Good Brexit with more devolved powers would be bad for SNP

LETTERS

THE raging debate about Brexit reminds me of a dictum which states, “In war, the first casualty is truth”. At one end we have the SNP, which desires to retain full membership of the EU and at the other end there are the hard Brexiters who want nothing to do with the EU and instead wish to solely rely on World Trade Organisation rules; more akin to a Singapore default position.

First, most people understand that remaining as a full member of the single market is not a serious option as that would mean no change, which is contrary to what people voted for in the EU referendum. Equally, most Leavers did not vote for a hard Brexit.

The majority of people who voted for Brexit wanted to get immigration under control, to return laws and law making to Westminster and to remain in a position to continue to trade freely with the EU whilst in a position to negotiate directly with other countries without seeking EU approval.

Whether variations of the Norwegian or Swiss models (soft Brexits) could be agreed is also highly debatable, given the requirement to sign up to the free movement of people, pay a hefty annual fee and so on. Furthermore, for the UK to remain in the customs union (which would resolve the

Irish border issue at a stroke) the EU would have to drop its insistence on having the ability to veto separate UK trade deals; not insurmountable given goodwill on both sides.

Failing the above, the UK could negotiate a bespoke Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU similar to Canada (CETA) but with a much more comprehensive agreement as we already comply with all the rules and regulations. The problem for the SNP is that none of the Unionist parties will agree for it to have any direct involvement with negotiations simply because the Nationalists would in effect be sitting at the wrong side of the table.

Indeed, a successful Brexit outcome with more devolved power and control of our fishing grounds would be bad news for the Nationalists, putting them in a very difficult position as only a minority of people in Scotland would vote to hand back any recently gained powers from Brussels.

Let us hope as events unfold that the truth for the various scenarios of a good Brexit outcome becomes clearer rather than becomes lost in the fog of heated debate and dogma; after, all our very future is at stake.

Ian Lakin,

Pinelands,

Murtle Den Road, Milltimber, Aberdeen.

MARTIN Redfern joins the crowd waxing on about a potential transfer to the devolved Scottish Parliament of fisheries and agriculture under Brexit, as if to draw attention away from more important aspects (Letters, June 23).

How could such extra powers be a double-edged sword for Nicola Sturgeon when she wants full powers under independence? What evidence is there that Scots have become so satisfied with the muchlauded transfer of tax powers, that they are content to wallow under what Mr Redfern describes as the “comfort blanket of the UK”; what a preposterous notion.

Does he regard £160 billion of borrowing the last Labour government left, of which we “inherited” our share of some

£15bn still to be repaid, as our comfort blanket, when it became described as Scotland’s deficit? In the post-war years successive Westminster governments poured extra money into Scotland to thwart the rise of the Nationalists. That seems like a joke now. So, is he on the side of the English Conservative MPs at Scottish Questions in the Commons when they ask: for how much longer are our taxpayers going to have to subsidise these Jocks?

The significance of Theresa May’s de-prioritising paying down the debt was that, when she cut English services, there would be consequential reductions for Scotland, too – and it would never do to have her name attached to that at this perilous time of Brexit and the allegedly intransigent SNP.

There will be nothing flawed about Scottish independence in the shadow of the breakdown of the UK Brexit negotiations, which will serve to boost the case.

Douglas R Mayer, 76 Thomson Crescent, Currie, Midlothian.

THERESA May has shown she is a gambler by taking the country through a general election she expected to win with a landslide. At least she had placed an each-way bet on the outcome and, as a result, she has secured the future of a Conservative Government until at least 2022, rather than 2020.

In addition to being a gambler, Mrs May has shown herself to be a magician by pulling a rabbit out of the hat in the form of guaranteeing the future of EU citizens living in the UK (“EU citizens can stay in UK after Brexit day, vows May”, The Herald, June 23). She does appear to be more effective as a magician than a gambler. She successfully distracted her audience by overturning a House of Lords decision to guarantee the rights of EU citizens within three months of article 50 being triggered and then surprised us by delivering these rights just as the clock was ticking down. Time will tell whether or not this is merely an illusion or a skilfully executed conjuring trick.

Sandy Gemmill,

40 Warriston Gardens, Edinburgh.

THOSE predicting a rosy future for the UK after Brexit, owning to our soft-power influence and Commonwealth friends of the past, should look at the vote in the UN regarding the dispute between Mauritius and the UK about the status of the Chagos Islands.

The vote to send the issue to

The Hague went heavily against the UK (94-15); only four EU members supported the UK out of 27. The United States, which is the main beneficiary of the British policy of hiving off the Chagos Islands from Mauritius while Mauritius was still a colony also supported the UK.

I was in beautiful Mauritius when it gained its independence. Most of the UN backed Mauritius or abstained. The British position that it will return the islands to Mauritius when no longer required for military use is a con trick. The US will never give it up.

The problem for the UK is a lack of international support. We are leaving the EU so it no longer provides diplomatic muscle. We regarded the Mauritian complaint as ex-colonial whinging, which saw most past colonies distance themselves from us.

Why, given this mentality, do people still think the old Commonwealth will be a soft touch for trade or diplomatic support in future?

G R Weir,

17 Mill Street, Ochiltree.