Letters 2020 - underlining indicates deletion by editor; square brackets indicate insertion.
To The Scotsman (28 Dec 2020) not published
Dr John Cameron claims that we are about to enter the third decade of the 21st century. However he and most others forget that our year numbering is a reflection of the age of Jesus, who is assumed to have been 1-year old in 1 AD (the Greek monk who invented this system did not know about any 'year zero').
Consequently, if he still lives, Jesus is about to enter his 2021st year and he entered his 3rd decade on 1st January 2020.
Dr John Cameron claims that we are about to enter the third decade of the 21st century. However he and most others forget that our year numbering is a reflection of the age of Jesus, who is assumed to have been 1-year old in 1 AD (the Greek monk who invented this system did not know about any 'year zero').
Consequently, if he still lives, Jesus is about to enter his 2021st year and he entered his 3rd decade on 1st January 2020.
To The Scotsman (22 Dec 2020) not published
I have claimed that the Birth Narratives (Nativity stories) of Matthew and Luke are inventions (Letters, 12 and 16 December).
No one knows when Jesus was born. The Christian Church usurped pagan winter celebrations by declaring 25 December his birthday. Matthew locates it in the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE. Yet Luke places it at the time of a census, which Rome imposed on Judea when it took direct rule in 6CE. A difference of at least 9 years! In fact it seems that Jesus came from Galilee, probably Capernaum, a province unaffected by the census.
The idea that Jesus was born in Nazareth seems to be a false deduction from his name (the ‘Nazarene’) and the Bethlehem birth from Micah 5:2 where the prophet declared the ruler of Israel would come. In fact there is no record of Jesus claiming to have been born there, something that he surely would have used if it were true.
Luke thought that, on account of the census, Joseph had to take his wife and child to Bethlehem (not a requirement), while Matthew asks us to believe that, Joseph took them from Bethlehem to Nazareth. But first they had to make a detour via Egypt in order to fulfil prophecy (Hos. 11:1) and to indulge the Alexandrian Jews for whom he wrote.
All the features of the Nativity are fabrications. The Star, which astronomers foolishly try to explain, is a concoction from Mithraism and a verse in the Pseudepigrapha (Twelve Patriarchs 18:3). Everyone can see that a star cannot stand over a particular spot on the Earth’s surface.
In addition one can forget the Magi, gifts and Virgin Birth, the latter a misreading of the Old Testament.
The Nativity stories belong in the same category as Father Christmas and should not be commemorated as if they were true.
I have claimed that the Birth Narratives (Nativity stories) of Matthew and Luke are inventions (Letters, 12 and 16 December).
No one knows when Jesus was born. The Christian Church usurped pagan winter celebrations by declaring 25 December his birthday. Matthew locates it in the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE. Yet Luke places it at the time of a census, which Rome imposed on Judea when it took direct rule in 6CE. A difference of at least 9 years! In fact it seems that Jesus came from Galilee, probably Capernaum, a province unaffected by the census.
The idea that Jesus was born in Nazareth seems to be a false deduction from his name (the ‘Nazarene’) and the Bethlehem birth from Micah 5:2 where the prophet declared the ruler of Israel would come. In fact there is no record of Jesus claiming to have been born there, something that he surely would have used if it were true.
Luke thought that, on account of the census, Joseph had to take his wife and child to Bethlehem (not a requirement), while Matthew asks us to believe that, Joseph took them from Bethlehem to Nazareth. But first they had to make a detour via Egypt in order to fulfil prophecy (Hos. 11:1) and to indulge the Alexandrian Jews for whom he wrote.
All the features of the Nativity are fabrications. The Star, which astronomers foolishly try to explain, is a concoction from Mithraism and a verse in the Pseudepigrapha (Twelve Patriarchs 18:3). Everyone can see that a star cannot stand over a particular spot on the Earth’s surface.
In addition one can forget the Magi, gifts and Virgin Birth, the latter a misreading of the Old Testament.
The Nativity stories belong in the same category as Father Christmas and should not be commemorated as if they were true.
To The Scotsman (17 Dec 2020) not published
It is true that Egyptologists believe that The Great Pyramid 'was built as a tomb for the...pharaoh Kufu' ('Great Pyramid artefact find in cigar box', 16 December).
However, in December 1990, in an article in New Humanist, I propagated an alternative view. Although it is agreed that pyramids are tombs, there is no evidence that they ever held bodies, even though some contain a sarcophagus. The emptiness of the pyramids is usually explained by supposing that either they were abandoned before burial (a specious argument) or that robbers emptied them centuries ago. Yet such robbers may themselves have found the tombs empty.
In my article I echoed the view of Alexandre Lenoir that pyramids were not tombs for pharaohs, but tombs for gods, in effect 'cenotaphs'. In particular, The Great Pyramid seems to have been built as a simulacrum for Osiris, where his spirit could dwell among his people. That is why it is so large.
Incidentally, I also explained how the pyramidal shape arose and why it was so revered by the Egyptians.
It is true that Egyptologists believe that The Great Pyramid 'was built as a tomb for the...pharaoh Kufu' ('Great Pyramid artefact find in cigar box', 16 December).
However, in December 1990, in an article in New Humanist, I propagated an alternative view. Although it is agreed that pyramids are tombs, there is no evidence that they ever held bodies, even though some contain a sarcophagus. The emptiness of the pyramids is usually explained by supposing that either they were abandoned before burial (a specious argument) or that robbers emptied them centuries ago. Yet such robbers may themselves have found the tombs empty.
In my article I echoed the view of Alexandre Lenoir that pyramids were not tombs for pharaohs, but tombs for gods, in effect 'cenotaphs'. In particular, The Great Pyramid seems to have been built as a simulacrum for Osiris, where his spirit could dwell among his people. That is why it is so large.
Incidentally, I also explained how the pyramidal shape arose and why it was so revered by the Egyptians.
To The Scotsman (14 Dec 2020) published 16 Dec 2020
Donald M Macdonald claims that the scholarship on which I rely is 'outdated' (Letter, 14 December). Then perhaps he can explain how and when the conclusion that the gospel Birth Narratives are invented was replaced by the view that they are true? It seems unlikely that scepticism would be replaced by acceptance. It seems that it is Mr Macdonald who is out-of-date.
I did not claim that the Early Church 'fabricated a story'; I claimed that it was Matthew and Luke who did that independently, which is why the accounts differ. The Early Church merely accepted the accounts, especially as they seemed to place Jesus on a par with other saviour gods.
Mr Macdonald's letter is full of gratuitious speculation: that the two evangelists 'obviously selected their material...'; that Luke 'probably' obtained an account from Jesus' mother; that Matthew was a highly educated Jew (that is not known). Such speculation devalues his argument.
Certainly the absence of these narratives in the Gospels of Mark and John does not prove that they were ignorant of them. In the case of Mark, the Gospel on which both Matthew and Luke based their accounts, it does look as if he was ignorant of such stories. In the case of John, writing after both Matthew and Luke, whose Gospels he must have seen, it shows his disinterest, perhaps because he knew better, or didn't care.
The fact is that the two accounts are incompatible; both cannot be true and almost certainly neither is true.
Donald M Macdonald claims that the scholarship on which I rely is 'outdated' (Letter, 14 December). Then perhaps he can explain how and when the conclusion that the gospel Birth Narratives are invented was replaced by the view that they are true? It seems unlikely that scepticism would be replaced by acceptance. It seems that it is Mr Macdonald who is out-of-date.
I did not claim that the Early Church 'fabricated a story'; I claimed that it was Matthew and Luke who did that independently, which is why the accounts differ. The Early Church merely accepted the accounts, especially as they seemed to place Jesus on a par with other saviour gods.
Mr Macdonald's letter is full of gratuitious speculation: that the two evangelists 'obviously selected their material...'; that Luke 'probably' obtained an account from Jesus' mother; that Matthew was a highly educated Jew (that is not known). Such speculation devalues his argument.
Certainly the absence of these narratives in the Gospels of Mark and John does not prove that they were ignorant of them. In the case of Mark, the Gospel on which both Matthew and Luke based their accounts, it does look as if he was ignorant of such stories. In the case of John, writing after both Matthew and Luke, whose Gospels he must have seen, it shows his disinterest, perhaps because he knew better, or didn't care.
The fact is that the two accounts are incompatible; both cannot be true and almost certainly neither is true.
To The Scotsman (11 Dec 2020) published 12 Dec 2020
Jen Robertson urges us all to 'hope', a long-held slogan of evangelical Christians ('Shine the light of hope in our communities', 11 December). Presumably hope that the gospel story is true and that believers will enjoy eternal life if they believe that Jesus saves them.
However, everyone needs to be aware that the Birth Narratives in Matthew and Luke were invented to give Jesus a background commensurate with his deification by the Early Church. Neither Mark's nor John's Gospel know anything of Jesus' origin and John, Jesus' intimate, was most likely to have known. The two birth accounts cannot even agree, evidence that they are not historical.
I explain all this is my book The Rise and Fall of Jesus (1979).
Jen Robertson urges us all to 'hope', a long-held slogan of evangelical Christians ('Shine the light of hope in our communities', 11 December). Presumably hope that the gospel story is true and that believers will enjoy eternal life if they believe that Jesus saves them.
However, everyone needs to be aware that the Birth Narratives in Matthew and Luke were invented to give Jesus a background commensurate with his deification by the Early Church. Neither Mark's nor John's Gospel know anything of Jesus' origin and John, Jesus' intimate, was most likely to have known. The two birth accounts cannot even agree, evidence that they are not historical.
I explain all this is my book The Rise and Fall of Jesus (1979).
To Scotland on Sunday (8 Dec 2020) published 13 Dec 2020, amended
You mistake Scotland for a British colony [in last week's report headlined ]('British empire demise may offer a sway ahead in referendum stand-off', 6 December).
Scotland is a co-founder of Great Britain (1707), which was later the main component of the United Kingdom of GB and Ireland (1801).
Consequently separating Scotland from England and Wales fractures GB and the two nations have to be dealt with jointly. Indeed, the Treaty of Union would have to be revisited.
David Cameron was foolish to allow Scotland to hold a referendum on independence as if it were a colony desperate to leave the UK. So it is just as well that Scotland voted to stay in the Union.
Calls for Scottish independence should be squashed by pointing to the Treaty of Union and demanding that it be the basis for any future constitutional change. Separation would create two independent nations as they were before the Union. The people of both countries would have to be consulted on the matter.
You mistake Scotland for a British colony [in last week's report headlined ]('British empire demise may offer a sway ahead in referendum stand-off', 6 December).
Scotland is a co-founder of Great Britain (1707), which was later the main component of the United Kingdom of GB and Ireland (1801).
Consequently separating Scotland from England and Wales fractures GB and the two nations have to be dealt with jointly. Indeed, the Treaty of Union would have to be revisited.
David Cameron was foolish to allow Scotland to hold a referendum on independence as if it were a colony desperate to leave the UK. So it is just as well that Scotland voted to stay in the Union.
Calls for Scottish independence should be squashed by pointing to the Treaty of Union and demanding that it be the basis for any future constitutional change. Separation would create two independent nations as they were before the Union. The people of both countries would have to be consulted on the matter.
To The Scotsman (22 Nov 2020) published 23 Nov 2020
So the Scottish Tories want to scrap the not-proven verdict (your report, 21 November). That old saw!
You published a letter from me 2 years ago this month supported JP John Lawless's excellent summing up of the matter (your report that day). Charges have to be proved,either beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities. So old Scots law was precise and logical.
The importation of (first) a 'not-guilty' verdict and (second) the 'guilty' verdict from England was a mistake and should not have been allowed. As Mr Lawless pointed out, no one knows whether or not an accused is in fact guilty or not-guilty. All a verdict finds is whether or not the prosecution have proved their case.
So the solution, to enhance Scots law and rationalise it, is to go back to just two verdicts: 'proven' or 'not proven'. The public should learn to understand these verdicts and their implications.
Does Scotland not want to maintain its legal independence from English law? Here's one way to do it. The Scottish Tories should cease trying to pander to popular opinion and instead enhance Scottish law.
So the Scottish Tories want to scrap the not-proven verdict (your report, 21 November). That old saw!
You published a letter from me 2 years ago this month supported JP John Lawless's excellent summing up of the matter (your report that day). Charges have to be proved,either beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities. So old Scots law was precise and logical.
The importation of (first) a 'not-guilty' verdict and (second) the 'guilty' verdict from England was a mistake and should not have been allowed. As Mr Lawless pointed out, no one knows whether or not an accused is in fact guilty or not-guilty. All a verdict finds is whether or not the prosecution have proved their case.
So the solution, to enhance Scots law and rationalise it, is to go back to just two verdicts: 'proven' or 'not proven'. The public should learn to understand these verdicts and their implications.
Does Scotland not want to maintain its legal independence from English law? Here's one way to do it. The Scottish Tories should cease trying to pander to popular opinion and instead enhance Scottish law.
To The Scotsman (19 Nov 2020) not published
Peter May's experience ('Author's forgotten lockdown novel rejected as unrealistic...' 19 November) resonates with me and probably with many other frustrated authors.
In 1982, my book about Jesus and the Origin of Christianity was rejected by an Edinburgh publisher (now deceased), one of very few who bothered to reply and working only from a synopsis, who thought the work 'too far fetched for words' and 'nausiating!' (sic). She also thought that readers would be so shocked that 'it might be like an overdose of arsenic...'!
What makes publishers confident judges, regardless of style, of what is and is not possible or likely to be true? Many publishers rejected JK Rowling's first Harry Potter book before one was persuaded by a child reader to publish it. She was lucky.
In the end I had to publish my book myself and it's still in print, albeit somewhat at my expense.
Peter May's experience ('Author's forgotten lockdown novel rejected as unrealistic...' 19 November) resonates with me and probably with many other frustrated authors.
In 1982, my book about Jesus and the Origin of Christianity was rejected by an Edinburgh publisher (now deceased), one of very few who bothered to reply and working only from a synopsis, who thought the work 'too far fetched for words' and 'nausiating!' (sic). She also thought that readers would be so shocked that 'it might be like an overdose of arsenic...'!
What makes publishers confident judges, regardless of style, of what is and is not possible or likely to be true? Many publishers rejected JK Rowling's first Harry Potter book before one was persuaded by a child reader to publish it. She was lucky.
In the end I had to publish my book myself and it's still in print, albeit somewhat at my expense.
To The Scotsman (6 Nov 2020) published 7 Nov 2020
Gareth Black of Solas thinks that our human experience of suffering and the universe itself only makes sense from a Christian point of view ('Anger may point to the reality of God', 5 November).
Without a belief in God (a god unnamed and perhaps unknown), he thinks the universe deaf, 'morally vacuous' and indifferent to us.
Is that what bothers him? He can't believe that the almost infinite universe we inhabit has no meaning or purpose. Yet all the evidence points exactly to that. Our emergence, indeed all life, is an accident of chemistry in a universe, probably one of perhaps an infinite variety of universes, that happens to allow such accidents.
The idea of gods is indeed a delusion, a man-made device to explain the apparantly inexplicable.
However, that does not mean that we are without inherent standards of justice or values. They are instinctive and do not necessarily arise from religion. People can be well-behaved without any supernatural beliefs. Christians need to stop trying to persuade us that only their superstitious beliefs explain the world.
Gareth Black of Solas thinks that our human experience of suffering and the universe itself only makes sense from a Christian point of view ('Anger may point to the reality of God', 5 November).
Without a belief in God (a god unnamed and perhaps unknown), he thinks the universe deaf, 'morally vacuous' and indifferent to us.
Is that what bothers him? He can't believe that the almost infinite universe we inhabit has no meaning or purpose. Yet all the evidence points exactly to that. Our emergence, indeed all life, is an accident of chemistry in a universe, probably one of perhaps an infinite variety of universes, that happens to allow such accidents.
The idea of gods is indeed a delusion, a man-made device to explain the apparantly inexplicable.
However, that does not mean that we are without inherent standards of justice or values. They are instinctive and do not necessarily arise from religion. People can be well-behaved without any supernatural beliefs. Christians need to stop trying to persuade us that only their superstitious beliefs explain the world.
To The Scotsman (25 Oct 2020) published 26 Oct 2020
The Greens should be careful what they wish for. Calling for 40 percent of land to be forest (your report 24 October) could have the consequence that summer wildfires become dangerous to life and property. Global warming is certain to make such fires more common, as they have been in other parts of the world.
The Greens should be careful what they wish for. Calling for 40 percent of land to be forest (your report 24 October) could have the consequence that summer wildfires become dangerous to life and property. Global warming is certain to make such fires more common, as they have been in other parts of the world.
To The Sunday Times (19 Oct 2020) published 25 Oct 2020
John Sauven of Greenpeace claims that there is 'a market for doing the right thing' (Letter 18 October). He means deriving our electricity supply almost entirely from renewable energy.
Is it 'right' to plaster wind farms across the land and seascape, covering buildings and the landscape with solar panels, not to mention generation from waves, tides and run-of-river scheme? Not when you consider the low energy density of all these methods and the environmental damage they do and their unreliability, limited by wind strength and available sunlight.
There is no need to deploy these medieval methods when a high energy density method is available that barely impinges on the environment.
I refer to generation from nuclear energy, a source of power we have benefited from for 70 years or so in the UK. It is safe, reliable and no more expensive than off-shore wind. That is what is 'right'.
John Sauven of Greenpeace claims that there is 'a market for doing the right thing' (Letter 18 October). He means deriving our electricity supply almost entirely from renewable energy.
Is it 'right' to plaster wind farms across the land and seascape, covering buildings and the landscape with solar panels, not to mention generation from waves, tides and run-of-river scheme? Not when you consider the low energy density of all these methods and the environmental damage they do and their unreliability, limited by wind strength and available sunlight.
There is no need to deploy these medieval methods when a high energy density method is available that barely impinges on the environment.
I refer to generation from nuclear energy, a source of power we have benefited from for 70 years or so in the UK. It is safe, reliable and no more expensive than off-shore wind. That is what is 'right'.
To Scotland on Sunday (12 Oct 2020) not published
Surely the answer to Ronald Cameron's question ('Eco handouts a nonsense with the Panamera about', 11 October) lies in asking how many Panamera's or Rolls Royces are on the roads of the UK.
There are over 40 million vehicles registered for use on the UK's roads, 35 million of which are cars. Of these 750,000 are low, ultra-low and zero emission cars, 13.7 million are diesel and 20.6 million are petrol-driven.
I doubt that many of these cars are Panameras or Rolls Royces, so Mr Cameron aims at the wrong target. Getting those marques off the road will make little difference to emissions. Emissions from vehicles can only be reduced by encouraging people to eschew cars burning fossil fuels and opt instead for those using either electricity or hydrogen, the latter either directly or indirectly using fuel cells.
In other words, target the mass-produced cars and not the few high-value ones.
Surely the answer to Ronald Cameron's question ('Eco handouts a nonsense with the Panamera about', 11 October) lies in asking how many Panamera's or Rolls Royces are on the roads of the UK.
There are over 40 million vehicles registered for use on the UK's roads, 35 million of which are cars. Of these 750,000 are low, ultra-low and zero emission cars, 13.7 million are diesel and 20.6 million are petrol-driven.
I doubt that many of these cars are Panameras or Rolls Royces, so Mr Cameron aims at the wrong target. Getting those marques off the road will make little difference to emissions. Emissions from vehicles can only be reduced by encouraging people to eschew cars burning fossil fuels and opt instead for those using either electricity or hydrogen, the latter either directly or indirectly using fuel cells.
In other words, target the mass-produced cars and not the few high-value ones.
To Edinburgh Evening News (11 Oct 2020) published 13 Oct 2020
Hayley Matthews refuses to take the flu jab on the grounds that, allegedly, it contains 'heavy metal' ('Heavy metal fears mean flu vaccine is not for me', 10 October).
Hayley may be referring to thimerosal, a preservative which keeps vaccines from becoming contaminated.
Thimerosal has been safely included in vaccines since the 1930s. It comes from an organic form of mercury called ethylmercury, a safe compound that, unlike other forms of mercury, does not remain in the body.
However, this ingredient is only present in multi-dose vials, which contain more than one dose. Without it, the growth of bacteria and fungi are common in these vials. Single-dose vials, prefilled syringes, and nasal sprays do not need a preservative, because the risk of contamination is so low.
Consequently, not only is thimerosal in vaccines safe, but it would not be in the present one-dose flu vaccine and Hayley's refusal is both illogical, unnecessary and irresponsible. Influenza, dangerous to some people, can only be kept under control by mass vaccination.
It now appears that the vaccine gives the body's immune system a boost that can help to fight Covid-19. Everyone should be encouraged to get vaccinated.
Hayley Matthews refuses to take the flu jab on the grounds that, allegedly, it contains 'heavy metal' ('Heavy metal fears mean flu vaccine is not for me', 10 October).
Hayley may be referring to thimerosal, a preservative which keeps vaccines from becoming contaminated.
Thimerosal has been safely included in vaccines since the 1930s. It comes from an organic form of mercury called ethylmercury, a safe compound that, unlike other forms of mercury, does not remain in the body.
However, this ingredient is only present in multi-dose vials, which contain more than one dose. Without it, the growth of bacteria and fungi are common in these vials. Single-dose vials, prefilled syringes, and nasal sprays do not need a preservative, because the risk of contamination is so low.
Consequently, not only is thimerosal in vaccines safe, but it would not be in the present one-dose flu vaccine and Hayley's refusal is both illogical, unnecessary and irresponsible. Influenza, dangerous to some people, can only be kept under control by mass vaccination.
It now appears that the vaccine gives the body's immune system a boost that can help to fight Covid-19. Everyone should be encouraged to get vaccinated.
To The Scotsman (7 Oct 2020) published 8 Oct 2020
Someone has led the Prime Minister to believe that all the UK electricity demand can be met by wind power ('Scotland's offshore wind success could put it at fore of PM's green energy, plan', 7 October). Perhaps, but not reliably and reliability is what is needed for electricity supply. Generation from wind power fails if there is insufficient or even too much wind.
Nor is it true that wind power is 'cheaper than coal and gas' if you factor in the necessary back-up generation required for times when there is insufficient power from wind. That might require generation from stored electricity, an added cost. No mention of the environmental damage created by wind farms.
Wind generation is also unsuited to base load generation. That would require something weather-independent, like nuclear, which got just one mention in the PM's speech. So is the government still advocating the continued deployment of nuclear power? It's actions on the matter so far have not been encouraging.
Someone has led the Prime Minister to believe that all the UK electricity demand can be met by wind power ('Scotland's offshore wind success could put it at fore of PM's green energy, plan', 7 October). Perhaps, but not reliably and reliability is what is needed for electricity supply. Generation from wind power fails if there is insufficient or even too much wind.
Nor is it true that wind power is 'cheaper than coal and gas' if you factor in the necessary back-up generation required for times when there is insufficient power from wind. That might require generation from stored electricity, an added cost. No mention of the environmental damage created by wind farms.
Wind generation is also unsuited to base load generation. That would require something weather-independent, like nuclear, which got just one mention in the PM's speech. So is the government still advocating the continued deployment of nuclear power? It's actions on the matter so far have not been encouraging.
To The Scotsman (21 Sep 2020) published 1 Oct 2020
Surely the Treaty of Union (agreed on 22 July 1706) was an international treaty merging two previously independent nations. The Union was subsequently enacted by the parliaments of England and Scotland, confirming the Treaty.
Consequently, would it not be a breach of the Treaty if either Scotland or England subsequently determined unilaterally to separate from the other?
Surely the Treaty of Union (agreed on 22 July 1706) was an international treaty merging two previously independent nations. The Union was subsequently enacted by the parliaments of England and Scotland, confirming the Treaty.
Consequently, would it not be a breach of the Treaty if either Scotland or England subsequently determined unilaterally to separate from the other?
To The Scotsman (9 Sep 2020) not published
Dr Richard Dixon, in his column Inside Environment on 8 September, referred to 'a widespread programme to replace existing boilers. He means those burning methane for house heating and/or hot water.
However he fails to mention the replacement options. If not burning methane (North Sea gas), then what? Using electricity would be prohibitively expensive and heat pumps, although cheaper to run, do not produce the high temperature required. Only air-source heat pumps are an option for existing premises.
The best option is to replace methane by hydrogen in the gas network, an option already being tested in some places. The produce of burning hydrogen is just water.
Dr Richard Dixon, in his column Inside Environment on 8 September, referred to 'a widespread programme to replace existing boilers. He means those burning methane for house heating and/or hot water.
However he fails to mention the replacement options. If not burning methane (North Sea gas), then what? Using electricity would be prohibitively expensive and heat pumps, although cheaper to run, do not produce the high temperature required. Only air-source heat pumps are an option for existing premises.
The best option is to replace methane by hydrogen in the gas network, an option already being tested in some places. The produce of burning hydrogen is just water.
To The Scotsman (7 Sep 2020) published 10 Sep 2020
Despite criticism (Clark Cross and anon!, [Letters] 7 September) Susan Dalgety ('Racism blinds too many to the benefits of immigration', 5 September) was correct that migration is good for any economy and cites America, a country built on immigrants.
She was also right to point to the UK's demographic 'time-bomb': ever increasing numbers of retired older people but with a shrinking workforce. Only more young immigrants can defuse that and save the care system from collapse. What solution do her critics propose?
Despite criticism (Clark Cross and anon!, [Letters] 7 September) Susan Dalgety ('Racism blinds too many to the benefits of immigration', 5 September) was correct that migration is good for any economy and cites America, a country built on immigrants.
She was also right to point to the UK's demographic 'time-bomb': ever increasing numbers of retired older people but with a shrinking workforce. Only more young immigrants can defuse that and save the care system from collapse. What solution do her critics propose?
To The Scotsman (31 Aug 2020) not published
Baron Foulkes calls for balance (alternative political views) in respect of the Covid-19 updates broadcast every day by Nicola Sturgeon from St Andrew's House ('Foulkes lodges BBC briefings complaint', 31 Aug), where the sound system evidently needs upgrading.
One wonders why such updates (someone called them 'doomcasts') are made by a politician when they could easily be made by Prof Jason Leitch, Scotland's National Clinical Director. Also, why are they broadcast by BBC2 and BBC News24 and even Sky News. What interest does the rUK have in Scotland's updates and why are they not even noted on TV schedules. It's all a mystery.
Baron Foulkes calls for balance (alternative political views) in respect of the Covid-19 updates broadcast every day by Nicola Sturgeon from St Andrew's House ('Foulkes lodges BBC briefings complaint', 31 Aug), where the sound system evidently needs upgrading.
One wonders why such updates (someone called them 'doomcasts') are made by a politician when they could easily be made by Prof Jason Leitch, Scotland's National Clinical Director. Also, why are they broadcast by BBC2 and BBC News24 and even Sky News. What interest does the rUK have in Scotland's updates and why are they not even noted on TV schedules. It's all a mystery.
To The Sunday Times (31 Aug 2020) published 6 Sep 2020
Never mind Land of Hope and Glory (Andrew Neil's letter on 30 Aug). What about our awful National Anthem, which is all about the monarch and, as an aside, denigrates Scots? It's way out-of-date with a dirge of a tune. Other countries' anthems usually sing the praises of their land. It's time for a new British anthem that deals with the UK, not its head of state.
Never mind Land of Hope and Glory (Andrew Neil's letter on 30 Aug). What about our awful National Anthem, which is all about the monarch and, as an aside, denigrates Scots? It's way out-of-date with a dirge of a tune. Other countries' anthems usually sing the praises of their land. It's time for a new British anthem that deals with the UK, not its head of state.
To The Scotsman (19 Aug 2020) published 21 Aug 2020
Prof Alice Roberts claims that many people are humanists (doesn't she mean 'Humanists') 'without realising it ('You may already be a humanist', Scottish Perspective 18 August).
In fact Humanists are not like most non-religious people, if that is what she meant. Humanists espouse a kind of mystical pseudo-religious belief in humanity. I left the Humanist movement mainly because I could never explain the meaning of Humanism. I am just not religious and do not need the backing of a movement.
Roberts is mistaken in her interpretation of agnosticism. It does not mean that 'there's no way of absolutely disproving the existence of any gods' (that's a given--one cannot prove a negative); it is a belief that nothing is known or can be known of the existence of or nature of God, and by extension any god. Also it does not mean, as many believe, that it is a neutral, 'sitting on the fence', position.
Prof Alice Roberts claims that many people are humanists (doesn't she mean 'Humanists') 'without realising it ('You may already be a humanist', Scottish Perspective 18 August).
In fact Humanists are not like most non-religious people, if that is what she meant. Humanists espouse a kind of mystical pseudo-religious belief in humanity. I left the Humanist movement mainly because I could never explain the meaning of Humanism. I am just not religious and do not need the backing of a movement.
Roberts is mistaken in her interpretation of agnosticism. It does not mean that 'there's no way of absolutely disproving the existence of any gods' (that's a given--one cannot prove a negative); it is a belief that nothing is known or can be known of the existence of or nature of God, and by extension any god. Also it does not mean, as many believe, that it is a neutral, 'sitting on the fence', position.
To The Scotsman (8 Aug 2020+10 Aug) published 11 Aug 2020
Andrew Vass accused me of 'scientism' (Letters, 5 August). This is the view that the characteristic induction methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge.
I dispute that; I believe that a certain amount of intuition and insight is necessary to explain historical problems, particularly the life of Jesus. This is the view of many historians and was certainly the view of Schweitzer, whom I follow.
Vass is also mistaken in believing that I claimed that Jesus' disciples did not acclaim him as the 'Son of God'. It is true that they did not (they acclaimed him as Messiah) but my claim was that Jesus himself did not, and for good reason.
Vass thinks I'm a 'certainty thinker' simply because I make statements based on my beliefs. In fact certainty is not attainable. But speculation is permitted and encouraged. What I claim is speculative but based on the evidence; in fact it explains more of Jesus' life than expected and must be near to the truth.
Reported 'near-death experiences' are not evidence of resurrection; merely a strange experience produced by a brain suffering from input restriction and trying to make sense of the circumstances. Nor are so-called 'psychic phenomena' any way to explain reality. They lack evidence and even logic.
If attending church has a beneficial effect on some people, that is not evidence in favour of Christianity. Many people believe in alien visitations beneficial. In fact superstition of any kind satisfies many people, as do drugs.
Andrew Vass accused me of 'scientism' (Letters, 5 August). This is the view that the characteristic induction methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge.
I dispute that; I believe that a certain amount of intuition and insight is necessary to explain historical problems, particularly the life of Jesus. This is the view of many historians and was certainly the view of Schweitzer, whom I follow.
Vass is also mistaken in believing that I claimed that Jesus' disciples did not acclaim him as the 'Son of God'. It is true that they did not (they acclaimed him as Messiah) but my claim was that Jesus himself did not, and for good reason.
Vass thinks I'm a 'certainty thinker' simply because I make statements based on my beliefs. In fact certainty is not attainable. But speculation is permitted and encouraged. What I claim is speculative but based on the evidence; in fact it explains more of Jesus' life than expected and must be near to the truth.
Reported 'near-death experiences' are not evidence of resurrection; merely a strange experience produced by a brain suffering from input restriction and trying to make sense of the circumstances. Nor are so-called 'psychic phenomena' any way to explain reality. They lack evidence and even logic.
If attending church has a beneficial effect on some people, that is not evidence in favour of Christianity. Many people believe in alien visitations beneficial. In fact superstition of any kind satisfies many people, as do drugs.
To The Scotsman (31 Jul 2020) published 3 Aug 2020
I defy anyone to understand Andy Bannister's muddled and jargon full[-filled] (e,g, 'self-actualisation') sermon[article] on 31 July ('Rely on God when the trials of life confront us with just how human we really are' [31 July]). Yes, we know we are human but turning to an imaginary friend will not help cope with the complexities of life.
Mr Bannister refers to Jesus as 'the Son of God' but Jesus never used the term. Nor could he have done so since it implied divinity. The Messiah was a human not a divine being. Jesus referred to himself obtusely as 'Son of man', code for the Messiah. Does Mr Bannister not know this? Jesus was not God.
Nor was his crucifixion an 'existential crisis'. It was essential to his plan to be resurrected as the ruler of Israel. He decided to suffer the penalty, believing it a necessary part of God's plan (Mk 9:12). In fact he planned to be crucified. He was not really resurrected and nor will anyone else be. We only have one life and need to make the best of it.
I defy anyone to understand Andy Bannister's muddled and jargon full[-filled] (e,g, 'self-actualisation') sermon[article] on 31 July ('Rely on God when the trials of life confront us with just how human we really are' [31 July]). Yes, we know we are human but turning to an imaginary friend will not help cope with the complexities of life.
Mr Bannister refers to Jesus as 'the Son of God' but Jesus never used the term. Nor could he have done so since it implied divinity. The Messiah was a human not a divine being. Jesus referred to himself obtusely as 'Son of man', code for the Messiah. Does Mr Bannister not know this? Jesus was not God.
Nor was his crucifixion an 'existential crisis'. It was essential to his plan to be resurrected as the ruler of Israel. He decided to suffer the penalty, believing it a necessary part of God's plan (Mk 9:12). In fact he planned to be crucified. He was not really resurrected and nor will anyone else be. We only have one life and need to make the best of it.
To The Scotsman (29 Jul 2020) published 30 Jul 2020
Dr Richard Dixon rightly points to the dangers that atmospheric methane pose (Inside Environment, 28 July). However, he claims that we capture methane from the waste management industry 'and do something useful with it instead...'. Unfortunately he does not explain what is done with captured methane.
There are many different process uses for methane but almost all of them result in the release of carbon dioxide, another greenhouse gas. Does he think that's an environmentally-friendly improvement?
We need to try to stop all methane releases.
Dr Richard Dixon rightly points to the dangers that atmospheric methane pose (Inside Environment, 28 July). However, he claims that we capture methane from the waste management industry 'and do something useful with it instead...'. Unfortunately he does not explain what is done with captured methane.
There are many different process uses for methane but almost all of them result in the release of carbon dioxide, another greenhouse gas. Does he think that's an environmentally-friendly improvement?
We need to try to stop all methane releases.
To Scotland on Sunday (27 Jul 2020) published 2 Aug 2020
The First Minister often refers to the 'politicians we didn't vote for' (e.g.Hashtag, 26 July). She means the Conservative government.
Due to the way UK elections are held, I always get a representative I didn't vote for. I didn't vote for either my MP or my MSP. The 'first-past-the-post' system for UK elections is almost certain to produce an unfair result as it was designed for only two candidates.
The mixed D'Honte Scottish system is not much better as it denies voters a full constituency choice and, in Lothian, I found myself completely unrepresented.
All elections should be held under the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. It is used successfully in Australia, India, Ireland, Malta, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan and some parts of the USA. It has even been used in the UK (for the Northern Ireland Assembly and local government elections). STV has been used in Scottish local government elections since 2007, although that still didn't get me a representative I voted for.
The First Minister often refers to the 'politicians we didn't vote for' (e.g.Hashtag, 26 July). She means the Conservative government.
Due to the way UK elections are held, I always get a representative I didn't vote for. I didn't vote for either my MP or my MSP. The 'first-past-the-post' system for UK elections is almost certain to produce an unfair result as it was designed for only two candidates.
The mixed D'Honte Scottish system is not much better as it denies voters a full constituency choice and, in Lothian, I found myself completely unrepresented.
All elections should be held under the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. It is used successfully in Australia, India, Ireland, Malta, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan and some parts of the USA. It has even been used in the UK (for the Northern Ireland Assembly and local government elections). STV has been used in Scottish local government elections since 2007, although that still didn't get me a representative I voted for.
To The Scotsman (21 Jul 2020 and 23 Jul) published 24 Jul 2020
You claim that comet Neowise was seen 'passing over' various landmarks ('Comet lights up British skies with starry trail, 21 July). You also refer to the comet 'travelling over the Forth Bridge as well as Windsor Castle'!
Surely you know that astronomical objects, being at such a huge distance from us, cannot be said to be 'over' or 'passing' any spot on the Earth's surface anymore that the Star of Bethlehem, if it existed, could be said to 'stand' over a stable in Bethlehem. Nor do comets have 'starry trails'; the trails consist of dust or cometary debris. Note also that comets, although travelling very fast, seem practically stationary in the sky.
I am astonished at the astronomical ignorance you display.
You claim that comet Neowise was seen 'passing over' various landmarks ('Comet lights up British skies with starry trail, 21 July). You also refer to the comet 'travelling over the Forth Bridge as well as Windsor Castle'!
Surely you know that astronomical objects, being at such a huge distance from us, cannot be said to be 'over' or 'passing' any spot on the Earth's surface anymore that the Star of Bethlehem, if it existed, could be said to 'stand' over a stable in Bethlehem. Nor do comets have 'starry trails'; the trails consist of dust or cometary debris. Note also that comets, although travelling very fast, seem practically stationary in the sky.
I am astonished at the astronomical ignorance you display.
To Edinburgh Evening News (20 Jul 2020) not published
The tragic death of Kirsty Maxwell is still unexplained (your report 18 July). It makes no sense that she would knock on the door of strangers, walk through and throw herself from a tenth floor balcony. Nor is there any evidence that the men in the room had anything to do with her death. There has to be a rational explanation.
Trying to be helpful I have suggested to David Swindle, the family's chosen investigator, that she was sleepwalking, but I got no response. About 1.5 per cent of adults have sleepwalked at least once in the previous 12 months. Sleepwalkers are completely unaware of their actions, some of them bizarre.
Kirsty had been drinking with friends (drinking can be a contributory factor in this condition) and had gone to bed in her room. Later she rose and evidently tried to get back to her friends but got the wrong room. Still asleep, she probably looked for them on the balcony and accidentally fell over the edge. She did not cry out and so was probably still asleep when she died.
The tragic death of Kirsty Maxwell is still unexplained (your report 18 July). It makes no sense that she would knock on the door of strangers, walk through and throw herself from a tenth floor balcony. Nor is there any evidence that the men in the room had anything to do with her death. There has to be a rational explanation.
Trying to be helpful I have suggested to David Swindle, the family's chosen investigator, that she was sleepwalking, but I got no response. About 1.5 per cent of adults have sleepwalked at least once in the previous 12 months. Sleepwalkers are completely unaware of their actions, some of them bizarre.
Kirsty had been drinking with friends (drinking can be a contributory factor in this condition) and had gone to bed in her room. Later she rose and evidently tried to get back to her friends but got the wrong room. Still asleep, she probably looked for them on the balcony and accidentally fell over the edge. She did not cry out and so was probably still asleep when she died.
To The Scotsman (15 Jul 2020 and 17 Jul) published 18 Jul 2020
GM Lindsay (Letter, 15 July) is right to point out Dr Richard Dixon's inconsistency (Inside Environment, 14 July). It is easy to advocate apparently green measures without considering the consequences.
Dr Dixon wants to spend money on improving energy efficiency to 'reduce...fossil fuels used to heat homes...[etc]'. However, reducing heat loss in homes leads to half the saving being taken in greater comfort (higher internal temperatures), with less saving in fuel than expected. Moreover, studies have shown that greater efficiency in fuel use tends to make the fuel cheaper; that encourages more use of it, negating the assumed saving.
I approve of increasing the insulation of buildings, if only to save wasting heat, but it is a mistake to assume that it will always reduce fuel consumption. It is also a mistake to assume that we must reduce fuel usage to save the planet. Much depends on the fuel used. Modern life requires an energy supply that does not damage the environment. Electricity is an expensive (secondary) fuel but its generation needs to be from sustainable methods providing a reliable supply at a constant voltage. Nuclear power can provide that. Renewable generation cannot. Where a gaseous fuel is required, it should be hydrogen generated by electrolysis from electricity. Burning hydrogen produces only water.
GM Lindsay (Letter, 15 July) is right to point out Dr Richard Dixon's inconsistency (Inside Environment, 14 July). It is easy to advocate apparently green measures without considering the consequences.
Dr Dixon wants to spend money on improving energy efficiency to 'reduce...fossil fuels used to heat homes...[etc]'. However, reducing heat loss in homes leads to half the saving being taken in greater comfort (higher internal temperatures), with less saving in fuel than expected. Moreover, studies have shown that greater efficiency in fuel use tends to make the fuel cheaper; that encourages more use of it, negating the assumed saving.
I approve of increasing the insulation of buildings, if only to save wasting heat, but it is a mistake to assume that it will always reduce fuel consumption. It is also a mistake to assume that we must reduce fuel usage to save the planet. Much depends on the fuel used. Modern life requires an energy supply that does not damage the environment. Electricity is an expensive (secondary) fuel but its generation needs to be from sustainable methods providing a reliable supply at a constant voltage. Nuclear power can provide that. Renewable generation cannot. Where a gaseous fuel is required, it should be hydrogen generated by electrolysis from electricity. Burning hydrogen produces only water.
To The Sunday Times Scotland (13 Jul 2020) published 19 Jul 2020
With polls showing support for Scottish independence now at 54 per cent, there may be pressure on the UK to grant a new referendum.
However, it would be very unfair, not to say divisive, to break the Treaty of Union (established 'for ever') on the say so of a one vote majority.
The old Scottish Parliament agreed to the Treaty by a majority of 62 per cent (110 to 67) and the SNP would not allow a change to their own constitution without a two-thirds majority. The Free Scotland Constitution drafted by the SNP calls for amendment of the constitution only with a 60 per cent majority in parliament, subject to approval by a majority of the people in a referendum (why not a 60 per cent majority in the referendum?).
Day-to-day decisions in the Council of Ministers of the EU require a 55 per cent majority of members of the Council, representing a 65 per cent majority of citizens.
Breaking the Treaty of Union is surely a constitutional matter which should require at least the 62 per cent majority that established it, preferably the two-thirds majority the SNP itself would require.
With polls showing support for Scottish independence now at 54 per cent, there may be pressure on the UK to grant a new referendum.
However, it would be very unfair, not to say divisive, to break the Treaty of Union (established 'for ever') on the say so of a one vote majority.
The old Scottish Parliament agreed to the Treaty by a majority of 62 per cent (110 to 67) and the SNP would not allow a change to their own constitution without a two-thirds majority. The Free Scotland Constitution drafted by the SNP calls for amendment of the constitution only with a 60 per cent majority in parliament, subject to approval by a majority of the people in a referendum (why not a 60 per cent majority in the referendum?).
Day-to-day decisions in the Council of Ministers of the EU require a 55 per cent majority of members of the Council, representing a 65 per cent majority of citizens.
Breaking the Treaty of Union is surely a constitutional matter which should require at least the 62 per cent majority that established it, preferably the two-thirds majority the SNP itself would require.
To The Scotsman (3 Jul 2020) published 4 Jul 2020, also in Edinburgh Evening News on 6 Jul (slightly edited)
Commenting of the proposed new Filmhouse, Colin J Oliver thinks that any new building should take account of the surrounding buildings and claims that Richard Murphy's design does not do this (Letter, 2 July). However, as a former architect I think I know something about the quality of architecture.
In what way should any new building 'take account' of its surrounding buildings? Imitate them? Reinterpret them? Doing that would have stopped architectural development throughout all time. It could have stopped medieval cathedral development. In Liverpool there are two modern cathedrals. One, Anglican, built to Giles Gilbert Scott's design between 1904 and 1978, reinterprets its medieval predecessors, looking to the past. The other, Roman Catholic, built to Frederick Gibberd's design between 1962 and 1967 looks to the future and pays no respect to its surroundings. The latter is much the better design; it is innovative and striking.
Sensibly the new Filmhouse design pays no attention to the dismal buildings with which Festival Square is surrounded and establishes a new high standard of modern design. It could become world famous. The architect is to be congratulated and his proposal should be approved. Edinburgh's innate conservativism should not stand in the way of progressive architecture.
Commenting of the proposed new Filmhouse, Colin J Oliver thinks that any new building should take account of the surrounding buildings and claims that Richard Murphy's design does not do this (Letter, 2 July). However, as a former architect I think I know something about the quality of architecture.
In what way should any new building 'take account' of its surrounding buildings? Imitate them? Reinterpret them? Doing that would have stopped architectural development throughout all time. It could have stopped medieval cathedral development. In Liverpool there are two modern cathedrals. One, Anglican, built to Giles Gilbert Scott's design between 1904 and 1978, reinterprets its medieval predecessors, looking to the past. The other, Roman Catholic, built to Frederick Gibberd's design between 1962 and 1967 looks to the future and pays no respect to its surroundings. The latter is much the better design; it is innovative and striking.
Sensibly the new Filmhouse design pays no attention to the dismal buildings with which Festival Square is surrounded and establishes a new high standard of modern design. It could become world famous. The architect is to be congratulated and his proposal should be approved. Edinburgh's innate conservativism should not stand in the way of progressive architecture.
To The Scotsman (1 Jul 2020) published 2 Jul 2020
In response to Dr Charles Wardrop (Letters, 1 July), in my letter (30 June) I made it clear that Scotland alone could not change the world's climate and I explained why it should nevertheless make an effort. The failure of other countries to curb their greenhouse gas emission is why I advocate geoengineering. Otherwise we face an environmental crisis.
Geoff Moore (Letter, 1 July) points to the strange change of heart by environmentalist Michael Shellenberger. The latter claims to base his change on the views of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], but which is still issuing dire warnings about the future of the planet. Anyone who believes that global warming is a hoax or a mistake is deluded and should note the recent statement from the Met Office (reported by you on 1 July) about the prospect of the UK regularly suffering heat waves of 40C by 2100 unless greenhouse gas emissions are driven down. Only geoengineering can stop that.
In response to Dr Charles Wardrop (Letters, 1 July), in my letter (30 June) I made it clear that Scotland alone could not change the world's climate and I explained why it should nevertheless make an effort. The failure of other countries to curb their greenhouse gas emission is why I advocate geoengineering. Otherwise we face an environmental crisis.
Geoff Moore (Letter, 1 July) points to the strange change of heart by environmentalist Michael Shellenberger. The latter claims to base his change on the views of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], but which is still issuing dire warnings about the future of the planet. Anyone who believes that global warming is a hoax or a mistake is deluded and should note the recent statement from the Met Office (reported by you on 1 July) about the prospect of the UK regularly suffering heat waves of 40C by 2100 unless greenhouse gas emissions are driven down. Only geoengineering can stop that.
To The Scotsman (24 Jun 2020, resent 29 Jun) published 30 Jun 2020
Dr Richard Dixon is right to be concerned about the prediction of global warming of 5C by 2100 from cloud studies (Inside Environment, 23 June). It is also deeply concerning that melting permafrost and clathrates will accelerate this warming out of our control. It's hard to see how civilisation will survive in these circumstances.
Perhaps the only relief will come from geoengineering (we are inadvertently experimenting with the climate and so a technical fix is called for). There are many options, some very expensive. But there is an economical one on our doorstep. The Marine Cloud Brightening scheme proposed by Prof Stephen Salter of the University of Edinburgh involves spraying fine water droplets to produce bright clouds which reflect more sunlight. It is calculated 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. This won't solve all problems, but it would hold the temperature down while we try to reduce emissions and try to deal with ocean acidification. All Salter needs is support to get a trial started. Renewable energy and efficiency savings will never hack it.
Dr Dixon's concern regarding Scotland's rising greenhouse gas emissions is justified. Even though Scotland alone cannot change the world 's climate, we should still be setting an example. He notes how burning gas to generate electricity needs to stop and that heating buildings is a major contributor. Odd then that his conclusion is that energy efficiency, renewables 'and changing transport' would deal with it all.
What about the building heating problem he mentioned? That will require either an expensive shift to heating from electricity, for which at present there is insufficient generation capacity (new nuclear is required), or a change to using hydrogen instead of North Sea gas (methane). Transport also needs to shift to hydrogen; burning it produces nothing but water.
Dr Richard Dixon is right to be concerned about the prediction of global warming of 5C by 2100 from cloud studies (Inside Environment, 23 June). It is also deeply concerning that melting permafrost and clathrates will accelerate this warming out of our control. It's hard to see how civilisation will survive in these circumstances.
Perhaps the only relief will come from geoengineering (we are inadvertently experimenting with the climate and so a technical fix is called for). There are many options, some very expensive. But there is an economical one on our doorstep. The Marine Cloud Brightening scheme proposed by Prof Stephen Salter of the University of Edinburgh involves spraying fine water droplets to produce bright clouds which reflect more sunlight. It is calculated 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. This won't solve all problems, but it would hold the temperature down while we try to reduce emissions and try to deal with ocean acidification. All Salter needs is support to get a trial started. Renewable energy and efficiency savings will never hack it.
Dr Dixon's concern regarding Scotland's rising greenhouse gas emissions is justified. Even though Scotland alone cannot change the world 's climate, we should still be setting an example. He notes how burning gas to generate electricity needs to stop and that heating buildings is a major contributor. Odd then that his conclusion is that energy efficiency, renewables 'and changing transport' would deal with it all.
What about the building heating problem he mentioned? That will require either an expensive shift to heating from electricity, for which at present there is insufficient generation capacity (new nuclear is required), or a change to using hydrogen instead of North Sea gas (methane). Transport also needs to shift to hydrogen; burning it produces nothing but water.
To The Scotsman (22 Jun 2020) not published
Why would rugby crowds want to sing a song that looks forward to the rapture expected by evangelical Christians (see 1 Thes. 4:17)? It is supposed to be based on 2 Kings 2:11, where Elijah is taken in a 'chariot' to heaven, but it's expression of hope looks forward not back, anticipating (I suppose) that the rapture will involve chariots.
Why would rugby crowds want to sing a song that looks forward to the rapture expected by evangelical Christians (see 1 Thes. 4:17)? It is supposed to be based on 2 Kings 2:11, where Elijah is taken in a 'chariot' to heaven, but it's expression of hope looks forward not back, anticipating (I suppose) that the rapture will involve chariots.
To The Sunday Times (22 Jun 2020) not published
The song is traditionally thought to be inspired by the story of the prophet Elijah being taken to heaven by a chariot (2 Kings 2:11). However, the song looks forward not back, to the singer being collected in a chariot to be taken to heaven (the rapture expected by evangelical Christians; see 1 Thes. 4:17). It makes no sense for non-Christians to sing it.
The song is traditionally thought to be inspired by the story of the prophet Elijah being taken to heaven by a chariot (2 Kings 2:11). However, the song looks forward not back, to the singer being collected in a chariot to be taken to heaven (the rapture expected by evangelical Christians; see 1 Thes. 4:17). It makes no sense for non-Christians to sing it.
To The Scotsman (17 Jun 2020) not published
Perhaps the solution to the problem transpeople face with toilets is for them to use the disabled toilet, which is usually provided between male and female toilets, is unisex and not often in use.
One could argue that someone who feels that they have been born into the wrong body is actually 'disabled' anyway.
Perhaps the solution to the problem transpeople face with toilets is for them to use the disabled toilet, which is usually provided between male and female toilets, is unisex and not often in use.
One could argue that someone who feels that they have been born into the wrong body is actually 'disabled' anyway.
To Edinburgh Evening News (17 Jun 2020) published 19 Jun 2020
Plans for the proposed new Filmhouse in Festival Square have been advertised for public consultation, but only online. Planning Application Notices are supposed to enable anyone to see the proposals and to comment on them before a planning application is made. However, not everyone has internet access. This means that those without such access are being denied their right to inspect and comment on the detailed plans.
I have suggested that an exhibition could be mounted in the foyer of the present Filmhouse, where, with controlled access, anyone could see the proposals. Unfortunately, the suggestion appears to have been ignored.
Plans for the proposed new Filmhouse in Festival Square have been advertised for public consultation, but only online. Planning Application Notices are supposed to enable anyone to see the proposals and to comment on them before a planning application is made. However, not everyone has internet access. This means that those without such access are being denied their right to inspect and comment on the detailed plans.
I have suggested that an exhibition could be mounted in the foyer of the present Filmhouse, where, with controlled access, anyone could see the proposals. Unfortunately, the suggestion appears to have been ignored.
To The Scotsman (15 Jun 2020) published 16 Jun 2020
Clark Cross's claim that slaves built the pyramids (Letter, 15 June) is without evidence or merit. That idea began with the Greek historian Herodotus and was later propagated by Hollywood films.
The expert view is that the builders came from poor Egyptian families from the north and the south, who were respected for their work, so much so that those who died during construction were bestowed the honour of being buried in the tombs near the sacred pyramids of their pharaohs. They were not slaves but free Egyptian citizens, paid for their work and well looked after.
Clark Cross's claim that slaves built the pyramids (Letter, 15 June) is without evidence or merit. That idea began with the Greek historian Herodotus and was later propagated by Hollywood films.
The expert view is that the builders came from poor Egyptian families from the north and the south, who were respected for their work, so much so that those who died during construction were bestowed the honour of being buried in the tombs near the sacred pyramids of their pharaohs. They were not slaves but free Egyptian citizens, paid for their work and well looked after.
To The Scotsman (29 May 2020) published 30 May 2020
Joyce MacMillan's 'scholar, writing in 2050, while observing many developments, seems not to have notice the effects of global warming [Perspective, 29 May]. Nor does he seem concerned about the Corvid19 virus, still raging out of control.
Climate modelling forecasts show that by 2050, civilization could be devastated, and not just by Covid19. There will be extreme weather such as high temperatures, droughts, increased rainfall and landslides across the world. By 2050, sea-level rise will push average annual coastal floods higher than land now home to 300 million people, according. High tides could permanently rise above land occupied by over 150 million people, including 30 million in China. Without advanced coastal defence and planning, populations in these areas may face permanent flooding. At least half a million people will have died by 2050 as a result of the impact climate change will have on food production. Most of these additional deaths will be in China, India, and other low-income countries in the Pacific and Asia, but the effects on food availability will also have reached into richer countries.
Tropical regions will have become increasingly uninhabitable as they turn into deserts. This will increase migration to more temperate regions putting a strain on the receiving countries and, perhaps, conflict.
The virus and global warming could be the end of us. Miss McMillan needs to find a more informed scholar.
Joyce MacMillan's 'scholar, writing in 2050, while observing many developments, seems not to have notice the effects of global warming [Perspective, 29 May]. Nor does he seem concerned about the Corvid19 virus, still raging out of control.
Climate modelling forecasts show that by 2050, civilization could be devastated, and not just by Covid19. There will be extreme weather such as high temperatures, droughts, increased rainfall and landslides across the world. By 2050, sea-level rise will push average annual coastal floods higher than land now home to 300 million people, according. High tides could permanently rise above land occupied by over 150 million people, including 30 million in China. Without advanced coastal defence and planning, populations in these areas may face permanent flooding. At least half a million people will have died by 2050 as a result of the impact climate change will have on food production. Most of these additional deaths will be in China, India, and other low-income countries in the Pacific and Asia, but the effects on food availability will also have reached into richer countries.
Tropical regions will have become increasingly uninhabitable as they turn into deserts. This will increase migration to more temperate regions putting a strain on the receiving countries and, perhaps, conflict.
The virus and global warming could be the end of us. Miss McMillan needs to find a more informed scholar.
To The Scotsman (25 May 2020) published 26 May 2020
Tom Wood (Inside Justice. 25 May) makes an excellent suggestion to speed up justice and get around the problem of jury trials (held up by the lockdown). Switch to an inquisitorial system rather than the adversarial one we use at present.
Used by most European countries, e,g, France (we've seen it dramatised on TV['s] as 'Spiral'), and elsewhere in the world. An examining magistrate or judge investigates with the help of the police to determine if a case needs to go to court. Evidently it saves a lot of time and expense.
Mr Wood suggests that here a sheriff would take the role of the examining officer, but surely it should be the procurator fiscal's job. Already it is pf [they]who determines whether or not there is case that can go to court.
Tom Wood (Inside Justice. 25 May) makes an excellent suggestion to speed up justice and get around the problem of jury trials (held up by the lockdown). Switch to an inquisitorial system rather than the adversarial one we use at present.
Used by most European countries, e,g, France (we've seen it dramatised on TV['s] as 'Spiral'), and elsewhere in the world. An examining magistrate or judge investigates with the help of the police to determine if a case needs to go to court. Evidently it saves a lot of time and expense.
Mr Wood suggests that here a sheriff would take the role of the examining officer, but surely it should be the procurator fiscal's job. Already it is pf [they]who determines whether or not there is case that can go to court.
To The Sunday Times (25 May 2020) not published
Jeremy Clarkson (New Review 24 May) referred to the galactic collision found 12 billion light years away but then claimed that it was happening '45 million light years from Earth'! Is he confused?
Jeremy Clarkson (New Review 24 May) referred to the galactic collision found 12 billion light years away but then claimed that it was happening '45 million light years from Earth'! Is he confused?
To The Scotsman (21 May 2020) not published
Gavin Matthews ('The self-sacrifice of Christ is the model for Western ethics and values', Friends of the Scotsman, 21 May) thinks he knows Jesus' values and that the latter intended them to be taken up by the whole world.
However, Jesus nowhere expressed the view that his crucifixion saved anyone or that it was some kind of example of self-sacrifice, not for the whole world anyway. Jesus had his own reasons for getting crucified: they were secret and known only to a few people. Bizarrely, he arranged to be arrested, tried and executed in the cause of Messiahship and the hope of revival to reign as king in Israel. This plan is explained, I think for the first ever, in my book The Rise and Fall of Jesus.
Jesus' life is misunderstood as exemplary only because his plan failed and he died by accident. If, as a result, many advocate altruism, then that can only be welcomed. But it should be understood that it was not Jesus' intention.
There is no good evidence that he was seen again after the crucifixion and no cause to believe in life after death. People should do good for its own sake; not for hope of reward.
Gavin Matthews ('The self-sacrifice of Christ is the model for Western ethics and values', Friends of the Scotsman, 21 May) thinks he knows Jesus' values and that the latter intended them to be taken up by the whole world.
However, Jesus nowhere expressed the view that his crucifixion saved anyone or that it was some kind of example of self-sacrifice, not for the whole world anyway. Jesus had his own reasons for getting crucified: they were secret and known only to a few people. Bizarrely, he arranged to be arrested, tried and executed in the cause of Messiahship and the hope of revival to reign as king in Israel. This plan is explained, I think for the first ever, in my book The Rise and Fall of Jesus.
Jesus' life is misunderstood as exemplary only because his plan failed and he died by accident. If, as a result, many advocate altruism, then that can only be welcomed. But it should be understood that it was not Jesus' intention.
There is no good evidence that he was seen again after the crucifixion and no cause to believe in life after death. People should do good for its own sake; not for hope of reward.
To The Scotsman (19 May 2020) published 20 May 2020
Regarding the problem of couples living together without any legal framework 'Where there's a will there's a way to avoid emotional and financial upheaval after bereavement' (p28 yesterday), Serbia makes no distinction between couples who are married and those who are not.
A 'common law marriage'; is regarded as a 'love union'. 'Despite those two people never made public their relationship in terms of getting married, in Serbian law, all rules set for the married couple are applicable on unmarried one living together. That means if those two people decide to end their cohabitation, all assets acquired during their living together are considered common property and they are not in separate ownership of the person that earned it.' (Law Office Serbia). I don't know how unusual this is but it seems sensible.
Regarding the problem of couples living together without any legal framework 'Where there's a will there's a way to avoid emotional and financial upheaval after bereavement' (p28 yesterday), Serbia makes no distinction between couples who are married and those who are not.
A 'common law marriage'; is regarded as a 'love union'. 'Despite those two people never made public their relationship in terms of getting married, in Serbian law, all rules set for the married couple are applicable on unmarried one living together. That means if those two people decide to end their cohabitation, all assets acquired during their living together are considered common property and they are not in separate ownership of the person that earned it.' (Law Office Serbia). I don't know how unusual this is but it seems sensible.
To The Scotsman (17 May 2020) published 18 May 2020
Peter May writes of how publishers declined to publish his book Lockdown on the grounds that it's 'portrayal of London under siege by the invisible enemy of [bird flu] was unrealistic and could never happen...' (review by Nick Duerden 'All too real'[, Scotsman Magazine review on Saturday by Nick Duerden] in the Supplement yesterday). May's book has now been published.
I had much the same experience trying to get my book about Jesus published; one publisher described it as 'too shocking, nausiating and far-fetched'. Others described it as 'speculative' or 'provocative'. But none explained why this should prevent publication. I had to publish it myself.
What makes publishers think that they are the arbiters of what is and is not possible? How does any SciFi get published?
Peter May writes of how publishers declined to publish his book Lockdown on the grounds that it's 'portrayal of London under siege by the invisible enemy of [bird flu] was unrealistic and could never happen...' (review by Nick Duerden 'All too real'[, Scotsman Magazine review on Saturday by Nick Duerden] in the Supplement yesterday). May's book has now been published.
I had much the same experience trying to get my book about Jesus published; one publisher described it as 'too shocking, nausiating and far-fetched'. Others described it as 'speculative' or 'provocative'. But none explained why this should prevent publication. I had to publish it myself.
What makes publishers think that they are the arbiters of what is and is not possible? How does any SciFi get published?
To The Scotsman (7 May 2020) not published
The personal allowance for 2020 in the UK is £12,500, so turning that into a Universal Basic Income, as you suggest, would result in payment per week of £240, not the £48 you claim ('Finland basic income a 'model' for the UK' (p10, 7 May).
However, I read that Finland's experiment was halted in 2019, with a full analysis still awaited. The weekly payment was equivalent to only £490/month. Apparently the payment made the recipients happier but did not increase their job prospects.
As the recipient of a state pension that is equivalent to £133/wk, I would be concerned if the UBI was set lower than that.
The personal allowance for 2020 in the UK is £12,500, so turning that into a Universal Basic Income, as you suggest, would result in payment per week of £240, not the £48 you claim ('Finland basic income a 'model' for the UK' (p10, 7 May).
However, I read that Finland's experiment was halted in 2019, with a full analysis still awaited. The weekly payment was equivalent to only £490/month. Apparently the payment made the recipients happier but did not increase their job prospects.
As the recipient of a state pension that is equivalent to £133/wk, I would be concerned if the UBI was set lower than that.
To The Scotsman (4 May 2020) published 6 May 2020
Christine Jardine MP is mistaken ('Is this what Churchill would have called the 'end of the beginning'?', [ Perspective] 4 May); the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic, although closing, is not expected to close until about 2050.
The hole that has closed is that over the North Pole, which only opened up earlier this year.
Christine Jardine MP is mistaken ('Is this what Churchill would have called the 'end of the beginning'?', [ Perspective] 4 May); the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic, although closing, is not expected to close until about 2050.
The hole that has closed is that over the North Pole, which only opened up earlier this year.
To The Scotsman (2 May 2020)m published 4 May 2020
It is true, as Peter Hopkins claims (Letter, 1 May) that most people think in Imperial measure. Unfortunately, children, although taught about and in the metric system in school, pick up Imperial from their elders.
However, 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 people should get used to 'thinking metric'.
It is true, as Peter Hopkins claims (Letter, 1 May) that most people think in Imperial measure. Unfortunately, children, although taught about and in the metric system in school, pick up Imperial from their elders.
However, 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 people should get used to 'thinking metric'.
To The Scotsman (18 Apr 2020) not published
Your resident preacher (Gavin Matthews of Solas, 17 April) probably does not realize how out-of-date his message is in the modern secular world. He echoes the preachers of the 19th century, brandishing the Bible as the answer to all the world's woes. Trying to fit the gospel message into today's social problems is futile. The answer is not superstition but modern social theory based on science. God is irrelevant.
Your resident preacher (Gavin Matthews of Solas, 17 April) probably does not realize how out-of-date his message is in the modern secular world. He echoes the preachers of the 19th century, brandishing the Bible as the answer to all the world's woes. Trying to fit the gospel message into today's social problems is futile. The answer is not superstition but modern social theory based on science. God is irrelevant.
To The Scotsman (13 Apr 2020) published 14 Apr 2020
You report that the First Minister thanked Christians for volunteering during the coronavirus crisis ('Nichola Sturgeon thanks Christians for their selfless volunteer work', 13 April).
Since Christianity is now a minority sect in the UK, it's likely that most of the volunteers are not Christians (does she have any statistical basis for her remark?). So how about thanking all the volunteers regardless of what religion they follow. In fact leave religion out of it. The idea that only Christians can be selfless and caring was always unwarranted.
One has to wonder why the Duke of Cambridge thinks that the Church of Scotland has 'reinvented itself' in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic (your report under the same heading). When did that happen and what is the result? Reinvention will not revive the Church.
You report that the First Minister thanked Christians for volunteering during the coronavirus crisis ('Nichola Sturgeon thanks Christians for their selfless volunteer work', 13 April).
Since Christianity is now a minority sect in the UK, it's likely that most of the volunteers are not Christians (does she have any statistical basis for her remark?). So how about thanking all the volunteers regardless of what religion they follow. In fact leave religion out of it. The idea that only Christians can be selfless and caring was always unwarranted.
One has to wonder why the Duke of Cambridge thinks that the Church of Scotland has 'reinvented itself' in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic (your report under the same heading). When did that happen and what is the result? Reinvention will not revive the Church.
To The Scotsman (9 Apr 2020) not published
You report that Boris Johnson is being treated in 'St Thomas's Hospital ('Johnson is improving and sitting up in bed', 9 April). But the hospital calls itself 'St Thomas' Hospital', apparently named for the apostle of that name. Do you want to revisit the arguments that rage of this apostrophic matter?
You report that Boris Johnson is being treated in 'St Thomas's Hospital ('Johnson is improving and sitting up in bed', 9 April). But the hospital calls itself 'St Thomas' Hospital', apparently named for the apostle of that name. Do you want to revisit the arguments that rage of this apostrophic matter?
To The Scotsman (8 Apr 2020) published 9 Apr 2020
Here's another invasive species: Americanisms. Latest example is 'stay home', regrettably even used by the Government. In British English, 'home' is a noun, not an adverb, and we say 'stay at home'. Please help to exterminate these invaders.
Here's another invasive species: Americanisms. Latest example is 'stay home', regrettably even used by the Government. In British English, 'home' is a noun, not an adverb, and we say 'stay at home'. Please help to exterminate these invaders.
To The Sunday Times (6 Apr 2020) not published
Elizabeth FitzGibbon thinks it shameful that Alex Salmond's advocate defended his client while denigrating his character to friends (Letter, 5 April). She seems to forget that it is the job of the defence team in a trial to do their utmost to clear their client, regardless of their personal views.
Elizabeth FitzGibbon thinks it shameful that Alex Salmond's advocate defended his client while denigrating his character to friends (Letter, 5 April). She seems to forget that it is the job of the defence team in a trial to do their utmost to clear their client, regardless of their personal views.
To The Scotsman (18 Mar 2020) published 20 mar 2020
Is John Edgar (Letter, 18 March) just dim or [seems] blind to the facts? There is no proposal to conduct an 'experiment on the UK population'. 'Herd immunity', is a form of indirect protection from infectious disease that occurs when a large percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through infection or vaccination, thereby providing a measure of protection for individuals.
In this case, short of vaccination, it will come about when enough people have suffered from and recovered from Covid-19 so that the virus finds insufficient new hosts to continue spreading.
Is John Edgar (Letter, 18 March) just dim or [seems] blind to the facts? There is no proposal to conduct an 'experiment on the UK population'. 'Herd immunity', is a form of indirect protection from infectious disease that occurs when a large percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through infection or vaccination, thereby providing a measure of protection for individuals.
In this case, short of vaccination, it will come about when enough people have suffered from and recovered from Covid-19 so that the virus finds insufficient new hosts to continue spreading.
To The Scotsman (17 Mar 2020) published 18 Mar 2020
John Eoin Douglas (Letter, 17 March) needs to understand that the UK is a metric country and has been for some time. All UK science and technology uses the SI (International System) metric and children are all taught to use it. Unfortunately various governments have failed to consolidate the change and have allowed some Imperial units, like speed limits and distances, to persist. One result is that weather forecasters continue to use miles per hour for wind speeds, even though the rest of their forecasts are metric.
Mr Douglas should acquaint himself with SI or at least know that a metre is just over a yard. Being old-fashioned is not an excuse. I am 82.
John Eoin Douglas (Letter, 17 March) needs to understand that the UK is a metric country and has been for some time. All UK science and technology uses the SI (International System) metric and children are all taught to use it. Unfortunately various governments have failed to consolidate the change and have allowed some Imperial units, like speed limits and distances, to persist. One result is that weather forecasters continue to use miles per hour for wind speeds, even though the rest of their forecasts are metric.
Mr Douglas should acquaint himself with SI or at least know that a metre is just over a yard. Being old-fashioned is not an excuse. I am 82.
to edinburgh evening news (14 mar 2020) published 17 mar 2020
As a former architect, I have to say that the illustration I've seen of the new filmhouse shows it to be an outstanding example of modern architecture, as one would expect from Richard Murphy's office. However, let's see more detail.
As a former architect, I have to say that the illustration I've seen of the new filmhouse shows it to be an outstanding example of modern architecture, as one would expect from Richard Murphy's office. However, let's see more detail.
to the scotsman (6 mar 2020) not published
According to Gavin Matthews of Solas ('Before you cast that stone, check that you're not living in a glass house', 6 March), god loves sinners (I do not find that phrase in my bible). Then perhaps he can explain why god has prepared hell to receive sinners at the judgement, or even before that, when they die?
It seems clear that god does not love sinners, whoever they are. Like any tyrant, he loves only those who, sycophantically, love him. Christianity is a confused moral mix, where doing good is confused with faith, reward and punishment.
We would all be better off without it.
According to Gavin Matthews of Solas ('Before you cast that stone, check that you're not living in a glass house', 6 March), god loves sinners (I do not find that phrase in my bible). Then perhaps he can explain why god has prepared hell to receive sinners at the judgement, or even before that, when they die?
It seems clear that god does not love sinners, whoever they are. Like any tyrant, he loves only those who, sycophantically, love him. Christianity is a confused moral mix, where doing good is confused with faith, reward and punishment.
We would all be better off without it.
to the scotsman (24 feb 2020) published 26 feb 2020
your reports of the nuffield epdemiologal study make claims that are not justified by the study (a survey based on reports of very many people's lifestyle, self-reported). as prof paul evans points out, there might not be a causal connection. in science, 'correlation in not causation'; the diseases mentioned are likely to have very many different causal factors, of which diet is only one. it is irresponsible to claim that the foods mentioned have particular effects. it leads the public to draw the wrong conclusions.
your reports of the nuffield epdemiologal study make claims that are not justified by the study (a survey based on reports of very many people's lifestyle, self-reported). as prof paul evans points out, there might not be a causal connection. in science, 'correlation in not causation'; the diseases mentioned are likely to have very many different causal factors, of which diet is only one. it is irresponsible to claim that the foods mentioned have particular effects. it leads the public to draw the wrong conclusions.
to the scotsman (21 feb 2020) published 22 feb 2020
peter hopkins (letter 21 february) implies that the use of metric mensuration in the uk is the result of joining the eu. this is not the case.
The International system 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 and has been since the latter half of the last century. by the time the metrication board was abolished in 1980, all the economic sectors that fell within its remit except road signage and parts of the retail trade sector had metricated.
There's no going back on this and everyone should think metric. public figures like dan snow should set an example and not perpetuate the muddle.
peter hopkins (letter 21 february) implies that the use of metric mensuration in the uk is the result of joining the eu. this is not the case.
The International system 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 and has been since the latter half of the last century. by the time the metrication board was abolished in 1980, all the economic sectors that fell within its remit except road signage and parts of the retail trade sector had metricated.
There's no going back on this and everyone should think metric. public figures like dan snow should set an example and not perpetuate the muddle.
to the edinburgh evening news (19 feb 2020) published 20 feb 2020
the concern expressed by some (eg. carol mcmanus in her letter 18 february) about glysophate weed killer is just a hysterical reaction to suggestions that it it cancerous. legal cases pending in the usa will test this claim. but note that, so far, no reliable evidence has been produced to back up the claim. if everything that might kill us were banned, modern life would be impossible.
the concern expressed by some (eg. carol mcmanus in her letter 18 february) about glysophate weed killer is just a hysterical reaction to suggestions that it it cancerous. legal cases pending in the usa will test this claim. but note that, so far, no reliable evidence has been produced to back up the claim. if everything that might kill us were banned, modern life would be impossible.
To Scotland on Sunday (3 Feb 2020) published 9 Feb 2020
People are only 'innocent' ('Call for innocents' photos to be removed from police database', 2 February) if they have been declared so by a court. If peoples' photos are being kept because they were a suspect but have not been charged that does not mean they have not committed a crime. It merely means that there was insufficient evidence at the time to charge them. The police should be allowed to keep the photos in case they prove useful in solving a new crime, or even an old one that had not been solved before. Deleting the photos could destroy useful evidence. I can see no threat to their human rights and civil liberties.
People are only 'innocent' ('Call for innocents' photos to be removed from police database', 2 February) if they have been declared so by a court. If peoples' photos are being kept because they were a suspect but have not been charged that does not mean they have not committed a crime. It merely means that there was insufficient evidence at the time to charge them. The police should be allowed to keep the photos in case they prove useful in solving a new crime, or even an old one that had not been solved before. Deleting the photos could destroy useful evidence. I can see no threat to their human rights and civil liberties.
To The Sunday Times (27 Jan 2020) published 2 Feb 2020
It's not surprising that the Church of England is [believed to be] 'obsessed with sex'[, as the petition signed by the Bishop of Buckingham says (News, last week). This chimes with its original purpose:] (''Obsessed with sex'; church mocked by bishops over civil partnerships', 26 January). It was founded by a monarch who was himself obsessed with sex--to create a male heir.
It's not surprising that the Church of England is [believed to be] 'obsessed with sex'[, as the petition signed by the Bishop of Buckingham says (News, last week). This chimes with its original purpose:] (''Obsessed with sex'; church mocked by bishops over civil partnerships', 26 January). It was founded by a monarch who was himself obsessed with sex--to create a male heir.
To Edinburgh Evening News (25 Jan 2020) not published
Brian Ferguson refers to the 'trial, death and resurrection of Jesus' in his story about the proposed dramatisation of the Easter story (24 January).
However, while the trial and death are uncontroversial, the 'resurrection' is not. The idea that Jesus was resurrected is not only unlikely (most would say impossible), it is based on rumour, speculation and misperceptions. Consequently it should be reported as if it were a fact. It is merely an 'alleged resurrection'.
Brian Ferguson refers to the 'trial, death and resurrection of Jesus' in his story about the proposed dramatisation of the Easter story (24 January).
However, while the trial and death are uncontroversial, the 'resurrection' is not. The idea that Jesus was resurrected is not only unlikely (most would say impossible), it is based on rumour, speculation and misperceptions. Consequently it should be reported as if it were a fact. It is merely an 'alleged resurrection'.
To The Scotsman (24 Jan 2020) not published
What is the point of this idea of a 63-hour dramatisation of the Easter fable? Is it just entertainment? Or an art experience? Perhaps it's meant to be propaganda for Christianity, a religion founded on superstitious stories and misperceptions.
By now most people in this country understand Christianity's irrelevance to their lives: most now have no religion and only a minority are nominally Christian (the number of true believers is probably much smaller).
If Kamala Santos is right that the story told in church buildings has stagnated, that is because it's stale. Parading it around the streets of Edinburgh is unlikely to change that.
What is the point of this idea of a 63-hour dramatisation of the Easter fable? Is it just entertainment? Or an art experience? Perhaps it's meant to be propaganda for Christianity, a religion founded on superstitious stories and misperceptions.
By now most people in this country understand Christianity's irrelevance to their lives: most now have no religion and only a minority are nominally Christian (the number of true believers is probably much smaller).
If Kamala Santos is right that the story told in church buildings has stagnated, that is because it's stale. Parading it around the streets of Edinburgh is unlikely to change that.
To The Scotsman (17 Jan 2020) published 20 Jan 2020)
SNP calls for a new referendum on Scottish independence, despite the fact that the question was settled in 2014, appear to be based on achieving a simple majority. However, it would be very unfair, not to say divisive, to break the Treaty of Union (established 'for ever') on the say so of a one vote majority.
The old Scottish Parliament agreed to the Treaty by a majority of 62 per cent (110 to 67) and the SNP would not allow a change to their own constitution without a two-thirds majority. The Free Scotland Constitution drafted by the SNP calls for amendment of the constitution only with a 60 per cent majority in parliament, subject to approval by a majority of the people in a referendum (why not a 60 per cent majority in the referendum?).
Day-to-day decisions in the Council of Ministers of the EU require a 55 per cent majority of members of the Council, representing a 65 per cent majority of citizens.
Breaking the Treaty of Union is surely a constitutional matter which should require at least the 62 per cent majority that established it, preferably the two-thirds majority the SNP itself would require.
SNP calls for a new referendum on Scottish independence, despite the fact that the question was settled in 2014, appear to be based on achieving a simple majority. However, it would be very unfair, not to say divisive, to break the Treaty of Union (established 'for ever') on the say so of a one vote majority.
The old Scottish Parliament agreed to the Treaty by a majority of 62 per cent (110 to 67) and the SNP would not allow a change to their own constitution without a two-thirds majority. The Free Scotland Constitution drafted by the SNP calls for amendment of the constitution only with a 60 per cent majority in parliament, subject to approval by a majority of the people in a referendum (why not a 60 per cent majority in the referendum?).
Day-to-day decisions in the Council of Ministers of the EU require a 55 per cent majority of members of the Council, representing a 65 per cent majority of citizens.
Breaking the Treaty of Union is surely a constitutional matter which should require at least the 62 per cent majority that established it, preferably the two-thirds majority the SNP itself would require.
To The Sunday Times (13 Jan 2020) not published
Your correspondents on the question of when this decade starts (Letters 12 January) overlook the fact that our year number reflects the supposed age of Jesus and has done in the West since the system was invented in the 6th century by a Sythian monk. So Jesus is now 2020, then he is into his 203rd decade, which began on 1 Jan this year. I hope that is the last word on this matter.
Your correspondents on the question of when this decade starts (Letters 12 January) overlook the fact that our year number reflects the supposed age of Jesus and has done in the West since the system was invented in the 6th century by a Sythian monk. So Jesus is now 2020, then he is into his 203rd decade, which began on 1 Jan this year. I hope that is the last word on this matter.
To The Times (12 Jan 2020) published?
Tim Farron (Credo, 11 January) claimed that 'we even know' God's name. However, he did not name that God. Whoever can he mean?
Jesus' God was Yaywey, the god of ther Jews. So is Farron Jewish? Apparently Christians worship a god with no name, but if Jesus worshipped Yahwey, why don't his followers?
It is true that 'Jesus didn't come to save perfect people'; he came to save sinners (fellow Jews, not the whole world) from the judgement about to come with the Kingdom of God. He urged them to repent.
However, the Kingdom failed to appear, as did he after his crucifixion.
Tim Farron (Credo, 11 January) claimed that 'we even know' God's name. However, he did not name that God. Whoever can he mean?
Jesus' God was Yaywey, the god of ther Jews. So is Farron Jewish? Apparently Christians worship a god with no name, but if Jesus worshipped Yahwey, why don't his followers?
It is true that 'Jesus didn't come to save perfect people'; he came to save sinners (fellow Jews, not the whole world) from the judgement about to come with the Kingdom of God. He urged them to repent.
However, the Kingdom failed to appear, as did he after his crucifixion.
To The Scotsman (11 Jan 2020) not published
I'll have Colin McAllister (Letter 11 January) know that the idea that Jesus was born 'in 6 or 5BC' is based on the mistaken idea that some astronomical phenomenon was misinterpreted as the Star of Bethlehem (also on the idea that Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC, really was responsible for the 'Massacre of the Innocents'). In fact the 'Star' was imaginary as also was the 'Massacre'. In fact the whole Birth Narrative was invented.
There is therefore no cause to accuse Dionysius of making a mistake. He based his system on the gospel record, placing Jesus' birth in the Roman year 752, which we now know as 1BC. The Christian world has used that system ever since and so Jesus is now 2020, into his 203rd decade.
Peter O'Reilly (Letter same day) should note that, because there was no 'year zero', we cannot apply our modern digital numbering to years AD (CE). Surely I start my day at midnight but I reached the end of my 8th decade when I reached 80, not 81.
I'll have Colin McAllister (Letter 11 January) know that the idea that Jesus was born 'in 6 or 5BC' is based on the mistaken idea that some astronomical phenomenon was misinterpreted as the Star of Bethlehem (also on the idea that Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC, really was responsible for the 'Massacre of the Innocents'). In fact the 'Star' was imaginary as also was the 'Massacre'. In fact the whole Birth Narrative was invented.
There is therefore no cause to accuse Dionysius of making a mistake. He based his system on the gospel record, placing Jesus' birth in the Roman year 752, which we now know as 1BC. The Christian world has used that system ever since and so Jesus is now 2020, into his 203rd decade.
Peter O'Reilly (Letter same day) should note that, because there was no 'year zero', we cannot apply our modern digital numbering to years AD (CE). Surely I start my day at midnight but I reached the end of my 8th decade when I reached 80, not 81.
To The Sunday Times (6 Jan 2020)
Andrew HN Gray (Letters, 5 January) is mistaken. Although there is no 'year zero' and because of that scholars date Jesus' birth to 1BC. The year number 2020 reflects Jesus' putative age, which means that he has completed his 202nd decade and is now entering his 203rd. The Queen got it right.
Andrew HN Gray (Letters, 5 January) is mistaken. Although there is no 'year zero' and because of that scholars date Jesus' birth to 1BC. The year number 2020 reflects Jesus' putative age, which means that he has completed his 202nd decade and is now entering his 203rd. The Queen got it right.
To The Scotsman (6 Jan 2020, resent 7 Jan) not published
The debate about decades needs to take note that our year numbering system, invented by a Sythian monk in the 6th century and later adopted by The Venerable Bede, reflects the supposed age of Jesus (Christ); hence the label 'Anno Domini' (the year of Our Lord).
If Jesus is now 2020 years old, then he must have passed his 2020th birthday (date unknown) and he is now into his 203rd decade.
It is true that there was no 'year zero' but most scholars date Jesus' birth to the year 1BC so that in AD1 he was already 1 year old.
As a Christian, the Queen may have been aware of this when she looked forward, correctly, to going into a new decade.
The debate about decades needs to take note that our year numbering system, invented by a Sythian monk in the 6th century and later adopted by The Venerable Bede, reflects the supposed age of Jesus (Christ); hence the label 'Anno Domini' (the year of Our Lord).
If Jesus is now 2020 years old, then he must have passed his 2020th birthday (date unknown) and he is now into his 203rd decade.
It is true that there was no 'year zero' but most scholars date Jesus' birth to the year 1BC so that in AD1 he was already 1 year old.
As a Christian, the Queen may have been aware of this when she looked forward, correctly, to going into a new decade.
To The Scotsman (4 Jan 2020) published 9 Jan 2020
The debate about decades needs to take note that our year numbering system, invented by a Sythian monk in the 6th century and later adopted by The Venerable Bede, reflects the supposed age of Jesus (Christ); hence the label 'Anno Domini' (the year of Our Lord).
If Jesus is now 2020 years old, then he must have passed his 2020th birthday (date unknown) and he is now into his 203rd decade.
It is true that there was no 'year zero' but most scholars date Jesus' birth to the year 1BC so that in AD1 he was already 1 year old.
The debate about decades needs to take note that our year numbering system, invented by a Sythian monk in the 6th century and later adopted by The Venerable Bede, reflects the supposed age of Jesus (Christ); hence the label 'Anno Domini' (the year of Our Lord).
If Jesus is now 2020 years old, then he must have passed his 2020th birthday (date unknown) and he is now into his 203rd decade.
It is true that there was no 'year zero' but most scholars date Jesus' birth to the year 1BC so that in AD1 he was already 1 year old.
To The Scotsman (1 Jan 2020) published 4 Jan 2020_
Donald Thomson claims that a 2014 University College, London, report showed that immigrants had cost the UK cost 'some £95 bn'.
However, according to the Huffington Post on 4 November that year, one of the authors of the report (Prof Christian Dustmann) explained that the headline conclusion of the study was that recent immigrants 'have made a substantive net fiscal contribution' to Britain. Jonathan Portes, Director of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, stated that the report clearly showed that the contribution from recent immigrants is considerable and that 'recent migrants pay their way'.
Clearly people were picking what they wanted to see from a mass of statistics, and getting it wrong. More recent studies seem to show that there is no single 'correct' answer to the question of how much immigrants contribute to public finances.
Donald Thomson claims that a 2014 University College, London, report showed that immigrants had cost the UK cost 'some £95 bn'.
However, according to the Huffington Post on 4 November that year, one of the authors of the report (Prof Christian Dustmann) explained that the headline conclusion of the study was that recent immigrants 'have made a substantive net fiscal contribution' to Britain. Jonathan Portes, Director of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, stated that the report clearly showed that the contribution from recent immigrants is considerable and that 'recent migrants pay their way'.
Clearly people were picking what they wanted to see from a mass of statistics, and getting it wrong. More recent studies seem to show that there is no single 'correct' answer to the question of how much immigrants contribute to public finances.