MAY I correct an inadvertent error in your article “MacAskill reported over Lockerbie book” (The National, May 17)?

The article implied that the material in my own book, “Adequately Explained by Stupidity? Lockerbie, Luggage and Lies” was included by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in its six grounds for believing that the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing might have been a miscarriage of justice. This is not the case.

The six grounds cited by the SCCRC in its 2007 report all relate to the identification of Megrahi as the man who bought the clothes packed around the bomb.

As your article correctly observed, Megrahi’s actual appearance differed wildly from the witness Tony Gauci’s original description of the purchaser, and the weather conditions (and incidentally evidence relating to the Christmas lights in the town) placed the purchase on a day when there is no evidence Megrahi was even on Malta.This flawed identification was absolutely fundamental to the original conviction of Megrahi in 2001, and Mr MacAskill’s repudiation of the identification in his forthcoming book is thus of enormous significance.

My own book deals principally with a different aspect of the case, that of the method by which the bomb suitcase was introduced into the airline baggage system.

This analysis was not carried out until after the SCCRC had completed its investigation, and thus it was not included in its 2007 report.

The issue is however now assuming overwhelming importance.

It appears that both Kenny MacAskill and Alex Salmond (on Scotland Tonight, May 16) now accept that Megrahi did not buy these clothes, nevertheless they continue to insist that he was “involved somehow”, based principally on his presence at Malta airport on the morning of the disaster.

The original Lockerbie investigation believed that the bomb suitcase was smuggled on to an Air Malta flight at that time.This belief was however fundamentally mistaken, based on a flawed and incomplete analysis of the recovered crash debris.

Careful analysis of the blast-damaged suitcases and adjacent items shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the bomb was in a suitcase seen in the baggage container at Heathrow an hour before the connecting flight from Frankfurt landed.

Mr MacAskill is thus incorrect in his assertion that “there is no suggestion” that the bomb suitcase was not transferred to the Pan Am feeder flight at Frankfurt. The evidence for this having happened is extremely questionable. The evidence for the bomb’s presence at Heathrow is, in contrast, well-nigh irrefutable. This being the case, not only did Megrahi not buy the clothes, he was a thousand miles away from the actual scene of the crime.

I do not know who carried out the Lockerbie bombing, still less who masterminded it.

It is plain that this will never be known until the authorities understand that they need to be looking for people who were in London in the afternoon, not on Malta in the morning.

Morag Kerr, West Linton

Kenny MacAskill reported to police over claims about Lockerbie bombing trial

Correct me if I’m wrong. Justice for Megrahi have asked police to look at claims made in MacAskill’s book, which they feel support claims that they themselves already believe, and which the police are currently investigating. They have not reported MacAskill to anyone, despite the misleading headline.

Gordon Kemp

WHEN Donald Trump’s first announced his run for President it was universally considered a bad joke (cat Boyd: Could US election help shatter our illusions about American power, The National, May 17). Ronald Reagan was consistently and radically underestimated as a potential political force by the national media, public intellectuals, DC insiders. Something similar is happening with Donald Trump.

Trump is the natural culmination of the entire Reagan revolution. The French revolution’s slogan was “liberty, equality, fraternity.” The Reagan revolution’s guiding principles have been “stupidity, celebrity, plutocracy”—and Trump is the ultimate example of all three. Under Reagan, movement conservatism became an aggressively stupid ideology: one which has celebrated the plain wisdom of the common people over the know-it-all arrogance of the elites. The message is: vote for this guy not despite his ignorance, but because of it. Ignorance is strength, in other words.

Electing Donald Trump president would be as insane as electing Kim Kardashian president, and for the same reasons. He’s a reality TV star, and that is all he is. But in America in 2016, the cult of celebrity, like the cult of stupidity, is so all-encompassing that being famous for being famous is a sufficient basis for winning a major party’s Presidential nomination, at least if that party is the party of Reagan, the know-nothing B-movie star who took the Whitehouse. Trump’s ascendancy marks the triumph of plutocracy in its purest form. Ronald Reagan hated government, and loved business, to the point where he helped create our national infatuation with the idea of the heroic businessman, who may have no idea what an administrative agency is or how to find Mexico on a map, but who knows how to Get Things Done.

Alan Hinnrichs, Dundee

WHY the rush to begin formal education so early? We talk about children starting school in Scotland aged 5. In fact the children’s ages span 4 years 6 months to 5 years 6 months.

When we are living longer and working longer, possibly to 70 and beyond, a good nurturing education should be every child’s right. We need to consider not only a child’s intellectual development but also their mental health and their ability to take a confident place in society.

When those countries who score highly in the Pisa tests [rankings from the OECD which compare the test results of 15 year olds in different countries and regional education systems], Finland, Sweden and even Shanghai in China, all have a later start to formal education, what on earth are the comparisons worth?

The Curriculum for Excellence will not solve this. Once children leave nursery the uniforms are on. The adult:child ratio goes down. The expectations are there. Pity the child who cannot conform to this. Imagine labelling a child of 4 and a half immature. Are we crazy?

We have researched methods of teaching reading, writing and maths intensively for years but still something is missing. Could it be that a longer time to build the foundations of these skills through play is the missing link.

Children who show interest in reading etc could still be encouraged. Parents who need cover to work a full day could be supported, so just what is stopping us?

Jennie Smith, Limekilns, Fife

DEPENDING upon who you believe, Britain’s net contribution to the EU is about £12 billion, which is the same as what our government spends on providing shopping trips for dictators’ wives – also known as foreign aid – let’s say £24 billion in total, which is £387 for every single person in the UK if we stopped paying both.

Then the recent £365bn of UK quantitative easing – also known as printing money – was about £6,000 for every single person in the UK.

That’s £24,000 for a family of four. Where did yours go?

In Europe, the European Central Bank’s own quantitative easing of €1.3 trillion is now complete, equal to €3,000 per head. I wonder where their money went.

So the real question is who benefits from this saving and largesse, all of it allegedly issued for the benefit of the people.

Maybe we are all the wrong type of person?

Malcolm Parkin, Kinnesswood, Kinross