Sir, – I read with some disbelief (February 19) that the cycling lobby is angling to have the law changed so that any accident involving cyclist and car will mean that the motorist will always be to blame. This is mad.
Many groups in society wish they were abovethe law, but must then face reality.
Cyclists are not all saints. I have seen many crazy acts by bike users in fast or heavy traffic, where they mostcertainly put themselves at risk by their actions.
I have seen the reverse, of course, when motorists endanger cyclists.
Any incidents must surely be looked at on a case-by-case basis. I have, as a pedestrian, suffered some near misses by both crazy motorists and equally crazy cyclists.
In the latter case, the cyclists have usually been on the same stretch of pavement as myself and they have given no warnings of their approach.
We have all also seen the number of cyclists who, after dark, ride around our streets in dark clothing andwithout lights.
Surely they must be at fault in any collision?
I will close by saying I do not hold a driving licence and so have no axe to grind on behalf of car drivers.
Dave Mackie. 41 Elm Street, Dundee.
Good, bad and opinions
Sir, – Ron Aitken(February 23) is right that good morals don’t depend on religion. In truth, the latter arose from the former, not vice-versa. It was easier for rulers to persuade people their ideas had a supernatural origin than to reason with them.
All religions are human inventions.
The word morality comes from the Latin mores, meaning customs. Whether these are good or bad is a matterof opinion, which varies between areas and over time, even within one religion.
This is seen withJudaism in the Hebrew scriptures. God’sbehaviour changesradically over time.
It also happened with Christianity. Its founder, Paul, told slaves toobey their masters and deemed women inferior to men.
There is no reason to suppose that he, Jesus or the evangelists thought differently or rejected the tenets of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as to morals and punishments.
Ever since, Christians have disagreed (often violently) on ethics as well as theology.
As late as the 19thCentury many, including Anglicans, Catholics and Presbyterians, supported slavery because theBible condones it. They continued to oppose equal rights for women long afterwards. Some still do.
Disagreements oncurrent issues abound. The Russian church says Putin was sent by God and most of its members fully support his ideas and actions. Theirpredecessors fullysupported tyranny and persecution of Jews.
European Christians are deeply divided over the refugee crisis.
Millions of American Protestants want Donald Trump to be president yet the Pope says his ideas are not Christian, at all. Many Christianshere agree.
Euan Bremner. 115 Minto Street, Edinburgh.
Striking shot of sea eagle
Sir, – I was thrilled to see the close-up photograph of a sea eagle, in flight, that you published on the front cover of the Weekend magazine on Saturday, but the wild effect was totally ruined by the two turquoise tags on its wings.
They made it look like a domestic bird, licensed to fly by mankind. But it really was a striking photo.
Ronald Dalglish. East Third, Auchterarder.
But this is not my Auntie
Sir, – Recent correspondence concerning the BBC and Scotland seems more than a little confused.
The political issueconcerns devolving licence fees for Scottish viewers, thus according to the ScottishGovernment boosting revenues by some £60 million for reinvestment in providing a morerelevant service.
The other issueconcerns the currentservice provided by the corporation. The main source of criticism is the BBC news output, which has become increasingly more metro-centric since devolution.
The so-called national news has recently been dominated by such items as the junior doctors’ strike, the Londonmayoral election and a variety of educational matters in England.
None of these are at all applicable to Scotland, as indeed is the vast amount of sporting news, dominated by considerable outpourings of English Premier League football and cricket.
The Scottish Beeb has numerous, excellent and skilled individuals within its ranks who have on more than one occasion been overrun by the arrival of the London-based contingent to take over coverage of items which they deem to be of national importance.
Scotland deserves, nay requires, a service which is apposite to our nation.
That is blatantlyobvious to the majorityof Scots.
Colin Mayall. 5a East High Street, Crieff.
EU issue flags up national sham
Sir, – During the Scottish independence referendum, yes supporters like myself were widely criticised for stating that a no vote would imperil Scotland’s place in the European Union, and yet, here we are with an EU referendum upon us.
As with the General Election last May,Scotland once again finds its political future in the hands of English voters.
This United Kingdom, this so-called partnership of equals, is a sham, a mockery of democracy. Every single Scottish voter could vote to stay in the EU (or vice-versa) and it would still be no guarantee that the will of the Scottish electorate is respected.
As long as Scotland is locked into this unequal United Kingdom,Scotland’s future will always be at the mercyof others.
RMF Brown. Hill Terrace, Markinch.
Cash would flow to UK instead
Sir, – The public are not aware of the spendthrift EU and the money it rakes in from countries.
The United Kingdom is the second-highest contributor with a net payment of £10.4 billion this year and £9.5bnnext year.
Let’s cut out the EU middleman and pay farmers and others direct from Britain and we would have the £9.5bnto spend on our own infrastructure, schools, hospitals, armed forces and police.
It is time to leavethe dictatorial,unaccountable andcorrupt EU.
Dan Arnott. St Brycedale Court, Kirkcaldy.
EU riddled with corruption
Sir, – Why should the United Kingdom remain in Europe?
Nobody seems to be questioning why a rational nation or asovereign country would wish to be net contributors to, and also legally and financially locked into, an institutionwhich is reported to be so riddled with corruption that, not once since its inception, has it been able to produce any audited accounts.
You need a very long spoon when supping at this table.
John Steel. Lochbank House, Blairgowrie.
First Minister’s second chance
Sir, – I am absolutely delighted that we are finally going to have a referendum on Europe in June.
I am also delighted that Boris Johnson is backing the leavecampaign. I think that will really enhance it, and I congratulatethe courage of thecabinet members for declaring their intention to leave.
The only disappointment I have is that Nicola Sturgeon has threatened us with anotherreferendum if she does not get her own way.
But what she said on the Andrew Marr show was laughable: she thinks a referendum “would be the demand of people in Scotland”.
Seventeen months ago the decision of thepeople of Scotland wasto vote no to anindependent Scotland.
At the time we were told that this would be a once-in-a-generation opportunity.
Scotland is part of the UK and this European referendum is to decide whether the UK stays in or leaves; she has no right to dictate likethis and use another independencereferendum like a weapon. She does not represent the majorityof the people ofScotland.
I hope that aclear majority inScotland votes to leave the EU and then shewill have to acceptthe decision of thepeople of Scotland.
Gordon Kennedy. 117 Simpson Square, Perth.