Sir, – Philip Kearns (February 2) claims to present evidence that school religious observation is educational, though I actually sought evidence that his religious beliefs count as knowledge.
He cites a study which found Catholic schools outperformed non-denominational schools; he identifies ethos as the crucial factor and concludes RO, being a big part of that ethos, must contribute to performance.
There are several problems with his argument. Firstly, it is not clear if that conclusion is derived by the study or just by himself.
Secondly, correlation does not imply causation: if an ethos produces an outcome, it does not follow that every part of that ethos contributes.
Thirdly, the non-denominational schools found to perform less well must also have provided RO if they were state schools.
Fourthly, the possibility that the Catholic schools enhanced their performance with a more selective admissions procedure is not considered.
A study by The Education Policy Institute found that, judging by eligibility for free meals, “faith schools educate a lower proportion of disadvantaged children”.
Mr Kearns expects me to provide evidence that withdrawing RO from schools will be of educational value, but I did not claim it would be.
I support its removal because it is an inappropriate use of public funds and a nuisance to non-Christian pupils. The removal of the non-educational does not have to be educational.
Robert Canning.
Secular Scotland,
58a Broughton Street,
Edinburgh.
Grab Brexit opportunities
Sir, – Scottish Government export figures again demonstrate that the internal market of the union is functioning well with more than four times the value of goods and services sold to the rest of the UK compared to what we sell to the whole of the EU.
Not only are the figures consistent with previous years, the trend for a falling share of the anaemic EU market continues unabated.
However, the main reason for success in the UK market should not be a surprise,
We are in a well-functioning 300-year internal market which has a level playing field for Scottish businesses.
The other option is being a member of an increasing dysfunctional EU which focuses on bureaucracy, regulations, hidden technical barriers between countries and operates with a different currency.
This is especially true when one considers Scotland has little or no clout in Europe as we represent only 1% of the population and 1.2% of the GDP.
Rather than the inward-looking Nicola Sturgeon hitching her SNP bandwagon to a faltering EU in an attempt to break the union, she should put Scotland first and embrace the Brexit negotiations and join a bold Theresa May in making us a part of a vibrant and global Britain.
Ian Lakin.
Pinelands,
Murtle Den Road,
Milltimber.
Single market confusion
Sir, – It appears it is your correspondent Steven Lyall (February 2) who is confused about single markets and the Scottish Government’s position.
Theresa May recently stated that she wants a UK: “….that reaches out to old friends and new allies alike. A great, global trading nation. And one of the firmest advocates for free trade anywhere in the world. That starts with our close friends and neighbours in Europe. So as a priority, we will pursue a bold and ambitious free-trade agreement with the European Union.”
Mr Lyall is surely not stating that this applies to every nation on the planet except Scotland?
If so he has no credibility.
This is not an either or scenario.
What the Scottish Government wants is to continue trading as freely as possible with its two biggest markets.
Scotland is open for business.
However, what dismays me most about this false argument is that, whenever a vested interest tells Scotland it cannot do something, unionists always side with the bullies.
Henry Malcolm.
331 Clepington Road,
Dundee.
Value of union is evident
Sir, – A momentous event took place in the House of Commons last week.
Stephen Gethins MP told the Brexit debate: “I want to see us continue with research, trade, political alliances going back centuries, and where sharing sovereignty is a good thing.”
It was refreshing to hear an SNP spokesman make such an excellent case for the pooling and sharing that characterises the United Kingdom.
I hope that we will hear more from the SNP about the value and virtues of our union in these islands, and that they can now, in maturity, abandon the childish separatism that has defined them for all too long.
Jill Stephenson.
Glenlockhart Valley,
Edinburgh.
Democracy being ignored
Sir, – Those arguing for a second EU referendum on the detail of the eventual deal, should reflect on how they would have felt if Remain had won the day but Brexiteers were now arguing for another vote to try to overturn the result.
I voted Remain, but it seems wrong not to accept the democratic decision.
The UK Government has to manage all matters reserved to Westminster, including implementing the result of a UK referendum. The SNP appears to not only want to ignore the UK Government’s remit when it seeks to overturn the EU referendum result but also to try to exploit it further by threatening to revisit the 2014 Scottish independence referendum result.
Keith Howell.
White Moss,
West Linton.
Engineering misunderstood
Sir, – In his review of the new Mini convertible, Jack McKeown incorrectly described the marginal difference in handling is due to the effect of the vehicle not having a roof as: “…removing the roof makes the body less flexible…”
A moment’s thought would reveal that removing the roof from a monocoque-bodied vehicle lessens the rigidity. Imagine taking the lid from a biscuit tin. This allows the base to flex. Try it.
To counter this effect, additional strengthening is usually added to the structure, which along with the hood’s electric motors, adds weight, but rarely eliminates completely the flexing of the body.
This is usually referred to as scuttle shake, the scuttle being the structure beneath the windscreen at the back of the bonnet.
David Churchill.
2 Kirktonhill Road,
Kirriemuir.
Perth lights
The letter by Bob Cairns (February 6) incorrectly stated the cost of the Perth Christmas lights switch on as £21,600. The correct figure is £216,000. We apologise for the error.