I DESPAIR when the First Minister is accused by Mr Jim Sillars of wanting to send non-reserved powers back to the EU, when also seeking to retain such powers at Holyrood, not Westminster. This appears to show a lack of understanding of how some EU directives are embedded into EU nations, and further devolved within these nations – views unfortunately shared by many in the Tory party.

For example: when flood risk became an accepted substantive problem across sufficient areas of the EU, the national governments enabled the EU Commission to develop a directive for all members of the EU, which the European Parliament then scrutinised and passed, and the EU nations’ parliaments then converted into their legislation to suit their various countries.

Scotland has its flood risk legislation developed at Holyrood, and England has a similar but different legislation developed at Westminster, both underpinned by one EU Flood Directive. This directive is also designed to avoid unbalancing the highly managed trade within the EU, where laws and regulation are made similar across the EU, to mitigate any unfair trade advantages.

So, “governed by the EU” directive in this case means that a statute must be put through the national parliament, so that there is a plan to reduce flooding, which must be monitored, and for which a named public body must take responsibility. “Taking back control”, and not being “governed by the EU”, must therefore mean the opposite, if it is to mean anything, i.e. the right not to have a plan, to not monitor it, and nobody to take responsibility for reducing flooding risk, but crucially enabling the UK to attempt to unbalance the existing highly managed EU trade arrangements, if it so wished, and the EU felt obliged to allow it and not increase tariff barriers to suit.

As it happens, the Scottish flood risk statute is technically much better than the English statute, so removal of the EU directive could also mean Scotland has to arbitrarily increase flood risk to English levels or worse.

So, for the avoidance of doubt, “sending back powers to the EU” means we keep the higher quality Scottish statute, and losing “EU governance” means potentially losing this Scottish statute and replacing it with a lesser English statute, which is also not set up for the existing Scottish public body arrangements. I find it hard to understand why Mr Sillars would prefer to apply the lesser English statute, with all the ramifications.

One simple logistical reason why all EU directive requirements should move to the Scottish Parliament, unless specifically reserved to Westminster under earlier devolution settlements, is that the merging and/or aligning of statutes such as in this example are simply horrendous as they are so intertwined with other devolved statutes/regulation, Scotland’s financial requirements and the Scottish legal system.

Statutes would have to be amended almost one at a time, with every other statute regulation then changed, then the next linked statute changed, including ones just amended to tie in, then every other statute then changed, etc. Legal challenges to statute also can reference to what was stated in parliament(s) at the time, where the intent was not clear, so these matters need to be scrutinised, not just by lawyers, but by technical experts, and incorporated.

With 24 of 111 statutes to deal with, the Scottish Parliament would be hamstrung for more than a decade and unable to do the day job. Utilising EU powers – leaving them where they are and utilising their core directives – allows Scotland’s devolved parliament to function. For the foreseeable future, Brexit means the opposite, and effectively direct rule from Westminster, which is why independence and remaining within the EU is the much-preferred option now, and why the indyref2 process preparation is required now.
Stephen Tingle
Greater Glasgow

I AM a Scottish American with many ties to Scotland both past and present. On the upcoming anniversary of the birth of a nation (July 4th), I write to you from Boston, Massachusetts.

Living here I am surrounded by constant reminders of the Colonist’s struggle for independence from England. It was not easy for them to leave behind all the things that they valued and relied upon, things that were established and familiar, but they knew they had to act.

Sure it was hard, sure it was dangerous, and they didn’t know where they were heading. All they knew was they wanted to be free – free and not treated like little children who are always told they are wrong, patted on the head and told to sit down and be quiet because others know best, while at the same time laws and rules were being inflicted upon them that they had no control over.

No, they had had enough of that. It was time to act. And it is time for Scotland to act now too! Be strong, be brave. Be courageous. Be FREE! Please let Scotland be an independent nation once again.
Lesley Milne Traver
Boston

IN response to Steve Arnott (We risk losing indyref2 if a Yes vote is viewed as a vote for the EU, The National, June 21) I would say that I have a number of close colleagues who voted Leave but not one of them would ever think of voting against Scottish independence.

In the general public in Scotland a very significant majority voted to remain in the EU and this position I’m sure has grown. As we hear of conversions everyday any imagined loss of support for independence over our pro-EU stance is completely overwhelmed by a very substantial increase in our support from many hugely concerned previous Unionists who voted to Remain.
David McEwan Hill
Sandbank, Argyll