Lords debate
BOB Bertram’s letter (29 October) and David Maddox’s article (28 October) condemning bishops in the House of Lords debating on matters of UK-wide concern prompts appraisal of a related anomaly: that of English internal matters having the benefit (if it is so deemed) of a revisory debate in a second chamber whereas Scottish domestic matters do not.
If further devolution is realised it would at least be consistent if bills passed in Edinburgh similarly went to the Lords for discussion (whether or not in a reformed House).
Many countries favour a bicameral system and if we are going to continue to do so in a federal arrangement, this should apply to all four nations. Canongate Edinburgh on the harm it does to tourism and he could have pointed out that it adds to costs for individuals, businesses and the price of goods.
On the other hand, one of its purposes was to discourage air travel and thereby reduce emissions as part of the UK’s commitment to the targets of the Climate Change Acts and it is strongly supported by green lobby groups.
Yet neither side seems to attempt to balance or rationalise the differing views. The Scottish Government is particularly caught in this dilemma, having authored world-leading emission reduction targets going further than anywhere else in the world. Yet it wants to encourage tourism and prosperity.
I have good news to help it resolve its tricky position. The central prediction by many scientists was that increased CO2 emissions would lead to dangerous increased temperatures.
In contrast to those expectations, global mean temperature has not risen for 18 years. An increasing amount of scientific literature points to temperature not being so responsive to emissions as we were told.
APD is just one example where policy and taxes have been influenced by “evidence” which has proved to be wrong. There are many more where green lobby groups and gullible politicians have overreacted to climate hysteria. It is time to suspend the Climate Change Acts. City Chambers
Edinburgh