I refer to the latest report by the House of Commons Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on the future of Scottish shipyards ("Nationalists hit back at claims Scots shipyards will die with independence", The Herald, January 21).
The official remit of this committee is to "examine the administration, policy and expenditure of the (UK) Scotland Office and relations with the Scottish Parliament". Under the dominating chairmanship of Glasgow Labour MP Ian Davidson, the committee is carrying out a series of investigations into what he insists on calling the referendum on "separation" for Scotland. Mr Davidson obviously detests the word independence and seems to have banned its use in all the committee's deliberations and reports.
The 12 MPs appointed to the Scottish Affairs Committee after the 2010 General Election include five Labour, three Conservative and two Liberal Democrat MPs, all of whom oppose Scottish independence. The single SNP representative was the newly elected MP Eilidh Whiteford, who has refused to attend recent meetings in protest at bullying behaviour and harassment she suffered from the chairman.
I have watched several live televised programmes of the committee's sittings, and it is obvious Mr Davidson dominates the other committee members. He monopolises the questioning of witnesses, often rudely interrupting to challenge statements he does not like. He makes no attempt to remain impartial or disguise his own bitter opposition to any question of Scotland deciding its own future. The published reports of the committee clearly reflect these personal views, sometimes omitting evidence contrary to Mr Davidson's predetermined views, and are of little assistance to Parliament in providing accurate information or assessments.
Mr Davidson's objectionable performance in the Commons chamber last week during the Section 30 debate has already been commented on by readers, and I am surprised and disappointed the Speaker did not insist that he and fellow Glasgow Labour MP Anas Sarwar withdraw some of their unpleasant and abusive remarks.
Iain AD Mann,
7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article