I HAVE to admit, I had a good belly-laugh when I read the letter from Jim Sillars in Friday’s National. It is not that I disagreed with many of the points Jim made – how could I, as I have been making the same points since the 1960s? I am delighted that Jim and Alex Neil have joined those of us who oppose membership of the EU, on the grounds that membership of the EU entails surrender of sovereignty and any notion of Scotland as an independent nation/state.
My opposition to the EEC, common market and EU pre-dates that of Jim by several decades at least, and he and I found ourselves on opposite sides of the EU debates inside the SNP from the time he joined the party in 1980 until I left, on the grounds of opposition to SNP policy on the EU, in December 1990.
I had a stand-up fight with the late Douglas Crawford MP in the run-up to the February 1974 General Election, over a leak to the press claiming the SNP were preparing to announce their intention to keep the pound sterling in the event of Scottish independence. The party had made no such decision and the press leak was nothing more than a blatant attempt to bounce the SNP into a decision that would have been anathema to the party membership. It seems the party hasn’t moved far on the currency question, given the report of the Growth Commission. The currency situation, and the pressure that would be brought to bear on EU members, was one of my main objections to EU membership.
Jim claims to have “studied the evolution of the EU from the original treaty to the Lisbon one”, and knowing how diligent he is in researching his arguments, I have no reason to doubt him. However, his original interpretation of the implications of those treaties was profoundly different from his current interpretation. At the April 1988 meeting of the NEC, it was decided the SNP should support the Single European Act by 14 votes to four. I was one of the four and had my dissent recorded, as I did at every vote supporting the EEC. At the annual conference in Inverness that year, delegates were greeted by a banner stating “Independence in Europe”. That was Jim’s brainchild and it appeared at conference never having been before the NEC or the Agenda Committee. The march towards the party’s current commitment to an EU which doesn’t exist in reality has been orchestrated in much the same way ever since.
Jim’s four reasons for his opposition to the EU have existed since the Treaty of Rome was written and certainly pre-date his “Independence in Europe” by many years. That is why I simply shake my head in despair when I hear SNP supporters extolling the “internationalism” of the EU or when self-styled left-wingers among the MPs/MSPs condemn the Tories for their capitalism, while at the same time clamour to join that bastion of international socialism, the EU. Jim is also right about the hostages to fortune with which the SNP has been saddled, as Yes supporters will find out as soon as another campaign is launched. One of the main arguments of Remainers for a so-called Peoples’ Vote is that this time, Leavers will be better informed. Given that SNP supporters are among the most ill-informed, mis-informed or not informed at all about the true nature of the EU, their frequent displays of such arrogance and ignorance are the saddest part of this whole charade.
Jim Fairlie
Crieff
I WRITE to free Sandy Allan of his nightmare of “rapacious” interests roaming free in Scotland outside the EU, for which he gave no evidence, and to introduce him to an understanding that politics is the art of the possible. He is the perfect example of the problem that has developed inside the nationalist movement, particularly the SNP part, through adherence to the cult of personality, with its concomitant absence of intellectual rigour. As the year progresses there will be a heavy price to pay.
Sandy refers to The Vow. Yes, it played a damaging role in the final days of 2014. Having been defeated in the referendum, and with a majority Tory government in Westminster, no-one in that period in Scotland had any political leverage to extract for Holyrood the range of quasi-federal powers it implied. Nor did the General Election of 2016 give us great leverage despite the wave of SNP gains, because there was still a Tory majority government. Remember the 100 SNP amendments to the Scotland Bill, and none accepted?
But times changed when May lost the last election, and there was a minority government. With still a large number of SNP MPs, there was potential leverage to extract powers from Schedule 5 of the 1998 Act which, under Section 30, enables the transfer of powers by the swift method of Order in Council. The SNP group did not need to rely on some vague Tory promises. They could demand and get, in firm language translated into law, the actual transfer of powers before they gave their votes.
I have not rambled through the 1998 Act. Instead I have read it. Pity the SNP leadership did not do the same.
Jim Sillars
Edinburgh
IN the fifth century BC Aeschylus said:“In war, truth is the first casualty.” That could not be more relevant than in the info-wars of today. Journalists are at the many fronts of this 21st-century news info-war. Whether it’s Kay Burley’s lies on Sky about Scotland having to join the euro, or the constant Scotland-bashing tabloids seeking to score political points, the skirmishes are everywhere. Who controls news controls truth. The latest BBC spin on Brexit is “the relief within the EU” of the extension ... really? Sky targets the EU, blaming it for the situation England is in. There seems to be an inverse logic that the EU is leaving the UK; how absurd.
Then there is BBC Scotland, whose honeymoon with the viewers is over. BBC London mandarins think The Nine is too soft on independence-supporting interviewees, and want a new Rottweiler interview technique. You don’t have to take pot shots at the BBC foot, they happily manage that themselves. This phoney info-war will continue until Scotland is free to rule itself, free of England’s media.
Mike Herd
Highland
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