Update on the National Library of Scotland debacle.

[TheywontletmehavethenameIwant]

After the NLS removed The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht from the Dear Library Exhibition they received so many complaints The Library commissioned an independent review of the process leading up to the decision not to include the book.

This reviewer, an advocate and independent member of the Scottish Bar, was asked to investigate:

• The process for the public nomination
• The initial selection of items for the exhibition
• The decision to review the initial selection
• Whether appropriate corporate governance processes, including equality impacts assessments were followed throughout
• What influencing factors may have contributed to the decision.

As one of the many people who lodge a complaint, I received an email today with the finds of the investigation. I can’t link to it, because it’s just a document, and I couldn’t find a copy of it on the NLS’s website, although it due to be posted there. I thought I'd post this in case anyone was wondering how it all turned out

Investigator's Summary
The process for public nomination and selection of books to be included in The Book That Shaped Me was reasonable and appropriate. The LGBT Staff Network and allies raised concerns that 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht' had been selected, because members considered it was discriminatory and exclusionary and involved a risk of serious harm to staff and visitors. Those concerns were appropriately escalated, and the National Librarian ultimately assumed responsibility for deciding whether the book should be included. She decided it should not, and that was supported by the Chair of the Board. That decision was based on inadequate risk assessment, informed by inadequate evidence and consultation. The decision did not uphold the aims set out in the Library's Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion policy.

By my reading of the report, it’s clear that the CEO and the Chair of the Board caved to pressure from the alphabettie Staff Action Group.
The investigated didn’t buy any of the sorry excuses that the staff gave for it being withdrawn, the report corrected a couple of what I would call lies, but the investigator didn’t, that were put forward in an attempt to justify the action.

The 2 main reason’s the Staff Group gave were the book contravened the NLS EDL policy, and that having in the exhibition would be a threat to the safety of staff.

The report points out that excluding a book written by gender critical women was not inclusive, and that by pulling the book the NLS were the ones who contravened their own EDI policy. It also stated that neither the CEO nor Chair made any attempt to risk assess the alleged threat to staff.

'I felt that the theme of the exhibition was about bringing people together and it was suppose to be celebratory – once I realised how highly polarised and charged the feeling was around it I felt it perhaps wasn’t the right book for this exhibition.'

And which book did Amina Shah choose for the exhibition?

A book about partition, by an author that has suffered fatwas and a devastating assault because of his writing.

https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2025/06/reading-recommendations-for-national-librarys-100th-birthday/

'Amina Shah, the National Librarian and Chief Executive of the National Library of Scotland, said the “book that shaped her” was Midnight’s Children, the second novel by Salman Rushdie, published in 1981.

She said: “I read this as a teenager. It was the first book I read that used magical realism and also the first to cover Partition which impacted my family but I knew little about.

“I also read it right before the fatwa on Rushdie and it brought home to me the power of literature and the value of freedom of expression.”'

I thought the "risk of harm" they're referring to is the risk of harm from trans extremists who don't like the book and would therefore disrupt libraries in a scary and possibly violent way if it was displayed? Eg capitulation to intimidation.

Then there is not explicitly naming or addressing that concern in a transparent way due to the fear of reputational damage ("transphobia" label) in acknowledging the violent MRA component of the trans movement. Eg capitulation to intimidation.

As the White King would no doubt agree, there's nothing like the partition of India when you want to bring people together in joyous celebration.

I dont know the behaviour of the staff in question could easily be classed as gross misconduct (threatening and intimidating behaviour)

Explicitly threatening to cause reputational damage to their employer.

Thanks for the transcript -

AS that’s right it was the process, just to clarify the book was never removed from the display, it was proposed to be included and then wasn’t. - That's what she wanted to be clear on, not removed just not added after all.

I would have like to have heard questions about what AS learned from the report and what changes at the Library it's led to. What policy they've now put in place to prevent this happen again, moving forward etc etc. The fact that they've got a new chair is new info though.

Euan McColm has written a trenchant article in The Scotsman: Scotland’s National Library has lost its way under Amina Shah and she should go

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/euan-mccolm-scotlands-national-library-has-lost-its-way-under-amina-shah-and-she-should-go-5365216

archived at: archive.ph/8Dval

Thanks for the link to another great article, the author wasn't impress with the interview AS gave either, the whole incident shows how dysfunctional government and the public sector have become.

Shah read about violent threats and aggression in the book from trans activists, and was the subject of 'threatening and inappropriate' demands from her staff, and capitulated.

She has a duty as person responsible for this great institution to be robust, to lead, and to serve the public. ALL of the public, not just her pals and those who share her particular niche views.

I agree she should go. Reading that long chain of emails faffing about with bloody rainbow lanyards was infuriating. Her job is preserving, caretaking, and defending the literature and culture of Scotland, for and on behalf of the people of Scotland, not nursing pet political projects.

Excellent article from McColm.

'The Dear Library exhibition is described on the NLS website as a “love letter” which includes the chances to see “libraries in popular culture” and “protest banners”.
It is not possible to tell the story of libraries in popular culture or of modern protest without telling the stories of generations of feminist campaigners and it is not possible to tell the stories of generations of feminist campaigners without talking about violence, aggression, and anger, all of which are routinely unleashed upon women who reject the demands of trans activists as they have been unleashed upon women throughout history.
What sanitised version of the world does Shah wish to present?'

Shah wants protest banners, but only ones supporting a certain ideology. She is using her position and power to push a specific political ideology.

At the same time, she is excluding, smearing, and maligning women with gender critical views.

The exact equivalent is a Protestant denying Catholics access to the library.

"It's obviously the case that the law is changing and it's developing all the time so organizations do need to be completely abreast of all of those things"

Wrong! The law is the same as t has always been. It's just that some organisations are choosing to ignore it!

Sorry to see that the NLS insider has had to withdraw all her posts here and on the other thread. I hope she is ok.

That's worrying. Does anyone know what's going on?

I didn't realise that, I too hope she's not been sacked or sent to a re-education camp. 😠

I cannot believe that this is a good thing. I understand that the NLS insider is probably unable to explain what has happened but can anybody else shed some light?

The only actual risk I could see is the threat of violence from TRA’s.

I heard from her. She is okay, but being careful on social media. Things are obviously ongoing.

Letters.to Ombudsman, Culture Sec, and continued eyes on the situation seem necessary.

Sorry, she also asked me to pass on her thanks for everyone's support and concern.

Another source has this update:

'a senior manager has told her team that 1. They want to draw a line under the whole affair asap 2. AS doesn’t want to do any more media interviews where she’ll be challenged (presumably after her car crash bbc radio one). 3. Staff are unhappy there’s been zero communication about what’s happened and do want to talk about what’s happened but some have been told they’re not to say anything.'

Thanks for the update.

I suppose the good news is, contrary to the expectations of a faction within NLS, no-one has actually died. Even of embarrassment.

Thanks to the Insider. I hope things are going and continue to go well for her.

I'd hoped to go to Edinburgh for my birthday to see an exhibition and, possibly, squeeze in a visit to the library. Unfortunately plans fell through but the library had reverse ferreted by then anyway

Thank you for the update.

Managers who insist that staff remain silent would do well to heed Rabbie Burns - “Facts are chiels that winna ding”.

I wouldn't bother with the Ombudsman, they sent my complaint back, and effectively said take it up with the NLS. 🤬

I'm currently mulling over my next cause of action.

Fucksake.

There is the Culture Sec, but I can imagine how useful he will be.

The problems go allllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the way to the top.