Readers' Letters: BBC should not apologise to Trump over Panorama

We have spoken and the feedback is bad for outgoing chairman Tim Davie who, after presiding over a series of blunders, felt he should fall on his sword.

Mr Davie wrote to me, along with over 870,000 others, in October with the results of the BBC’s most wide-ranging consultation ever on its performance. Only 43 per cent of respondents thought it was effective at being independent from government, 39 per cent in Scotland.

This topic was considered the most important of all, with 91 per cent rating it such. Surely this raises the question as to whether the BBC is politically biased and if so, whether it needs radical reform, particularly at board level where there is arguably too much political influence.

If the BBC is to return to being a valued independent broadcaster respected worldwide it is vital that it stands up to the biggest political influencer of all, Donald Trump. Bending to his threat of a $1 billion lawsuit would make it seem weak. The 6 January 2021 assault on the Capitol buildingsaw more than 140 police officers injured in an affront to democracy. Trump has never condemned the violence or apologised for his part in it. Why should the BBC apologise to him for a mistake by a third party production company? Surely the BBC needs to apologise first to its licence payers for crass editing rather than to Trump for the substance of the reporting.

Neil Anderson, Edinburgh

To be concise...

Donald Trump claims that the speech which the BBC so clumsily edited was “perfect”. It was also 54 minutes long. While there can be no excuse for incompetent cutting and splicing, had the president followed the example of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which was delivered in under two minutes, his entire speech could have been included in the documentary with no need for any editing.

(Cllr) Jane Ann Liston, St Andrews, Fife

History rewrite

Donald Trump’s assault on the BBC aims to redress “reputational damage” caused by the admittedly misleading editing of his 6 January speech in Washington. In the swirl of resignations and lawsuits, it’s important not to forget that the crowd who marched on the Capitol that day clearly intended to subvert a valid election result. Trump has continually peddled the view the 2020 US election was “stolen” despite overwhelming evidence he lost.

This latest action continues the perfidious modern view that repeated and strongly held opinion can “trump” fact. The BBC should admit their editing was misleading and apologise, but when will the MAGA legions admit their election fraud narrative, which drove that event and is immeasurably more pervasive and damaging, is simply wrong? Truth always matters, and we desperately need objective journalists, including those at the BBC, to hold those rewriting history to account.

(Dr) J Alastair Innes, Edinburgh

Forgive BBC

The BBC is one of the gems of the British crown. Over decades, this British institute has played a pivotal role in shedding a light on many of the most intractable conflicts, climate calamities, humanitarian emergencies, the refugee crisis, among myriad challenges afflicting our world. The BBC spurred creative debates, honoured differences and affirmed our common humanity. It was the only avenue through which millions travelled across the world through a journey of creativity, curiosity and truth. He who makes no mistakes makes nothing. And the BBC should never be misjudged for one error of judgment.

(Dr) Munjed Farid Al Qutob, London

Costly ignorance

Regarding Murdo Fraser’s article “The SNP must come clean about its stance on future of oil and gas” (Perspective, 12 November), had he read the Scotsman Leader of 31 July 2024 he would have known the £33 billion he quotes was out by a factor of 4. The figure he should have printed is £130bn (although he is correct in claiming that figure should probably be doubled today).

It is incredible that politicians can be so unaware of the true costs of net zero – over £1bn to be met by a Holyrood budget of around £64bn (depending on the cash sent from Westminster).

Ian Moir, Castle Douglas, Dumfries and Galloway

Royal reductions

Prince William has been described as a reluctant prince who has his own strong ideas about the future of the royal family. He struggles with the sheer privilege of royalty, the obscene wealth and the expectations of the public. He hankers after the Scandinavian model, by which royals live far more ordinary lives. This is shown in the manner in which he and Kate are bringing up their own family, their children going to the local school, not Eton or Gordonstoun.

Of course, they can never be an ordinary family, given the multiple homes and palaces at their disposal. These, I presume, belong to the nation and, if Prince William is serious about his reluctance, he can release them back.

Whatever our view of the royal family, and mine is ambivalent, it has evolved from Elizabeth to Charles and will evolve further through William. We are fortunate to have a royal family who are sensitive to the public's expectations. The alternative, King Donald, doesn't bear thinking about.

Ian Petrie, Edinburgh

Go underground

Norfolk, with its wealthy landowners, has a plethora of magnificent stately homes, open to the public, including Sandringham, Holkham Hall, Houghton Hall, and several National Trust properties.

The Great Grid Upgrade, involving 17 projects, is the largest overhaul of the National Grid in generations, estimated cost £50 billion. In particular, there are two electricity superhighways, each enabling the transfer of 2 GW of power from Scotland to England. The cables, mostly under the North Sea, connect Peterhead in Aberdeenshire and Drax in North Yorkshire, the second links Westfield in Fife to Walpole, Norfolk, England, sharing a common landfall connection point. Once operational, each will carry enough electricity to power two million homes or proposed new AI data centres. To preserve the Norfolk scenery, underground cables, not pylons, will run together for approximately 100 km (200km end-to-end) from the joint landfall at Anderby Creek to the links' converter stations in West Norfolk. Why cannot Scotland have underground cables instead of these ugly pylons?

Furthermore, pylons are vulnerable to high winds associated with the storms of increasing frequency and ferocity which have left vast swathes of Scotland cut off from electrical power for up to a week while engineers risk repairing the damage caused by gales, often in ongoing hazardous weather. Underground cabling, although initially 4-5 times more costly, will work out much cheaper in the long run.

Under the present regime, with Westminster in overall control, energy is reserved, Scotland is unable to sell its renewable electricity at market prices, to decide for itself, and forced to have monster pylons blighting its scenic countryside – unlike Norfolk.

D W Lowden, Aberdeen

Forget trams

Further to the debate over the future of Edinburgh trams, why not forget expensive rails and trams and just provide tram-like articulated buses running on dedicated painted routes? No electric cables would be needed (they could be made battery powered in the future). Why would this not work just as well?

It would need good road surface, tyres and suspension to give a similar ride. They would be run by the same company under the same method and timetables etc. This could save the Council a lot of money.

Niall McTeague, Glasgow

Brazil jolly

Never ever will the SNP miss the chance of a jolly, charged to the taxpayer. Gillian Martin is the latest off an a big one - to Belem to participate in the latest climate jolly in Brazil. Our taxes will pick up her tab. Like all the other jollies the SNP attended, she invited herself it seems. Be assured, her contribution will be zero.

Oh, yes, and she is of course not helping the climate by flying all that way, over ten thousand miles, supposedly to save us in a gas-guzzling airliner.

The things they do for Scotland.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh

Letters change

Our so-called Royal Mail has finally become useless for any commercial or domestic letter that is even remotely time-sensitive. This morning, for example, my housekeeper received a hospital appointment for yesterday, and my card from here to Dundee took six days. Other stories abound.

So, as its present Czech owners have expressed their preference for parcel delivery, it is surely now time to allow the many first-rate privately owned UK delivery services to take responsibility for letter delivery. Previous legislation to protect Royal Mail has prevented this. That has now surely been negated.

Such a move would – without doubt – return this useful service to an acceptable level of efficiency.

Malcolm Parkin, Kinnesswood, Kinross-shire

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.