How can the R&A possibly be open to returning to Trump Turnberry?

The Herald Scotland

28-04-2025

Aside from querying whether the SEHRC's remit extends to commentary on economic policy, it is worth pointing out that the Supreme Court seemed to take completely the opposite view. The judges ruled that a biological man cannot expect to join a club with for example a lesbian-only policy even if they have a gender recognition certificate saying they are a woman.
In other words the exclusion of women from membership of a private club solely for men was legitimate. This has now been confirmed by the EHRC itself which issued interim guidance last week which stated that 'a men-only or gay men-only association should not admit trans men (biological women)'.
Ironically, whilst the Open itself is only open to male entrants, women were not being denied access to Muirfield to attend the event or to use club facilities or even to play the course. So it wasn't exactly a single sex space as implied by the SEHRC. Nor has anybody suggested that the treatment of women within their premises by the male membership of Muirfield was anything other than honourable. Yet that was still not sufficient to permit them to have their course used for the Open.
Fast forward nine years and last week we had the R&A stating that it is considering the prospect of holding the Open at Turnberry despite the fact that the course is owned by a man who has been ordered to pay damages for sexually assaulting a woman and who made an infamous comment about enjoying grabbing their genitals when asked for his views on women.
If respect for women was the key criterion used in 2016 for awarding the Open Championship to a particular course, then can somebody in the R&A please explain to me why using a course owned by somebody regarded by many as an infamous abuser of women could be deemed to be acceptable in 2025?
Robert Menzies, Falkirk.
Read more letters
Why Edinburgh beats Glasgow
I always enjoy reading articles by your Business Editor Ian McConnell, especially as his consistently pro-EU views are similar to mine. I especially enjoyed his article on the new head of Glasgow Airport, Kam Jandu ('Airport boss reveals hopes for Dubai flights expansion', The Herald, April 23). However, when Mr McConnell asked the new chief as to why Edinburgh Airport has increased its market share at the expense of Glasgow his answer was "because more airlines took the decision to fly from Edinburgh". This is no reason. As metro Glasgow has almost three times the population of Edinburgh, it is logical to think that Glasgow would have more passengers, but this is not the case (8.2 million to 15m).
In my opinion, there are three main reasons for this. Firstly, the eastern half of Greater Glasgow has better or equal access to Edinburgh Airport.
Secondly, as Edinburgh is the national capital, it generates more trips of a political or business nature.
Finally, average per capita income is higher in Edinburgh than in Glasgow. More people can afford to travel more often. Glasgow Airport, to the west of the city, is simply in the wrong location.
Iain Campbell Aird, Dunoon.
Don't they care about older people?
Kathleen Nutt rightly applauds the fact that in Scotland (unlike England and Northern Ireland) screening for cancer starts at age 50 ("Here's one good reason I'm glad I moved to Scotland", The Herald, April 23). I personally know a couple of people whose lives have been saved by this policy.
The age limits at the other end, however, are rarely up for discussion. Those within the favoured age group are repeatedly urged to take advantage of the offers of screening for breast and bowel cancer. There was media outrage a few years ago when an administrative error meant that a number of women in their late sixties had not been called in for testing: 'Lives might be at risk.'
Yet we septuagenarians (who are at ever-increasing risk from cancer) are peremptorily swept under the radar.
Of course universal screening is expensive. Excuses are proffered about older people being less likely to turn up for appointments or about lack of evidence as to whether screening in older age groups saves lives.
However the suspicion is that these restrictions have to do with our having already had our allotted lifespan. This plus the fact that most of us are no longer net contributors to the economy, whatever we may have done in the years before.
Mary McCabe, Glasgow.
Edinburgh Airport (Image: PA)
Religion and science do mix
According to Carlos Alba ("So we may not be alone... now what does that do to religion?", The Herald, May 23), 'the theistic argument rests on the notion that the starting point for life could only have come from a higher intelligence. It exploits the self-imposed limits applied by science which, unlike with religion, doesn't base its findings on absolutes.'
James Quinn (Letters, April 24) addresses some of Mr Alba's misrepresentations of religion; I would like to address another.
The article seems based on the erroneous idea that science and a religious belief are incompatible. Now for some this is undeniably true. However history shows that western science, at least in part, grew from believers, Christian, Jewish and Muslim, searching to make sense of the world. There are many, many scientists who are, or were, practising Christians. Their (and others') discoveries and work didn't and don't cause them to lose faith. I invite readers to visit Wikipedia and look for "list of Christians in science and technology" to confirm for many, perhaps most, believers that science and "religion" are complementary.
If, or probably when, extra-terrestrial life is proven beyond doubt, sorry Carlos, but it's not going to sound the death knell of religion.
Alastair Clark, Stranraer.