I HAVE studied the evolution of the EU from the original treaty to the Lisbon one, and the only “reform” has been in the direction of more power to the centre at the expense of the member states’ sovereignty.
There is a big difference between sharing sovereignty and transferring it; and the latter applies to the EU as, treaty by treaty, the national veto has been almost eliminated. Unlike a number of SNP leaders and members, I am not blinded by a quasi-religious belief in its benign character. Ask the Greeks.
This blindness is evident in the letter from Kris Murray Browne (Letters, March 19), who does not understand that EU-funded programmes simply give us some of our money back. The Scottish share of UK contributions to the EU is £1.6 billion. After Brexit, with that money kept in Scotland, we could fund all current programmes, including university research, and have £800 million left over for social housing.
I voted Leave for four reasons: first, because with Brussels out of the political equation it will be much easier to obtain a majority for independence, given that last time the Commission was on the side of the British state and unlikely to change its position if the UK remains a member; second, because I have a principled objection to being ruled by an unelected elite; third, because the treaties are rooted in the ethic of capitalism, as demonstrated in both the Viking and Laval European Court of Justice judgments where the position of capital trumped that of workers; and fourth because its highly protective tariff regime is inimical to the interests and needs of developing countries.
The SNP has a large Westminster group in a parliament where the government has no majority. It was ripe for exploitation and extracting more powers from Schedule 5 of the 1998 Act. The fact is we have gained nothing.
Finally, does no-one who reads your newspaper realise the hostage to fortune laid by the SNP advocacy of a second EU referendum? What will you say when the No side demands the same thing if and when Yes wins our next one?
That is only one of a string of such hostages to fortune that have been planted in Unionists’ files due to the stupidity of the positions taken by our leadership.
Jim Sillars
Edinburgh
I’M sure that like many other supporters of independence for Scotland, the frequent “ramblings” of Jim Sillars have me perplexed. There is no doubt that Mr Sillars was in his time a pathfinder, for the SNP and greater independence movement, when it was seen by the British establishment as a bunch of “kooks”.
Some 40 years later the SNP are a political force to be reckoned with, even with their obvious and sometimes frustrating foibles! Rather a Scottish political party that’s for Scotland than a BritNat political party that’s for selling Scotland’s interest for self-advancement etc.
Mr Sillars has over the past few years, to my own observations, continually diametrically opposed his own party, like with his suggestion of supporting the Tory UK PM in her act of fiscally self-harming the entire geographic area known as the British Isles.
I wouldn’t trust a Tory or any Vow they uttered, even if it was printed in a pro-Unionist paper like the Daily Record. He’s become like that crusty old great uncle for whom you have respect, due to his war service, but dread turning up at a get-together!
Jim might want an independent Scotland, free of EU interference, but like our English neighbours are about to discover, it would leave Scotland open to the rapacious carpetbagging opportunistic influences that are just short of an openly black market and criminal money-laundering economy!
No thanks Uncle Jim. I respect your opinion, but it’s not what is best for Scotland or its people!
Sandy Allan
Newburgh, Ellon
YOU report (March 20) that Jim Sillars has suggested SNP MPs back Theresa May’s Brexit deal on condition more powers are transferred to Holyrood. Mr Sillars either has a very short memory or fails to learn lessons from history. In 2014, the Vow “guaranteed” considerably greater powers for Scotland if a majority of Scots voted No to independence.
A majority did vote No, and did Scots receive significant extra powers? As Slade Prison’s best-known resident, Norman Stanley Fletcher, might say: “did they fairy cakes!”
Peter Swain
Dunbar
IS it any wonder indyref2 is back on the agenda? As I write this letter, Theresa May the PM is in Brussels meeting EU leaders, as is Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn. Two separate meetings, with two separate agendas and no prospect of any coming together for the good of the country.
Complete arrogance, only pursuing their own agendas, with absolutely no consideration for the catastrophic situation they are plunging the country into.
Westminster in meltdown, a PM with absolutely no authority and clearly demonstrating no leadership, and an opposition leader changing his party stance on Brexit daily.
One week from Brexit with no deal looming, uncertainty for business, traders, individuals, especially those with ongoing medical conditions, really begs the question: “why would Scotland want to remain part of the UK under Westminster?”
Catriona C Clark
Falkirk
TO the lady striving to discover Scottish-grown roses. My dad always bought his roses from Aberdeenshire, even while living in exile in faraway Kent. Growers appear to be still in business according to my internet search. They arrived bare-rooted, were strong and healthy. Would save on the journey miles too.
Hazel Rodgers
Perth
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 here