Letters 2021 - underlining indicates deletion by editor; square brackets indicate insertion.
To The Scotsman (5 Mar 2021)
As I write (Friday morning), the UK's electricity demand (39.63 GW) is being met mostly by generation from burning gas in combined cycle gas turbines (54%). Due to the prevailing high pressure, generation from wind is only 8 per cent and combined renewables only 19 per cent. 10 per cent is coming from nuclear and 5 per cent from burning coal.
So it seems that the UK has a long way to go to decarbonise its generation system. The closure of various nuclear power stations from next year will probably mean more generation from fossil fuels at times when renewables cannot produce enough electricity.
This shows the urgent need to get more power from nuclear, the only reliable (on all the time) environmentally-friendly source of electricity.
As I write (Friday morning), the UK's electricity demand (39.63 GW) is being met mostly by generation from burning gas in combined cycle gas turbines (54%). Due to the prevailing high pressure, generation from wind is only 8 per cent and combined renewables only 19 per cent. 10 per cent is coming from nuclear and 5 per cent from burning coal.
So it seems that the UK has a long way to go to decarbonise its generation system. The closure of various nuclear power stations from next year will probably mean more generation from fossil fuels at times when renewables cannot produce enough electricity.
This shows the urgent need to get more power from nuclear, the only reliable (on all the time) environmentally-friendly source of electricity.
To The Scotsman (27 Feb 2021) not published
Alex Salmond's accusers would be less likely to have been vilified (your report 27 February) if we had replaced the guilty/not-guilty verdicts by former Scottish verdicts of proven/not-proven. In fact, because the charges against Salmond were not proved 'beyond reasonable doubt', they were 'not-proven', a verdict that was open to the jury. I don't understand why they didn't opt for it if they were unsure. Because it was a majority verdict, evidently some of them thought the charges 'proven'.
As has been pointed out by others, no one knows whether not an accused is 'guilty'; only the accused knows that. Consequently the mistaken import of the guilty/not-guilty verdicts from England (starting in 1728) has misled the public into believing that the guilty/not-guilty verdicts declare truth. Salmond himself believes that the accusations are baseless and vindictive and that the verdict endorses that.
However the First Minister has pointed out that, even though Salmond was found to be innocent of the charges, 'that doesn't mean that the behaviour they [the accusers] claimed of didn't happen'. Quite.
Alex Salmond's accusers would be less likely to have been vilified (your report 27 February) if we had replaced the guilty/not-guilty verdicts by former Scottish verdicts of proven/not-proven. In fact, because the charges against Salmond were not proved 'beyond reasonable doubt', they were 'not-proven', a verdict that was open to the jury. I don't understand why they didn't opt for it if they were unsure. Because it was a majority verdict, evidently some of them thought the charges 'proven'.
As has been pointed out by others, no one knows whether not an accused is 'guilty'; only the accused knows that. Consequently the mistaken import of the guilty/not-guilty verdicts from England (starting in 1728) has misled the public into believing that the guilty/not-guilty verdicts declare truth. Salmond himself believes that the accusations are baseless and vindictive and that the verdict endorses that.
However the First Minister has pointed out that, even though Salmond was found to be innocent of the charges, 'that doesn't mean that the behaviour they [the accusers] claimed of didn't happen'. Quite.
To The Scotsman (19 Feb 2021) not published
Texas has suffered widespread power losses during recent unusual wintry weather. However this was self-inflicted. The state had previously separated its electricity grid from the integrated US grid to save on taxation. This shows the value of sharing demand across a whole country so that local breakdowns can be covered from generation elsewhere. The UK has benefited from such integration since 1926.
Texas has suffered widespread power losses during recent unusual wintry weather. However this was self-inflicted. The state had previously separated its electricity grid from the integrated US grid to save on taxation. This shows the value of sharing demand across a whole country so that local breakdowns can be covered from generation elsewhere. The UK has benefited from such integration since 1926.
To The Scotsman (16 Feb 2021) published 19 Feb 2021
Because I have studied reports of strange objects in the sky for about 50 years, I am probably the only person who can explain Peter Hopkins's experience (Letters, 13 February). I'm fact I wrote a book about the phenomena, usually reported as UFOs.
It seems likely that the object was Sirius, the brightest star in our skies then low down on the south. At that altitude it would display scintillation, flashing various colours.
However its unusual appearance can only be due to the presence of a strong temperature inversion (warm air overlying cold air), causing it to be seen reflected off the thermocline as a superior mirage, causing the image to be distorted and changing in appearance.
I know of many similar examples.
Because I have studied reports of strange objects in the sky for about 50 years, I am probably the only person who can explain Peter Hopkins's experience (Letters, 13 February). I'm fact I wrote a book about the phenomena, usually reported as UFOs.
It seems likely that the object was Sirius, the brightest star in our skies then low down on the south. At that altitude it would display scintillation, flashing various colours.
However its unusual appearance can only be due to the presence of a strong temperature inversion (warm air overlying cold air), causing it to be seen reflected off the thermocline as a superior mirage, causing the image to be distorted and changing in appearance.
I know of many similar examples.
To The Scotsman (5 Feb 2021) not published
You claim that 'It is scientists who have built the modern world, who have taken us [sic] to the Moon,...' (Scotsman's 2nd leader yesterday).
In fact is it engineers and technicians who have done this. It wasn't scientists who enabled a few Americans (sic) to go the Moon; it was skilled engineers. The science behind space flight was known long before.
Science lies behind the development of vaccines but it is engineering that produces them.
Science is mainly theoretical; engineering is mainly practical and it is unhelpful to mix them up.
You claim that 'It is scientists who have built the modern world, who have taken us [sic] to the Moon,...' (Scotsman's 2nd leader yesterday).
In fact is it engineers and technicians who have done this. It wasn't scientists who enabled a few Americans (sic) to go the Moon; it was skilled engineers. The science behind space flight was known long before.
Science lies behind the development of vaccines but it is engineering that produces them.
Science is mainly theoretical; engineering is mainly practical and it is unhelpful to mix them up.
To The Scotsman (2 Feb 2021) not published
I would like to think that Prof. Mark Weller is correct: that federalism is a practical alternative constitution arrangement for the UK ('Federalism could make Scotland feel like an independent state without costs of becoming one', 2 February).
However, Matthew Parris addressed this matter in his column in The Times on 30 January. It was entitled 'Don't wreck England just to foil Sturgeon' and concluded that federalism in the UK is pointless. He says that England is too big to be an equal partner and that there is no appetite for Balkanising England into Scotland-sized autonomous provinces. He says that it doesn't work in Spain (who's ever heard of the Spanish province of Extramadura?) and it won't work here.
I would like to think that Prof. Mark Weller is correct: that federalism is a practical alternative constitution arrangement for the UK ('Federalism could make Scotland feel like an independent state without costs of becoming one', 2 February).
However, Matthew Parris addressed this matter in his column in The Times on 30 January. It was entitled 'Don't wreck England just to foil Sturgeon' and concluded that federalism in the UK is pointless. He says that England is too big to be an equal partner and that there is no appetite for Balkanising England into Scotland-sized autonomous provinces. He says that it doesn't work in Spain (who's ever heard of the Spanish province of Extramadura?) and it won't work here.
To Scotland on Sunday (1 Feb 2021) published in Edinburgh Evening News (5 Feb 2021) also a full version published in Scotland on Sunday 7 Feb 2021
I used to support federalism for the UK (Galen Milne's letter, 31 January) until I read Matthew Parris's column ('Don't wreck England just to foil Sturgeon') in The Times of 30 January. England is too big to be an equal partner in a federalised structure and there is no appetite for breaking up England into Scotland-sized autonomous provinces. Parris says i[I]t doesn't work in Spain and it won't work here.
I used to support federalism for the UK (Galen Milne's letter, 31 January) until I read Matthew Parris's column ('Don't wreck England just to foil Sturgeon') in The Times of 30 January. England is too big to be an equal partner in a federalised structure and there is no appetite for breaking up England into Scotland-sized autonomous provinces. Parris says i[I]t doesn't work in Spain and it won't work here.
To The Scotsman (28 Jan 2021) published 29 Jan 2021
Jennifer Rhind claims that the UK Environment Minister has given permission for limited use of a 'class of systemic pesticides known as neonicotinoids, bannned in the EU' and she fears for the health of our bee population (Letter 28 January).
In fact all that George Eustance has done is agree to let a product containing the neonicotinoid thiamthoxam (sic) to treat sugar been seed this year in an effort to protect the crop from a virus. Its use is authorised for only 120 days.
It is true that the use of thiamethoxam is banned in the EU but Ms Rhind is mistaken in claiming that it is not banned in the USA. In May 2019 the Environmental protection Agency revoked approval for a dozen pesticides containing clothianidin and thiamethoxam as part of a legal settlement.
Because there are seven different neonicotinoids, Ms Rhind should not treat them as all the same, ignoring the fact that most are still banned in the UK. It may be that thiamethoxam is a danger to the bee population but it remains to be seen if the approval for its use on sugar beet seed will be extended.
As far as I can tell, sugar beet is not now grown in Scotland. The only Scottish sugar beet factory in Cupar closed in 1971. So it seems that Scottish bees are safe.
Jennifer Rhind claims that the UK Environment Minister has given permission for limited use of a 'class of systemic pesticides known as neonicotinoids, bannned in the EU' and she fears for the health of our bee population (Letter 28 January).
In fact all that George Eustance has done is agree to let a product containing the neonicotinoid thiamthoxam (sic) to treat sugar been seed this year in an effort to protect the crop from a virus. Its use is authorised for only 120 days.
It is true that the use of thiamethoxam is banned in the EU but Ms Rhind is mistaken in claiming that it is not banned in the USA. In May 2019 the Environmental protection Agency revoked approval for a dozen pesticides containing clothianidin and thiamethoxam as part of a legal settlement.
Because there are seven different neonicotinoids, Ms Rhind should not treat them as all the same, ignoring the fact that most are still banned in the UK. It may be that thiamethoxam is a danger to the bee population but it remains to be seen if the approval for its use on sugar beet seed will be extended.
As far as I can tell, sugar beet is not now grown in Scotland. The only Scottish sugar beet factory in Cupar closed in 1971. So it seems that Scottish bees are safe.
To The Sunday Times (25 Jan 2021) part published on 31 Jan 2021
You properly refer to a 'referendum on the break-up of Britain' ('Our disunited kingdom', 24 January), although that's not how the SNP present it. They campaign on the basis that Scotland is some sort of colony that can depart leaving the smaller UK behind.
In fact, if they succeed, there would be no UK, just an unnameable rump of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Who would deal with the Treaty of Union (1707) that created 'Great Britain'? It is still in force and would need to be re-negotiated. Why are these severe consequences not made clear? Asking people if they support independence for Scotland is a false prospectus. The referendum question should be be: 'Do you agree with the break-up of the United Kingdom?' It should be asked not just of Scots but all the UK's inhabitants.
You properly refer to a 'referendum on the break-up of Britain' ('Our disunited kingdom', 24 January), although that's not how the SNP present it. They campaign on the basis that Scotland is some sort of colony that can depart leaving the smaller UK behind.
In fact, if they succeed, there would be no UK, just an unnameable rump of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Who would deal with the Treaty of Union (1707) that created 'Great Britain'? It is still in force and would need to be re-negotiated. Why are these severe consequences not made clear? Asking people if they support independence for Scotland is a false prospectus. The referendum question should be be: 'Do you agree with the break-up of the United Kingdom?' It should be asked not just of Scots but all the UK's inhabitants.
To The Scotsman (25 Jan 2021) not published
Perhaps Stan Grodynski deliberately misunderstands me (Letter, 25 January). He must know why I say Scotland cannot leave the UK: it's because, if Scotland leaves, there would be no UK, just an unnameable rump of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. People need to stop pretending that Scotland can walk away and leave the UK intact; they should spell out the consequences, something the SNP seems unwilling to do.
I did not refer to a 'Partnership of Equals'. In 1707 Scotland was surely weaker that England and needed the Union more than England did. Whatever, the consequences were to Scotland's benefit, forming a strong and prosperous union (Great Britain). This brand should not lightly be overthrown for the illusion offered by the SNP.
Perhaps Stan Grodynski deliberately misunderstands me (Letter, 25 January). He must know why I say Scotland cannot leave the UK: it's because, if Scotland leaves, there would be no UK, just an unnameable rump of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. People need to stop pretending that Scotland can walk away and leave the UK intact; they should spell out the consequences, something the SNP seems unwilling to do.
I did not refer to a 'Partnership of Equals'. In 1707 Scotland was surely weaker that England and needed the Union more than England did. Whatever, the consequences were to Scotland's benefit, forming a strong and prosperous union (Great Britain). This brand should not lightly be overthrown for the illusion offered by the SNP.
To Scotland on Sunday (25 Jan 2021) published 31 Jan 2021
It is sad to see Pamela Nash of Scotland in the Union referring to Scotland leaving the UK ('Scotland must end its own 'uncivil war' and unite', Another Voice, 24 January).
Pamela Nash should know that, since Scotland is an integral component of the UK, it cannot 'leave'. Separating Scotland from England (unpicking the Treaty of Union) destroys both 'Great Britain' and the UK and leaves a rump, made up of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Goodness knows what that could be called. In no way could it still be called 'the UK'.
The consequences of so-called independence for Scotland should be explained more plainly, especially by Scotland in the Union. Brexit has been bad enough but Scexit would be disastrous for everyone in these islands and even the world.
It is sad to see Pamela Nash of Scotland in the Union referring to Scotland leaving the UK ('Scotland must end its own 'uncivil war' and unite', Another Voice, 24 January).
Pamela Nash should know that, since Scotland is an integral component of the UK, it cannot 'leave'. Separating Scotland from England (unpicking the Treaty of Union) destroys both 'Great Britain' and the UK and leaves a rump, made up of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Goodness knows what that could be called. In no way could it still be called 'the UK'.
The consequences of so-called independence for Scotland should be explained more plainly, especially by Scotland in the Union. Brexit has been bad enough but Scexit would be disastrous for everyone in these islands and even the world.
To The Scotsman (22 Jan 2021) published 23 Jan 2021
Independence for Scotland is claimed as if Scotland were a British dependent territory (like the Falkland Islands or Bermuda). It seems to be believed that it can secede and become an independent nation (like the Bahamas) leaving a somewhat smaller United Kingdom.
But that is a false prospectus. Scotland is an integral component of the UK, a founder member of Great Britain, bound by the Treaty of Union in 1707. As such Scotland's departure would mean the end of both Great Britain and the UK.
Consequently Scotland cannot separate from England without abolition of the Treaty of Union a matter that would require negotiation. I see no calls for that to happen; nor can I see Westminster agreeing to it.
Calls for Scottish independence are misleading. Scotland cannot leave the UK as it is itself 'the UK'.
It would be more honest to call for the breakup and destruction of the UK, for that would be the consequence of independence. Is that what most Scots actually want? Is it what most UK citizens want?
Independence for Scotland is claimed as if Scotland were a British dependent territory (like the Falkland Islands or Bermuda). It seems to be believed that it can secede and become an independent nation (like the Bahamas) leaving a somewhat smaller United Kingdom.
But that is a false prospectus. Scotland is an integral component of the UK, a founder member of Great Britain, bound by the Treaty of Union in 1707. As such Scotland's departure would mean the end of both Great Britain and the UK.
Consequently Scotland cannot separate from England without abolition of the Treaty of Union a matter that would require negotiation. I see no calls for that to happen; nor can I see Westminster agreeing to it.
Calls for Scottish independence are misleading. Scotland cannot leave the UK as it is itself 'the UK'.
It would be more honest to call for the breakup and destruction of the UK, for that would be the consequence of independence. Is that what most Scots actually want? Is it what most UK citizens want?
To The Scotsman (20 Jan 2021) not published
Independence for Scotland is claimed as if Scotland were a British dependent territory (like the Falkland Islands or Bermuda). It seems to be believed that it can secede and become an independent nation (like the Bahamas) leaving a somewhat smaller United Kingdom.
But that is a false prospectus. Scotland is an integral component of the UK, a founder member of Great Britain, bound by the Treaty of Union in 1707. As such Scotland's departure would mean the end of both Great Britain and the UK.
Consequently Scotland cannot separate from England without abolition of the Treaty of Union a matter that would require negotiation. I see no calls for that to happen; nor can I see Westminster agreeing to it.
Calls for Scottish independence are deceitful and misleading. Scotland cannot leave the UK as it is itself 'the UK'.
It would be more honest to call for the breakup and destruction of the UK, for that would be the consequence of independence. Is that what most Scots actually want? Is it what most UK citizens want?
Independence for Scotland is claimed as if Scotland were a British dependent territory (like the Falkland Islands or Bermuda). It seems to be believed that it can secede and become an independent nation (like the Bahamas) leaving a somewhat smaller United Kingdom.
But that is a false prospectus. Scotland is an integral component of the UK, a founder member of Great Britain, bound by the Treaty of Union in 1707. As such Scotland's departure would mean the end of both Great Britain and the UK.
Consequently Scotland cannot separate from England without abolition of the Treaty of Union a matter that would require negotiation. I see no calls for that to happen; nor can I see Westminster agreeing to it.
Calls for Scottish independence are deceitful and misleading. Scotland cannot leave the UK as it is itself 'the UK'.
It would be more honest to call for the breakup and destruction of the UK, for that would be the consequence of independence. Is that what most Scots actually want? Is it what most UK citizens want?
To The Scotsman (18 Jan 2021) not published
No disrespect to Robert IG Scott, whose views if support (letter 18 January), but he still frames Scottish independence in terms of Scotland leaving the UK.
I continue to point out that Scotland is an integral component of the UK, being one of the founder members of 'Great Britain'. Scottish separation could not happen without negotiating and overhauling the Treaty of Union. That would cause 'Great Britain' to cease to exist and, consequently, also cause the UK to cease to exist.
Scotland cannot leave the UK, but it can destroy it.
No disrespect to Robert IG Scott, whose views if support (letter 18 January), but he still frames Scottish independence in terms of Scotland leaving the UK.
I continue to point out that Scotland is an integral component of the UK, being one of the founder members of 'Great Britain'. Scottish separation could not happen without negotiating and overhauling the Treaty of Union. That would cause 'Great Britain' to cease to exist and, consequently, also cause the UK to cease to exist.
Scotland cannot leave the UK, but it can destroy it.
To The Scotsman (14 Jan 2021) not published
Alexander McKay (Letter 14 January) is quite right that a two-thirds majority should be required for any constitutional change.
However I pointed this out in a letter you published a year ago (17 Jan). I mentioned it again in a letter you published on 19 July last year. Did Mr McKay not notice?
The SNP's own constitution requires a two-thirds majority and 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?).
If the Prime Minister ever does agree to another referendum on Scottish independence, he should insist on such a majority, plus perhaps a simple majority of the whole electorate. He should also require separation to address the Treaty of Union which created Great Britain.
Alexander McKay (Letter 14 January) is quite right that a two-thirds majority should be required for any constitutional change.
However I pointed this out in a letter you published a year ago (17 Jan). I mentioned it again in a letter you published on 19 July last year. Did Mr McKay not notice?
The SNP's own constitution requires a two-thirds majority and 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?).
If the Prime Minister ever does agree to another referendum on Scottish independence, he should insist on such a majority, plus perhaps a simple majority of the whole electorate. He should also require separation to address the Treaty of Union which created Great Britain.
To Scotland on Sunday (11 Jan 2021) not published
Donald McCallum (Letter, 10 January) is right that any place 10 metres above sea level is unlikely to be inundated by sea level rise caused by global warming. However that does not mean that we should not 'rush to abandon fossil fuels'.
The Met office has examined future emission scenarios for the UK, noting that the outcome is strongly dependent on assumed future greenhouse gas emissions.
The projected rise for Edinburgh by 2300 for example is 0.0-1.7 metres under a low-emission scenario, but 0.7-3.6 metres under a high emission scenario. Considering that a reduction in emissions looks unlikely, the latter outcome looks more probable.
This seems a long way away and of no concern to us now, but it would concern our descendants. Has Mr McCallum no concern for them?
Donald McCallum (Letter, 10 January) is right that any place 10 metres above sea level is unlikely to be inundated by sea level rise caused by global warming. However that does not mean that we should not 'rush to abandon fossil fuels'.
The Met office has examined future emission scenarios for the UK, noting that the outcome is strongly dependent on assumed future greenhouse gas emissions.
The projected rise for Edinburgh by 2300 for example is 0.0-1.7 metres under a low-emission scenario, but 0.7-3.6 metres under a high emission scenario. Considering that a reduction in emissions looks unlikely, the latter outcome looks more probable.
This seems a long way away and of no concern to us now, but it would concern our descendants. Has Mr McCallum no concern for them?
To The Scotsman (1 Jan 2021) not published
So here we are in 2021. Nowadays few seem to add 'AD' (anno domini, The Year of Our Lord), but that's what it is, the supposed age of Jesus if he were still alive (Christians believe that he is, sitting on a throne in Heaven).
Most civilisations numbered their years by the year of their ruler (see Luke 3:1), although Rome was an exception in numbering its years from the foundation of Rome (ab urbe condita).
Although Muslims and Jews have their own systems, for practical purposes the whole world now uses Jesus' age as its year number as if he were our ruler. Unsatisfactory for non-Christians but unavoidable.
So here we are in 2021. Nowadays few seem to add 'AD' (anno domini, The Year of Our Lord), but that's what it is, the supposed age of Jesus if he were still alive (Christians believe that he is, sitting on a throne in Heaven).
Most civilisations numbered their years by the year of their ruler (see Luke 3:1), although Rome was an exception in numbering its years from the foundation of Rome (ab urbe condita).
Although Muslims and Jews have their own systems, for practical purposes the whole world now uses Jesus' age as its year number as if he were our ruler. Unsatisfactory for non-Christians but unavoidable.
To The Scotsman (7 Jan 2021)
Murdo Fraser thinks that human ingenuity will meet future challenges as it has in the past ('Despite all the gloom, we are living better now than at any point in world history', 6 January).
I am not so sure. A challenge faces us that seems insuperable. I refer to the global warming caused by the greenhouse effect.
Much of human progress has been made possible by providing an abundance of electricity but with little regard for the consequences in generating it from burning fossil fuels. Only lately has it been generally recognised that the CO2 so produced is causing potentially catastrophic damage to the climate.
Although there are calls for a reduction in emissions and some have made an effort, the two major emitters, China and the USA, have made no progress.
The fact is that no effectual reductions will be made before a climate tipping point is reached and the atmosphere swings into a new hot phase with rising sea levels, ocean acidification and wild weather. Tropical regions will be uninhabitable.
That leaves only one remedy: geoengineering to reduce insolation. Several methods have been proposed but I don't hold out much hope that any will be deployed in time.
We may have been lucky so far but eventually our luck will run out.
Murdo Fraser thinks that human ingenuity will meet future challenges as it has in the past ('Despite all the gloom, we are living better now than at any point in world history', 6 January).
I am not so sure. A challenge faces us that seems insuperable. I refer to the global warming caused by the greenhouse effect.
Much of human progress has been made possible by providing an abundance of electricity but with little regard for the consequences in generating it from burning fossil fuels. Only lately has it been generally recognised that the CO2 so produced is causing potentially catastrophic damage to the climate.
Although there are calls for a reduction in emissions and some have made an effort, the two major emitters, China and the USA, have made no progress.
The fact is that no effectual reductions will be made before a climate tipping point is reached and the atmosphere swings into a new hot phase with rising sea levels, ocean acidification and wild weather. Tropical regions will be uninhabitable.
That leaves only one remedy: geoengineering to reduce insolation. Several methods have been proposed but I don't hold out much hope that any will be deployed in time.
We may have been lucky so far but eventually our luck will run out.