WORDS failed me (and SNH) when I read that “Scottish Natural Heritage will rename itself “NatureScot”, while the chief executive “joked” that the initial challenge will be “ensuring we get the no space, cap S right” ("A chance to out nature at heart of wellbeing", The Herald, August 8). Yet its website is www.nature.scot...

The term “heritage” implies “that which is inherited from past generations, maintained in the present, and bestowed to future generations” – and “NatureScot” has lost all that meaning.

The SNH website tells us that “using the Scottish Natural Heritage brand correctly every time lets us communicate better with our audiences and with each other. Our brand is a confident, positive statement, which creates a strong platform for all of our communications when used correctly. A professional and consistent approach helps people to recognise our work and put their trust in what we have to say.” The CEO, Francesca Osowska, went on to tell us: “We’ve done a lot of research in terms of public opinion surveys, which shows the word heritage is what people latch onto, not natural. So they think our remit is buildings and ancient monuments: they’re important but that’s not what we’re about.” So the public can expect SNH to get a refund from the agency which advised on the last branding? Methinks that this is more likely to be a reflection on the standard of Scottish education.

The website goes on to talk at length of “transforming how we work. Transforming how we work supports everything we do for all of our outcomes.” Why transform how SNH works? I thought that it was the branding that was flawed – what was so wrong with what SNH was actually doing? And in the detail for what this transformation will mean, it says:

“Transforming how we work involves providing information at the right time to inform decisions about nature”. Surely this was being done already?

“Transforming how we work involves to generate solutions together shared problems.” English this is not.

“Transforming how we work involves supporting innovation and diversify the funding for nature.” Surely “diversifying”? What might “diversifying the funding for nature” mean in practice?

“Transforming how we work involves being the change we want to see by being more flexible and leading by example.” Understandable this is not.

And we also discover that SNH employs a “Director of People and Nature”. A “Director of Nature” – oh, what power. Surely this is all it needs…

In the same edition of the paper, I was amused to notice the abbreviation for BT Murrayfield, and I realised that SNH now appears to be an agency which doesn’t know its BTM from its elbow. That is, happy to pay for second-rate advice yet incapable of recognising it as such, but capable somehow of forecasting that the “metamorphosis will see the organisation sharpen the nation’s focus on nature”. It seems to have no conception of the “effect on the nation” that it has already achieved, never mind its future impact.

Peter Fraser, Aberdeen AB15.

GOOD GRIEF

ALTHOUGH I understand that, over time, languages will evolve, I share Irene Conway's despair (or should that be "despayre"?) at the deterioration in spoken and written English (Letters, August 14).

One of my bugbears is that, when an individual is asked "How are you?", the response, more often than not, will be "I'm good." No-one has questioned their degree of piety, but their well-being.

Brian Johnston, Torrance.

I SHARE Irene Conway's despair anent the deterioration in spoken and written English.

I fear, however, that Ms Conway has erred in her use of the word "latter" when she writes of the words " fair", " fare" and " fayre". "Latter" should be used when comparing or referring to no more than two words.

More power, however, to Ms Conway's elbow.

David Miller, Milngavie.

THOSE TORMENTING JOYS

HAVING listened for more than two hours the other day to the sound of doves cooing in the trees I consulted my favourite English usage book (Treble and Vallins, 1936) and looked up onomatopoeia and found this example from Tennyson. "The moan of doves in immemorial elms/And murmuring of innumerable bees". Mmm, lovely. Just what I had heard, so it was interesting to see David Miller's letter on social distancing (August 13) and the oxymoron thus produced in those two words.

One of the examples of an oxymoron in my book is the placing of "a carefully careless scarf", but because it echoes my own intense dislike of mobile phones and other small devices, which are playing a massive part in the daily life of this planet, I prefer to think of Milton and his "precious bane" (Paradise Lost). The authors of the book mention that "someone had neatly combined the contrarieties of the telephone as a boon and curse, using Milton's words, "O, precious bane/Tormenting joy/Dividing chain/Exacting toy".

Too true, when you really think about it.

Thelma Edwards, Kelso.