To The Scotsman (8 Jun 26) published 10 Jun 26 In her column in the Scotsman today, MP Christine Jardine referred to 'the Mother of Parliaments', meaning I suppose: Westminster (House of Commons). She ought to have known that this is a mistake. The phrase was coined by MP John Bright in 1865 when he described England (sic) as 'the mother of parliaments' because it gives birth to successive parliaments. In no sense is Westminster the mother of other parliaments; it is the child of the UK state, being born again at each general election. It is the UK that is the 'mother', not Westminster.
To The Scotsman (1 Jun 26) not published In your report about the Chinook accident (31 May), you noted that it was initially blamed on pilot error, before 'this was overturned in 2011. The cause was a navigation error that put the aircraft on a fatal course, flying with almost no visibility. The pilots failed to climb to a safe altitude as the rules required (SAS pilots are prone to ignore the rules in combat). I am not aware that this conclusion was later overturned.
To The Scotsman (16 May 26) not published People who use the word 'antisemitic' probably don't ask them selves who 'sem' was. In fact it was 'Shem', one of the sons of Noah. He is mentioned in Genesis and 1 Chronicles and is considered to be the ancestor of several peoples, including the line leading to Abraham and is traditionally associated with the peoples of Asia. In Islamic literature, Shem is recognised as a prophet and his descendants, such as Arphaxad, are significant in biblical genealogies. Consequently, use of the word as if it applied only to Jews is erroneous, particularly if used by Arabs.
To The Scotsman (12 May 26) not published In your report yesterday (11 May) of the Chinook accident (p9 'Justice'), you claimed that the pilots were 'wrongly blamed for the disaster'. However, that's not for you to say. It is true that the government 'set aside' a verdict of gross negligence (solely on safety grounds) but no other verdict has replaced it and it appears to remain an accident without a cause. However, the evidence point to a navigation error: the pilots wrongly identified a waypoint, and that set them on a collision course with high ground, unseen because of the poor visibility. I claim that the pilots were wholly responsible. To The Scotsman (4 May 26) not published You should resist the temptation to use the word 'multiple' out of context. You seem to think it means 'many' (strapline and text in your story today re Hormuz). 'Multiple' does not mean many (e.g. a mutiple rocket launcher is not the same as many rocket launchers). 'Multiple' means consisting of many parts. Misuse of the English language by a newspaper editor should be a sacking offence!
To The Scotsman (25 Apr 26) not published In your report about the Chinook accident ('Starmer agreeing to meet a "significant" step, say Chinook families') you claim that the pilots were 'wrongly blamed' but that they were 'formally cleared in 2011'. In fact the pilots were rightly blamed (they flew on with no visibility in an area with known high ground, making no attempt to rise to a safe height). They seem to have made a navigation error which wouldn't have mattered if they had followed safety rules. I am not aware that the pilots were 'formally cleared'.
To The Scotsman (20 Apr 26) not published It should be no surprise that the Pope doesn't know the Gospel message (your report, SoS, 19 April) but then Catholics are not known for Biblical criticism--they leave that to Protestants. Apparently the Pope thinks that it is 'a message of peace'. In fact the gospel message is the "good news" of salvation through Jesus Christ, emphazing several key truths, regarding: creation, sin, hope and love. Nothing about 'peace'. To The Scotsman (9 Apr 26) not published You describe the image of the Earth 'setting' below the lunar horizon (shown in your issue of 8 April) as 'incredible', a word that means 'impossible or difficult to believe'. I have no difficulty in believing it: there it is on your front page. Perhaps you meant 'amazing' ('greatly surprising', but it can't have surprised the astronauts who took it). I suggest that you stick to reporting facts instead of trying to interpret them.
To The Scotsman (9 Apr 26) not published Charles Lowson, in his letter of 31 March, refers to 'the United Kingdom created in 1707'. In fact, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was created in 1927, by the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act. Mr Lowson has confused that Act with the one in 1707 that united Scotland and England as the Kingdom of Great Britain. In 1801 the Acts of Union incorporated the Kingdom of Ireland to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Most of Ireland seceded from the UK in 1922 as the Irish Free State, and the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 created the present United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The title is anomalous as there has never been a 'Kingdom of Northern Ireland'. It is a province.
To The Scotsman (1 Apr 26) not published In yesterday's S'man you twice referred to 'historic', when if fact you meant 'historical' ('Mills sacked over 'historic...' and 'Man wins five-figure payout from Celtic over historic abuse...'. Surely you know that 'historic' and 'historical' do not mean the same thing. If you don't then you should.
To The Scotsman (28 Mar 26) not published You report that the wife of a victim of the 1994 fatal crash of an RAF Chinook helicopter has called for 'honesty, transparency and basic decency from the state'. Apparently she had been wondering how her husband died. 'How' is simply explained; he died because the aircraft was flown into the ground (it's called CFIT: 'controlled flight into terrain'). The more relevant question is 'why'. The fact that there was poor visibility due to low cloud and that the pilots did not have the kind of navigational support that is available today, suggests that they made a navigational error. Unfortunately they ignored safety rules which, in those circumstances, required them to climb to a safe height. You report that, initially, the pilots were 'wrongly accused'. No, they were rightly accused by RAF senior command. However, after a change of government, the matter was reviewed by retired judge Lord Philip (the matter had become political). I met Lord Philip in December 2010, when I explained how I thought the accident had occurred. However, he seemed uninterested in my conclusions; he asked me no questions and his report makes no mention of any meetings. It merely 'set aside' the accusation of 'gross negligence' by the pilots. With unseemly jubilation, this was mistaken by the pilots' families and the mass media as evidence that the pilots were nor responsible. Lord Philip inappropriately applied a legal nicety, quibbling over the air marshals' having 'no doubt whatsoever', when in civil law there is always doubt.
To The Scotsman(24 Mar 26) not published In your article ('Father of Chinook crash victim died 'fighting for answers''(23 March), you stated that the families of the victims are calling for a 'judge-led public inquiry' into the disaster (inter alia). However, the families should note that a Fatal Accident Inquiry into the accident was held in Paisley Sheriff Court from 8 January to 2 February 1996. The FAI was presided over by Sheriff Sir Stephen Young. In Scotland, a sheriff is de facto a judge. Consequently a 'judge-led' public inquiry has already occurred.
To The Scotsman (21 Mar 26) published 23 Mar 26 On 20 March, Ian Petrie commented on The Scotsman's picture of the Milky Way (19 March), alleging mankind's self importance. He argued that there must be intelligent life elsewhere. Perhaps, but so far there is no evidence of that, not even a radio signal. For all we know, we could be alone in this vast universe; the more one knows about our evolution, the more one wonders at the evolutionary accidents that led to our existence. Mankind's emergence was not inevitable, not is it inevitable that other intelligences exist. Then Mr Petrie asks 'where is God in all this?' William of Occam would point out the presumption involved in that question. Mr Petrie also alleges that we live in an 'intelligent creation' (that's why he believes that it must be the work of an 'intelligent creator'). However cosmologists could tell him that no god was necessary ; the universe created itself, emerging from nothing.
To The Scotsman (21 Mar 26) not published Yesterday (21 March) The Scotsman headed an item about meningitis as 'Hepatitis clusters could spread'. Whose mistake was that?
To The Scotsman (11 Mar 26) not published Your report (10 March) that Edmund King, president of the AA, has urged motorists not to take 'non-essential' journeys because fuel prices will rise. His concern for the average motorist's running costs is touching, but its a matter for them. However he seems to have overlooked the fact that drivers of electric cars are unaffected by fuel prices and so do not have to worry about the rising price of fuel. Why doesn't he urge greater use of electric cars?
To The Scotsman (?) published 26 Feb 26 Doug Morrison notes that there were some 47,000 gun-related deaths in the USA 'in a year' (true for last year) and that is why US police carry hand guns (Letter, 24 February). However, most of those deaths were suicides. No action by police could change that, although making guns less available might. In the UK, where gun ownership is strictly controlled, there were only 24 gun deaths in 2023.
To The Scotsman (23 Feb 26) published [date?] Mr [Donald] Trump doesn't know if aliens exist but he has ordered the release of Government UFO files (21 February). However such records will not answer the question; they will merely show that many people think they've seen an alien craft. I spent many years investigating UFO reports and came to the conclusion that no alien intelligence has ever visited us. All UFO reports are misperceptions of mundane objects or phenomena or hoaxes. If another technological civilisation exists in the Galaxy, the first we would know about is from radio signals. Distances are too great for physical contact. That no such signals have been received indicates that we are alone in the Galaxy and perhaps alone in the universe. To The Scotsman (5 Feb 26) not published It's disappointing to see so many, especially the mass media, using the word 'multiple' in the mistaken belief that it's a sophisticated way of saying 'many'. 'Multiple' means 'having several parts, although it can also mean 'numerous' (consisting of many members). A 'multiple rocket launcher' is not the same as 'many rocket launchers'.
To The Scotsman (20 Jan 26) not published You explain that the Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill defines a digital asset is 'something which is rivalrous' ('MSPs back Digital Assets Bill', 17 January). I'm sure that I can't be alone in reaching for a dictionary: apparently 'rivalrous' means 'a person or thing equal to another in quality' (COD). I'm none the wiser. Surely 'a digital asset' has to involve digits, ie numbers. To The Scotsman (17 Jan 26) not published As Alexander McKay points out (letter, 16 January), every wind turbine needs a reliable back-up, fossil fuel or nuclear. That's because wind power is irregular and unreliable. Logic then suggests that all generation should be from fossil fuel (gas) or nuclear and that renewable generation is useless. Why generation electricity from an unreliable source when reliable ones are available? Because we can? That's not a good reason. Electricity demand is fairly constant and so requires a fairly constant supply. It's not possible to match a constant demand to a variable supply. Renewable generation is a parasitical burden on the system and should be abandoned.