenever it comes, can be hailed as a foregone conclusion.
The Tory Party is never more dangerous than when it has its collective back to the wall. As we saw in Scotland in 1992, there is a remarkable capacity for Tories who become disgruntled with their party to return steadfastly to the colours at General Elections. If this can be demonstrated in Scotland, where Tory support has been slumping steadily for years, it is probably even truer of their presently shaky support in the traditional Tory heartlands of Middle England.
Next comes Labour's comparatively recent practise of depending so heavily on the personality of its leader as the main instrument for projecting its image. Whilst Tony Blair and New Labour are riding high, the latter is in fact his own personal creation rather than being the historic Labour Party of its traditional supporters. What he has done is create a political chimera with some visible characteristics of a hot-air balloon. This creature may be mightily impressive in aspect but highly vulnerable to collapse in the chafing and jousting inherent in prolonged general election campaigning. Like Neil Kinnock, Tony Blair is so conscious of the need for personal image projection that he grins even when making serious points--or indeed when in the act of attacking his opponents. As with Neil Kinnock, there may yet be a public reaction, to such manifest soft-soaping, that backfires under constant exposure.
For Labour to win an outright majority in the UK at the forthcoming General Election, the swing against the Tories will have to approach by-election proportions. Their difficulties are further compounded by variations in geographical representation, and by the generalised collapse of Liberal Democrat support.
In Scotland there is a widespread feeling that Labour are now certain to win the coming Election and that backing them is the surest way of gaining some form of Scottish parliament. But haven't we heard this before and haven't we had to kick ourselves later for placing too much trust in Labour's promises and inflated expectations? In past years it has been possible to argue that a vote for the SNP might let the Tories back into government in England. The situation to-day is radically different: for whatever main party forms the next Government its majority, should it get one, is likely to be wafer thin. In either case Scottish Labour MPs will be co-habiting with many more New Labour English MPs whose attitude to Scottish affairs, for a number of reasons, is likely to be hostile rather than supportive. Scots Labour MPs, will be virtually powerless to influence Scottish affairs as they could in Old Labour times. Were they to be largely replaced by SNP MPs, Scotland's position at Westminster would be enormously enhanced. For with 20 or more SNP MPs, and neither UK party having a commanding majority, Scottish issues could become the factor that conditioned the actions of the Government in power. There could be a Labour/SNP working agreement in the event of a hung parliament and the Tories could be denied office unless they had an outright majority that Labour couldn't have overturned anyway.
Health Issues and BSE - Dr John Hulbert
I was in Paris on the Champs Elysee on the 14th July 1989, celebrating with millions of French and others, the 200th anniversary of the storming of the Bastille. While those at home saw far more than we did on their TV sets, they missed the small but enlightening incident. After the great parade the Heads of State, headed off in their limos for a banquet, and as it happened, turned off the Champs Elysee at the corner where we stood. There were cheers for each one as it passed, with pennants flying, and gracious waves from the occupants. There was a big cheer for Mitterand, and smaller polite cheers for every other head of state who passed--except for Magaret Thatcher--who was hissed.
As the acres of newsprint devoted to BSE evaporate, and the story shifts to the agricultural pages, and then to the footnotes, it becomes ever more apparent that the continental farmers will have pulled off a coup of unimagined proportions without blockading a single port. There has been a need to reduce the size of the European herd, and serious negotiations about this were imminent. Now it will be achieved at a stroke, and without any pain on the continent. Scotch quality beef sales to France and Italy will have been dealt a severe blow in a fiercely competitive market and the dairy industry all over the UK will be wide open to French exports of milk. Meanwhile, politicians all over the EU, and not only those in agricultural constituencies, will revel at having given England a bloody nose. They will be in no hurry to lift the ban--why should they? The UK stands alone, friendless and exposed--despised by the European politicians, hissed at by their people.
What if Scotland had been Independent? Had Scotland achieved independence in the early 1980s following the Referendum in 1979, it is very probable that we would have pursued a different policy with regard to BSE than the one which penny-pinching, regulation-shunning Westminster took. Ireland, France, Belgium and other EU countries have slaughtered infected herds, and preserved their reputation. In the UK it was thought sufficient to pass regulations to keep potentialy infected material out of the food chain, but not to police the system properly.
A Scottish Government knowledgeable of the importance of the export market for beef, and of the low incidence of BSE in Scotland, would undoubtedly have followed the European and Irish lead and instituted a policy of slaughtering infected herds. It would have been more expensive and there would undoubted have been individual hard luck stories, but the overall disaster which is facing a huge section of the total Scottish economy would have been averted.
"What if Scotland had been independent?", is a question we should be asking--and answering
Sitig Niuclach na h-Alba - Alasdair MacCaluim
Mar a tha fios aig luchd-leughaidh an t- SI, chan eil mòran eadar- dhealachadh ann an-diugh eadar na Toraidhean, na Laboraich agus na Liberalaich. Tha PNA diofraichte bho na pàrtaidhean eile ann an dà dhoigh chudromach air sgàth 's gu bheil sinn airson neo-eisimealachd agus an aghaidh bhombaichean is cumhachd niuclach. 'S e "raison d'ètre"? a' phàrtaidh a th' ann an saorsa ach tha ar polasaidh niuclach air leth cudromach cuideachd airson iomadh adhbhar.
Chan eil bombaichean niùclach air T Bh no anns na paipearan cho tric 's a b' abhaist iad a bhith o chionn deich bliadhna ach tha iad fhathast ann, ann an Alba agus a cheart cho gràineil 's a bha iad riamh. A bharrachd air seo, tha muinntir na h-Alba fhathast fada nan aghaidh. Mar eisimpleir, chan eil 70% de na daoine a tha fuireach ann an Alba ag iarraidh Trident.
Ged a tha "Comannachd" marbh ann an Ruisia agus a dh' aindeoin na bhòtaichean uaine a tha ri fhaotainn bho dhaoine a tha an aghaidh na bomba, tha ar caraid Stailineach Tonaidh Blair fhathast uamhasach dèidheil air nukes airson daoine anns na "Home Counties" 7c a chumail sàmhach. Tha seo a' dearbhadh (mar a tha cha mhòr a h-uile rud a bhios Mgr Blair a' dèanamh) dè cho eadar-dhealaichte 's a tha na beachdan aige bho na beachdan aig a' mhòr chuid de dh' Albannaich agus fiu 's bho bheachdan nan Laborach ann an Alba. Bidh Laboraich ann an Alba an còmhnaidh ag ràdh gu bheil Pàrtaidh Laborach "Na h-Alba" an aghaidh Trident ach chan eil seo a' ciallachadh dad. Chan eil cumhachd sam bith aca agus chan eil annta ach meur den phàirtaidh Bhreatannach.
Tha na bombaichean niuclach cuideachd a' sealltainn dhuinn carson a tha neo- eisimealachd riatanach agus ciamar a tha e eadar-dheal- aichte bho sgaoileadh-cum- hachd (devolution). Le pàrlamaid Albannach ann am Breatainn bhiodh bombaichean niuclach againn fhathast agus le saorsa cha bhiodh. Air na h-adhbhran seo 's e deagh naidheachd 5 th' ann gu bheil CND na h-Alba (CNDA) a' tòiseachadh CND a' Phàrtaidh Nàiseanta an-dràsda.
Tha CNDA ag obair na dluithe leis a' phàrtaidh againn agus m.e bha "stall' aca aig co-labhairt a' Phàrtaidh an-uiridh. Tha CNDA neo-eisimealachd bho CND Shasainn agus tha iad a chear cho dubh an aghaidl cumhachd nibclach 's a tha iad an aghaidh bhombaichean oir chan fhaigh thu an darna fear gun fhear eile. Tha iad a tòiseachadh iomairt ùr aig a' àm seo: "Chernobyl: an urrain dha tachairt an seo?" 'S e ceist mhath a tha sin, gu h-àraidh an-dràsda nuair a tha Dun Ratha a' lorg sgudal niulach à thall thairis ri ath-ghiollachd (reprocess).
Ma tha sibh ag iarraidh tuilleadh fiosrachaidh mun CND, leughaibh an sar iris aca: "Nuclear Free Scotland". Carson nach sgrlobh sibh aiste don iris anns a' Ghàidhlig. Seo an seòladh aca:
CND Na h-Alba,
Freepost GW4783,
15 Rathad Barrland,
Glaschu G41 lBR.
Ma tha uidh agaibh ann CND a' Phàr- taidh Nàiseanta, sgrìobhaibh gu Brian Quail aig an aon sheòladh.
|
