This us a letter I have sent today to over 30 papers. I do not expect it to be something the British will feel able to publish but will let you know if it is. Which says an awful lot about the corruption of our political system:
If coverage of the browbeating of the CBI into hiding their opinion of separation is correct I must be unique in seeing this as a rather good thing.
One of the undiscussed problems with British politics is the extent to which what appear to be and should be independent organisations promoting changes in government policy are actually government funded (& virtually always now promoting more government spending.
Thus the EU directly funds all but one of the main "environmental" organisations by 70% (they original suggested 50% but the complaint was that, even with national government largesse, they would never raise enough from the public). The, global warming alarmist Royal Society gets nearly £50 million. ASH gets 98% of its funding from government and other "charities" devoted to "raising awareness" of medical scares get similar. Scottish Renewables, officially the lobby organisation of the subsidy dependent windmill industry is also heavily state funded. In international affairs the US have admitted that "Non"-Governmental Organisations, funded by western governments, spent $5 billion on promoting the overthrow of the elected government.
Indeed it is rare that any organisation whose opinions are reported by the (state owned) BBC News turns out not to be a government funded sock puppet.
[There is also the unmentioned fact that newspaper advertising is the main income source of most papers and that a large amount, wildly varying according to paper as any reader can see, comes from government and its puppets.]
Thus for a number of state qangos to resign from the CBI (nominally an organisation representing not government but big business) does help to return the organisation to something closer to what it appeared to be. That is a good thing for democracy and freedom.
I have left the 2nd last para in brackets. I thought it worth saying but would sympathise if your paper thought this to close to yourselves to support.