Letters II: Brexit vote had huge impact on Spain’s general election

The result was a victory for ignorance and xenophobia. It had been from the beginning stated by UK’s main allies that the question Britons were asked on Thursday had a clear correct answer, as far as economic wellbeing and political stability were concerned. Still, the result was misled by populism and misinformation and a very chauvinistic, islander-like, typically British way of working things out.

The EU referendum, rather than an exercise of popular sovereignty, has been a symptom of the British people’s endemic ignorance and negligence of their political obligations, and in many cases, of a deep underlying hate for the foreign – I have been insulted countless times these past few months by a considerable proportion of the population of Great Britain.

Furthermore, for the past few days as a resident in Dundee, I have been surrounded by a very interesting mixture of regret and shame. People have begun asserting that the sight of the Union Jack repulses them now. If economic and political instability weren’t enough, Brexit has also been a mine for the accentuation of territorial division. Congratulations “patriots”.

But I am not only a resident in Scotland. And the EU referendum was not an issue of its own last week. Indeed, it has had a huge impact on the Spanish general election. It isn’t only the British people who have voted out of ignorance, fear, or an outdated attitude. In Spain, we too have had our share. Turns out Britain didn’t invent scaremongering. It has been the weapon of the Popular Party (Partido Popular) in our election as well, used to stem the rise of new political forces and the prospect of a third round of elections. Not to mention our disinterest in morality and politics – and the importance of the existence of a bond between them. It is no surprise that a party facing a record number of charges and convictions of corruption, gathered, too, a record number of seats in congress.

However, it was the uncertainty triggered by the outcome of the referendum that added an extra thirteen seats to PP’s collection of undeserved trophies. As was to be expected, old, established parties seemed like an attractive option to the Spanish people three days after England and Wales voted to leave the union, dragging Northern Ireland and Scotland with them and pushing the pound’s value to a historic low. This was followed by the systematic fulfilment of the prophecies that the Remain campaign had been accused of scaremongering people with.

Even though I was well informed about Spain’s allergy to democracy and self-determination, I ignored how fatal its strike against Scotland would turn out to be: Rajoy is manifestly opposed to negotiations with Scotland about its potential permanence in the EU. What a dangerous precedent of a process of democracy!

If I have ever felt rejected or unwelcomed in this island it has never been under the refuge and the subsidy of the Scottish Government and people. I have never before felt left out or been denied my right to vote on issues that directly concern me in the country that I work, reside and study in permanently. I have never been treated as a to-be-cut number amongst a socially poisonous plague of faceless immigrants who don’t deserve acknowledgement for the effort and the contribution they put into this country, the scapegoat for some ghost of economic crisis.

And still today, when turning on the BBC means listening to some unrestrained Ukip supporter speculating on my right to freely and uninhibitedly imagine a future in the country I have grown to love, I am proud and glad I chose to come here.

Victoria Castillo Ávila, Dundee

I WOULD like to add to Graeme Goodall’s comprehensive letter on the real culprits for the demise of our once great fishing industry (Letters, June 27). It is pretty obvious that where there is a common resource with no ability to control its exploitation you end up with what, to borrow a phrase from the English situation over common land management, is a “tragedy of the commons”.

I recall a conversation I had with a skipper from Buckie some 15 years ago about the problem of blackfish ie fish which were landed but not accounted for in quotas. He freely admitted that 80 per cent of his landings were blackfish. The problem that gave everybody was that the fisheries scientists then couldn’t properly assay the dynamics of fish populations and their productivity because of the huge unknown quantities of fish harvesting not being recorded. Of course as ever the fishing fraternity, including Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, were blase about the effects of this, saying that his people were telling him that there were plenty of fish.

To an extent there was some truth in the proposition that fish numbers weren’t yet collapsing, but what everybody wasn’t realising was that the age classes of fish were slowly but surely changing so that more and more fishing effort was going into catching younger and younger fish. And that is a critical factor in maintaining healthy stocks. Older fish are much more fecund than younger fish by quite a margin. You only need to look at old photographs of fish markets to see the difference in size of the fish which used to be landed, and I am sorry to say that the fishery scientists themselves were unaware of the historical changes before the 1950s when the science really got going.

To add to this, the fishing effort hugely increased between the 1950s and the 1990s, supported by government research and grants for more and more sophistication in the technology to the point where hunting down the shoals became easier and easier so much so that our fishermen were in denial of the damage they were doing to the marine environment.

In the annual bunfight over quotas, I once heard Bertie Armstrong say that the prawn stocks on the West Coast were in a “healthy” state and therefore his members should be allowed more quota, not realising the irony of what he was saying. The West Coast whitefish had been devastated, allowing higher productivity in their main food source, Nephrops. Mallaig, established as a herring port in the 19th century, now lands mainly Nephrops, with any fish merely a bycatch.

The conservation measures which have been brought in by the EU, despite the difficulties caused by the accompanying politicking over quota negotiations, have saved the North Sea from complete decimation. That might seem to be an unpopular message to the fishing communities around our coast, but it is the reality if you have any knowledge of the history of exploitation of our fish stocks. Unfortunately, judging by the EU referendum results, our fishermen remain in denial of the damage they have caused.

Bill McDermott, Drumnadrochit

THERE is a broad consensus emerging among constitutional experts that it would be extremely difficult for Scotland to be a member of both the UK and the EU after Brexit.

Last week’s referendum saw Scotland vote by 62 per cent to 38 per cent in favour of remaining in the EU – but we face the prospect of Scotland having to leave the EU, against the wishes of the Scottish people.

There is, it should be noted, an incredible amount of goodwill towards Scotland and the predicament we find ourselves in.

It is only natural that the idea of negotiating with Scotland on its own should be rebuffed by the French and Spanish Governments. Scotland is not a member state, the UK is, and it is up to us clearly to get our own constitutional house in order before many member states will speak with us.

Independence is clearly the simplest and most obvious way for Scotland to remain in the EU, transitioning into the EU as an independent state.

In this situation Scotland could be the successor state, with the rest of the UK leaving and Scotland retaining its seat and inheriting the successor status of the UK.

Alex Orr, Edinburgh