Does it make sense?
Skinner’s hypothesis is certainly interesting. According to the Guardian article, Skinner wants his claims to be tested by other scholars. He feels “85% certain” that he is right. Calling for critical feedback from other experts and admitting that there is a chance that one is wrong sound like serious scientiffic work to me. After all, there are far too many Voynich scholars for whom being wrong seems to be beyond their imagination.
On the other hand, I have serious doubts about the quality of Stephen Skinner’s scientific abilities. When I took a look at his publication list on Wikipedia, I got quite confused. Apparently, Skinner has written non-critical books about all kinds of esoteric nonsense. He authored more than a dozen books about Feng Shui (a Chinese philosophical system that contradicts the known laws of Physics) and is even credited with bringing Feng Shui to the West. Other books he published bear titles like Terrestrial Astrology, Nostradamus: Prophecies of the World’s Greatest Seer, and Techniques of High Magic. As a skeptic and supporter of scientific methods, I’m very suspicious about the work of a scholar who seems to have spent half of his life writing books that take pseudo-scientific methods seriously.
If a reader can say more about the validity of Stephen Skinner’s claims, I would be interested to know.
Further reading: Does the Voynich manuscript show the solar eclipse of April 15, 1409?