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The investigated didn’t buy any of the sorry excuses that the staff gave for it being withdrawn, the report corrected a couple of what I would call lies, but the investigator didn’t, that were put forward in an attempt to justify the action.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’m being to suspect that the state and all its sprawling apparatus is nothing more than a glorified Ponzi scheme. It’s becoming more and more apparent that nothing is done to serve the people, it’s all done for the self-serving, I’m alright Jack’s troughers, leeching from the public purse.

We only have the myth of democracy, the institutions meant to uphold accountability are mere theatre, it’s all designed to keep the gravy boat going for those lucky enough to get aboard.

At this point, I struggle to see any meaningful difference between our system and the authoritarian regimes of China, Russia, or any number of dictatorships.

I lodged a formal complaint with the Welsh Ombudsman, re the Welsh Government’s breach of the Equality Act. They passed it straight back to the very body I was challenging, and a HR underling replied with the same claptrap the WAG are spouting to justify their non-compliance with the law, which is what my complaint was about, as if parroting the problem back to me constituted oversight.

Independent scrutiny is just for show, in practice, our so-called democracy offers no more genuine accountability than a theocracy or a one-party state.

The UK isn't as authoritarian as Russia or China. But we are on the way to that kind of society. We've had the vestiges of democracy growing shooglier by the day for quite some time. Laws chipping away at freedom of speech, protest, assembly. Institutions undermined and devalued. More and more precarity. Death of a thousand cuts, I suppose.

I suppose we're losing the foundational values necessary for democracy to function healthily.

In a way, the situation is worse in Scotland, because the dream of independence keeps the Scottish National Party in power, regardless of how badly they govern the country. And because the politicians in power come from such a small pool of people, mostly untalented.

Update on the NLS progress pride lanyards.
They made a decision on 30th Sept but won't tell us what that decision was, because they're "communicating internally" and can't tell us till that's done.

Can only speculate, but why would it take 5+ weeks?

A wee update: The culture committee is still looking at the issue, and the more people complain, the higher the likelihood of AS being called to give evidence.

So please do email your MSPs, if you still have concerns about the governance of the NLS.

https://www.writetothem.com/

Just noticed there's another FOI response up.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/book_the_women_who_wouldnt_whees#outgoing-1964236

On the offchance the questioner reads this board - the responses are there, but not where they're first highlighted - for some reason they turn up at the very end of the library response. This happens quite often with the FOI request site, perhaps a tech glitch.

Anyway. Excerpts:

1st doc:

'Library Leadership Team Meeting Tuesday 27 May 2025

For discussion and decision: Inclusion or exclusion of the book ‘Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht’ within the upcoming Dear Library exhibition.
..
One of the nominated books is ‘Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht’. The book has been nominated by 4 people. All other books that have received multiple nominations have been selected for display based on popular appeal.
...
The book is 1 of 200 books within ‘The Book That Shaped Me’ display. It will be on a bookshelf and will be available for people to pick-up and read. It will appear with a personal comment on the inside cover about what the book means to the individual who nominated it.
• There is no other representation of gender-critical ideology in the exhibition.
• REDACTED
• Transgender people are represented in other books which appear in ‘The Book That Shaped Me’ display. There is also wider representation of LGBT+ people and stories throughout the exhibition, including spotlight displays featuring Alan Cumming, Damian Barr and Glasgow Women’s Library.
• The exhibition champions libraries as safe spaces and aims to reflect the experiences of under-represented and marginalised people.
• The exhibition also aims to reflect libraries as spaces that provide access to a diversity of ideas and perspectives.
• Other books which feature in the exhibition contain challenging and sensitive subject matters. Thus far, we have deemed them suitable for inclusion as they reflect diverse ideas and experiences, and they would be readily available in a public library setting. A further review of content will be carried out.
• No books have been excluded based on their ideology. Some books have been excluded due to their explicit or inappropriate nature.
• The exhibition references the idea of book bans and censorship in libraries, but we don’t interrogate this in any detail.'

EqIA is also attached, but I think that was in the original FOI?

I'll add some of it anyway:

'PC/Gender reassignment:

We assume that a majority of transgender people would regard the inclusion of the book as harmful, particularly in the context of the recent debates and protests around the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. There has been a reported increase in hate crime experienced by transgender people in recent years. The inclusion of this book could be seen as an endorsement of anti-trans ideology by the Library. The impact of including this book may include: • harmful impact to staff, feeling that the Library is not a safe or inclusive workplace • negative response by exhibition visitors who may feel emotionally impacted by the inclusion of the book, and may feel unwelcomed by the Library • backlash from partners, stakeholders and supporters resulting in withdrawal of support or partnerships • negative press coverage resulting in severe damage to the Library’s public reputation • a highly-charged response such as on-site protest activity which could pose a risk to our staff, collections, buildings, and public reputation In the long-term, we may lose trust from transgender people and allies which would impact everyone from staff to visitors, stakeholders to the wider public. It should be recognised that not all transgender people share this view and would not be opposed to the inclusion of the book. It should also be noted that there is criticism of gender-critical ideology in the exhibition, along with positive representations of transgender people. As such, it could be regarded that the inclusion of this book does not erase the voices of transgender people, nor does it give a biased perspective on the debate. The Library’s support for transgender people is also reflected in the Library’s wider work.

PC/Sex:
The exclusion of this book could be regarded as an attack on women’s rights and censorship of gender-critical ideology. The impact of excluding this book may include: • harmful impact to staff, feeling that the Library is not a safe or inclusive workplace • public criticism which could result in severe damage to the Library’s public reputation • backlash from partners, stakeholders and supporters resulting in withdrawal of support or partnerships • scrutiny from the Scottish Government • a highly-charged response such as on-site protest activity which could pose a risk to our staff, collections, buildings, and public reputation In the long-term, we may lose trust from with women and allies who regard the decision not to include the book as a form of censorship which undermines our public duty as a National Library. This could impact everyone from staff to visitors, stakeholders to the wider public. The book is the only inclusion of pro gender-critical content within the exhibition, whereas there is a large amount of content within the exhibition which platforms LGBT+ communities '

The new chair starts in January. People are entitled to email them, so if you want to convey concerns and if you are not sure that the management will update them properly, this may be an idea.

I expect there will be a board meeting before the end of the year, as the new chair starts in January.

If you write now, it will have to be flagged to both the outgoing chair and incoming one. The inbox is managed by an administrator, but the admin is obliged to send emails on to the Chair.

www.nls.uk/about-us/who-and-what/leadership-and-governance/board/about-the-board/

Shah has already mislead the committee by saying the EQIA process is backed up by training, but the report said it was inadequate, and training took place some time ago.

Shah also told them the staff network does not influence decision making or policies, but again report says it was the main factor in decision to exclude the book.

• There is no other representation of gender-critical ideology in the exhibition.
[...]
• Transgender people are represented in other books which appear in ‘The Book That Shaped Me’ display. There is also wider representation of LGBT+ people and stories throughout the exhibition, including spotlight displays featuring Alan Cumming, Damian Barr and Glasgow Women’s Library.

My underlining, above.

Er. It's not just me, is it?

Also, I note that the 2 impact assessment sections are near carbon copies apart from:

It should also be noted that there is criticism of gender-critical ideology in the exhibition, along with positive representations of transgender people. As such, it could be regarded that the inclusion of this book does not erase the voices of transgender people, nor does it give a biased perspective on the debate. The Library’s support for transgender people is also reflected in the Library’s wider work.

And

the decision not to include the book [will be regarded by some as] as a form of censorship which undermines our public duty as a National Library. This could impact everyone from staff to visitors, stakeholders to the wider public. The book is the only inclusion of pro gender-critical content within the exhibition, whereas there is a large amount of content within the exhibition which platforms LGBT+ communities

Spot the difference. It really shouldn't have been a hard decision.

Hello all, it’s been a wee while since I’ve been able to post but just when we thought a chink of sanity had started to emerge, the trans lobby has drafted a letter in support of the terrible bigotry NLS lgbt staff network have faced. There are about 110 signatories and the hyperbole is, of course, off the scale. It’s offline now so they may be about to send it to management. I expect some staff have had an hand in it. Are they trying to threaten and intimidate them yet again? Safe to say, they appear to have a hard time grasping reality.

Oh @VoleForceOne, what a ridiculous additional bit of painful idiocy. Hope you are hanging in there.

Well their definitions of “basic safety” and “material harm” seem to have no basis in reality. Batshit.

The very fact that it's full of 'anti-trans' rubbish means it should be binned straight off. I hope NLS's management aren't going to cave like they shamefully did last time. Perhaps the reality based staff could put together their own letter in response, calling out all the fantastic hyperbolic verbage. 😠

Its very weak. And I note the paucity of signatories.

The list of 110 isn't all copied in the images.

I mean, 110 people is fuck all. Many notable absences on that list, including some I'd have expected to add their names veey swiftly.

can you see the rest of the names?

Sorry, I have seen the list of names, but not sure if it's okay to share.

What they're asking for is on the face of it just for a statement that all people are welcome. That's cool. I can get behind that.

I'd caution that this may have been created as a precursor to another power grab, though. Especially with the new board/chair incoming.

I’m so fed up of this notion that having the wrong opinions causes “harm” or people being “unsafe”. Just fuck off.

To sum up:

There is no anti trans stuff, we made that up for emotional blackmail purposes. We are sad that the library has now followed the law, after its illegal discrimination and want them to break it again. We are inclusive, unless you have legally held, legally protected views, with which we disagree.

Waaaaah!

Sometimes I feel the most useful things a trans activist could do is get a clearer idea of what “actual physical harm” actually entails
i I don’t want them beaten up, but maybe watch some videos or read a transcript of a victim statement and medical report , and then apply it to their own situations
Also a quick course in the dangers of hyperbole and exaggeration and how it really doesn’t win hearts or minds

They could do a lot worse than reading some fables. Including The boy who cried wolf, and the emperor's new clothes.

It’s just so depressing

libraries and librarians are custodians, not curators

where I work we’ve Mein Kampf and David Irving on the shelves, I don’t like it but it’s how it goes

An amount of curatorship is probably inevitable, but there should at least be attempts to be neutral or disengaged and not partisan.