Government must answer key economic questions over EU
DAVID Torrance (“May is killing the crusade for independence with kindness”, The Herald, July 18) rightly points out that there will be no EU “special” deal for Scotland and that the First Minister and her advisors are now “basically gearing up to accept an argument that for Scotland to enter the EU it must first leave the UK” – in complete contrast to the SNP’s previous position as argued by Alex Salmond. So what does this mean?
First and foremost we would want to know what currency an independent Scotland would use. For example would it be a Scottish pound with its own central bank and a lender of last resort facility and if so, for how long before adopting the euro and forging closer fiscal and political union with the EU which after all is a prerequisite for all new members? Only the UK and Denmark have opt-out clauses.
Then there is the matter of trade, whereby we would be subject to hard negotiations having to take into account our market with the rest of the UK is four times the whole of the EU. In addition there would be increased costs to transport (road tolls) our goods through a foreign country to reach our markets to consider.
Furthermore, we would want to understand what form of costly border controls would be required to control people movement and minimise unlawful trading of goods between the north and south.
However, the biggest challenge for Ms Sturgeon to overcome is to explain to the Scottish people how she could even begin serious discussions with the EU when our fiscal deficit is three times the requirement for membership. Anyone doubting the resolve of the EU for strict monetary policy should hardly need reminding of how the European “troika” dealt with Greece and the latest announcement by the European Commission (in May this year) that it wished to “punish” Spain and Portugal for breaching deficit rules.
Unless Ms Sturgeon can come up with believable answers to these basic questions there is little prospect of her risking another referendum for the foreseeable future. Ian Lakin, Pinelands, Murtle Den Road, Milltimber, Aberdeen. NICOLA Sturgeon purports to represent all the people of Scotland. May I remind her, then, that 55 per cent of the population voted to remain in the United Kingdom and that as such we are all members of the Union and still British?
I was therefore particularly surprised that in her parlour at Bute House where she received our new Prime Minister, Teresa May on Friday (“May offers Sturgeon major role in talks to leave the EU”, The Herald, July 16) not only had she emulated the American obsession of displaying a flag on either side of her fireplace but both of them were Saltires. Is she deliberately sending out the message that the First Minister’s residence is a bastion of nationalism and therefore not representative of us all or was she deliberately trying to insult Mrs May and the population of Scotland at large by not including a Union Flag? Christopher H Jones, 25 Ruthven Avenue, Giffnock. THERESA May’s first act as Prime Minister was to remind us that the full name of her party is the Conservative and Unionist Party. Can we look forward to Nicola Sturgeon’s appearance on the steps of Bute House to confirm that her party is now to be known as the Scottish National and EU Unionist Party? Colin Hamilton. 3 Braid Hills Avenue, Edinburgh. NICOLA Sturgeon continues to assert that, like the majority of Scottish voters, I voted for Scotland to remain in the EU. I did not – I voted for the UK to remain in the EU, which was the choice on the ballot paper.
To claim, therefore, that another independence reference may be needed to ensure that Scotland gets what it voted for is simply a smokescreen to cover what has always been the SNP’s chief aim independence at any price.
Ms Sturgeon knows only too well that Hell will freeze over before Spain agrees to let an independent Scotland become a member of the EU. Alex Macintyre, 44 Thrums Avenue, Bishopbriggs. THE main driver for devolution, when Labour was pushing it, was the Conservative government at Westminster ruling here without electoral support. A Scottish Parliament followed, although the West Midlands had also to suffer a Tory government having voted Labour, without devolution. The problem for Labour was that Scotland is a nation.
Now history is repeating itself in the EU referendum, with England voting to leave, and Scotland voting to remain, and the prospect of Scotland being dragged out of the EU under the auspices of English domination without electoral support here.
So we are the victims of either a contradiction, or hypocrisy. Why does Labour not support our remaining? Douglas R Mayer, 76 Thomson Crescent, Currie, Midlothian. MARY Rolls (Letters, July 18) makes a number of assumptions regarding the course that Scottish politics will take due to the Brexit vote outcome.
Among these are the possible timings for a second independence referendum, and whether the countries of the EU would recognise Scotland as a successor state. These are all valid points which will take many months and considerable political discussions by those supposedly in charge.
However, she does make two startling comments which show where her political leanings lie. Firstly, Mrs Rolls states that “there is a possibility of Scotland remaining in the EU after its parent state, the UK, has left”. At this I scratched my head. I was always under the impression, however naively, that the UK represented a union – that is, a number of countries joining together for their mutual benefit. A “parent state” implies that one country is in charge, with the other being placed in a subordinate role. It seems to be becoming clearer now.
Secondly, to call “Scotland, an EU Region” displays a lack of knowledge regarding the country in which she lives. The country of Scotland dates back to 1034, when King Malcolm II, known as “King of Scotia” ruled over what we know as Scotland today. So far from being “an EU region”, Scotland is actually one of the oldest recognised nations in Europe. JP Anglim, Queensborough Gardens, Glasgow.