We ought to presume that people are innocent of particular crimes and treat them as such unless and until they are found to be guilty of them by due process beyond all reasonable doubt.
Our duty to do so arises from the truth of this principle itself rather than from the character and behaviour of the actual accused and suspected criminals in question.
Reflections upon and speculations about the real or supposed conduct of Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor seem to have blinded many of us to this fact and, also, to have fostered the dubious notion that we ought to abandon and ostracise our friends if they are found to be guilty of heinous crimes.
It is worth questioning whether it is more virtuous to hate the offence and cancel the offender than to hate the former and aspire to love the latter.
Hugh McLachlan, Professor Emeritus of Applied Philosophy, Glasgow Caledonian University.
Read more letters:
- Unmasking the hidden message of the protests outside Holyrood
- Could this be the beginning of the end of the monarchy?
- Charlie’s not our darling: let's strip monarchy of privilege
Why we need the monarchy
I was very interested to acquaint myself with William Loneskie’s vision of how Great Britain might evolve constitutionally were the monarchy to be abolished (“Could this be the beginning of the end of the monarchy?”, letters, November 4).
The abolition of the House of Lords and the devolved governments, and the relocation of Parliament to Lancashire, all sound quite logical and rational, but the proposed model doesn’t seem to me take national culture, all cultures, into account.
This reallocation of powers is a table-top exercise, rather reminiscent of the Sykes-Picot agreement between the UK and France in 1916, the Balfour Declaration the following year, or the Stalin-Roosevelt-Churchill carve-up of Eastern Europe at Yalta in 1945. Remember how well they all went.
You can’t redraw the map in a national-political-cultural vacuum. Moving Parliament to Dunsop Bridge is not much different from throwing a dart at a map, blindfold.
Like it or not, the only thing that glues Great Britain together as a national entity, is the monarchy. If King Charles receives his P45, or as we say north of the border, his jotters, then I think the likeliest outcome would be that Scotland, England, and Wales would become independent countries, and the island of Ireland would unite.
Whether or not such an outcome would be propitious, nay felicitous, I lay to one side. But the Establishment at Westminster understands it, and that is why it will do everything in its power to protect, preserve, and maintain the monarchy. This is the real reason why the naval officer formerly known as Prince has been so ostracised, and vilified. It is not merely the monarchy which is in danger of foundering; it is the entire Ship of State.
Dr Hamish Maclaren, Thornhill, Stirling.
We need help in order to welcome migrants
Dr Gerald Edwards, as usual too quick to castigate the SNP, now claims that Mr Swinney objected to the housing of migrants in disused barracks in the north of Scotland (letters, November 4).
In fact, the First Minister’s complaint was that there had been no discussion or notification of the proposal to either the Scottish government or the local authorities. The English-led parliament has again ignored one of the home nations.
Anyone who watched the recent BBC programme, Highland Cops, will wonder how a small police force covering an area the size of Belgium will manage this new burden. The other parts of the same local authority will have an added burden too.
Whilst we Scots are sympathetic to the plight of most of the migrants, we still need planned help to welcome them whether socially or financially.
J B Drummond, Kilmarnock.
More robust data urgently needed
The STUC’s report (“Just one job for every £1m generated by wind industry”, October 28), compares the number of jobs supported by £1 million of turnover in the offshore and onshore wind sectors with how many are created by £1 million of investment in oil and gas
As these two measures aren’t directly comparable it’s understandable that the results are different. Turnover and investment represent different things – one measures income, the other spending – so it’s difficult to draw clear conclusions from comparing them in this way.
The report also includes indirect and induced jobs — those supported through supply chains and the wider economy — but only for the oil and gas sector. Without the same data for Scotland’s clean energy industries, the comparison can’t fully reflect the jobs supported by renewable energy.
We need to get a better measure of these jobs and that’s the real story behind the STUC’s report – industry is not receiving the data it needs from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
To truly understand the employment potential of Scotland’s energy sectors, we need consistent, like-for-like comparisons that capture the full picture of where and how jobs are created across our economy.
For years we’ve teamed up with the Fraser of Allander Institute to assess the impact of our industry and its spill-over benefits on Scotland’s supply chain and economy. The most recent analysis finds that our industry is delivering 47,000 jobs and providing an economic boost of more than £15 billion.
But the size of the sector has to be estimated by combining data published by the ONS with a model of the Scottish economy. That’s because the renewable energy sector is not currently defined in national statistics published by either the UK or Scottish governments.
As we collectively strive to scale up the growth of clean energy in Scotland and across the UK, both governments must urgently prioritise more robust data collection on the economic impact of the renewable energy industry.
Claire Mack OBE, Chief Executive of Scottish Renewables, Glasgow.
Time for voters’ voices to be heard
The SNP, and its extremist culture, are most likely doomed to failure, along with its unelected Green partners, following the next Holyrood elections in the Spring of 2026.
There is no denying the fact that we Scots have experienced a political scene which can only be described as a complete disaster for some considerable period in almost all aspects of Government, both at Holyrood, and in many local authority Administrations.
Although inclined more frequently to attempt to emphasise key points to audiences by the use of hand signals and gestures, rather than through the medium of sound oratory, it has to be said that John Swinney is nonetheless more sincere than either of his predecessors. But the end is nigh for the SNP.
At this point it is very difficult to forecast in which direction the Scottish electorate will turn in the 2026 election.
Numerous predictions have been made over the past year, and this is now more complicated by the more-than-likely inclusion of Reform candidates into the fray.
What is absolutely certain is that the people of Scotland need a reprieve from all aspects of political intrigue to truly enable them to decide what is best for them.
To date, far too much emphasis has been placed on the wishes and needs of politicians. The people will decide!
Robert I G Scott, Ceres, Fife.
Alarm clocks? What are they?
Nigel Farage claims that Reform is the party of “alarm clock Britain” a catchphrase of which he must be extraordinarily proud, given that he uses it ad nauseam.
I would ask Mr Farage, what percentage of the working-age population he believes actually waken themselves with an alarm clock in 2025? Has he never heard of mobile phones?
Colin Aldridge, Glasgow.
The signalling of virtue
I refer to the letters from William Loneskie (October 29) and from Alastair Majury and Denis Bruce (both October 31), in which they complain about the use of “virtue-signalling”, which I understand to mean “the act of expressing moral values or beliefs primarily to enhance one’s social standing or self-image, rather than from genuine conviction”.
In fact I suggest that the term “ad hominem” describes perfectly their “fallacious argumentative strategy that avoids genuine discussion of the topic by instead attacking the character, motive etc. of the person associated with the argument”.
And finally, have the aforementioned gentlemen not realised that such opinions are frequently expressed by those who hold a genuine religious faith?
Are they too to be accused of “virtue-signalling”?
John Milne, Uddingston.
Share