I HAVE quite often defended BBC Scotland against sweeping criticism on the basis that it has many decent journalists trying to do a job in difficult circumstances. But top management's decision to allow and pay for an appallingly biased documentary about the Alex Salmond trial was not responsible journalism. It was a crude hatchet job ("Verdict on TV account of Salmond trial? Guilty of unfairness", The Herald, August 18). Its decision is even worse given that it was put on air in the midst of a major Holyrood inquiry and with a substantial amount of material yet to be made public. Responsible public journalism?

I understand that a private company whose managing director is Kirsty Wark’s husband, Alan Clements, was set to produce a documentary on the trial and had a commercial stake in it. The problem was that the script got messed up in the middle of the project. The pesky jury, which had a majority of women, had undermined their plan by daring to find Mr Salmond not guilty. Never mind, get the script back on track and show that he was really guilty anyway and how terribly the poor complainants have been treated. Ignore the women who appeared for the defence, ignore the women on the jury. They are the wrong kind of women and, of course, men are never allowed to be victims. One set of crude stereotypes has been replaced by another set of crude stereotypes.

The complainants are all mature professional women used to the rough trade of politics. That is in the public domain from information presented in the courtroom. They are not vulnerable girls. Anonymity is fine in the courtroom but when you have been found not to be credible yet continue to make claims outside of court, is it natural justice still to have that privilege? The former accused who has been found not guilty does not have any protection.

For the BBC and the production company to try to cover their back by claiming that Mr Salmond was given the opportunity to be interviewed is cheap and dishonest. He is due shortly to appear before a parliamentary committee under oath and will present a substantial report. Is the BBC really suggesting that submitting to a few hostile questions in a loaded documentary is a fitting balance?

I can speak as someone who has over many years agreed and disagreed with Mr Salmond. He never quite fitted into "establishment" Scotland. They sensed that he was a potential disrupter. Sometimes he would play ball with them but he lacked true deference. They really hoped that the trial would nail down the coffin but he escaped, and several different cliques are trying to get him back into the cemetery. I don't know how much they should bet on it.

Isobel Lindsay, Biggar.

I AM a firm believer in independence for Scotland.

I do not put great storage in personalities but nevertheless think the SNP has enjoyed excellent leadership over the last 30 years.

It was from this basis I watched the Kirsty Wark programme on the Alex Salmond trial.

To say I was shocked by this programme is an understatement. Not only did Ms Wark seek, in my view, to undermine the verdict of the trial, but in doing so she also chose to put a bomb under the whole system of justice. Why the BBC allowed this to happen is astounding.

The basis of justice is that anyone is innocent until proven guilty. A jury did not accept any proof of guilt in this case and therefore Mr Salmond is innocent. This programme set about to destroy the conclusion reached by the jury. There was no attempt at fairness in the programme. The scenes of hands being wrung, the tones of the actors speaking for the women, the omission of most of the defence, the summing up by Ms Wark, these were all played out to condemn as guilty a man already found innocent.

I am left asking myself why was this programme ever made. Was it to destroy a man? Was it to hurt the cause of the SNP and independence? Was the public interest being served?

I am unsure what the consequences of the programme will be. I do, however, contemplate the terrifying prospect for those on trial is that it in future it may not be sufficient for a jury to find you innocent but that Kirsty Wark and the BBC come to the same verdict.

George Kay, Burntisland.

MUCH of the Kirsty Wark programme about the Alex Salmond trial was taken up with material which was already in the public domain and was therefore fairly unremarkable. However, there is one part that cannot go uncommented upon.

Kenny MacAskill made unambiguous accusations that a conspiracy had taken place involving the women witnesses and senior members of their own party, the SNP. Mr MacAskill's statement was especially noteworthy as he is both a sitting SNP MP and more importantly, a former Scottish Government Justice Secretary. As such he is fully aware of the gravity of the allegations that he is making: that the witnesses and the SNP leadership conspired to incriminate Mr Salmond on charges which would have deprived him of his liberty, and that the women perjured themselves to bring about that same aim. Mr MacAskill assured Ms Wark that he had evidence of these allegations from a number of sources.

It is essential that these allegations are investigated as a matter of urgency by the Crown authorities, and if they are found to be of substance, the alleged perpetrators must be charged and put on trial accordingly. Conversely, if Mr MacAskill is found to have made serious allegations for which there are no grounds, then it is he who should face the consequences.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow G13.

HAVING watched the BBC programme fronted by Kirsty Wark, The Trial of Alex Salmond, there can be little doubt that the judgment of the jury in finding him not guilty of 12 charges of attempted rape, sexual assault and indecent assault, with one charge of sexual assault with intent to rape not proven, was indeed the correct one.

Of course, as the law stands at the moment, there was no criminality. However what Mr Salmond is guilty of, surely, not least as a married man, is that by his drunken behaviour on occasion, and his disgraceful and dishonourable manner toward a number of female colleagues in places such as Bute House, he brought the very privileged position and high office of First Minister into disrepute, and for that alone, he should now apologise unreservedly to the people of Scotland.

Neil McKinnon, Perth.

SOME time back in the immediate aftermath of the failed independence referendum I decided to join the SNP, so went to a meeting of the local branch. Metaphorically speaking I had the piano-wire looked out and identified handy lampposts, I was ready to rock. After sitting through an hour of a badly-chaired meeting where differing cliques argued about who should go to national meetings and other trivia I gave up; I made a few pointed remarks and left so angry and disappointed that I left my good woolly hat behind as I stormed out in a huff. I had hoped for better but assumed the behaviour at the meeting was not representative of the SNP as an organisation.

However, yet again I’m informed by your reportage that Government ministers as well as civil servants continue to refuse to divulge potentially germane information to the relevant body in an inquiry related to what appears to the outsider to contain an element of internal power struggles within the SNP ("Holyrood inquiry opens amid row over Government ‘secrecy’", The Herald, August 18). I find this behaviour impossible to reconcile with democratic governance.

The SNP USP is that Westminster is alien to us Scots, it’s “their” government and Holyrood is “our” government. As long as ministers and civil servants deliberately withhold information from the general public they are not “my” government as I can’t trust them as it makes them look just like Westminster. Again, to the outsider it appears that the SNP establishment is risking prejudicing the cause for Scottish independence in order to save the reputation(s) of just who, and why?

David J Crawford, Glasgow G12.

AT the Scottish Parliament’s inquiry into the conduct of the Alex Salmond case, three committee members wished the Permanent Secretary, Leslie Evans, to answer a question about whether a protocol existed concerning whether female civil servants should be left alone with Alex Salmond – as was alleged at Mr Salmond’s trial. Ms Evans had said "I can’t comment", and the three wished to press her on it. The committee chair, the SNP’s Linda Fabiani, refused to allow the question to be asked and said that the committee could discuss the matter in private session.

This committee was supposed to be open and transparent. Is anyone surprised that that has turned out not to be the case? This inquiry has fallen at the first fence.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh EH14.

ONE good thing about devolution is that three different political parties exercise responsibility in three different UK jurisdictions. So, if the Tories want an end to government secrecy (and who doesn’t?), then they could do so at Westminster immediately, and shame Holyrood into doing the same.

Similarly with care homes. Inquiries could be set up in England and Wales tomorrow to see why excess deaths were so high, and if new residents may not have been isolated for the requisite period, or if staff were being moved from site to site. And it would save us in Scotland having to listen to the endless whinging of opposition politicians who could so easily do, what they say, is the “right thing”.

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

Read more: The Trial of Alex Salmond, BBC2, review