This is a private and confidential communication for BGTW Members only.
As noted in last week’s Friday Fix (19.09), the Board has received complaints about the shortlisted status of Palestine Museum Scotland in the BGTW’s International Tourism Awards (ITAs). Since then, we have received further correspondence from additional members sharing their views, both in favour and opposed. As previously communicated, the matter was discussed at yesterday’s Board meeting, 25 September 2025. The Board has now reached a decision.
To ensure full transparency, provide background on the decision, and to explain some of the BGTW’s past discussions that have informed this decision to newer members, we are sharing below the various elements that formed part of this discussion.
If you would prefer simply to know the outcome, please scroll to the end of this email. The full contents will be available on the BGTW website for those who wish to read them.
The ITAs and their process:
The ITAs were founded over 40 years ago to recognise excellence in tourism projects. Unlike much of the public-facing activity by the Guild, which is delegated to the Board as per the BGTW’s legal Articles of Association, the ITAs are nominated by members. Additionally, unlike the Members’ Excellence Awards (MEAs), which are judged externally, the ITAs shortlist is decided by members who cast their votes via a top-three ranking system. The awards are therefore, ‘democratic’, as all Members may have their say.
It should be noted that ALL full members have the opportunity to vote on any of the nominations. Which projects get shortlisted is a members’ only decision and reflects the combined views of our membership on each particular project and its merits.
Stuart Render, BGTW Awards Director, oversaw this year’s scheme and verification of nominations, ensuring they comply with the requirements to be eligible for shortlisting.
Speaking on this year’s nomination list, Stuart states: “Palestine Museum Scotland is a museum; the nomination was verified and is correct, and now members have voted it through. I remain apolitical, and my remit as Awards Director is to manage the ITA process without introducing any political element.”
The project being discussed met the current criteria to be put out for longlisting, and on 18 August 2025, members were invited to vote for their top three projects in the three categories. The longlist was only available to members who could view it and vote, and at this stage, no objections were raised. On 2 September 2025, following the closing of votes, the three finalists were announced to the membership and published publicly on the BGTW’s website. The same day, after the voting was closed, the first complaint regarding the matter was received.
Of four who initially complained, two did not vote at all, and two voted without raising a complaint about this project’s inclusion.
The Guild’s apolitical nature and the Board’s responsibilities:
Given that much of this matter refers to the Guild being an apolitical organisation, we believe it is essential to clarify to all members what this means in practice, as it has been the foundation of the Board’s deliberations on the matter.
Note: We understand that not all members will view this as a political matter; however, we use the terms’ political’ and ‘apolitical’ here because these have been referenced in some complaints. Similarly, the use of ‘project’ and ‘matter’ have been used to reflect that we don’t believe this decision would relate to or impact only the project currently or historically discussed, but potentially all future ‘projects’ and ‘matters’.
- The aforementioned ‘Constitution’ refers to the (a) BGTW’s Articles of Association and (b) Regulations. These are documents that can only be edited by a vote at an Annual General Meeting (AGM), which is open to all Full Members. The Board regularly refers to these to ensure any decision we take is in line with the requirements set out for us in the Articles, most notably the “day-to-day business of the Guild shall be the responsibility of the Board” and that our decisions “must not be inconsistent with the Articles”.
- While the Guild has a long-standing stance of being apolitical, there has never been a written statement of what this means attached to the BGTW’s Articles of Association and Regulations; a search of which reveals no mention of political or apolitical matters. Decisions on such matters have been made either by precedent or through discussions at AGM Meetings. As such, the Board has reviewed these previous documents before arriving at a decision.
- Most notably, and recently, there was an extended discussion at the 2022 AGM in relation to the Guild issuing a public statement on Russia/Ukraine, and also on a matter of the attached press trip itinerary, including a project that could be deemed political in its nature (the minutes are available to view in the Members’ online documentation library). Much of the discussion surrounding the proposed statement centred on whether, if the BGTW, as an organisation, makes a statement on this one matter, it would essentially set a precedent requiring it to make statements on all future similar matters. It was also highlighted that it would likely be impossible in all (or potentially any) situations for an organisation like the BGTW, which represents all its members, to achieve a unanimous agreement from each individual; therefore, issuing any statements at an organisational level would be improper. It was for the same reason that, in November 2023, the decision was taken that the BGTW shouldn’t make a statement regarding Israel/Gaza. In relation to the aforementioned 2022 AGM itinerary inclusion, one member noted, “If we decide that we will not accept hospitality due to political circumstances or historical events, we will find ourselves in serious problems. As journalists, we are responsible for going to these places and reporting.”
- While there is a lack of formal documentation regarding what the BGTW’s ‘apolitical stance’ is, Board members take their roles very seriously in ensuring their actions, when representing the BGTW, and anything done at an organisational level, abide by the principle. There are instances, including partly related to the matter being discussed, where individual Directors have adhered to this even when such an action might not align with their personal beliefs, simply to ensure they can guarantee they have been apolitical when representing the BGTW.
- However, while such apolitical principles are expected to be applied by Directors (within reason) and organisational decisions, it of course does not extend to individual members. This is one of the cruxes of this matter, as the ITAs are nominated by an individual member and then voted on by the wider membership.
- Given this fact, we reviewed previous ITA nominations. We found that political projects, or those embroiled in a political debate, have been shortlisted before. Specific examples include London’s Cartoon Museum in 2019, whose nomination summary stated the project displayed “searing political and social cartoons”; Madagascar’s Centre ValBio in 2017, whose nomination summary stated it covered the “political, environment and social issues unique to the island and area”, as well as other projects deemed controversial or political in nature.
Based on all of the above, and given the absence of a written political statement attached to our Articles of Association and Regulations that had been compiled with the agreement of at least 75% of our members (the AGM vote requirement to update our Articles) to guide us, the Board felt that the decision we made on the matter would set a precedent for future Boards that may have unconsidered consequences. The precedent could be used against future projects at the sole discretion of the Board, and potentially open up a range of questions on both refining the criteria for the ITAs, and whether such a precedent might impact the MEAs, too. While the BGTW is apolitical, we appreciate that travel is often political, and that to make a decision that could impact whether any political-related media or projects could be entered into either awards scheme in the future would be beyond what our remit should justifiably be.
Therefore, we strongly believe it isn’t the place of the current Board to make a decision with such potentially far-reaching consequences. Rather, it should be a discussion of Full Members at an AGM, with an outcome of written documentation that all future Boards can refer to. One of the members’ points raised with us was “I would appreciate a much wider debate of this among the membership”. As such, we will be tabling a future discussion on this at the 2026 AGM.
Additional complaints beyond the apolitical nature of the BGTW:
Some of the other comments included in the complaints referenced how one of the artists whose work is displayed at the project was “tried convicted and sentenced to five months in
prison by an Israeli Court in 2018 for ‘inciting violence and supporting a terrorist”, some of the artists are also “political activists”, and accusations of the project’s nomination being “an act of antisemitism”. There were also concerns shared that the project being shortlisted could damage “The Guild’s reputation” and potentially lead to “sensationalist tabloid headlines”.
All of these points were reviewed and discussed by the Board, and without wanting to belittle or invalidate the concerns of individual members points, it was highlighted that should we apply such a lens to one project, we would be required to do so for all current nominations and all forthcoming nominations. We believe in that case, the precedent would be set that all Boards (current and future) would be obliged to review every piece of artwork in any future submitted projects to ensure the artist wasn’t a criminal (and match these records to rulings from all courts globally), which would substantially change the time, costs and objectives of the ITAs, so much so, the award scheme may no longer be valid. Again, we didn’t feel that it should be a decision that our Board alone should take, and it should be part of a broader discussion at the AGM.
We accept that the project’s shortlisting may lead to future discussion in the wider industry, but so would its removal. This is partly why, as always, the website page sharing the ITA shortlist makes it clear that the process of nomination and shortlisting ITA projects is that of the members, not of the Guild’s Board or at organisational level.
The Board’s decision:
Based on all of the above, and most critically, the concern of setting a potentially far-reaching precedent that should be decided upon by all Full Members, rather than just the current Board, the Board unanimously agreed that the project will remain on this year’s ITA shortlist.
However, we hope that a discussion at the 2026 AGM will lead to a formal written policy document that can later be voted into the Articles or Regulations (should it receive the required support from the floor) to guide future Boards.
Whilst the Board appreciates that some people will be disappointed by this decision, others will be equally pleased. We have a duty to act not only for the whole membership, but also for the reputation of the Guild and its future standing. All these matters were taken into account in a thorough discussion, culminating in a unanimous vote.
Chris Coe
BGTW Chair, on behalf of the BGTW Board
