THERE was a time when, if you were abroad, two aspects of Britain were a matter of envy for foreigners, namely the NHS and the reputable, historic impartiality of the BBC. Today that ship has sailed.

David Dimbleby's superbly researched and presented documentary series, Days That Shook The BBC, must be filed under "History". He looked at the times the BBC came into conflict with the Establishment, ie the monarchy, Margaret Thatcher, Harold Wilson. He covered the Iraq War, the Hunt Report, the Falklands War; race relations, Northern Ireland and controversial Question Times (albeit skirting around both Jimmy Savile and Princess Diana). His premise, throughout all these episodes, is that the BBC has preserved its independence. It has not.

If the BBC covers topics such as Brexit, the EU, the monarchy, President Trump, Boris Johnson, Scottish independence, Ukraine and Russia, Channel migrants, China, BLM, LGBT, abortion, Christianity, North Korea, Viktor Orban, green energy, any sport involving England, the constitutional crisis, the Commonwealth: one knows, instantly, how it will be slanted.

The network News bulletins are blatantly designed for London and Home Counties' consumption. Dimbleby himself referred to the Ofcom Report, which confirmed that people in Scotland do not feel the BBC reflects them. Watch the timid BBC cover Brexit news (for example Dover queues or Gatwick Airport chaos), and contrast it with Sky News or ITN coverage.

In the very same hour that Scott Parker (Bournemouth manager), was sacked after a 9-0 defeat Jack Ross (Dundee United manager), was sacked after a 9-0 defeat. Guess which BBC News At One covered using the above criteria.

More seriously, at the time of Lockerbie in 1988, London-based presenters and reporters controversially replaced Scottish output. Today, incredibly, the same happened when the Queen died in Balmoral. When the King arrived at RAF Northolt, the BBC explained the London districts and even streets he was passing through.Yet The BBC struggled (unlike STV) to identify parts of Scotland as the cortège was passing by.

I suggest David Dimbleby makes another episode.
John V Lloyd, Inverkeithing

We should go as soon as we can

AS a historian of Sir Tom Devine’s reputation, it is disappointing that he overlooks that history doesn’t always offer opportunities at the most propitious moments or under the best conditions ("Devine intervention", Politics Insight, September 18). For instance, would we have chosen to set up the NHS in 1948 when the country was exhausted and broke after the Second World War?

I do though take many of Sir Tom’s words of admonition, in particular that independence negotiations with the continuing UK would not “be in any way amicable”. Is that though not an argument for independence? Do we wish to remain in union with a country that, if the Scottish electorate have voted for independence, make the negotiations to this end as difficult as possible?

However, when Sir Tom cautions that “Scotland would be in the cold for an extended period of time” between leaving the UK and rejoining the EU, he is not necessarily correct. Kirsty Hughes, Director of the Centre on Constitutional Change at Edinburgh University, noted in a tweet last February: “During transition from UK to independence and the EU, an independent Scotland could rapidly agree a temporary trade/association agreement with EU. It would need before or soon after joining to have own currency and commit to joining euro in future. It would get accession assistance/funds during transition," going on to point out that “manufacturing exports to the remainder of the UK are almost same as to EU/EEA. Real challenge of border to rUK lie especially in services”.

On the question of the border, Dr Hughes has stated that characterising a border between rUK and an independent Scotland in the EU as a "great wall of Gretna", as Home Office Minister Kevin Foster did, was "simply scaremongering" and "hypocrisy".

Moreover, the longer Scotland remains part of the UK the more likely it is that there will be changes to UK law that make us non-compliant with EU law. Indeed, doing so was one of the main arguments for those who proposed Brexit. It is therefore in our interests if we are to rejoin the EU to act quickly, even if, as Sir Tom argues, now is not optimal. However, as before, history does not always offer this advantage.
Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton

'Four nations' usage to be welcomed

THE reference to the "four nations", to which Otto Inglis objects (Letters, September 18) is simply a belated acknowledgement of political reality.

In my youth, England was the commonest term used for the UK, though, sometimes we were told about London and the provinces, despite the inherent absurdity of applying the term to a country which had never been divided into provinces.

It was eventually realised by the Government that the word provinces might be politically embarrassing so we became London and the Regions, still hardly a suggestion of national unity.

During the 1970s and 80s it became apparent that the natives were getting restless so there was a new emphasis on Britain and the UK. Even the parochial London journals known as national newspapers began to discuss Scotland and Wales in terms that were not patronising, and were even sometimes well-informed.

The recent use of the term "four nations" has at last given some credibility to the idea of constitutional equality rather than subservience. Perhaps the notion of a "Union of Nations" might become a reality.
Peter Dryburgh, Edinburgh

Rail unions need to embrace change

I READ with interest the article by Martin Williams ("‘They’ll have blood on their hands’: Union’s fury at Network Rail over job cuts", September 18). Having spent almost 39 years of my working life in the railway industry the subject of productivity in both rolling stock and infrastructure functions is a long-standing one.

The technology available to railway engineering functions has advanced greatly in the last 10 years and the UK has some catching up to do when compared to European and international railway organisations, particularly in the fields of remote condition monitoring and proactive diagnostics. Things are changing with Network Rail, Transport for London, Train Operators and Rolling Stock Leasing Companies (ROSCOs) all investing in monitoring and diagnostic technology.

The supply chain for infrastructure and rolling stock material has also been investing in improved components and materials, all with the common aim of prolonging service life, reducing maintenance activities and delivering a higher level of safety.

The trade unions need to embrace these initiatives if the rail industry is to survive and grow in the challenging economic environment that exists today. That point requires organisations such as Network Rail to develop robust plans for implementing any proposed changes. These changes need substance behind them that must cover amended maintenance and inspection specifications, staff training and competency as well as staff deployment. On many occasions during my railway career I have seen and had to deal with the consequences of maintenance changes and staff reductions that were implemented without the detail being developed first.

Therefore to reach a successful conclusion for all stakeholders, which very much includes the freight customers and passengers, Network Rail needs to have detailed proposals to present and the trade unions need to accept that change is required and that the outcome can deliver an improved pay and conditions package for their members.

Prolonging industrial disputes will only have an adverse effect on the rail industry with loss of confidence from government (both UK and Scottish), freight and passenger sectors, reduced revenue and potentially a reduction in the UK network. There are several routes in Scotland where the economics of providing a rail service are challenging, all concerned should not forget that.
Kevin A McCallum, Glasgow

Turn to tidal stream turbines

BOTH Alex Dickson (Letters, September 11) and Geoff Moore (Letters, September18) only cite fixed tidal barrages as the source of tidal energy. Yet the simplest means of extracting tidal energy is from moored tidal stream turbines and not from barrages, these also being much cheaper in capital costs than large fixed barrages.

The two critical factors for grid integration in terms of base load are having a range of peak generation times per tidal cycle, around the coast, and the relative speed of tidal streams to generate electricity. There is nowhere in the UK where baseload cannot be generated from the tidal stream.

The estimated UK total resource is 110 TWh/y, roughly 30 per cent of the UK electricity market, but practical extractable resource estimates vary from 6% of UK demand to 16% of UK demand. Add in some fixed barrage generation and there is no reason UK base load cannot be substantially based on tidal resources.

Just as for wind, Scotland has the crucial sites with the highest generating potential, such as Pentland Firth and the Hebrides. We also have a massive marine engineering technical base, from the oil and gas industries, and from which transferable skills will be needed to rollout major tidal stream generation. It ought to be a no-brainer for major investment for our future generating capacity and in creating renewables jobs in Scotland.
Tony Philpin, Isle of Gigha

No evidence for CO2 claims

MARGARET Forbes (Letters, September 18) attacks Clark Cross, whose doubts about climate alarmism have been clearly expressed in several letters.

Her rather aggressive terms declare her overwhelming confidence in the currently-received gloomy climate predictions. She owes us doubters some explanations to help justify her case.

First, how can she be so sure that we are suffering now from a climate crisis caused by excess manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions? The evidence against CO2 is based only on computer predictions lacking agreement with each other and spoiled by the notorious problem of Garbage In, Garbage Out.

How does she define a climate emergency? What distinguishes it from simple continuity with historic climate records since before industrialisation? These include ice ages and the medieval and older warm periods.

What action does she seek so as to influence and benefit the planet's climate prospects?

Upon what evidence can she blame CO2 for adverse climate changes? There is still no evidence of climate benefits from falls in atmospheric CO2 tensions.

How could she persuade the many recalcitrant nations whose CO2 output represents the bulk released into the atmosphere? Many are intensifying greenhouse gas release by increasing dependence on coal for energy.

Ms Forbes's certitude is belied by lack of answers to these questions alone. There are many more.
Charles Wardrop, Perth

The Herald:

Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to edit submissions.