Lost diplomacy

I assume that Professor Kennedy (Letters, 14 October) and his supporters, Messrs Birkett and Wardrop (16 October) have experience of negotiations. It seems to have been different from mine, leading to different conclusions.

I had the privilege of working on the staff side of the negotiating table and then on the management side later in my career. I also had experience of getting US regulations changed in Washington and draft regulations changed in London and Brussels to fit the UK or Scottish interests better. I remember, in Brussels, justifying an enhanced rate of grant for fishing vessels in the West and North of Scotland. The Commission argued in jest the that those areas had the consolation of the best malts in the world. Whether my arguments impressed or not probably didn’t matter. Like as not the Commission yielded to the political clout of Mrs Thatcher’s EU Commissioner, Lord Cockfield.

I find it surprising that your correspondents imply that the EU laying out its various priorities and positions is inappropriate. My experience was of staff laying out what it wanted in terms of pay and conditions and management coming back with their offer. It did not change when I got a better seat at the table. Equally in Washington, London and Brussels, each side had its version of what should be, leading eventually to agreement, grudging or not.

I suspect, however, that none of our views on process will count for anything. Unfortunately, UK skills in diplomacy seem to have vanished. Ministers detect opponents and enemies among Nato and EU allies (if not friends). Nor can we count on the equivalent of Lord Cockfield’s clout from our disengaged Commissioners. Subtle and informed negotiation by our Brexit Ministers and their officials is needed, not excessive political noise from whatever source.

LV MCEWAN St Albans Road, Edinburgh As if David Davis was not already failing miserably he is now being recommended negotiating strategies by your Brexit-favouring correspondents. The three strands of the initial discussions were accepted by UK on Day One and the fact they have not turned out all right on the night has nothing to do with any inflexibility on the part of EU. We have no upper hand in the balance of trade and services as the EU represents 44 per cent of our total whereas it is only 18 per cent of their total and spread across 27 countries. Further, to suggest a word on the quiet with their industrialists to watch out for our tariffs is complete hokum. The German car manufacturers, French wine producers and other usual suspects are what they are because of the EU single market. They are already preparing for a worst case hard Brexit. This confirms they see more benefit in the single market being continued throughout the rest of Europe together with their Eu-associated worldwide deals rather than any local difficulty over new UK tariffs, which, incidentally, would be paid by our consumers.

The last resort seems to be to remind them of the UK part in the world wars. It is a disservice to those who fell or who took part to suggest that some 70 to 100 years later their participation was based on some financial recompense to their descendants. How much should we offer the former Empire and Commonwealth countries, let alone Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, in return for new trade deals on the basis of our past indiscretions?

The first basic rule of negotiation – which, if unfulfilled, will almost certainly lead to failure, is to have a definite intention as to what you wish to achieve and in this respect the Cabinet alone, never mind the entire country, is completely divided. GRAHAM HAY

Player Green Livingston, West Lothian The discussion topics of trade, customs duties, borders, travel, resident rights and exit payments are all interlinked and it was naive of Theresa May and her hapless negotiators ever to accept a Brussels agenda which tried to reach full agreement on some matters before starting on others. Was she advised at that stage by the same experts who proposed the sudden general election?

Our final payments will depend partly on contractual contributions and partly on the duration and outcome of negotiations. Recent brief letters to The Scotsman from Mr Birkett, Dr Wardrop and Professor Smyth have contained more common sense than we had previously seen in hours of TV time and newsprint. Is there a chance that the latter could be persuaded to take over the task of chief negotiator?

COLIN EVANS Netherby Road, Edinburgh