Exports likely to grow faster within EU market than a smaller UK market
The simplistic comparison of 60 per cent UK versus 15 per cent EU export figures for Scotland employed by Chris Rix (Letters, 22 December) and those supporting Brexit as justification for arguing that Scotland would be better served economically by remaining in the UK, rather than the EU, is misguided, to say the least, and rivals vacuous statements proclaiming an annual deficit of £15 billion if Scotland were to become independent.
Of course, it is not surprising that some mischievous commentators present such figures as facts without mentioning the many assumptions that underpin them, but some minimal research would convince others that serious decisions should not be based on such numbers. Honest answers to the following questions might help to elucidate matters:
What portion of the 60 per cent of Scottish exports is destined for countries outside of RUK and what portion of these is destined for the EU?
Whatever the answer, and I would deduce that the UK/ EU numbers are significantly closer than 60/15, it would seem logical that future exports will likely grow faster within an EU market than within a much smaller UK market, irrespective of the outcomes of post-brexit trade negotiations with countries outside of Europe and through any transition period and beyond.
Who believes that a future independent Scottish Government would continue with the same policies as the current UK government, and in addition accept a portion of UK debt, and resultant interest payments, without claiming its commensurate share of assets?
Certainly whatever date is set for Scotland’s official “Independence Day”, some “transition arrangements” in areas such as Trident are likely to sensibly apply, but undoubtedly future economic policies will be focused to reflect Scottish aspirations and societal concerns.
An independent Scottish Government would certainly do a better job of representing the views of the whole population than current Holyrood opposition party leaders who, in spite of their previous assertions, now contradictorily appear only interested in representing the views of the 38 per cent of the electorate in Scotland who voted for Brexit.
STAN GRODYNSKI Longniddry, East Lothian
An expert at Edinburgh University has called Nicola Sturgeon’s Brexit paper “shallow”, “dishonest” and “questionable”, as well as “all but impossible” to implement.
This is pretty much what we have come to expect from the SNP – the 2013 White Paper belonged to the same genre. If it is to stage another referendum, its record of dishonesty must be exposed.
SNP leaders must be prepared to admit publicly that Scots do not pay for infrastructure projects in London, and that Scottish exports exiting the UK from English ports are not counted as English exports.
These are falsehoods propagated by SNP MPS, among others, and form part of the SNP’S case for separation. Public repudiation of these falsehoods would clear the way for a cleaner campaign than there was in 2014.
JILL STEPHENSON Glenlockhart Valley, Edinburgh
One thing is clear from the Scottish Government’s Brexit plans, the SNP will not respect the outcome of any referendum that does not deliver the result it wanted. Whether it was the No answer to the 2014 independence referendum, or the Leave answer to the 2016 EU referendum, Nicola Sturgeon and the rest of the SNP leadership almost immediately moved on to start thinking of ways of effectively overturning the result or otherwise engineering a re-run.
Will the First Minister guarantee that if she does call a second independence referendum and the result is to stay in the United Kingdom, she will set aside any thoughts of a further referendum for at least a generation?
Or did she say that once already?
KEITH HOWELL West Linton, Peeblesshire