Letters: Testimony to dangers of EU provided by Greece

Almost 30 per cent unemployment, the collapse of a functioning health service and the rupture of civil society testify to the enthusiasm of the anti-democratic neo-liberal elite who dominate EU policy-making.

There are many reasons for voting to stay in the European Union. Not least of which are fighting with others throughout Europe to democratise its institutions and to resist the rising tide of right-wing nationalism, as represented by the majority of those advocating Brexit.

But we should not indulge in the fantasy that the European Union, as currently constructed, will help us build a fairer, more equal or more prosperous Scotland.

Craig Lewis, 
Glasgow

THROUGH his involvement in the Free Scotland Party, which seeks not only Scottish independence, but also withdrawal from the European Union, it is clearly to be expected that Jim Fairlie will continue to trumpet the tired old line of what he sees as the “contradiction” in Scotland leaving one Union to simply continue to be part of another one.

Mr Fairlie, however, is more than aware that there is a clear difference between the unitary centralised state that is the UK, and the confederal union of independent states that is the EU.

An independent Scotland in the EU would be as “independent” as any other nation, be it Denmark, Austria or Luxembourg. Indeed, very few if any nations today are truly independent and sovereign, be it through membership of the likes of the World Trade Organisation or Nato. Nations agree to “pool” their sovereignty, recognising that many issues, such as climate change, know no boundaries. Mr Fairlie wants to return to an era which no longer exists – of splendid isolationism.

Let us not forget that the EU is the world’s largest single market, with freedom of movement of goods, capital, services and people. Comprising upwards of 500 million consumers, it provides Scottish firms with access to markets. Indeed, almost half our trade is with the EU.

The freedom to travel, live, study, work, shop and retire in any other EU country has brought immeasurable benefits to people in Scotland, as have the consumer and social protections delivered. To provide just a handful of examples, air fares and roaming charges have been cut, air quality improved, safe bathing and drinking water guaranteed, and four weeks paid holiday secured.

On a global stage the EU can also deliver an influence that 28 individual member states on their own simply cannot. From tackling climate change, to co-operating on addressing organised crime and terrorism.

The European Union is not perfect, far from it, but then very few institutions are. If it is to be reformed, however, that can only come by operating from within, from influencing the agenda, and not standing watching on the sidelines.

Alex Orr, 
Edinburgh

IN my darker moments I fear that Scotland will become a state again only to see the coattails of power disappear out of the door, whisked away by corporate interests. So Jim Fairlie’s warnings about the impact of the US-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) are timely. 

What has passed almost unnoticed, however, is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a treaty which was signed off a few days ago in Auckland, New Zealand. This is a trade agreement among 12 Pacific Rim countries, including the USA, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Chile, Australia and New Zealand, where it sparked off scenes of protest on February 6 on Waitangi Day. The protesters were largely white New Zealanders who fear the consequences of the agreement for their small country. 

You may say that if these treaties means trade barriers being reduced internationally, that is all to the good. Unfortunately, like the TTIP agreement, the TPP contains some deeply worrying elements regarding democratic control, particularly for smaller nations. For example, no elected government has had a chance to vote on these treaties. 

The Pacific treaty at first sight seems to require ratification by all 12 nations. However, failing this, after two years it becomes law anyway, providing it is ratified by countries representing 85 per cent of the group’s combined GDP – so it is clear that ratification is little more than a formality.

Peter Craigie, 
Edinburgh 

IT is surely becoming increasingly clear that the real choice facing Scotland is simple – uncomplicated independence or settling for a similarly uncomplicated position, fully integrated as a small region of a greater England (otherwise called the UK).

Everybody knows the present convolutions are not intended to improve the governance of Scotland but to halt a Scottish procession to independence. To prevent us choosing independence we were hastily and in panic offered huge new powers, and the chickens on this panic are now coming home to roost. 

Any grudgingly ceded “further powers” will be a continuous source of discord between Scotland and Westminster and we will be revisiting the issues for evermore unless we get to another referendum pretty soon. 

Dave McEwan Hill, 
Sandbank

I HAVE just read The National’s article introducing Matthew Fitt’s Scots column (January 7) and Bernard Thompson’s article in Bella Caledonia. There are a lot of issues, but the one that stopped me in my tracks was the sources people seem to be using to provide children with reading material in the Scots language – translations of Asterix! You could hardly blame children for concluding that Scots gains value only as a key to accessing non-Scottish cultures. 

Dave Hay, 

Linlithgow