I THINK it is missing the point for Wee Ginger Dug to say we would not be forced to join the euro (Unionists are keeping the currency myths in circulation, The National, July 20) – why would we want to be part of a supra-national organisation with a currency which does not suit us?  If the best we can do is to just delay it and delay it for all eternity, it doesn’t sound like that great a deal. I’m not sure what the Czech or Swedish delay of the euro proves – the Czech Republic is considering its own exit referendum, so must be unhappy with more than the euro. In any case, how viable is it to have some countries in the euro and many not?

I take issue with the assertion that a common currency is “of course” a good thing, when it takes away from any country one of the main economic levers, the ability to devalue and make exports more competitive, so struggling economies are just stuck, like Greece was. But it’s OK, we could maybe get the ECB/IMF/EU to bail us out and then keep lending us more money to pay themselves back again and again, just like Greece. I wonder if they rue the day they joined not only the euro, but the EU itself. And it is a bit starry-eyed to say we would have to meet convergence criteria first – it is generally accepted that Greece didn’t, but in the headlong rush to the euro, the EU turned a blind eye to that.

I know that Greece’s problems are rooted in its own lax practices, such as failure to collect tax, but it would be a comfort to know that if we ever needed help for any reason, we would be helped like Greece was. And that is not the only problem. There is no serious examination or questioning of TTIP and Ceta, or the speed and composition of EU expansion.

As regards the Leave vote, I cannot believe that although 38 per cent of Scots voted to Leave the EU, not one SNP MP or MSP is against the EU – aye, right. I did not vote Leave because I think the EU “blindly applies rules and regulations”, but I suppose the Dug is right in saying that the EU does not force anyone to do things they don’t want to do; they just keep re-running the referendums (Maastricht, Lisbon) until they get the result they want. In Scotland, the debate on the EU is being hijacked. During campaigning for the independence referendum it was “if we leave the UK it will make enemies of the rest of the UK, enemies of families”, now it is “Scotland is internationalist, therefore we love the EU and we have to be in it, and if we aren’t it makes us inward-looking and xenophobic”, but Scotland was internationalist and outward-looking long before there was an EU, so would still be outward-looking even without it.

 I feel the SNP is too unquestioning of the EU and is tying Scotland’s internationalism to a union with many flaws.

Michael Gray (European politicians still extend voice of hope to Scotland, The National, July 20) quotes Alexandra Strickner of Attac Austria as saying, with something of an understatement, that opposing corporate deals such as Ceta and TTIP within the EU would present “challenges” for a small country like Scotland, so do we just opt out of Ceta/TTIP if they are brought in by the majority?  What else do we need to opt out of before the EU is what we want?  Do we opt out of the Common Fisheries Policy? 

Michael Gray also quotes the Austrian Green MEP Ulrike Lunacek as saying reform of the common fisheries policy would be difficult for a small nation like Scotland to achieve, but hopes for Scotland to be an ally of progressive change – without saying what we could actually achieve in practice unless other nations were with us. Isn’t Scotland being dependent on another country voting the same way (England) what we say is wrong with the UK?

Julia Pannell
Tayside

SNP MP George Kerevan’s statement that cuts will inevitably follow, post-independence, was followed by Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser accusing the SNP of hoodwinking the voters in the lead-up to the referendum in 2014.

Fraser is being an opportunist when he condemns the SNP’s White Paper, which indicated a windfall for households on the back of independence, and had me chuckling somewhat.

I felt this was breathtakingly rich coming from a Scottish MSP whose Westminster Conservative Government has imposed eye-watering budget cuts on the whole country, cuts that have impacted on all elements of public life and services.

Murdo Fraser and his Tory colleagues in Scotland really need to do better in their role as the official opposition. Perhaps they could add their weight to the Scottish Government’s endeavours to keep Scotland in the EU instead of condemning the SNP and a devolved government that has balanced the books for the past nine years.  

Catriona C Clark
Falkirk

AS EACH day passes, I become more convinced that the date of the next referendum on Scottish independence is coming closer. On Thursday, we were told by no less a person than the Attorney General for England and Wales, Jeremy Wright, that “there is no Scots veto on Brexit”.

As I understand from Scotland’s written constitution, this individual has no hegemonic authority over Scotland’s Parliament. He has no writ over Scots Law.

I believe Scotland’s law lords, who make up our Court of Session, might have a legitimate view on Scotland’s right to remain in the EU, as democratically expressed by the people of Scotland in the

EU referendum.

It ill becomes someone furth of Scotland to attempt to gainsay the expressed will and wishes of the people of Scotland. Yes indeed, the next referendum on Scottish independence just came a little closer.

John JG McGill
Kilmarnock

WHEN they come to collect your grandchildren don’t blame me. I am not prepared to allow insidious racism to govern my politics, or to let Mayists continue to determine my relations with my fellows on this small planet.

The current target seems to be our fellow Europeans and goodness knows how that might end. The history of the last century should give us all pause to reflect. It does strike me that Boris is a very splendid name for a British Foreign Minister. I just want to assure people living in this country that whether they are French, Polish, Hindu, Muslim or whatever, there are those here who are prepared to defy, to our dying breaths, the appalling xenophobia which appears to have overcome some of our English neighbours and certain among us who harbour similar sentiments.

I greatly fear that now is the time to stand and not to be among the folk to be gathered up later. I know they haven’t got marching thugs in the streets yet, but we have had an assassinated MP and bricks through windows. And we have a Prime Minister prepared to engage in Armageddon. And we do know that it is all “their fault”, don’t we? Stop it now. Recover democracy before it is too late.

KM Campbell
Doune

I SYMPATHISE with Crisdean MacFhearghais’s dilemma (Letters, July 21). The choice for a new deputy leader of the SNP must be made from an embarrassment of strong candidates. Would it be to controversial to suggest that perhaps we could have more than one deputy? As a man of a certain age who can remember the days when John Wayne was the stalwart of Sunday afternoon television, I recall that at time of great tumult he would take on at least two deputies to ensure that the side of right triumphed over the greedy self-serving baddies.

As we appear to have entered a time of tumult with the baddest of baddies trying to railroad us, can I suggest that two deputies would serve the party better? With a nation to run, representation in Europe and Westmonster required, would this be too obvious a suggestion?

Neil Morison
Dornie