IN his letter to the Sunday National (Question Time has not been unfair to the SNP, December 16), Ian Small, Head of Public Policy and Corporate Affairs for BBC Scotland, states that the “key criteria around Question Time panel selection” are based on “news values, topicality and electoral performance”.
Applying these criteria to the panel selection of the Question Time programme of last Thurday, apart from the obviously glaring disparity of inviting two Tory MPs (David Davis MP and Nicky Morgan MP), where does Jo Brand meets these criteria? I wonder if Mr Small would please tell the readers, in these most crucial times of political and social upheaval in the history of UK fortunes, where a comedienne and sometime cake-show host supersedes the selection of a representative of the SNP – second largest in the whole of the UK in terms of membership, and putting the case for 62% of Scottish Remain voters in 2016 – in meeting the criteria he sets out?
READ MORE: BBC: We reject claims of unfair Question Time treatment of SNP
I have the greatest of admiration for Ms Brand and the witty and droll persona she portrays in her current roles. My comments are in no way intended to demean her in person. However, I do feel that in these most uncertain and challenging times, Mr Small and his team should ensure that those invited on to the programme actually meet the objectives of the criteria he sets out.
Where, for example, does Jo Brand’s attendance on the panel outweigh, in terms of “news value”, the superb contribution and outcome achieved by “The Scottish Six” (and Jo Maugham QC), in obtaining the decision by the Advocate General and the judges of the European Court of Justice on December 10, that Article 50 can in fact be revoked unilaterally? This decision is one of the main turning points in the Brexit debate and may yet prove pivotal in the Brexit/no Brexit outcome, and yet no-one was invited on to the programme to bring this into the public domain.
READ MORE: New BBC channel to host Scottish version of Question Time
Can Mr Small explain why he deems appropriate the selection of any comedist in a most influential programme affecting viewers’ choices and opinions at this time?
In terms of the “topicality” criterion, on the day of the show we had the news of the UK Supreme Court ruling, which found that Scotland’s Continuity Bill had in fact been legitimate at the time of passing and that only the withholding of its presentation for Royal Assent allowed the Tories to legitimise their power grab Withdrawal Bill over devolved matters being rightfully returned to the Holyrood Parliament. Topical? Can Jo Brand’s cupcake-of-the-week outstrip these matters vital to UK viewers (because remember, we are always having it impressed upon us how much Scotland is a part of the UK)? I don’t think so.
And can Jo Brand (or indeed Nicky Morgan or David Davis MP, who reportedly spent only four hours in Brussels as Brexit Secretary) boast any level of “electoral performance”, the third of Mr Small’s criteria, over the SNP who have been in government, successfully, in Scotland for the last 11 years? Hardly.
So, the message to Mr Small and his team is quite clear. By all means set criteria for selecting the panel on Question Time, but once you do, stick to them. From the two legal cases I have quoted above, who is more likely to contribute to a solution to the Brexit mess, which is what the public want to hear right now – the supremely competent SNP MPs or two Tories and an actor?
I know which the Scottish public would prefer – but maybe that’s why SNP aren’t invited to participate very often.
Finally, with regard to the “accusation that the BBC manipulated audience selection in 2016”. This was not a Dundee audience as I, or any other born and bred Dundonian, know it.
Ann Williamson
Broughty Ferry
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