IT has been reported that the International Trade Secretary, Liam Fox, has written to his Westminster Cabinet colleagues advocating bypassing Scotland and Wales over any future trade deals, denying the devolved governments the opportunity of veto.

This circumvention of democracy would mean that decisions taken by the devolved governments of Wales and Scotland to ban such things as the production of genetically modified foods could be overruled unilaterally by Dr Fox, setting a dangerous precedent for the future health of citizens in each of the devolved nations.

To contextualise this recent political development, it is necessary to review the past two decades of UK political smoke-filled rooms. In 1997, Dr Fox founded a political think tank called the Atlantic Bridge. The apparently innocuous mission statement of the group was “to bring together people who have common interests”.

However, as part of its mission, the Atlantic Bridge stated it would defend its interests from those “European integrationists who would like to pull Britain away from the special relationship with the United States”.

At this point, the motivation for establishing this particular think tank becomes slightly more suspect by it having an overtly pro-US anti-EU bias.

This suspicion grows when you peruse the membership of the organisation, which is positively brimming with prominent right-wing Conservative Brexiteers – Michael Gove, William Hague, Boris Johnson and Chris Grayling were all members.

When you begin to understand that Dr Fox and his Atlantic Bridge, Brexit-championing colleagues are well-known for formulating plans to Americanise both the UK’s healthcare and food production by circumventing EU regulations by any means, and that they are now proposing to ignore any laws previously enacted by the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly, suddenly the “common interest bridge” building over the Atlantic – together with the bypassing of devolved government – becomes much more politically sinister. Through Dr Fox’s future pro-US authoritarian trade deals, Scotland’s world-leading food and drinks sector will be at serious risk of harm.

Although the SNP have recently made protestations to the UK Government about Dr Fox’s political machinations, what is conspicuous by its absence is an official response to Dr Fox from the Labour Party.

Silence from the Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition will only lead many to the conclude that the London Labour Party are either entirely oblivious to or completely relaxed about economic harm being indefensibly foisted upon the presently booming Scottish food and drinks industry.
Mark Saunders
Port Glasgow

IT’S entirely understandable that our First Minister Nicola Sturgeon would wish she could rename the SNP omitting the word “national”, which is disingenuously seized upon by Unionists on a regular basis as a stick to beat the Scottish Government.   The term nationalism, like freedom, can be a double-edged sword, susceptible to misuse.

There is “freedom from” (oppression, hunger and so on) and “freedom to” (ride roughshod over the rights of others for instance). The ambiguity of these terms should be acknowledged rather than exploited for one’s own ends.

There are two kinds of nationalism and those who don’t care to differentiate between them are, to my mind, either wilfully perverse  or a bit thick.
James Stevenson
Auchterarder

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It’s time to think about a genuine transport revolution

I FULLY agree with Jim Taylor’s letter about expanding the tram network in Edinburgh (The National, August 23). However, I would propose going further to remove traffic from city centres and the travel network generally.

Firstly, we should widen the number of passengers able to use trams free at the point of use to include everyone who has a bus pass, not just those who live in an area with an EH postcode. Most, if not all of us, contributed to the initial investment, not just those in Edinburgh. That could be implemented immediately at comparatively little cost.

In time, I’d like to see all public transport free at the point of use to everyone, not just over-60s and those unfortunate enough to have a disability. This would include not just buses and trains but eventually foot passengers on ferries – the cost of that would be fairly negligible in the great scheme of things – with road equivalent tariff for all vehicles on all ferries.

Eventually, I’d like to see this extended to internal flights. The benefit of that to all, especially people and businesses on the islands, would be immense. I have suggested all this to a number of people. While those with a bit of foresight tend to agree, the general reply is: “It would never work.”

My response to that is to remind people that removing tolls from bridges was “unaffordable,” and that my parents’ generation was told that the NHS wouldn’t work.

Until Thatcher and her henchmen started dismantling it, it was the best in the world. It could be just as effective with transport. People, including tourists, would have more money in their pockets to spend in local businesses. There would also be immense benefits to the environment, and road maintenance costs could be reduced. What’s not to like?
Malcolm Brown
Blairhall, Fife

IN suggesting trolleybuses as a cheaper alternative form of renewably powered public transport compared to trams, Shirley Robins (Letters, August 21) travels less than half the way to our potential destination. Many cities which had trolleybuses have had to change to tram systems to meet capacity shortfalls, and inability to beat road congestion.

At first sight trolleybuses look like an attractive option, but while they produce no exhaust emissions, they still pollute with other characteristics of road vehicles, namely the “Oslo Effect” (see All Party Parliamentary Light Rail Group’s publications). This is a mix of particulates generated by wear and tear of the road surface, tyre rubber, and brake linings, which hang up to about 10 feet, just in the range to affect those with respiratory problems.

The severity of the Oslo Effect is proportional to the weight of the vehicle. While tram capacity is huge (almost 300 in Edinburgh) and stop dwell time is short thanks to the number of doors, buses, meanwhile, wait in queues at stops, and have only one, or at most two doors.

Because trolleybuses are road vehicles, the number of standees is very restricted, so capacity is much lower. To carry the same number of passengers, more buses would need to be employed compared to trams, adding to road congestion, and turning dissatisfied potential passengers back to the private car.

Contrary to what people often think, low emission buses and trolleybuses do not provide the clean environment and capacity we crave. This is why the number of tram systems established or extended worldwide has rocketed in recent years.

Also, the answer to bicycle wheels getting stuck in tram rails lies in the approach taken by our close European neighbours: providing dedicated, segregated cycle tracks instead of coloured bits of Tarmac. Belgium and the Netherlands safely mix many tramlines with hundreds of thousands of bikes. If they can do it ...
Vic MacKinlay
Currie

THERE are two questions Jeremy Corbyn should be asked during his visit to Scotland if he is genuine in seeking a more principled type of politics. Does he support the SNP and Greens’s opposition to the Trident nuclear weapons system and backing for the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty? And does he support the UK Labour Party’s backing for nuclear weapons and a new generation of Trident missiles?
Isobel Lindsay
Biggar