In response to my complaint above about:

Catriona Renton claims: ‘Scotland will be more dependent than ever on fossil fuels, largely imported gas.’

BBC Scotland replied:

In her balanced report, Catriona Renton included a clip from the company which runs Hunterston and also quoted the union side from the GMB. That was their point of view and her job was to ensure that it was put forward as an antithesis to whatever the employers were saying – common practice in a story such as this. Incidentally, the company indicated that the union’s view was widely held by the employees and that is something that any reporter doing their job properly would take into account.

You argue that the union’s view is inaccurate. You do so by reporting another organisation which may or not be accurate in their claims (WWF!). You also say that we carried a story in 2016 which reported a claim by an oil company. Without knowing the exact provenance of this I cannot comment, beyond saying that what you aver is not necessarily correct, beyond the company’s claim to be capable of something. It would have been made clear, as in this case, that that was the view of the organisation being quoted. That is what happens in three- or four-minute items in general news programmes such as Reporting Scotland.

There are those who regard the GMB’s claims as unrealistic and not in accord with the evidence; on the other hand, we reported only this summer that the shutdown at Hunterston had seen greenhouse gas emissions rise, according to Scottish Government figures, with emissions doubling at the gas-fired Peterhead power station. That might be held by many to lend credence to the position of the union.

Finally, the section of the Guidelines which you quote – Section 3 on Accuracy – states: “relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered” in the gathering of material and that is what was done here.”

Evasive? Dishonest? Disingenuous?

I hadn’t complained for a while. What’s the point?