Doctor Who appreciation is a spread of many constituencies never expected always to vote the same way but I strongly contend with Mark Smith’s unwarranted criticism of the new series, which, in my opinion, has been exceptional (Saturday Arts, The Herald, July 3).
The programme was barely ever purely the science fiction Smith claims and was always a vehicle for adventure stories for children that crossed fantastical genres. But he knows well the “doors, guns and people” he writes of went “pzzh, vfff and arrhh” as proportionately according to the shrinking budget across this series as in others.
Contrary to his suggestion of a substitute emphasis on “wizards and mythical lands”, I can’t say I spotted any this year but instead enjoyed a welcome departure from the careless Harry Potter-ish tone and disappointing conjured-up resolutions of recent series in favour of a far more satisfyingly coherent implied ontology.
A question clever telly reporters such as Smith predictably trot out at the launch of each new series is how Daleks get up stairs. It’s tiresome, then, that he should complain that this one made a point to answer their relied-upon stand-by, and neutralised the dramatically valid concern of whether it’s not just the time-rotor going up and down on the Tardis console. Crucially, the disposition of the Doctor towards his friend was never in doubt (didn’t you notice the clue in her name?) and the fumbling with our hero’s braces was a comical high point in the show’s history.
More troubling than his shiver that Amy’s behaviour ever drops below the moral sophistication of a Ladybird book is your critic’s implicit insistence that she be perpetually wide-eyed and agog in submissive deference to the patriarchal title character of old.
Too eager to dismiss the inventiveness of the new producers in creating a character who credibly wouldn’t be, he seems to have missed their inspired redevelopment of this equally iconic tv role, which through her childhood obsession with her imaginary friend, has been, in effect, to install a know-all Doctor Who fan in the Tardis, nutty as anyone might run a mile from outside a convention venue, many of whom have indeed “seen it all before” and are rightly impatient with the ritual induction of a new cast member each year rehashing much the same script as the similarly arbitrary previous incumbent.
The archaic description of this part as the Doctor’s “assistant” correctly belongs firmly in the past, but before eternal conflict on a cosmic scale is sparked, it should be recorded that Karen Gillan gave a finish to her character as spirited and witty as the best of Preston Sturges, while managing at the same time to be more effortlessly authentic in the traditions of the programme than any of the recent actresses in the role.
Her performance was far more disciplined, subtle and appealingly varied than the reviewer credits her for. Did he see the van Gogh episode? She and Matt Smith are only to be commended for achieving a rare balance as genuine co-stars that’s escaped older and more experienced actors. Their breezy confidence in carrying such a massive show has been breathtaking and, truly, they’ve been the beating twin hearts of this completely refreshed new series.
The new production team as a whole ought to be congratulated as this is the first series that has consistently delivered on the promise of its prematurely garlanded return five years ago.
I honestly can’t believe your reviewer watched the same engaging and intelligent programme I saw. I haven’t felt so unreservedly delighted by Doctor Who since I was a child in the seventies, and I’d be happy to slip myself spoilers back then that in the far off and fabulous sounding date of 2010 the bow tie is mightier than the scarf and, basically, Amy Pond rules.
James Macleod, Glasgow.
Cuts in public expenditure are irrational, make no sense and will damage the economy
Am I the only one who finds the economic ideas circulating in Britain completely irrational? It seems to me there is mass hysteria going on and we are all being asked to act like lemmings rushing to the nearest cliff. This madness is being led by our new government, but what is it all about?
We are told we have great debts, and that we need to reduce our capacity to make real wealth in order to pay our debts. That is irrational. So why are so many intelligent and educated people buying into it?
We are told we are all in this together and, therefore, all must make sacrifices, but that is untrue: this process will see some make considerable sacrifices, some make small ones, some make none and a small clique make large gains. Indeed, the only rationale of the cuts is that there will be a further redistribution from the majority of us to a small section of the already rich.
This gross imbalance in distribution is the cause of the economic problems, and this further redistribution towards the wealthy will make the situation worse.
How can it make sense for the British people to reduce their capacity to make real wealth at this time?
Andy Anderson, Dunoon.
It is a common fallacy that, as Dr Evan L Lloyd writes, “this financial mess is almost entirely due to the misdemeanours of casino bankers” (Letters, July 6). The banking sector certainly behaved in an inept and irresponsible way, but they did so on behalf of clients throughout society.
The mess is due to everyone who sold a house at a profit of more than inflation over the years they owned it. The mess is due to everyone who took out an interest-only mortgage. The mess is due to everyone who expected returns on their investments four times as high as the interest on their borrowings. The mess is due to everyone who took cheap extensions to their mortgages to fund holidays, school fees and cars.
The mess is due to everyone who moved debt from credit card to credit card on a yearly basis with no thought or intention of paying it off.
Faced with an insatiable appetite for borrowing, blithe unconcern for personal debt and general celebration of uncontrolled inflation in house prices, what were banks supposed to do? Bankers make convenient scapegoats but it’s their clients who were and are to blame.
Dr Ian Johnston, Castle Douglas.
Carbon capture proposal is important move in right direction
It’s really encouraging news that Scottish and Southern Energy has announced plans to develop a carbon capture and storage (CCS) project at its existing gas-fired power station at Peterhead, Aberdeenshire.
Unlike the plans to construct an entirely new, largely unabated coal-fired power station at Hunterston, which will result in a massive net gain in climate-wrecking emissions, this is a real attempt to tackle emissions from existing electricity generation.
Urgent action to reduce emissions is needed now.
If we are to meet our climate change targets electricity needs to be almost completely decarbonised by 2030.
Scotland has the capacity to move to an entirely renewable electricity supply and this should be our priority. There is merit, however, in demonstrating how emissions from existing fossil fuel plants might be reduced both for the short-term benefits and in order that such technology can be shared with other countries whose clean sources of energy are less abundant than ours.
The UK Committee on Climate Change has called for the government to consider funding at least one CCS demonstration on gas as part of its proposals to fund four projects. Peterhead could play an important role in this regard but should not be justified on the grounds of enhanced oil recovery from the North Sea.
Retrofitting carbon capture on an existing plant such as Peterhead or Longannet will assist Scotland in meeting our world-leading greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, whereas constructing an entirely new power station such as that proposed at Hunterston will result in massive additional emissions.
As well as resulting in a huge increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the proposal at Hunterston would permanently destroy more than 30 hectares of a nationally important wildlife site.
We urge the Scottish Government to reject the application of a new largely unabated coal plant at Hunterston at the earliest opportunity and to work to curb energy wastage, unlock the huge potential for well located renewables and demonstrate the potential of CCS on existing plants.
Duncan McLaren, Chief executive, Friends of the Earth Scotland; Richard Dixon, Director, WWF Scotland; Lloyd Austin, Head of conservation policy, RSPB Scotland, Dunedin House, 25 Ravelston Terrace, Edinburgh.
Sir Muir Russell’s inquiry has rightly defended the science supporting climate change (“Rigour and honesty of scientists in Climategate row ‘not in doubt’ ”, The Herald, July 8). The question is what this can mean for us in Scotland in practice.
In Glasgow, one understands there is a pragmatic integrated engineering study now under way to plan new flood defences for the Clyde, which will likely take into consideration the use of renewable marine energy, bridging and transport needs.
For the Firth of Forth, where we have no fewer than four strategic installations for the whole of Scotland at Grangemouth, Rosyth, Mossmorran and Longannet, there appears to be no such integrated engineering planning -- merely a short-sighted plan for a standalone new Forth crossing to be funded from the increasingly sparse public purse, while the estuary and its major industrial installations are left unprotected with neither flood prevention nor the capability of utilising marine energy.
As a resident of Edinburgh, though born in Glasgow, I have to ask if perhaps there is the urgent need of some input from the Glasgow engineering design team to the Scottish Parliament to highlight what can be done from integrated planning and partnership working, to achieve a proper response for the Firth of Forth to the climate change events we must now anticipate with storm surge and rising sea levels.
Elizabeth Marshall, Fellow of the Institute of Energy, 3/13 Western Harbour Midway, Edinburgh.
Puzzled by portrait missing from show
I much enjoyed my recent visit to the excellent Glasgow Boys exhibition in Kelvingrove Art Gallery.
However, when inquiring why Sir John Lavery’s portrait of Robert Cunninghame Graham (1852-1936 ), the brilliant and eccentric Scottish laird of Gartmore House (Don Roberto) was not on display in the exhibition, nor on display in the gallery’s permanent collection, I was told that although not in the present Glasgow Boys exhibition, it would be included when the exhibition goes on display to the National Gallery of Art in London, in September.
This reason for the absence of this portrait from the Kelvingrove display seems very odd. For, after all, R B Cunninghame Graham was a very distinguished traveller, politician and writer.
Having seen much poverty abroad, he became more sympathetic for the disadvantaged and oppressed when he returned home.
He became the first president of the Scottish Labour Party in 1888 and a few years later was nominated president of the new Scottish National Party. But it is claimed that he was a better writer than a politician, and in his day became a very popular and prolific novelist.
Constance A C Ross, Glasgow.
Inflated prices will be deterrent for tourists
I have returned recently from a family break in the Highlands. Having been blessed with mostly good weather, we took a drive last Sunday, while it rained, up to Loch Ness and to the visitor centres at Drumnadrochit.
I can only say how disappointed I was at what I encountered. One of the centres could offer virtually no food at around 2pm while the other, we thought, was overpriced. So we decided to go elsewhere for lunch. Before we did, though, we looked in at the whisky shop.
I was shocked at the prices. It seems that at least £20 is added to the price of a bottle of malt whisky. As an example, a bottle of a fairly ordinary malt was on offer for £47.99. In Fort Augustus, just a few miles down the road, the same whisky was priced £25. Put yourself in the shoes of a tourist buying one of our famous whiskies at Drumnadrochit and then getting off their tour coach at Fort Augustus to discover the difference.
This is a dreadful advert for our country. Never mind arguing about the names of these centres, as they have been recently, and which are trading on a monster myth. Get the prices right for tourists and they might just come back. Feeling ripped-off, they might just go elsewhere.
Jim Duncan, Carluke .
Not everyone will welcome the Pope
It is no surprise that the Pope’s supporters are out in force over his forthcoming visit, but they are mistaken about the key issues (Letters, July 8 and 9).
A pastoral visit could generate the same level of interest among Catholics without any state involvement, and thus state subsidy. The Catholic Church has its own bank and its own airline, and material wealth worth billions. Chris McLaughlin’s assertion that the Pope has much to teach us about austerity is laughable. Also, this is a church whose clergy are mired in abuse scandals. Meanwhile, its leader thinks he can order the rest of us to live in the manner of a humble first century carpenter.
Catholics may welcome the Pope, but they are wrong to assert that the rest of us will. His meeting with the Queen could become an embarrassment for the monarch.
Alistair McBay,Perth.
In reply to John Deighan (Letters, July 8), the escalating projected cost of the Pope’s visit is reportedly in the region of £10m to £12m. In my view such extravagance at a time of unprecedented cutbacks nationwide qualifies as immoral.
Jack Howard, West Sussex.
It is vital that Borders rail link stays on track
Dearie me, yet another pop at the Borders railway, this time in your editorial (“The case for Borders rail link should be scrutinised again”, July 9). Take a trip to Galashiels and, following the loss of a major employer, Viasystems, some 10 years ago, when the town was on its knees, look at the developments taking place -- all, I believe, because the railway is on track.
Anyone travelling there will have to go by road, of course, but I’m sure they will find the A7 and the trip behind juggernauts, horse boxes, even the odd hearse, very scenic. Travellers will have time to admire the route of the former Waverley line, because most of the track is intact.
Christine Grahame, SNP MSP, The Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh.
One of a kind?
Hugh Andrew is filled with simmering wrath at the predictability of the Scottish “chattering classes” with “their heady goulash of emotional neediness and paranoia”. So, what does he do about it? He writes a letter to The Herald (July 9).
Good to get that off his chest -- just like one of the chattering classes he lambasts.
Brian Denoon, Inverness.
