Today our correspondents discuss the Methodist Church’s position on climate change, electricity transmission charges, the price of fuel, travellers and the dropping of the nuclear bomb on Japan.
Faith backs science on climate-change threat Sir, Dr Cameron’s letter (August 14) making fun of the Methodist Church’s position on climate change was fine as mischievous satire but did not fairly represent that church’s stance.
As I’m sure Dr Cameron knows, the Methodist position is the same as that of the Church of Scotland, the Catholics, the Free Church and the Anglicans.
As a Church of Scotland Christian, I stand firmly by the Kirk’s view that “climate change represents a failure in our stewardship of God’s creation”.
Dr Cameron is naturally entitled to disagree but he would be out of step with mainstream Christianity, which accepts that mankind is contributing to climate change and that we have a moral and Christian responsibility to act.
Suggesting that this concern amounts to a green alternative to Christianity is unfair. Christians who are concerned about the environment are living out their Bible-based faith, not abandoning it. They are certainly not treating scientific reports as holy writ.
Science and Christianity are not alternatives. The theological consensus is aligned with the science.
James Christie.2 Dryburgh Crescent,Perth.
Generating unfairness
Sir, Alex Orr (August 16), makes some telling points about the unfairness of current electricity transmission charges through the National Grid for Scottish electricity generators.
There is a technical logic in all this in that the further the generator is from the point of consumption, the greater should be the charge.
Naturally, we should now have new power stations of all sorts right in the middle of London or Birmingham to make the best use of this principle.
Social and political consideration tell us otherwise but is this not yet another example of the differences in the industrial landscape and population between Scotland and England that can never be reconciled under our current constitutional position?
Independent Scotland would never stand for that but it is up to the voters of our country to put things right and apply fairness in all matters.
(Cllr) William G. Walker.Ragnar House,Bogside,Alloa.
Driving a fair bargain
Sir, Well said, Mark Cessford (August 12) about the price of fuel and how it affects the running of road haulage.
He states that the biggest problem is the hauliers themselves, which is exactly what I have been saying for years.
When the tachograph came into force, it was a golden opportunity for hauliers to sit around the table and thrash out the rates for doing the work, every haulier charging the same per mile and/or per tonne.
The tachograph was supposed to prevent lorry drivers working and driving more hours than they were allowed to. If hauliers had got their rates sorted then, the drivers would not have had to work more than their allotted time to make a living.
My partner and I were very fortunate in having a customer who telephoned to tell us to put up our rates by 10 per cent, or whatever, to cover the rise in fuel. Not many hauliers could say that.
Most were told the rates were staying as they were or, in some cases, they were coming down.
Jim Smith (ex Montrose Transport).11 Glenesk Avenue,Montrose.
Menace of new-breed travellers
Sir, Very few of your readers would agree with the sentiments expressed by David R. Grant (August 9) regarding the travelling fraternity.
The reason they are treated as outcasts is because of their anti-social behaviour, reported frequently in The Courier, with photographic evidence of the rubbish they leave behind.
I suspect Mr Grant is confusing the bonafide traveller of yesteryear with the present-day peripatetic with different standards of behaviour.
I understand specially created sites for them are very rarely full.
They prefer to squat on someone’s land, paying no site fees, leaving their rubbish behind for others to clean up – by all reports, not a pleasant task.
Having until three years ago caravanned for 35 years legally and responsibly, I have little or no sympathy for these people who pollute and scar our countryside with impunity.
R. H. L. Mulheron.28 Cowgate,Tayport.
A-bomb cut length of war
Sir, Ron Smith states that, after 65 years, America still has not apologised for dropping the atomic bomb. Why should they?
This weapon stopped the second world war, thereby cancelling the most costly operation of the war, namely the invasion of the Japanese home islands.
The price America paid for victory earlier in the war in the Pacific islands of Tarawa, Peleliu and Iwo Jima, was horrendous. The Japanese fought almost to the last man. So one can only imagine the final cost of the invasion.
While visiting the US Air Force museum in Dayton, Ohio, I was viewing the B29 Bockscar, which dropped the Nagasaki bomb.
A Japanese family approached and asked if I would take their photograph standing beside the aircraft. The father thanked me and said they were visiting from Nagasaki and he said this mission stopped the war.
What Mr Smith needs to reflect on is that the Japanese Empire started the Pacific war with America. No Pearl Harbor no Hiroshima.
Scott Haldane.The Anchorage,8 Bingham Terrace,Dundee.
Get involved: to have your say on these or any other topics, email your letter to letters@thecourier.co.uk or send to Letters Editor, The Courier, 80 Kingsway East, Dundee DD4 8SL.