I HAVE heard it said that Nicola Sturgeon, our First Minister, would have been happiest with a No Deal outcome to the Brexit negotiations with the EU. It is argued that a No Deal would cause the most disruption, be deeply disliked by Scots and would have driven many more towards the Yes side.
While there is no doubt that a No Deal was even worse than the bad deal we got and that in the short term at least, support for independence would have dramatically increased, I disagree that a No Deal was best for independence for two reasons.
READ MORE: Michael Gove admits leaving the EU will contain some 'bumpy moments'
Firstly, of course no political leader is going to admit to approval of a situation which inflicts the greatest harm. I don’t believe that the First Minister or any member of her government wanted more disruption to our economy than the deal will cause. The damage to jobs and businesses would be worse, causing more suffering to many people. The additional support and extra ammunition to attack Westminster was not worth the damage to Scotland.
Secondly, once a second referendum is conceded, the Unionists’ new Project Fear will focus on our economy. With a No Deal, the UK would be faced with tariffs when trading with the EU. An independent Scotland rejoining the EU would then face tariffs trading with rUK. As this is currently Scotland’s biggest trading destination, this would be the Unionists’ greatest point of attack.
READ MORE: SNP aren't voting for No-Deal Brexit, but against Tories' broken promises
The deal with no tariffs has removed this argument, making the Project Fear position that Scotland is too wee, poor and stupid to be independent outwith the UK all the more difficult to argue.
There is more than enough wrong with the deal already, with details becoming clearer.
Losing the Erasmus scheme, the loss to our seed potatoes exporters and the betrayal of the fishing industry are three early examples. There is clear evidence to argue that an independent Scotland in the EU has much better prospects economically and culturally than we now have with Boris’s deal. The Unionists’ counter argument is greatly weakened without the tariff threat.
The deal is much worse for Scotland than the status quo we voted for, so must be opposed by the SNP this week. Westminster will ignore Scotland’s view again and will pass this deal regardless. By doing this, however, I believe they will open the path for a Yes majority in the coming referendum.
Campbell Anderson
Edinburgh
AS a longstanding SNP supporter I’m deeply disappointed by the decision of the SNP group at Westminster to vote against the trade deal with the EU tomorrow.
I despise Brexit with every fibre of my being, and I know the deal is lousy but, as Tom Newton-Dunn stated on Times Radio to Ian Blackford yesterday morning (and as the great majority of casual observers will see it), it does imply that, given the fait accompli which has occurred, the SNP favours a No-Deal Brexit over one with some kind of deal, which is certainly not in the best interests of Scotland.
READ MORE: SNP hit back at claim they are backing No Deal by voting against Brexit agreement
I’m afraid Mr Blackford’s argument that “the Tories and Labour will vote for it anyway so it will go through” (I perhaps paraphrase a little) sounds weak, and even a little craven. SNP policy shouldn’t be based on whether other parties are digging us out of a hole in which we may otherwise be burying ourselves; in the circumstances it will look like what it is – a meaningless and rather sulky gesture towards a process which is now inevitable, and with which, like it or not, we have to work.
I’m firmly of the opinion that the only honourable position for the SNP on this matter is to abstain from the vote, and I hope even at this stage it’s not too late for the Westminster group to reconsider.
Tony Gilbert
Stonehaven
BEFORE retiring I taught in a university language department, teaching students from all over the world but mainly from Europe.
The majority of this latter group had been funded by the wonderful EU Erasmus programme and it was a real joy and privilege to see them exchanging ideas and experiences and learning from each other’s cultures and enriching the UK (and frequently contributing to it after graduating by staying and working here). Such exchanges contributed massively to research in all sorts of areas, from sport to literature and the arts, to medicine and engineering, science and technology.
READ MORE: Erasmus removal shows the de-Europeanisation of young Scots has begun
The scheme of course also enabled British students to study throughout the EU, a fantastic and enriching opportunity for our young people, as well as contributing massively to the funding of UK universities, which will probably now have to cut courses.
Tragically, as part of the so-called Brexit “deal” – and despite Boris Johnson assuring parliament that Brexit would not affect Erasmus – the UK Government has wilfully chosen to abandon the scheme, an act of unnecessary and vicious cultural, social and intellectual vandalism that will set many young people’s aspirations back irretrievably. The suggested replacement scheme has already been widely derided as hopelessly inadequate.
There will be students throughout Scotland who had looked forward to studying abroad thanks to Erasmus whose hopes have now been shattered.
It is worth noting that students in Northern Ireland WILL still have access to Erasmus, so I wonder if Scotland’s Tory MPs will be pressing for this crucial programme to be retained by Scotland, especially as my MP, David Mundell, threatened to resign if Northern Ireland received any favourable treatment.
C Donaldson
Moffat
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