AS a recently qualified lawyer, Carolyn Leckie must be aware that the facts in a case, even if unpleasant, are the ones to be addressed (We should know by now that we can't trust Tories, June 25).
Fact 1: we lost the 2014 referendum. Fact 2: the Vow was a temporary expedient from the Unionist side which was never intended to be implemented. Fact 3: unfortunate it may be, but the majority in Scotland voted in 2014 to retain the status quo, that is S28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 enshrining the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. Fact 5: the Scottish Government foolishly threw away any possible leverage over the legal status of Sewell by going to the Supreme Court, where it was dismissed as a convention, not law (some of us warned them not to go there).
There are others. Fact 6: none of the present powers held at Holyrood are being taken away. Fact 7: a large number of additional powers are being given to Holyrood. Fact 8: the repatriated powers retained at Westminster, and how they are shaped within the single market of the UK (to which Scotland exports 64% of goods and services) and the timing of transfer will be subject to negotiation between the two governments.
Fact 9: while the SNP leadership has sought to whip up grievance and sabotage Brexit, in the north of England, competitors for investment, they have been pre-planning seven free trade zones, with investment of £9 billion and a job-creating potential of 150,000. Our government here, with its anti-Brexit posturing, has taken its eye off the ball, and made no similar pre-planning.
Two assets are essential for a successful free-trade zone: an airport and a deep water port. We have Prestwick airport and, up the coast at Hunterston, one of the best natural deep water ports in the world. An ideal combination. There is also oil in the Clyde, the licensing of which is now controlled by the Scottish Government, with no action taken despite it being a key issue in the 2014 referendum. Fact 10: there is no record of Mrs May seeking to trash Scottish devolution. It was the Scottish Government, not hers, who took the Sewell case to the Supreme Court.
Carolyn should stop worrying in case I am becoming a fan of Mrs May. Like many others who voted Leave, I can only stand in astonishment as she has put a £39bn offer on the table to the EU, and got nothing back except insults.
May I finally turn to your report of Ian Blackford having an “open ear” to a second EU referendum (SNP have an ‘open ear’ on new EU vote, June 25). This shows a lack of ability to think before launching hostages to fortune. If a second EU referendum is OK for the SNP, why would it not be OK for the Unionists if they lose up here next time?
Think forward. In Brexit, the EU is negotiating with the UK, the fifth-biggest economy in the world, with which it has a huge balance of trade surplus. Detailed negotiations are difficult; there will be compromises. The size difference and trading factors will not be the same with Scottish-rUK negotiations. Scotland of five million will be negotiating with a country of 60 million, with whom we have a 64% trading reliance, very different from the UK’s with the EU. If the Unionists use the SNP tactics over Brexit, they will encourage the UK Government to be very difficult, and to offer the worst deal possible on border control, nationality, rights of residence, division of national debt and assets, technical standards, trading standards, our entry into external trade agreements made by them, and the length of a transition – just a few of the issues we shall encounter in negotiations. All to create demand for a second referendum.
That is why the principle of accepting a referendum result as final is so important. If it is abandoned, using the case of not knowing the deal when the decision was originally made, then we shall have handed the Unionists a stick with which to beat us if they lose next time. Don’t think they have not locked the SNP sabotage methodology away in their files for future use. It’s time to stop clapping the leadership, and time to start thinking and correcting the mistakes they are making.
Jim Sillars
Edinburgh
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel