Letters 2019 - underlining indicates deletion by editor; square brackets indicate insertion.
To The Times (29 Dec 2019) published?
Despite people like Martin Murry (Comment 28 Dec) pointing out correctly that this decade has another year to run, your headline writers ignore that fact and assume that it hasn't (strapline to main leader on the same day). Why do you ignore that facts and instead peddle a myth?
Despite people like Martin Murry (Comment 28 Dec) pointing out correctly that this decade has another year to run, your headline writers ignore that fact and assume that it hasn't (strapline to main leader on the same day). Why do you ignore that facts and instead peddle a myth?
To New Scientist (28 Dec 2019) not published
You refer to 'this decade' coming to an end ('Signs of hope', 21/28 December). In fact, because there was no year zero, decades do not end until the year ends in a zero (they start with years ending in 1). Surely you know this.
You refer to 'this decade' coming to an end ('Signs of hope', 21/28 December). In fact, because there was no year zero, decades do not end until the year ends in a zero (they start with years ending in 1). Surely you know this.
To The Scotsman (23 Dec 2019) not published
Those brought up as Christians and/or trained to preach the gospel like Dr D Macdonald (Letter 23 December) are so immersed in the gravity well of the faith that they cannot see any other view of it. They follow traditional interpretations of the Gospels, blind to criticism.
Fortunately I escaped and came to see the flaws in traditional Christianity, especially its teaching regarding Jesus' life. I joined historians who all understand that the Birth Narratives of Matthew and Luke were added for Christological reasons. It is particularly telling that John's Gospel, apparently written by one who was very close to Jesus, knows nothing of his birth or origin. The Christian Church supplanted a pagan Yule festival, which celebrated the return of the sun after the winter solstice, making it Jesus' birthday, the real date of which no one knows.
Dr Macdonald thinks my claims 'unsubstantiated'. I could claim that his Christian claims are certainly unsubstantiated. Mine are substantiated in my book The Rise and Fall of Jesus.
Those brought up as Christians and/or trained to preach the gospel like Dr D Macdonald (Letter 23 December) are so immersed in the gravity well of the faith that they cannot see any other view of it. They follow traditional interpretations of the Gospels, blind to criticism.
Fortunately I escaped and came to see the flaws in traditional Christianity, especially its teaching regarding Jesus' life. I joined historians who all understand that the Birth Narratives of Matthew and Luke were added for Christological reasons. It is particularly telling that John's Gospel, apparently written by one who was very close to Jesus, knows nothing of his birth or origin. The Christian Church supplanted a pagan Yule festival, which celebrated the return of the sun after the winter solstice, making it Jesus' birthday, the real date of which no one knows.
Dr Macdonald thinks my claims 'unsubstantiated'. I could claim that his Christian claims are certainly unsubstantiated. Mine are substantiated in my book The Rise and Fall of Jesus.
To The Edinburgh Evening News (21 Dec 2019) published 26 Dec 2019
Christine Grahame MSP claims that the UK is not a nation (Comment on 20 December). A 'nation' is defined as 'a large aggregate of people united by common descent, culture or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory'. This certainly applies to the UK, making it convincingly 'the British nation', a member of the 'United Nations' and a member of the 'Commonwealth of Nations'. English is our 'national language'.
Christine Grahame MSP claims that the UK is not a nation (Comment on 20 December). A 'nation' is defined as 'a large aggregate of people united by common descent, culture or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory'. This certainly applies to the UK, making it convincingly 'the British nation', a member of the 'United Nations' and a member of the 'Commonwealth of Nations'. English is our 'national language'.
To The Scotsman (21 Dec 2019) not published
Gavin Matthews of Solas claims that Jesus was a 'personal, meaningful, and purposeful' gift to the world (his article on 20 December).
In fact Jesus was not a gift (he had no intention of making himself so); he was a deluded Jewish fanatic who believed that he could live the life of the expected Messiah he saw foretold in Scripture. His death was had no meaning, not even for Jews. Nor was it 'purposeful' because he had not intended to die, at least as we know death. He had intended to survive and become Israel's king.
Christian attempts to make sense of Jesus' life always fail because they have no understanding of his intentions (see what they were by reading my book The Rise and Fall of Jesus.
Gavin Matthews of Solas claims that Jesus was a 'personal, meaningful, and purposeful' gift to the world (his article on 20 December).
In fact Jesus was not a gift (he had no intention of making himself so); he was a deluded Jewish fanatic who believed that he could live the life of the expected Messiah he saw foretold in Scripture. His death was had no meaning, not even for Jews. Nor was it 'purposeful' because he had not intended to die, at least as we know death. He had intended to survive and become Israel's king.
Christian attempts to make sense of Jesus' life always fail because they have no understanding of his intentions (see what they were by reading my book The Rise and Fall of Jesus.
To The Scotsman (18 Dec 2019) published 21 Dec 2019
Murdo Fraser describes Christmas as 'an extraordinary mystery' ('Time to think about the true meaning of Christmas', 18 December).
In fact it's more 'extraordinary' than he knows. The Birth Narrative, unknown to the Gospels of Mark and John, the latter very close to Jesus, was invented to give Jesus a background and origin commensurate with his deification by the Early Church. He was born in neither Nazareth nor Bethlehem and never claimed to be. All the features of the Narrative are borrowed from other mythological accounts and the idea of virgin birth is based on a misreading by the authors of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (The Septuagint). The Narrative is indeed a 'seasonal fairy tale'.
The message of Christianity is not Jesus' message, which was, for Jews only, one of repentance in the face of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God. It was not about 'boundless, unconditional love'. His death was unintended; an accident as he attempted to live the life of the Messiah he saw prefigured in Scripture. It was a heroic failure but mistaken by his followers, and later the Church, as a huge success; universal salvation.
The evidence for what I say is in my book The Rise and Fall of Jesus, recently republished by Tectum Verlag.
Murdo Fraser describes Christmas as 'an extraordinary mystery' ('Time to think about the true meaning of Christmas', 18 December).
In fact it's more 'extraordinary' than he knows. The Birth Narrative, unknown to the Gospels of Mark and John, the latter very close to Jesus, was invented to give Jesus a background and origin commensurate with his deification by the Early Church. He was born in neither Nazareth nor Bethlehem and never claimed to be. All the features of the Narrative are borrowed from other mythological accounts and the idea of virgin birth is based on a misreading by the authors of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (The Septuagint). The Narrative is indeed a 'seasonal fairy tale'.
The message of Christianity is not Jesus' message, which was, for Jews only, one of repentance in the face of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God. It was not about 'boundless, unconditional love'. His death was unintended; an accident as he attempted to live the life of the Messiah he saw prefigured in Scripture. It was a heroic failure but mistaken by his followers, and later the Church, as a huge success; universal salvation.
The evidence for what I say is in my book The Rise and Fall of Jesus, recently republished by Tectum Verlag.
To The Scotsman (17 Dec 2019) not published
The recent general election result made implies that most people wanted the Government to conclude the Brexit process (I write 'implies' because the FPTP election system makes the result unrepresentative). It also implies that most people opposed another Brexit referendum; they thought the 2016 result was conclusive and should not be revisited.
The same logic implies that the 2014 Scottish referendum was also conclusive and should not be revisited.
The recent general election result made implies that most people wanted the Government to conclude the Brexit process (I write 'implies' because the FPTP election system makes the result unrepresentative). It also implies that most people opposed another Brexit referendum; they thought the 2016 result was conclusive and should not be revisited.
The same logic implies that the 2014 Scottish referendum was also conclusive and should not be revisited.
To The Scotsman (14 Dec 2019) also to Scotland on Sunday. Neither published
Once again our broken electoral system has produced an unrepresentative result. Most MPs have been elected by less than 50 per cent of the voters in their constituency, so most voters got an MP they did not want. The result UK wide is a fraud, giving a false impression of the voters' wishes; it's fake news. Under a decent PR system, the result could have been very different.
Once again our broken electoral system has produced an unrepresentative result. Most MPs have been elected by less than 50 per cent of the voters in their constituency, so most voters got an MP they did not want. The result UK wide is a fraud, giving a false impression of the voters' wishes; it's fake news. Under a decent PR system, the result could have been very different.
To The Edinburgh Evening News (4 Dec 2019) published 5 Dec 2019
I did a fact check on Jackson Carlaw's claim that the EU is seeking to create a united army of the European Union by 2025 ('Carlaw switched to Leave', 3 December).
All the responses I got by browsing a question on that matter came back with the negative. There is no plan to create such an army and most describe the idea a 'fantasy'. Pity Carlaw did not do the same.
I did a fact check on Jackson Carlaw's claim that the EU is seeking to create a united army of the European Union by 2025 ('Carlaw switched to Leave', 3 December).
All the responses I got by browsing a question on that matter came back with the negative. There is no plan to create such an army and most describe the idea a 'fantasy'. Pity Carlaw did not do the same.
To The Scotsman (3 Dec 2019) not published
I do hope that (Dr) Charles Wardrop (Letters, 2 December) has read Dr Richard Dixon's 'grim' 'Inside Environment' piece (3 December). Dixon sums up the problem the world is facing with no mention of the computer models that Wardrop suspects of being 'poor predictors' (they are not). Instead he outlines the dire results that ignoring the warnings from the IPCC will produce.
It is true that the UK's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is trivial. Consequently whatever we do here will make little difference, although we should try. The big emitters are China, India and the USA, where many of the goods we import are made. So we contribute to emissions by proxy and need to put pressure on the main emitters.
Wardrop needs to take his head out of the sand and face facts. Denying man-made global warming is not helpful, even counter-productive.
I do hope that (Dr) Charles Wardrop (Letters, 2 December) has read Dr Richard Dixon's 'grim' 'Inside Environment' piece (3 December). Dixon sums up the problem the world is facing with no mention of the computer models that Wardrop suspects of being 'poor predictors' (they are not). Instead he outlines the dire results that ignoring the warnings from the IPCC will produce.
It is true that the UK's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is trivial. Consequently whatever we do here will make little difference, although we should try. The big emitters are China, India and the USA, where many of the goods we import are made. So we contribute to emissions by proxy and need to put pressure on the main emitters.
Wardrop needs to take his head out of the sand and face facts. Denying man-made global warming is not helpful, even counter-productive.
To Scotland on Sunday (25 Nov 2019) not published
Andy Yuill's objection to hydrogen ('Gas is on the way out, so what is the future for heating our homes?', 24 November) is hard to understand. He seems to think that heating homes by burning hydrogen would produce 'poor air quality'. Surely he knows that burning hydrogen produces nothing except water. Does he also not know that experiments have been conducted into replacing methane in the gas grid by hydrogen?
Rather than trying to convert homes to heating with electricity (complicated and expensive), it would be more sensible to feed the grid with hydrogen and adapt all house heating systems to burn that gas? Let's get on with it.
Andy Yuill's objection to hydrogen ('Gas is on the way out, so what is the future for heating our homes?', 24 November) is hard to understand. He seems to think that heating homes by burning hydrogen would produce 'poor air quality'. Surely he knows that burning hydrogen produces nothing except water. Does he also not know that experiments have been conducted into replacing methane in the gas grid by hydrogen?
Rather than trying to convert homes to heating with electricity (complicated and expensive), it would be more sensible to feed the grid with hydrogen and adapt all house heating systems to burn that gas? Let's get on with it.
To The Scotsman (24 Nov 2019) not published
Brian Wilson claimed that Scottish Water is 'in public ownership' (Privatisation hasn't served us well', 23 November).
This is true but is is not nationalised. As a statutory corporation, it is funded by charges on its customers and only a charge on the state when it gets loans from the Scottish Government for capital expentiture. It operates successfully as if it were a private business (its business arm is partly privatised).
This model is one that should be used more widely as a half-way house between privateisation and nationalisation.
Brian Wilson claimed that Scottish Water is 'in public ownership' (Privatisation hasn't served us well', 23 November).
This is true but is is not nationalised. As a statutory corporation, it is funded by charges on its customers and only a charge on the state when it gets loans from the Scottish Government for capital expentiture. It operates successfully as if it were a private business (its business arm is partly privatised).
This model is one that should be used more widely as a half-way house between privateisation and nationalisation.
To The Scotsman (20 Nov 2019) published 25 Nov 2019
Your claim that the UK had to 'hand back' Hong Kong (Leader, 19 November) is incorrect.
Under the Treaty of Nanking: Hong Kong Island (1842) and The Convention of Peking: Kowloon Peninsular and Stonecutters' Island (1860), the UK acquired these territories 'in perpetuity'. There was no obligation on the UK to surrender this area. Furthermore we should not have done so without first consulting the residents.
We should not have handed a liberal colony with democratically institutions and freedom of the press to a despotic totalitarian China without at least asking the residents what they thought about it.
Your claim that the UK had to 'hand back' Hong Kong (Leader, 19 November) is incorrect.
Under the Treaty of Nanking: Hong Kong Island (1842) and The Convention of Peking: Kowloon Peninsular and Stonecutters' Island (1860), the UK acquired these territories 'in perpetuity'. There was no obligation on the UK to surrender this area. Furthermore we should not have done so without first consulting the residents.
We should not have handed a liberal colony with democratically institutions and freedom of the press to a despotic totalitarian China without at least asking the residents what they thought about it.
To The Scotsman (31 Oct 2019) not published
There is no bigger question than the one posed by Geoff Miller (Letters, 31 October). Why does anything exist rather than nothing. It is called 'the fundamental question of metaphysics' and has puzzled philosophers from ancient times.
The universe we inhabit exists because it emerged some 13 billion years ago from some higher-dimensional system we could call the 'multiverse'. It may be one of a multitude of universes or the latest in a series. The 'multiverse' itself must always have existed because there is no alternative. 'Nothing' cannot exist because, if it did, it would not be 'nothing'.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is only a way of explaining the development of life from primitive forms to complex ones with great variety. It does not deal with cosmic evolution but life must have begun by accident in the space created by the Big Bang.
There is no bigger question than the one posed by Geoff Miller (Letters, 31 October). Why does anything exist rather than nothing. It is called 'the fundamental question of metaphysics' and has puzzled philosophers from ancient times.
The universe we inhabit exists because it emerged some 13 billion years ago from some higher-dimensional system we could call the 'multiverse'. It may be one of a multitude of universes or the latest in a series. The 'multiverse' itself must always have existed because there is no alternative. 'Nothing' cannot exist because, if it did, it would not be 'nothing'.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is only a way of explaining the development of life from primitive forms to complex ones with great variety. It does not deal with cosmic evolution but life must have begun by accident in the space created by the Big Bang.
To The Scotsman (30 Oct 2019) not published
Cameron Wyllie dismissed the Labour Party's plan to abolish private education to eliminate class division('Until state provides choice, hands off', 29 October).
Of course another way would be for the government to issue education vouchers for every child, which the parents can spend on the school of their choice (the voucher system). This operates in some other countries, eg. the Netherlands where 70 per cent of pupils attend privately run but publicly funded schools. Whatever this would cost, it must remove much class division.
Cameron Wyllie dismissed the Labour Party's plan to abolish private education to eliminate class division('Until state provides choice, hands off', 29 October).
Of course another way would be for the government to issue education vouchers for every child, which the parents can spend on the school of their choice (the voucher system). This operates in some other countries, eg. the Netherlands where 70 per cent of pupils attend privately run but publicly funded schools. Whatever this would cost, it must remove much class division.
To Scotland on Sunday (29 Oct 2019) published 3 Nov 2019
Science constitutes a set of beliefs about the natural world based on evidence. These beliefs change when evidence requires it. Religion constitutes a set of (supernatural) beliefs without evidence and with no mechanism for change. There can be no compromise between the two and dialogue is pointless.
In particular there is no evidence for the existence of a supernatural being (God?). How could there be if he/she/it is 'supernatural'?
Guy Consolmagno (your report on 27 October) is wasting his time, as are the Grasping the Nettle group.
Religious scientists compartment their lives so that no conflict occurs.
A search for 'meaning and purpose' in the universe is also pointless since there is none. The universe occurred and developed without intention or purpose. We exist only by accident and give purpose only to our own lives.
Science constitutes a set of beliefs about the natural world based on evidence. These beliefs change when evidence requires it. Religion constitutes a set of (supernatural) beliefs without evidence and with no mechanism for change. There can be no compromise between the two and dialogue is pointless.
In particular there is no evidence for the existence of a supernatural being (God?). How could there be if he/she/it is 'supernatural'?
Guy Consolmagno (your report on 27 October) is wasting his time, as are the Grasping the Nettle group.
Religious scientists compartment their lives so that no conflict occurs.
A search for 'meaning and purpose' in the universe is also pointless since there is none. The universe occurred and developed without intention or purpose. We exist only by accident and give purpose only to our own lives.
To The Scotsman (21 Oct 2019) published 16 Nov 2019
The aim of Extinction Rebellion (XR), 'to compel government action to avoid tipping points in the climate system, biodiversity loss, and the risk of social and ecological collapse' is laudable. But community gardens/recycling/reducing waste/avoiding fossil fuel use/etc. will not save civilisation. Nor will opting for renewable electricity (in the period Jan-Mar this year, only 25% of UK electricity came from renewables; 44.7% still came from fossil fuels). We need more nuclear power, but in fact, whatever the UK does will make little difference globally.
It's all too late. We're probably past the tipping point and the only saviour is geoengineering to reduce insolation (reflecting more solar energy to reduce the global temperature).
Prof Stephen Salter of the University of Edinburgh offers one practical method so XR should support him.
The aim of Extinction Rebellion (XR), 'to compel government action to avoid tipping points in the climate system, biodiversity loss, and the risk of social and ecological collapse' is laudable. But community gardens/recycling/reducing waste/avoiding fossil fuel use/etc. will not save civilisation. Nor will opting for renewable electricity (in the period Jan-Mar this year, only 25% of UK electricity came from renewables; 44.7% still came from fossil fuels). We need more nuclear power, but in fact, whatever the UK does will make little difference globally.
It's all too late. We're probably past the tipping point and the only saviour is geoengineering to reduce insolation (reflecting more solar energy to reduce the global temperature).
Prof Stephen Salter of the University of Edinburgh offers one practical method so XR should support him.
To The Sunday Times (21 Oct 2019) not published
James Graham claimed that Westminster is 'the world's oldest functioning democracy' ('There'll be a few more plot twists before the curtain falls on this drama', 20 October). In fact, many other parliaments can make that claim (see https://www.history.com/news/what-is-the-worlds-oldest-democracy , a website that doesn't even mention Westminster).
James Graham claimed that Westminster is 'the world's oldest functioning democracy' ('There'll be a few more plot twists before the curtain falls on this drama', 20 October). In fact, many other parliaments can make that claim (see https://www.history.com/news/what-is-the-worlds-oldest-democracy , a website that doesn't even mention Westminster).
To The Scotsman (17 Oct 2019) not published
Jesus' advice about 'tomorrow' (Gavin Matthew's article, 16 October) was predicated on the expectation of the imminent appearance of the Kingdom of God (Matt. 6:33), but which did not appear. Consequently, his advice is irrelevant to us; we should certainly worry about the future, especially in light of climate change.
Also irrelevant is the idea that Jesus was resurrected; no one saw him being resurrected and the last chapter of John's Gospel shows that the Jerusalem reports were all imaginary or invented. In Galilee, the disciples mistook an old shepherd for their master, but couldn't be sure.
All this is explained in my book The Rise and Fall of Jesus (3rd ed just published by Tectum Verlag).
Jesus' advice about 'tomorrow' (Gavin Matthew's article, 16 October) was predicated on the expectation of the imminent appearance of the Kingdom of God (Matt. 6:33), but which did not appear. Consequently, his advice is irrelevant to us; we should certainly worry about the future, especially in light of climate change.
Also irrelevant is the idea that Jesus was resurrected; no one saw him being resurrected and the last chapter of John's Gospel shows that the Jerusalem reports were all imaginary or invented. In Galilee, the disciples mistook an old shepherd for their master, but couldn't be sure.
All this is explained in my book The Rise and Fall of Jesus (3rd ed just published by Tectum Verlag).
To The Sunday Times (14 Oct 2019) not published
Bryan Appleyard, in his article 'Can We Fix it?' (13 October) refers to the objections raised to solar radiation management (geoenginering). He quotes Prof Siegert's view that the idea verges 'on scientific insanity' and that of Sir Brian Hoskins that 'The climate of Earth might be changed...[etc]'.
Considering that it is extremely unlikely that greenhouse gas emissions will be brought under control, certainly not in time to save civilization, anything that cools the planet and gives us more time should be tried. Hoskins's objection seems to overlook the fact that the Earth is already changing and some people are already getting 'a lot more rain, some people less'. Geoengineering can't make this worse.
Marine cloud brightening (Prof Stephen Salter's scheme), which sprays fine water droplets downward (not upwards as Appleyard claims) is indeed 'less troubling' and deserves to be tried (the bright clouds reflect more sunlight). It seems that spraying over only 3.3 per cent of the Earth's surface, for example only in the North Atlantic, is enough to cool the planet by about 1 watt per square metre, dealing with about half the warming. Eventually this method could halt the increase in temperature and even lower it, reducing the dire effects that warming is already producing.
Desperate times justify desperate measures.
Bryan Appleyard, in his article 'Can We Fix it?' (13 October) refers to the objections raised to solar radiation management (geoenginering). He quotes Prof Siegert's view that the idea verges 'on scientific insanity' and that of Sir Brian Hoskins that 'The climate of Earth might be changed...[etc]'.
Considering that it is extremely unlikely that greenhouse gas emissions will be brought under control, certainly not in time to save civilization, anything that cools the planet and gives us more time should be tried. Hoskins's objection seems to overlook the fact that the Earth is already changing and some people are already getting 'a lot more rain, some people less'. Geoengineering can't make this worse.
Marine cloud brightening (Prof Stephen Salter's scheme), which sprays fine water droplets downward (not upwards as Appleyard claims) is indeed 'less troubling' and deserves to be tried (the bright clouds reflect more sunlight). It seems that spraying over only 3.3 per cent of the Earth's surface, for example only in the North Atlantic, is enough to cool the planet by about 1 watt per square metre, dealing with about half the warming. Eventually this method could halt the increase in temperature and even lower it, reducing the dire effects that warming is already producing.
Desperate times justify desperate measures.
The The Scotsman (12 Oct 2019) published 15 Oct 2019
(Dr) Charles Wardrop (Letter, 12 October) referred to 'a recent analysis by over 500 prominent scientists and published as the European Declaration on Climate Change (EDC)'.
In fact, most of these 'scientists' are not scientists but writers, engineers and geologists with no direct expertise in the field. They are all people with a vested interest in the status quo, many from the fossil fuel industry. Of the few academics involved, few seems to have an expertise in climate science. Their aim is to throw doubt on the IPCC's findings, to blunt the Extinction Rebellion initiative and to muddy the waters of public and political discourse on the climate crisis. In short they peddle fake news.
(Dr) Charles Wardrop (Letter, 12 October) referred to 'a recent analysis by over 500 prominent scientists and published as the European Declaration on Climate Change (EDC)'.
In fact, most of these 'scientists' are not scientists but writers, engineers and geologists with no direct expertise in the field. They are all people with a vested interest in the status quo, many from the fossil fuel industry. Of the few academics involved, few seems to have an expertise in climate science. Their aim is to throw doubt on the IPCC's findings, to blunt the Extinction Rebellion initiative and to muddy the waters of public and political discourse on the climate crisis. In short they peddle fake news.
To The Scotsman (11 Oct 2019) published 12 Oct 2019
Stryker Flint (Letter, 11 October) seems confused over the relationship between sunspots and climate. He seems to associate 'the poor harvests in earlier times' with increased solar activity, measured by the number of sunspots.
I do not know what he means by 'earlier times'. There were poor harvest in the early 14th century and again in 1596 but we have no record of solar activity for those times. There were bad harvests in 1795 and again over 1799 to 1801, 1802 and 1812-1822, but so far as I know none of these years has been associated with any particular change in solar activity.
The famous Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) was a period when sunspots were exceedingly rare and it coincided with what is called 'The Little Ice Age', when temperatures in Europe and North America were much lower than normal (the Thames froze over). However, no causal relationship has been established and it is thought that the lower temperatures were due to volcanic activity.
At the present time, sunspots are absent and some predict global cooling as a result and that we might have been heading for a new 'ice age' were it not for the present warming attributed to greenhouse gas emissions. In short, the evidence does not show any reason to associate sunspots with either global warming or cooling.
Stryker Flint (Letter, 11 October) seems confused over the relationship between sunspots and climate. He seems to associate 'the poor harvests in earlier times' with increased solar activity, measured by the number of sunspots.
I do not know what he means by 'earlier times'. There were poor harvest in the early 14th century and again in 1596 but we have no record of solar activity for those times. There were bad harvests in 1795 and again over 1799 to 1801, 1802 and 1812-1822, but so far as I know none of these years has been associated with any particular change in solar activity.
The famous Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) was a period when sunspots were exceedingly rare and it coincided with what is called 'The Little Ice Age', when temperatures in Europe and North America were much lower than normal (the Thames froze over). However, no causal relationship has been established and it is thought that the lower temperatures were due to volcanic activity.
At the present time, sunspots are absent and some predict global cooling as a result and that we might have been heading for a new 'ice age' were it not for the present warming attributed to greenhouse gas emissions. In short, the evidence does not show any reason to associate sunspots with either global warming or cooling.
To The Scotsman (27 Sep 2019) not published
The latest report from the International Panel on Climate Change confirms what most of us knew already, that man-made greenhouse gas emissions going back over at least 200 years have led to the present global warming, with dire consequences. Ice everywhere is melting, sea level is rising, the seas are acidifying, hurricanes and typhoons are getting stronger and wetter and erratic weather patterns are leading to more oppressive heat waves and more flooding from excessive rain. The warming evaporates more water from the oceans, loading the atmosphere and disrupting the weather system, causing more storms and, at the same time increasing the warming because water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Many other positive feedbacks contribute to the warming.
As Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University, has declared, ‘we’re all in big trouble’. Some would say that civilization is under threat and may not survive. Many of the world's major coastal cities, including London, will be flooded and have to be abandoned.
Surely we will be saved by the international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Hardly; it is too little and too late. Greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, in fact they are accelerating. They have increased by about 80 per cent since 1970 and the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main driver of global warming, has risen from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts-per-million to the present 415. It is still rising, mainly due to emissions from the USA, China and India, countries that value their industrial output and see no reason to commit economic suicide.
It is important to realize that global warming relies on two interacting factors: heat from the sun from insolation and increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. So if we cannot reduce emissions, perhaps we can reduce insolation. This is what geoengineers propose. They argue that, although technology has got us into this mess it can get us out of it. They have proposed various ways to reduce insolation, ranging from painting the world white to deploying a space mirror. Of course none of these measures, some of them very expensive, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but they could give us more time to deal with that problem. Faced with the collapse of civilization, there is an urgent need to stop the warming, whatever else we do.
We do not need to look far for a practical geoengineering method. Stephen Salter, Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design at the University of Edinburgh has a proposal to brighten ocean clouds so that the world's albedo is increased (‘albedo’ is the measure of the diffuse reflection of solar radiation out of the total solar radiation received by an astronomical body). This would involve about 300 or so specially-designed unmanned ships equipped to spray very small water droplets, which then brighten clouds (the smaller the water droplets, the brighter clouds become). Calculation shows that spraying over only 3.3 per cent of the Earth's surface, for example only in the North Atlantic, is enough to cool the planet by about 1 watt per square metre, dealing with about half the warming. Eventually this method could halt the increase in temperature and even lower it, reducing the dire effects that warming is already producing.
Prof Salter has worked on this scheme for 20 years and recently presented his idea to MSPs at Holyrood. At present he is funding his own research but he lacks the funds to develop the idea. Here is an opportunity for Scotland to lead the way and save the world. The scheme would generate many jobs in shipbuilding, an industry in need of investment.
However, there is much opposition to geoengineering techniques, alleging that they do nothing to address the root causes of climate change, with a high likelihood that rather than improving the climate they would make things worse—potentially in a catastrophic fashion. It is alleged that schemes like Salter’s come with high-stakes risks: entire regions could face drought. However, this opposition may be declining as the alternative becomes clearer. The risks of geoengineering changing weather patterns seems preferable to the risks of doing nothing. No amount of renewable energy schemes and recycling is going to stop global warming. A desperate situation demands a desperate remedy.
The latest report from the International Panel on Climate Change confirms what most of us knew already, that man-made greenhouse gas emissions going back over at least 200 years have led to the present global warming, with dire consequences. Ice everywhere is melting, sea level is rising, the seas are acidifying, hurricanes and typhoons are getting stronger and wetter and erratic weather patterns are leading to more oppressive heat waves and more flooding from excessive rain. The warming evaporates more water from the oceans, loading the atmosphere and disrupting the weather system, causing more storms and, at the same time increasing the warming because water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Many other positive feedbacks contribute to the warming.
As Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University, has declared, ‘we’re all in big trouble’. Some would say that civilization is under threat and may not survive. Many of the world's major coastal cities, including London, will be flooded and have to be abandoned.
Surely we will be saved by the international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Hardly; it is too little and too late. Greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, in fact they are accelerating. They have increased by about 80 per cent since 1970 and the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main driver of global warming, has risen from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts-per-million to the present 415. It is still rising, mainly due to emissions from the USA, China and India, countries that value their industrial output and see no reason to commit economic suicide.
It is important to realize that global warming relies on two interacting factors: heat from the sun from insolation and increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. So if we cannot reduce emissions, perhaps we can reduce insolation. This is what geoengineers propose. They argue that, although technology has got us into this mess it can get us out of it. They have proposed various ways to reduce insolation, ranging from painting the world white to deploying a space mirror. Of course none of these measures, some of them very expensive, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but they could give us more time to deal with that problem. Faced with the collapse of civilization, there is an urgent need to stop the warming, whatever else we do.
We do not need to look far for a practical geoengineering method. Stephen Salter, Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design at the University of Edinburgh has a proposal to brighten ocean clouds so that the world's albedo is increased (‘albedo’ is the measure of the diffuse reflection of solar radiation out of the total solar radiation received by an astronomical body). This would involve about 300 or so specially-designed unmanned ships equipped to spray very small water droplets, which then brighten clouds (the smaller the water droplets, the brighter clouds become). Calculation shows that spraying over only 3.3 per cent of the Earth's surface, for example only in the North Atlantic, is enough to cool the planet by about 1 watt per square metre, dealing with about half the warming. Eventually this method could halt the increase in temperature and even lower it, reducing the dire effects that warming is already producing.
Prof Salter has worked on this scheme for 20 years and recently presented his idea to MSPs at Holyrood. At present he is funding his own research but he lacks the funds to develop the idea. Here is an opportunity for Scotland to lead the way and save the world. The scheme would generate many jobs in shipbuilding, an industry in need of investment.
However, there is much opposition to geoengineering techniques, alleging that they do nothing to address the root causes of climate change, with a high likelihood that rather than improving the climate they would make things worse—potentially in a catastrophic fashion. It is alleged that schemes like Salter’s come with high-stakes risks: entire regions could face drought. However, this opposition may be declining as the alternative becomes clearer. The risks of geoengineering changing weather patterns seems preferable to the risks of doing nothing. No amount of renewable energy schemes and recycling is going to stop global warming. A desperate situation demands a desperate remedy.
To The Scotsman (24 Sep 2019) published 25 Sep 2019
Tina Wilson (Letters, 24 September) wants to know what Earth's 'ideal global mean surface temperature ought to be'. If she means the average now, then it is about 15C, but with huge variation around the world and with time and season.
What is important though is the change in the average. Taking the temperature by satellites is complicated but recorded data show that over the last 50 years the average land temperature has risen by nearly 1C and about 1.5C since 1850. The global average has probably changed less.
Tina Wilson (Letters, 24 September) wants to know what Earth's 'ideal global mean surface temperature ought to be'. If she means the average now, then it is about 15C, but with huge variation around the world and with time and season.
What is important though is the change in the average. Taking the temperature by satellites is complicated but recorded data show that over the last 50 years the average land temperature has risen by nearly 1C and about 1.5C since 1850. The global average has probably changed less.
To The Scotsman (5 Sep 2019) published 7 Sep 2019
A general election in October would be on a register of electors that is about 18 months out-of-date (registers are issued on 1 December each year but the data are collected in the late spring or summer). Many electors will have died and new young electors added since last year. It would be unfair to hold an election before 1 December.
A general election in October would be on a register of electors that is about 18 months out-of-date (registers are issued on 1 December each year but the data are collected in the late spring or summer). Many electors will have died and new young electors added since last year. It would be unfair to hold an election before 1 December.
To The Sunday Times (5 Sep 2019) not published
One would think that, if someone has a scheme to stop global warming and even reverse it, that person would have widespread support.
I refer to University of Edinburgh Professor Stephen Salter's proposal to brighten ocean clouds so that the world's albedo is increased. His proposal involves a mere 300 or so special ships equipped to spray small water droplets which then brighten clouds (the brightness of clouds in inversely proportional to the size of water droplets). Calculation shows that spraying over only 3.3 per cent of the Earth's surface is enough to cool the planet by about 1 watt/square metre, dealing with about half the warming. Eventually this method could halt the increase in temperature and even lower it, reducing the dire effects that warming is already producing.
This scheme does nothing to reduce the emissions of 'greenhouse gases', but it would give us more time to deal with them. At present there is no hope of reducing such gases in the short term and the outlook is bleak.
It is tragic that Prof Salter's scheme has no official backing or support. A desperate situation requires a desperate remedy.
One would think that, if someone has a scheme to stop global warming and even reverse it, that person would have widespread support.
I refer to University of Edinburgh Professor Stephen Salter's proposal to brighten ocean clouds so that the world's albedo is increased. His proposal involves a mere 300 or so special ships equipped to spray small water droplets which then brighten clouds (the brightness of clouds in inversely proportional to the size of water droplets). Calculation shows that spraying over only 3.3 per cent of the Earth's surface is enough to cool the planet by about 1 watt/square metre, dealing with about half the warming. Eventually this method could halt the increase in temperature and even lower it, reducing the dire effects that warming is already producing.
This scheme does nothing to reduce the emissions of 'greenhouse gases', but it would give us more time to deal with them. At present there is no hope of reducing such gases in the short term and the outlook is bleak.
It is tragic that Prof Salter's scheme has no official backing or support. A desperate situation requires a desperate remedy.
To The Scotsman (31 Aug 2019) not published
One would think that, if someone has a scheme to stop global warming and even reverse it, that person would have widespread support.
I refer to University of Edinburgh Professor Stephen Salter's proposal to brighten ocean clouds so that the world's albedo is increased. His proposal involves a mere 300 or so special ships equipped to spray small water droplets which then brighten clouds (the brightness of clouds in inversely proportional to the size of water droplets). Calculation shows that spraying over only 3.3 per cent of the Earth's surface is enough to cool the planet by about 1 watt/square metre, dealing with about half the warming. Eventually this method could halt the increase in temperature and even lower it, reducing the dire effects that warming is already producing.
This scheme does nothing to reduce the emissions of 'greenhouse gases', but it would give us more time to deal with them. At present there is no hope of reducing such gases in the short term and the outlook is bleak.
It is tragic that Prof Salter's scheme has no official backing or support. A desperate situation requires a desperate remedy.
One would think that, if someone has a scheme to stop global warming and even reverse it, that person would have widespread support.
I refer to University of Edinburgh Professor Stephen Salter's proposal to brighten ocean clouds so that the world's albedo is increased. His proposal involves a mere 300 or so special ships equipped to spray small water droplets which then brighten clouds (the brightness of clouds in inversely proportional to the size of water droplets). Calculation shows that spraying over only 3.3 per cent of the Earth's surface is enough to cool the planet by about 1 watt/square metre, dealing with about half the warming. Eventually this method could halt the increase in temperature and even lower it, reducing the dire effects that warming is already producing.
This scheme does nothing to reduce the emissions of 'greenhouse gases', but it would give us more time to deal with them. At present there is no hope of reducing such gases in the short term and the outlook is bleak.
It is tragic that Prof Salter's scheme has no official backing or support. A desperate situation requires a desperate remedy.
To The Sunday Times (26 Aug 2019) not published
Whatever Christianity believes and does ('#JesusToo: Christianity is keeping us radical', 25 August) it has very little to do with Jesus, who had radical ideas of his own. He planned to survive crucifixion and become ruler of Israel and bring about the Kingdom of Heaven. Because the plan failed, his confused followers preached a different message, later reinterpreted by Paul, the true founder of the religion. See my book The Rise and Fall of Jesus.
Whatever Christianity believes and does ('#JesusToo: Christianity is keeping us radical', 25 August) it has very little to do with Jesus, who had radical ideas of his own. He planned to survive crucifixion and become ruler of Israel and bring about the Kingdom of Heaven. Because the plan failed, his confused followers preached a different message, later reinterpreted by Paul, the true founder of the religion. See my book The Rise and Fall of Jesus.
To Edinburgh Evening News (13 Aug 2019) published 14 Aug 2019
Further to your report ('Houses struck by lightning and hit by flooding', 12 August), about 6pm on Wednesday 7th August our satellite dish was struck, killing the TV to which it was connected. I believe that some neighbours were affected by the strike, but I don't know to what extent. The TV set is now being repaired.
Clearly it would be wise to disconnect satellite dishes during a thunderstorm.
Further to your report ('Houses struck by lightning and hit by flooding', 12 August), about 6pm on Wednesday 7th August our satellite dish was struck, killing the TV to which it was connected. I believe that some neighbours were affected by the strike, but I don't know to what extent. The TV set is now being repaired.
Clearly it would be wise to disconnect satellite dishes during a thunderstorm.
To The Sunday Times (12 Aug 2019) not published
I am astonished that two experience Parliamentarians (Michael Heseltine and Betty Boothroyd) do not know that Westminster is not the 'Mother of Parliaments' (their article on p15, 11 August).
The phrase was coined by MP John Bright in 1865 when he so described England (sic) because it gives birth to successive parliaments, each of which is the child of the state, being born again at each general election. It is the UK that is the 'mother', not Westminster.
I am astonished that two experience Parliamentarians (Michael Heseltine and Betty Boothroyd) do not know that Westminster is not the 'Mother of Parliaments' (their article on p15, 11 August).
The phrase was coined by MP John Bright in 1865 when he so described England (sic) because it gives birth to successive parliaments, each of which is the child of the state, being born again at each general election. It is the UK that is the 'mother', not Westminster.
To The Scotsman (2 Aug 2019) published 3 Aug 2019
It is disappointing to see Bill Jamieson expressing reactionary support for Jacob Rees-Mogg in preferring use of the Imperial system of weights and measures (Scottish Perspective, 1 August).
The International of Units (SI) is used by all countries of the world except Myanmar, USA and Liberia and Myanmar is considering adopting it. The UK describes itself as an SI country but mixes it with some Imperial units, an unsatisfactory situation that should be resolved. All of British science and industry is metric. There's no going back on this and dinosaurs like Rees-Mogg et al should wake up to the modern world.
It is disappointing to see Bill Jamieson expressing reactionary support for Jacob Rees-Mogg in preferring use of the Imperial system of weights and measures (Scottish Perspective, 1 August).
The International of Units (SI) is used by all countries of the world except Myanmar, USA and Liberia and Myanmar is considering adopting it. The UK describes itself as an SI country but mixes it with some Imperial units, an unsatisfactory situation that should be resolved. All of British science and industry is metric. There's no going back on this and dinosaurs like Rees-Mogg et al should wake up to the modern world.
To The Scotsman (15 Jul 2019) published 16 Jul 2019
George Morton (Letters, 15 July) is scaremongering. The reactors at Torness and Hunterson are solidly encased in reinforced concrete and are unlikely to be affected by the tsunami he envisages.
In such an event, although much of the station might be destroyed the reactors would automatically shut down and there is no danger of radiation spreading. Even if it did, note that, at Chernobyl, the surrounding area is habitable, as it is that around Fukushima Daiichi.
The bigger worry would be the colossal loss of life and property in coastal areas, not just in Lothian.
Germany is not so 'enlightened'; it foolishly closed its nuclear stations after the Fukushima accident under pressure from the Green Party who have too much influence. As a result, Germany is now burning brown coal and polluting the environment.
George Morton (Letters, 15 July) is scaremongering. The reactors at Torness and Hunterson are solidly encased in reinforced concrete and are unlikely to be affected by the tsunami he envisages.
In such an event, although much of the station might be destroyed the reactors would automatically shut down and there is no danger of radiation spreading. Even if it did, note that, at Chernobyl, the surrounding area is habitable, as it is that around Fukushima Daiichi.
The bigger worry would be the colossal loss of life and property in coastal areas, not just in Lothian.
Germany is not so 'enlightened'; it foolishly closed its nuclear stations after the Fukushima accident under pressure from the Green Party who have too much influence. As a result, Germany is now burning brown coal and polluting the environment.
To The Scotsman (9 Jul 2019) not published
Charles Wardrop makes the mistake of believing that it can be proved that 'climate benefits from cutting CO2' (Letter, 8 July). Science does not work like that, but the evidence does support the hypothesis.
He is also mistaken in claiming that cosmic rays influence cloud formation. A study by Prof Terry Sloan of Lancaster University and Prof Sir Arnold Wolfendale (Durham University) looked for the evidence for this claim and found none. They found that variations in solar radiation and cosmic rays could not have caused more than 10 per cent of the warming observed in the 20th century and concluded that the phenomenon is not a 'significant underestimated contributor to the global warming'. Other physicists have come to the same conclusion.
Climate change deniers should not clutch at straws without adequate research. For the lowdown on 197 myths about global warming and climate change see https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php.
Charles Wardrop makes the mistake of believing that it can be proved that 'climate benefits from cutting CO2' (Letter, 8 July). Science does not work like that, but the evidence does support the hypothesis.
He is also mistaken in claiming that cosmic rays influence cloud formation. A study by Prof Terry Sloan of Lancaster University and Prof Sir Arnold Wolfendale (Durham University) looked for the evidence for this claim and found none. They found that variations in solar radiation and cosmic rays could not have caused more than 10 per cent of the warming observed in the 20th century and concluded that the phenomenon is not a 'significant underestimated contributor to the global warming'. Other physicists have come to the same conclusion.
Climate change deniers should not clutch at straws without adequate research. For the lowdown on 197 myths about global warming and climate change see https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php.
To The Scotsman (3 Jul 2019) published 4 Jul 2019
Dr Richard Dixon's tirade against nuclear power (Inside Environment,[Scotsman,] 2 July) contrasts starkly with the views of other environmentalists.
In March, The Independent [a national news website] carried an article by four leading environmentalists in favour of nuclear power. These were Stephen Tindale, former director of Greenpeace, Mark Lynas, Chris Goodall of the Green Party, and Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury, Chairman of the Evironment Agency. They joined Sir David King, former Chief Science Adviser to the government; Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace; and James Lovelock, the environmentalist, all of whom advocate the use of nuclear energy for generating electricity without harming the climate.
Dr Dixon is out-of-touch and guilty of peddling myths about the longevity of radioactive waste, its disposal and its cost. Advanced small modular reactors are cheap to build and operate, inherently safe and can even burn nuclear waste, so solving the storage problem.
Dr Richard Dixon's tirade against nuclear power (Inside Environment,[Scotsman,] 2 July) contrasts starkly with the views of other environmentalists.
In March, The Independent [a national news website] carried an article by four leading environmentalists in favour of nuclear power. These were Stephen Tindale, former director of Greenpeace, Mark Lynas, Chris Goodall of the Green Party, and Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury, Chairman of the Evironment Agency. They joined Sir David King, former Chief Science Adviser to the government; Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace; and James Lovelock, the environmentalist, all of whom advocate the use of nuclear energy for generating electricity without harming the climate.
Dr Dixon is out-of-touch and guilty of peddling myths about the longevity of radioactive waste, its disposal and its cost. Advanced small modular reactors are cheap to build and operate, inherently safe and can even burn nuclear waste, so solving the storage problem.
To The Scotsman (24 Jun 2019) published 25 Jun 2019
Jack Watt claims that independence for Scotland would be 'for ever' (Letter, 24 June). But the union of 1707 was 'forever' (Article 1 of the Treaty of Union)
It is clear that no treaty can bind future actions; treaties can be kept or broken as required. This means that an independent Scotland could, if it so wished, rejoin England and Wales.
Of course none of these actions should be taken without general agreement, which I take to be democratic decisions taken by a substantial proportion of the voters, not 50 per cent plus 1. Important constitutional changes need overwhelming support.
Jack Watt claims that independence for Scotland would be 'for ever' (Letter, 24 June). But the union of 1707 was 'forever' (Article 1 of the Treaty of Union)
It is clear that no treaty can bind future actions; treaties can be kept or broken as required. This means that an independent Scotland could, if it so wished, rejoin England and Wales.
Of course none of these actions should be taken without general agreement, which I take to be democratic decisions taken by a substantial proportion of the voters, not 50 per cent plus 1. Important constitutional changes need overwhelming support.
To The Scotsman (6 Jun 2019) not published
Despite what some anti-nuclear 'experts' from the University of Sussex claim ('Household energy bills 'help pay' for nuclear subs', 6 June), the idea that the nuclear power industry pays for the UK's nuclear deterrent is plain nonsense. EDF, who own and operate all Britain's nuclear power stations without subsidy even pay for their own decommissioning. Also, nuclear power is one of the cheapest ways of generation electricity without greenhouse gas emissions and is essential to provide stable base load. Renewable energy methods could never provide that base load.
Despite what some anti-nuclear 'experts' from the University of Sussex claim ('Household energy bills 'help pay' for nuclear subs', 6 June), the idea that the nuclear power industry pays for the UK's nuclear deterrent is plain nonsense. EDF, who own and operate all Britain's nuclear power stations without subsidy even pay for their own decommissioning. Also, nuclear power is one of the cheapest ways of generation electricity without greenhouse gas emissions and is essential to provide stable base load. Renewable energy methods could never provide that base load.
To The Scotsman (3 Jun 2019) not published
It is not quite true, as you claim, that a review found that the pilots of the helicopter 'should not have been blamed [for the accident]' ('Memorial services to mark 25 years since RAF Chinook crash', 3 June). The review conducted by retired judge Lord Philip merely found that the pilots should not have been accused of 'gross negligence' because RAF guidance based that on 'no doubt whatsoever'. To a lawyer, verdicts cannot be concluded on that basis (there is always some doubt). However, the government seized on that conclusion to apologise, an apology that has been taken to exonerate the pilots.
Nevertheless, the pilots did break safety rules and so could have been found guilty on a lesser charge of negligence.
None of this helped to explain the accident, which occurred because the pilots were, ignorantly, off course and breaking a rule designed to protect them from such ignorance. Neither Lord Philip nor the MOD seemed to be interested in finding the true cause. But that is explained in my book Chinook Crash (2004).
It is not quite true, as you claim, that a review found that the pilots of the helicopter 'should not have been blamed [for the accident]' ('Memorial services to mark 25 years since RAF Chinook crash', 3 June). The review conducted by retired judge Lord Philip merely found that the pilots should not have been accused of 'gross negligence' because RAF guidance based that on 'no doubt whatsoever'. To a lawyer, verdicts cannot be concluded on that basis (there is always some doubt). However, the government seized on that conclusion to apologise, an apology that has been taken to exonerate the pilots.
Nevertheless, the pilots did break safety rules and so could have been found guilty on a lesser charge of negligence.
None of this helped to explain the accident, which occurred because the pilots were, ignorantly, off course and breaking a rule designed to protect them from such ignorance. Neither Lord Philip nor the MOD seemed to be interested in finding the true cause. But that is explained in my book Chinook Crash (2004).
To Scotland on Sunday (1 Jun 2019 for publication on 2 Jun) not published
Today is the 25th anniversary of the tragic aircraft accident in which 29 people lost their lives. An RAF Chinook helicopter crashed in fog into the side of Beinn na Lice, a mountain on the Mull of Kintyre above the lighthouse.
The passengers were all intelligence personnel from Northern Ireland heading to a conference at Fort George.
Investigations were complicated and the cause disputed, but the only full account of both the incident and the inquiries is in my book Chinook Crash (2004). The book also includes a possible explanation for the crash, but not one accepted either by the pilots' families or the MOD. In 2011, the government exonerated the pilots on a legal technicality.
I have tried to interest various authorities, including the MOD, in commemorating this anniversary, but no one gave a positive response, or any in most case. That is disappointing.
Today is the 25th anniversary of the tragic aircraft accident in which 29 people lost their lives. An RAF Chinook helicopter crashed in fog into the side of Beinn na Lice, a mountain on the Mull of Kintyre above the lighthouse.
The passengers were all intelligence personnel from Northern Ireland heading to a conference at Fort George.
Investigations were complicated and the cause disputed, but the only full account of both the incident and the inquiries is in my book Chinook Crash (2004). The book also includes a possible explanation for the crash, but not one accepted either by the pilots' families or the MOD. In 2011, the government exonerated the pilots on a legal technicality.
I have tried to interest various authorities, including the MOD, in commemorating this anniversary, but no one gave a positive response, or any in most case. That is disappointing.
To Edinburgh Evening News (29 May 2019) published 31 May 2019
Judy Gibson claims that many other European cities have put 5G on hold until it can be established 'as safe' (Letter, 28 May). That is equivalent to asking for proof that 5G transmissions are not harmful, but one cannot prove a negative. Consequently one cannot establish that 5G is 'safe'; one could only prove that it is 'unsafe', something that does not seem to have been shown yet. Of course all safety is relative. We accept risk in all sorts of ways because it suits us to do so. Absolute safety in impractical.
Judy Gibson claims that many other European cities have put 5G on hold until it can be established 'as safe' (Letter, 28 May). That is equivalent to asking for proof that 5G transmissions are not harmful, but one cannot prove a negative. Consequently one cannot establish that 5G is 'safe'; one could only prove that it is 'unsafe', something that does not seem to have been shown yet. Of course all safety is relative. We accept risk in all sorts of ways because it suits us to do so. Absolute safety in impractical.
To The Scotsman (28 May 2019, resent 29 May) not published
Neil J Bryce claims that we should take note of Prof. Henrik Svensmark's notion that cosmic rays have more effect on climate than man-made CO2 (Letters, 28 May).
However, a new study by Prof Terry Sloan of Lancaster University and Prof Sir Arnold Wolfendale (Durham University) looked for the evidence for this claim and found none. In their article published in Environmental Research Letters (7 November), they found that variations in solar radiation and cosmic rays could not have caused more than 10 per cent of the warming observed in the 20th century. They concluded that the phenomenon is not a 'significant underestimated contributor to the global warming'. Other physicists have come to the same conclusion.
Climate change deniers should not clutch at straws without adequate research. For the lowdown on 197 myths about global warming and climate change see https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php.
Neil J Bryce claims that we should take note of Prof. Henrik Svensmark's notion that cosmic rays have more effect on climate than man-made CO2 (Letters, 28 May).
However, a new study by Prof Terry Sloan of Lancaster University and Prof Sir Arnold Wolfendale (Durham University) looked for the evidence for this claim and found none. In their article published in Environmental Research Letters (7 November), they found that variations in solar radiation and cosmic rays could not have caused more than 10 per cent of the warming observed in the 20th century. They concluded that the phenomenon is not a 'significant underestimated contributor to the global warming'. Other physicists have come to the same conclusion.
Climate change deniers should not clutch at straws without adequate research. For the lowdown on 197 myths about global warming and climate change see https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php.
To The Scotsman (17 May 2019) published 18 May 2019
It is depressing to hear that parents have removed their children from a school fearing that radiation from a 5G mobile phone mast would damage the children's health ('Parents remove children from school of 5G mast', 17 May).
They ignore the health and safety assessment conducted and the finding that the readings were well within guidelines and demand to see evidence that there will be no additional health risk. In fact that is asking the impossible (proving a negative).
Joyce McMillan's article ('An Age of Endarkment and Lies', same day) covers this sort of distrust, where people would rather believe rumours and demonstrated falsehoods that the evidence (another case is the belief that vaccinations cause autism). I put this down to a failure to teach logic and rational thought, especially the scientific method, to the school population. People need to the tools to defend themselves against rampant 'endarkenment'.
It is depressing to hear that parents have removed their children from a school fearing that radiation from a 5G mobile phone mast would damage the children's health ('Parents remove children from school of 5G mast', 17 May).
They ignore the health and safety assessment conducted and the finding that the readings were well within guidelines and demand to see evidence that there will be no additional health risk. In fact that is asking the impossible (proving a negative).
Joyce McMillan's article ('An Age of Endarkment and Lies', same day) covers this sort of distrust, where people would rather believe rumours and demonstrated falsehoods that the evidence (another case is the belief that vaccinations cause autism). I put this down to a failure to teach logic and rational thought, especially the scientific method, to the school population. People need to the tools to defend themselves against rampant 'endarkenment'.
To The Sunday Times (13 May 2019) not published
Dr David Lowry (12 May) referred to data claiming that CO2 emission from nuclear power are 10 to 18 times greater than those from renewables.
However a detailed study by Storm and Smith showed that emissions are only 3.5 to 9 times greater. This is based on the whole life cycle of the plant (from mining of the ore to decommissioning). Of course, during operation of a nuclear power plant, very little CO2 is emitted. Nuclear is the only environmentally-friendly option for secure baseload electricity.
Dr David Lowry (12 May) referred to data claiming that CO2 emission from nuclear power are 10 to 18 times greater than those from renewables.
However a detailed study by Storm and Smith showed that emissions are only 3.5 to 9 times greater. This is based on the whole life cycle of the plant (from mining of the ore to decommissioning). Of course, during operation of a nuclear power plant, very little CO2 is emitted. Nuclear is the only environmentally-friendly option for secure baseload electricity.
To The Scotsman (11 May 2019) not published
Sir Paul Grice is quite right ('Holyrood chief urges rethink on way MSPs are elected', 11 May). The present system, a combination of first-past-the-post and a d'Honte list, is confusing, discriminatory and not necessarily fair. It does not allow any transfer for votes between parties or candidates. What is wrong with using STV as used for all local elections in Scotland. STV is used in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Malta, Australia, and even in the USA.
The Single Transferable Vote is an electoral system that puts the power in the hands of the public.
Sir Paul Grice is quite right ('Holyrood chief urges rethink on way MSPs are elected', 11 May). The present system, a combination of first-past-the-post and a d'Honte list, is confusing, discriminatory and not necessarily fair. It does not allow any transfer for votes between parties or candidates. What is wrong with using STV as used for all local elections in Scotland. STV is used in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Malta, Australia, and even in the USA.
The Single Transferable Vote is an electoral system that puts the power in the hands of the public.
To Scotland on Sunday (6 May 2019) published 12 May 2019
It is surprising that Paris Gourtsoyannis and you fail to mention the Act of the Scottish Parliament that had the most direct effect on me and many thousands of other Scottish householders ('THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT'S LEGISLATIVE MILESTONES', list on p29, 5 May). I refer to the Abolition of Feudal Tenure, etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, which came into effect in 2004.
This Act removed my feudal status, gave me full ownership of my property and meant I no longer had to pay feu duty. The change was long overdue and would probably never have happened without a Scottish Parliament.
It is surprising that Paris Gourtsoyannis and you fail to mention the Act of the Scottish Parliament that had the most direct effect on me and many thousands of other Scottish householders ('THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT'S LEGISLATIVE MILESTONES', list on p29, 5 May). I refer to the Abolition of Feudal Tenure, etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, which came into effect in 2004.
This Act removed my feudal status, gave me full ownership of my property and meant I no longer had to pay feu duty. The change was long overdue and would probably never have happened without a Scottish Parliament.
To The Sunday Times (29 Apr 2019) published 5 May 2019
Neil Oliver mistakenly thinks that 'agnosticism' is 'wishy-washy, a lack of commitment' (Children need our love and attention not manipulation', 28 April).
A 'gnostic' is someone who claims to have secret knowledge, usually of spiritual mysteries. An 'agnostic' is someone who believes that nothing is known or can be known, usually about God. In short a gnostic is sure that we can know things and an agnostic is sure that we can't. Neither is 'sitting on the fence'.
Neil Oliver mistakenly thinks that 'agnosticism' is 'wishy-washy, a lack of commitment' (Children need our love and attention not manipulation', 28 April).
A 'gnostic' is someone who claims to have secret knowledge, usually of spiritual mysteries. An 'agnostic' is someone who believes that nothing is known or can be known, usually about God. In short a gnostic is sure that we can know things and an agnostic is sure that we can't. Neither is 'sitting on the fence'.
To The Scotsman (26 Apr 2019) not published
Your report of the new portrait ('Teenage portrait of the Young Pretender to be publicly exhibited for the first time', 25 April) failed to mention that the portrait was unveiled on Wednesday evening in the National Museum of Scotland's lecture theatre to over 200 people.
The audience was subsequently addressed by historian Professor Edward Corp of the Université de Toulouse - Le Mirail and also by Peter Pininski of the Pininski Foundation in Liechtenstein, which recently bought the portrait. Both outlined the history of the portrait and compared it to other portraits of the Prince.
Uniquely, the portrait is in pastel, the artist's specialty.
Your report of the new portrait ('Teenage portrait of the Young Pretender to be publicly exhibited for the first time', 25 April) failed to mention that the portrait was unveiled on Wednesday evening in the National Museum of Scotland's lecture theatre to over 200 people.
The audience was subsequently addressed by historian Professor Edward Corp of the Université de Toulouse - Le Mirail and also by Peter Pininski of the Pininski Foundation in Liechtenstein, which recently bought the portrait. Both outlined the history of the portrait and compared it to other portraits of the Prince.
Uniquely, the portrait is in pastel, the artist's specialty.
To The Scotsman (25 Apr 2019) not published
Your report of the new portrait ('Teenage portrait of the Young Pretender to be publicly exhibited for the first time', 25 April) failed to mention that the portrait was unveiled on Wednesday evening in the National Museum of Scotland's lecture theatre to over 200 people.
The audience was subsequently addressed by historian Professor Edward Corp of the Université de Toulouse - Le Mirail and also by Peter Pininski of the Pininski Foundation in Liechtenstein, which recently bought the portrait. Both discussed the history of the portrait and compared it to other portraits of the Prince.
Your report of the new portrait ('Teenage portrait of the Young Pretender to be publicly exhibited for the first time', 25 April) failed to mention that the portrait was unveiled on Wednesday evening in the National Museum of Scotland's lecture theatre to over 200 people.
The audience was subsequently addressed by historian Professor Edward Corp of the Université de Toulouse - Le Mirail and also by Peter Pininski of the Pininski Foundation in Liechtenstein, which recently bought the portrait. Both discussed the history of the portrait and compared it to other portraits of the Prince.
To The Sunday Times (24 Apr 2019) not published
Neil Oliver claimed that 'Science has no place for belief.' ('Love of Notre Dame shows where that nation's heart lies', 21 April). He is right that explanations are temporary, but they constitute beliefs. Science is based on justifiable beliefs, not facts, and these beliefs can be disproved at any time and replace by new beliefs.
Neil Oliver claimed that 'Science has no place for belief.' ('Love of Notre Dame shows where that nation's heart lies', 21 April). He is right that explanations are temporary, but they constitute beliefs. Science is based on justifiable beliefs, not facts, and these beliefs can be disproved at any time and replace by new beliefs.
To The Sunday Times (8 Apr 2019) not published
How can Caroline Scott write an article about parish councils, claiming that they are all over 'Britain' (What do Parish Councils do?, 7 April, 'Home') without knowing that they do not exist in Scotland? Here we only have community councils, funded by local authorities but without the powers that parish councils seem to have. Scottish community councils control nothing and are able only to make representations to their local authority.
How can Caroline Scott write an article about parish councils, claiming that they are all over 'Britain' (What do Parish Councils do?, 7 April, 'Home') without knowing that they do not exist in Scotland? Here we only have community councils, funded by local authorities but without the powers that parish councils seem to have. Scottish community councils control nothing and are able only to make representations to their local authority.
To The Scotsman (3 Apr 2019 resent 5 Apr) published 6 Apr 2019
Jim Skea and Hoesung Lee lay out well the problems the world faces due to the CO2 emissions excess ('Wind of change not fast enough to tackle our warming planet', 3 April).
However, they are, quite rightly, not optimistic about the remedies. Even maintaining a CO2 balance will not halt the temperature rise which is due to the CO2 already trapped in the atmosphere.
The IPCC needs to address ways of cooling the planet while at the same time reducing CO2 emissions. We need reduce insolation as a 'backstop' in case we cannot get CO2 emission under control. Several geoengineering methods have been suggested and these should be explored and one or other deployed.
Jim Skea and Hoesung Lee lay out well the problems the world faces due to the CO2 emissions excess ('Wind of change not fast enough to tackle our warming planet', 3 April).
However, they are, quite rightly, not optimistic about the remedies. Even maintaining a CO2 balance will not halt the temperature rise which is due to the CO2 already trapped in the atmosphere.
The IPCC needs to address ways of cooling the planet while at the same time reducing CO2 emissions. We need reduce insolation as a 'backstop' in case we cannot get CO2 emission under control. Several geoengineering methods have been suggested and these should be explored and one or other deployed.
To The Sunday Times (1 Apr 2019) published 7 Apr 2019
The race for fusion power ('UK's white-hot scientists lead race for limitless clean energy', 31 March) is futile. Trying to create a temperature hotter than the sun is challenging enough but also foolhardy. Huge amounts of power are required to achieve this and, so far, very little has come our, certainly not for very long.
The cost of the stations is immense and will never be commercially viable. Already people baulk at the cost of new fission stations, indeed any new central generating plant, and yet fusion requires even bigger central plants. Also the materials used in the fusion chambers can hardly withstand the neutron bombardment and will quickly end up as radioactive waste. It's a fools errand.
It would be better to make full use of fission power by developing fast reactors to consume the huge stocks of plutonium presently building up.
The race for fusion power ('UK's white-hot scientists lead race for limitless clean energy', 31 March) is futile. Trying to create a temperature hotter than the sun is challenging enough but also foolhardy. Huge amounts of power are required to achieve this and, so far, very little has come our, certainly not for very long.
The cost of the stations is immense and will never be commercially viable. Already people baulk at the cost of new fission stations, indeed any new central generating plant, and yet fusion requires even bigger central plants. Also the materials used in the fusion chambers can hardly withstand the neutron bombardment and will quickly end up as radioactive waste. It's a fools errand.
It would be better to make full use of fission power by developing fast reactors to consume the huge stocks of plutonium presently building up.
To Edinburgh Evening News (27 Mar 2019) not published
Jane Shouesmith-Black claimed that Lady Catherine Maxwell Stuart is a direct descendant of the Stuart line ('Should Scotland have a queen or a president?, 26 March). However, there is only one descendant of Prince Charles Edward Stuart permanently living in Scotland and it is not Lady Catherine.
Jane Shouesmith-Black claimed that Lady Catherine Maxwell Stuart is a direct descendant of the Stuart line ('Should Scotland have a queen or a president?, 26 March). However, there is only one descendant of Prince Charles Edward Stuart permanently living in Scotland and it is not Lady Catherine.
To The Scotsman (23 Mar 2019) not published
Alan Thomson (letter 22 March) seems to have overlooked my letter to you published on 3 January (this year) pointing out the persistent myth that because mankind's activities contribute such a small amount of extra carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere, we can't be responsible for global warming leading to climate change (his argument).
However, before the industrial revolution, CO2 emissions and sinks were in balance. But since then, the extra emissions from burning fossil fuels have not been absorbed (cannot be absorbed) and so stay in the atmosphere. That has resulted in the amount of atmospheric CO2 accumulating and rising from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to the present 408 ppm. The result in climate change.
Alan Thomson (letter 22 March) seems to have overlooked my letter to you published on 3 January (this year) pointing out the persistent myth that because mankind's activities contribute such a small amount of extra carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere, we can't be responsible for global warming leading to climate change (his argument).
However, before the industrial revolution, CO2 emissions and sinks were in balance. But since then, the extra emissions from burning fossil fuels have not been absorbed (cannot be absorbed) and so stay in the atmosphere. That has resulted in the amount of atmospheric CO2 accumulating and rising from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to the present 408 ppm. The result in climate change.
To The Edinburgh Evening News (19 Mar 2019) published 20 Mar 2019
David Steel is being criticised for not doing something about the accusations that MP Cyril Smith abused young boys ('Shielding child abusers is not lordly', 18 March).
However he explained that, when challenged, Smith agreed that the accusations were true. That might be and admission of guilt but (more likely) it was an acceptance that such accusations had been made (i.e. it was true that accusations had been made). Because Smith added that the police had investigated and taken no action, it is understandable that Lord Steel took no further action. The accusations predated his membership of the Liberal Democrats and his later election as an MP.
The LibDems are being heavy-handed and presumptuous in suspending him.
David Steel is being criticised for not doing something about the accusations that MP Cyril Smith abused young boys ('Shielding child abusers is not lordly', 18 March).
However he explained that, when challenged, Smith agreed that the accusations were true. That might be and admission of guilt but (more likely) it was an acceptance that such accusations had been made (i.e. it was true that accusations had been made). Because Smith added that the police had investigated and taken no action, it is understandable that Lord Steel took no further action. The accusations predated his membership of the Liberal Democrats and his later election as an MP.
The LibDems are being heavy-handed and presumptuous in suspending him.
To The Edinburgh Evening News (9 Mar 2019) not published
Jesus was male because he carried a y-chromosome from his father, whoever that was, and an x-chromosome from his mother (Mary?). The fact that some species that reproduce asexually always have male offspring ('Experts say why Jesus was male', 8 March) is irrelevant.
The idea that Jesus was born by a virgin is the result of a misreading of the Old Testament (Isa. 7:14) where the Hebrew text actually states that 'a damsel [not virgin] shall conceive and bear a son'. The error occurred in the Greek translation called the Septuagint.
No human can be born asexually and Jesus was as human as any of us.
Jesus was male because he carried a y-chromosome from his father, whoever that was, and an x-chromosome from his mother (Mary?). The fact that some species that reproduce asexually always have male offspring ('Experts say why Jesus was male', 8 March) is irrelevant.
The idea that Jesus was born by a virgin is the result of a misreading of the Old Testament (Isa. 7:14) where the Hebrew text actually states that 'a damsel [not virgin] shall conceive and bear a son'. The error occurred in the Greek translation called the Septuagint.
No human can be born asexually and Jesus was as human as any of us.
To The Scotsman (1 Mar 2019) not published
Jim Duffy ('Despite child sex abuse scandals, my faith in God persists', 1 March) is more confused than he knows.
It is not a fact that Pontius Pilate was 'at odds with the Roman Catholic Church'; he was only at odds with the Jews of Judaea when he became the province's de facto ruler in 26 CE. At the time, the Church as such did not exist.
The modern Catholic Church may paint Pilate as its enemy but if Christianity's founder had not been crucified, what becomes of the faith?
Some of the Gospel accounts are indeed 'fairy tales' but a seam of truth runs through them. What that seam reveals though is not what is conventionally believed.
If Jim Duffy wants to believe, let him believe the account revealed in my book The Rise and Fall of Jesus. It will not justify the churches' teaching, but it will lay bear Jesus' previously hidden agenda.
Someone who does not believe in God is not an agnostic (that's someone who believes that nothing can be known about God); it makes his fiancée an atheist.
Jim Duffy ('Despite child sex abuse scandals, my faith in God persists', 1 March) is more confused than he knows.
It is not a fact that Pontius Pilate was 'at odds with the Roman Catholic Church'; he was only at odds with the Jews of Judaea when he became the province's de facto ruler in 26 CE. At the time, the Church as such did not exist.
The modern Catholic Church may paint Pilate as its enemy but if Christianity's founder had not been crucified, what becomes of the faith?
Some of the Gospel accounts are indeed 'fairy tales' but a seam of truth runs through them. What that seam reveals though is not what is conventionally believed.
If Jim Duffy wants to believe, let him believe the account revealed in my book The Rise and Fall of Jesus. It will not justify the churches' teaching, but it will lay bear Jesus' previously hidden agenda.
Someone who does not believe in God is not an agnostic (that's someone who believes that nothing can be known about God); it makes his fiancée an atheist.
To The Sunday Times (18 Feb 2019) published 24 Feb 2019
Kevin Pringle called for the UK's first-past-the post electoral system to be replaced with a PR system, but he didn't specify which ('High time we voted out the first-past-the-post electoral system', 17 February).
He could similarly have called for the overhaul of the Scottish Parliament's additional member system, which also incorporates fptp [first-past-the-post] constituency voting. This means that most constituency MSPs got their seat on a minority vote (mine got the seat with only 39.5 per cent of the vote). The STV system would be better.
Kevin Pringle called for the UK's first-past-the post electoral system to be replaced with a PR system, but he didn't specify which ('High time we voted out the first-past-the-post electoral system', 17 February).
He could similarly have called for the overhaul of the Scottish Parliament's additional member system, which also incorporates fptp [first-past-the-post] constituency voting. This means that most constituency MSPs got their seat on a minority vote (mine got the seat with only 39.5 per cent of the vote). The STV system would be better.
To The Scotsman (13 Feb 2019) published 15 Feb 2019
You question Charles Edward Stuart's bonnieness (Leader 13 February). He was so-called by the ladies of Edinburgh when he rode in at the head of his army on 17 September 1745. Apparently they thought he was 'bonnie'. All historical accounts confirm this, describing him as tall and handsome with a great presence and intelligence. He would have made a fine king.
You question Charles Edward Stuart's bonnieness (Leader 13 February). He was so-called by the ladies of Edinburgh when he rode in at the head of his army on 17 September 1745. Apparently they thought he was 'bonnie'. All historical accounts confirm this, describing him as tall and handsome with a great presence and intelligence. He would have made a fine king.
To The Scotsman (7 Feb 2019) not published
I am astonished that the FAI into the Clutha accident is expected to hear from 85 witnesses and take 7 months (your report 6 February). That's about three witnesses per day!
The FAI into the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre (2 June 1994) took only four weeks, hearing from 38 witnesses (about 9.5 witnesses per day). Furthermore the Chinook FAI was held less that two years after the accident, not 6 as in this case.
Will all these 85 witnesses have anything to say that will help identify the cause of the accident?
I am astonished that the FAI into the Clutha accident is expected to hear from 85 witnesses and take 7 months (your report 6 February). That's about three witnesses per day!
The FAI into the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre (2 June 1994) took only four weeks, hearing from 38 witnesses (about 9.5 witnesses per day). Furthermore the Chinook FAI was held less that two years after the accident, not 6 as in this case.
Will all these 85 witnesses have anything to say that will help identify the cause of the accident?
To The Scotsman (27 Jan 2019) published 29 Jan 2019
It's astonishing that the taxpayer has to pick up the bill for decommissioning old oil and gas well structures ('£24bn cost for oil decommissioning', 25 January) when the operators of nuclear power stations pay for their own decommissioning.
Why was the oil and gas industry not compelled to make provision for decommissioning? Why isn't whole renewables industry, including hydro power?
It's astonishing that the taxpayer has to pick up the bill for decommissioning old oil and gas well structures ('£24bn cost for oil decommissioning', 25 January) when the operators of nuclear power stations pay for their own decommissioning.
Why was the oil and gas industry not compelled to make provision for decommissioning? Why isn't whole renewables industry, including hydro power?
To The Scotsman (24 Jan 2019) not published
A new report from the European Commission states that average levelised cost of electricity from existing nuclear plants in the European Union will be slightly less than €60/MWh in 2030, making it cheaper than all other forms of electricity generation.
This compares to an average of about €65/MWh for existing hydro capacity, €75/MWh for wind and €85/MWh for solar. Biomass will be the most expensive energy source at around €140/MWh with oil and gas second at around €135/MWh.
The Commission report also says that the UK leads the EU in giving subsidies to fossil fuels. It found €12bn a year in support for fossil fuels in the UK, significantly more than the €8.3bn spent on renewable energy.
The report is online at https://bit.ly/2RQ7sk5.
So lets have no more nonsense about electricity from wind being cheaper than nuclear and false claims about subsidies.
A new report from the European Commission states that average levelised cost of electricity from existing nuclear plants in the European Union will be slightly less than €60/MWh in 2030, making it cheaper than all other forms of electricity generation.
This compares to an average of about €65/MWh for existing hydro capacity, €75/MWh for wind and €85/MWh for solar. Biomass will be the most expensive energy source at around €140/MWh with oil and gas second at around €135/MWh.
The Commission report also says that the UK leads the EU in giving subsidies to fossil fuels. It found €12bn a year in support for fossil fuels in the UK, significantly more than the €8.3bn spent on renewable energy.
The report is online at https://bit.ly/2RQ7sk5.
So lets have no more nonsense about electricity from wind being cheaper than nuclear and false claims about subsidies.
To The Scotsman (21 Jan 2019) published 22 Jan 2019
Like Kenny Macaskill ('Threat of unrest must not deter UK from holding a second Brexit referendum', 17 January), Lesley Riddoch makes the mistake of believing that Westminster is the 'Mother of Parliaments' ('Northern Leaver anger is misdirected', 21 January).
The phrase was coined by MP John Bright in 1865 when he so described England (sic) because it gives birth to successive parliaments, each of which is the child of the state, being born again at each general election. It is the UK that is the 'mother', not Westminster.
Anyway, would any other country want to model itself on the UK's divisive legislature with its archaic electoral system? Have any in fact done so?
Like Kenny Macaskill ('Threat of unrest must not deter UK from holding a second Brexit referendum', 17 January), Lesley Riddoch makes the mistake of believing that Westminster is the 'Mother of Parliaments' ('Northern Leaver anger is misdirected', 21 January).
The phrase was coined by MP John Bright in 1865 when he so described England (sic) because it gives birth to successive parliaments, each of which is the child of the state, being born again at each general election. It is the UK that is the 'mother', not Westminster.
Anyway, would any other country want to model itself on the UK's divisive legislature with its archaic electoral system? Have any in fact done so?
To The Scotsman (17 Jan 2019) not published
Kenny Macaskill ought to know that Westminster has never been 'The Mother of Parliaments' ('Threat of unrest must not deter UK from holding a second Brexit referendum', 17 January).
The phrase was coined by MP John Bright in 1865 when he so described England [sic] because it gives birth to successive parliaments, each of which is the child of the state, being born again at each general election. It is the UK that is the 'mother', not Westminster.
Anyway, would any other country want to model itself on our divisive legislature with its archaic electoral system? Has any in fact done so?
Kenny Macaskill ought to know that Westminster has never been 'The Mother of Parliaments' ('Threat of unrest must not deter UK from holding a second Brexit referendum', 17 January).
The phrase was coined by MP John Bright in 1865 when he so described England [sic] because it gives birth to successive parliaments, each of which is the child of the state, being born again at each general election. It is the UK that is the 'mother', not Westminster.
Anyway, would any other country want to model itself on our divisive legislature with its archaic electoral system? Has any in fact done so?
To The Sunday Times (14 Jan 2019) published 20 Jan 2019
In an otherwise excellent article ('Revoking article 50 will give us time to find a healing consensus', 13 January), Sir John Major made the common mistake of believing that Westminster is 'the Mother of Parliaments'.
He ought to know that the phrase was coined by MP John Bright in 1865 when he described England [sic] as 'the mother of parliaments' because it gives birth to successive parliaments. In no sense is Westminster the mother of other parliaments, but it is the child of the state, being born again at each general election. It is the UK that is the 'mother', not Westminster.
In an otherwise excellent article ('Revoking article 50 will give us time to find a healing consensus', 13 January), Sir John Major made the common mistake of believing that Westminster is 'the Mother of Parliaments'.
He ought to know that the phrase was coined by MP John Bright in 1865 when he described England [sic] as 'the mother of parliaments' because it gives birth to successive parliaments. In no sense is Westminster the mother of other parliaments, but it is the child of the state, being born again at each general election. It is the UK that is the 'mother', not Westminster.
To The Scotsman (10 Jan 2019) published 12 Jan 2019
I think Les Reid (Letter, 10 January) is right that the UK population has never been much interested in the EU. I blame the UK press for that. It was always more interested in Westminster/Holyrood activities than activities in Brussels/Strasbourg, even though we have been greatly affected by EU legislation, largely to our benefit. Press reports centred mainly on fake news about EU rules.
Asking people if they know 'who their MEP was' is flawed since we don't have local constituencies: the whole of Scotland is one EU constituency. How many people even know that?
Consequently it should not have been a surprise that 'Leave' won the 2016 referendum. However they represented only 37.4 per cent of the electorate, hardly an overwhelming endorsement of a major constitutional change. Such a change should require at least 50-60 per cent of the electorate in favour.
I think Les Reid (Letter, 10 January) is right that the UK population has never been much interested in the EU. I blame the UK press for that. It was always more interested in Westminster/Holyrood activities than activities in Brussels/Strasbourg, even though we have been greatly affected by EU legislation, largely to our benefit. Press reports centred mainly on fake news about EU rules.
Asking people if they know 'who their MEP was' is flawed since we don't have local constituencies: the whole of Scotland is one EU constituency. How many people even know that?
Consequently it should not have been a surprise that 'Leave' won the 2016 referendum. However they represented only 37.4 per cent of the electorate, hardly an overwhelming endorsement of a major constitutional change. Such a change should require at least 50-60 per cent of the electorate in favour.
To Edinburgh Evening News (10 Jan 2019) published 12 Jan 2019
Yes of course a constitutional change like leaving the EU should only be approved by a significant majority (Ken Currie's letter on 9 January). That's why George Cunningham introduced his amendment to the 1978 Scotland Act. Devolution for Scotland was eventually granted by Parliament in 1998 without a referendum.
The much greater constitutional change involved in leaving the EU certainly deserves a barrier to ensure that it's what most people want and to a change based on another close vote and disputes we see at present.
So if another EU referendum is held, it needs to have a minimum majority (say 40% of the electorate although some who raise that threshold), but only for the change. Such a threshold would be inappropriate for remaining in the EU (it doesn't constitute a change).
Yes of course a constitutional change like leaving the EU should only be approved by a significant majority (Ken Currie's letter on 9 January). That's why George Cunningham introduced his amendment to the 1978 Scotland Act. Devolution for Scotland was eventually granted by Parliament in 1998 without a referendum.
The much greater constitutional change involved in leaving the EU certainly deserves a barrier to ensure that it's what most people want and to a change based on another close vote and disputes we see at present.
So if another EU referendum is held, it needs to have a minimum majority (say 40% of the electorate although some who raise that threshold), but only for the change. Such a threshold would be inappropriate for remaining in the EU (it doesn't constitute a change).
To The Scotsman (7 Jan 2019) published 9 Jan 2019
On 6 January BBC4 repeated 'A Very British Deterrent', the story of how the UK came to have it's own nuclear deterrent, courtesy of the USA.
It showed how the ability to use such weapons was merely a vanity project; PM [Harold] Macmillan even expressed the view that the UK's contribution to the the West's nuclear stockpile was trivial and unnecessary. The UK was just desperate to keep its seat on the security council and pretend that it was still a world power.
Considering how the cost of replacing the four nuclear submarines is now expected to reach an unaffordable £31 billion and that the world is no safer if we keep it, isn't it time that we abandoned this useless project and put the money to better use?
On 6 January BBC4 repeated 'A Very British Deterrent', the story of how the UK came to have it's own nuclear deterrent, courtesy of the USA.
It showed how the ability to use such weapons was merely a vanity project; PM [Harold] Macmillan even expressed the view that the UK's contribution to the the West's nuclear stockpile was trivial and unnecessary. The UK was just desperate to keep its seat on the security council and pretend that it was still a world power.
Considering how the cost of replacing the four nuclear submarines is now expected to reach an unaffordable £31 billion and that the world is no safer if we keep it, isn't it time that we abandoned this useless project and put the money to better use?
To The Scotsman (4 Jan 2019) published 5 Jan 2019
Bill Jamieson remarked on 'how lucky' we are to live on such a hospitable planet ('A real-life Song of Ice and Fire', 3 January).
We're luckier than we think as Prof David Waltham explained in his book Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional - and What that means for Life in the Universe (Icon Books, 2014).
The chance of a civilization like ours emerging in so vast a universe is so small that it's only due to a series of lucky accidents that we're here at all. It's so unlikely to have occurred elsewhere that we may be alone, the universe's only intelligence. What a responsibility that brings.
Bill Jamieson remarked on 'how lucky' we are to live on such a hospitable planet ('A real-life Song of Ice and Fire', 3 January).
We're luckier than we think as Prof David Waltham explained in his book Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional - and What that means for Life in the Universe (Icon Books, 2014).
The chance of a civilization like ours emerging in so vast a universe is so small that it's only due to a series of lucky accidents that we're here at all. It's so unlikely to have occurred elsewhere that we may be alone, the universe's only intelligence. What a responsibility that brings.
To Edinburgh Evening News (2 Jan 2019) not published
Talk of a trial must frighten the five men from whose room Kirsty Maxwell fell on 29 April 2017 ('Kirsty's family vow to fight for trial over fatal fall', 1 January).
There is no evidence that any of them had anything to do with her death yet one or more of them might find themselves charged purely on circumstantial evidence alone and a determination by Kirsty's family to blame someone. A miscarriage of justice is possible.
Talk of a trial must frighten the five men from whose room Kirsty Maxwell fell on 29 April 2017 ('Kirsty's family vow to fight for trial over fatal fall', 1 January).
There is no evidence that any of them had anything to do with her death yet one or more of them might find themselves charged purely on circumstantial evidence alone and a determination by Kirsty's family to blame someone. A miscarriage of justice is possible.
To The Scotsman (1 Jan 2019) published in the Edinburgh Evening News 3 Jan 2019!
There is persistent myth that because mankind's activities contribute such a small amount of extra carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere, we can't be responsible for global warming leading to climate change (Letter from Geoff Moore, 31 December). Deniers use this argument.
However, before the industrial revolution, CO2 emissions and sinks were in balance. But since then, the extra emissions from burning fossil fuels have not been absorbed (cannot be absorbed) and so stay in the atmosphere. That has resulted in the amount of atmospheric CO2 accumulating and rising from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to the present 408 ppm. The result in climate change.
A case of 'a little knowledge...'
There is persistent myth that because mankind's activities contribute such a small amount of extra carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere, we can't be responsible for global warming leading to climate change (Letter from Geoff Moore, 31 December). Deniers use this argument.
However, before the industrial revolution, CO2 emissions and sinks were in balance. But since then, the extra emissions from burning fossil fuels have not been absorbed (cannot be absorbed) and so stay in the atmosphere. That has resulted in the amount of atmospheric CO2 accumulating and rising from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to the present 408 ppm. The result in climate change.
A case of 'a little knowledge...'