Scottish Parliament, not Whitehall, should determine its own post-brexit world
I read Adam Tomkins’ piece on Brexit and devolution with some hope that I might get more of a clue as to which new powers we might expect to be devolved as part of the deal over the Repeal Act (‘Avoiding a Brexit power grab crisis’, Scotsman, November 8).
With the exception of aviation noise, which as he admits is hardly a key issue, there was none. An incredible disappointment.
Even the offer to negotiate the terms of the new common frameworks was set very firmly in terms of respect for the UK single market, whatever that is.
Where is the vision we expect from Tory members of the Scottish Parliament? What are they going to do to make sure the Scottish Parliament is no more than an implementing agency for decisions taken in Whitehall?
Where, crucially, is the freedom to innovate with new policy solutions, something the Parliament had done very well since its inception.
Instead of focusing on the narrow agenda set by the hard Brexiteers, the Scottish Parliament should be concentrating on a positive agenda for a strong Scottish Parliament in whatever constitutional world we find ourselves in the 2020s.
The European Movement in Scotland has put forward a very positive agenda fort heart 50 negotiations, which would see the Parliament driving Scottish cooperation with key EU programmes such as innovation,low carbon and student exchange.
Crucially, powers over the right to work and study should be devolved to Scotland to allow it to keep growing our population to help it meet demographic challenges and protect and expand our tax base. The key must be growing our economy in a socially inclusive manner.
Sadly from the second biggest party in the Scottish Parliament we hear none of this, simply bribes about how we can get some of the scraps from the ever shrinking table.
Not good enough Professor Tomkins, you’re on two-two or even third degree level ground here.
COLIN IMRIE Independent EU Policy Analyst,
Moray Place, Edinburgh With all the ‘noise’ around Brexit, it would be easy to imagine that there is no hope of agreement on anything to do with it among our own politicians, let alone with those across the other EU states.
So it was a pleasant relief to read Adam Tomkins’ thoughtful and balanced piece setting out how at least on one issue, namely getting agreement with devolved administrations over the EU Withdrawal Bill, there is an opportunity for common sense to prevail.
Mr tom kins is a conservative MSP but before those who do not sit on his end of the political spectrum decide they are not interested in what he has to say, they should note that he is a professor in public law, and his approach to this issue is to recognise the common ground and to build on that.
He believes the use of mutually agreed ‘common frameworks’ could provide an answer to those who fear Scotland’s interests are at risk, as well as those concerned that the UK single market could be otherwise undermined.
His approach recognises the perspectives of both sides and also concedes that many issues could safely bed evolved directly and should be.
Let us hope that the range of self-interests that dominate the position of so many on Brexit do not stand in the way of getting this issue resolved.
If so, it might then be an idea to ask Mr Tomkins if he could lend a hand in the continuing negotiations between the UK and theeu that at times appear to be primarily used for grandstanding before the media.
KEITH HOWELL West Linton, Peeblesshire