I SEE letters from the people who claim Scotland would not be an independent nation if we join the EU and we should only go for EFTA or the custom’s union or McTavish’s goat, and ponder if Brexit has taught them anything about how the world now works?

Ask Switzerland or Norway and they will tell you they pay into the EU, for the privilege of EFTA, nearly as much as being a member would cost them and have to abide by all the EU/EFTA trade agreements (including supply chain) but have no say in their content. They will tell you of export shipments still held up by wrong documentation delays and customs checks at their borders.

Scotland’s exporting businesses need EU membership as a stepping stone to recovery for their businesses, pre-Brexit markets and workforces. Scotland needs the EU free movement of people to help grow its population to meet staffing targets for NHS Scotland’s recovery, amongst other key items.

READ MORE: Who represents the one-third of Yes supporters who are EU-sceptic?

All this before any of our businesses access the numerous world trading deals which the EU has with other major trading blocks, or our small communities benefiting from EU support and grant assistance for local projects.

Really, what the anti-EU brigade wish for is Scotland simply to be an independent mini-me of Brexit England with all the growing problems caused by Brexit that we see unfurling daily before our eyes.

All for around 10% of Scotland’s sovereignty loaned to the EU, as a nation, which leaves us with 90% more than we have at present.

Yet the anti-EU faction are happy to ignore the 62% of Scots voters who wish to rejoin the EU, as they stamp their feet in indignation about Scottish sovereignty and the bad EU.

What part of the fact that rejoining the EU represents the considered will of the majority of the Scottish people, can the anti-EU brigade not understand? A clear majority under any democratic measure you may wish to use.

If the anti-EU brigade would threaten to scupper Scottish independence over this issue, one must ask: just how serious are they about independence or democracy or the considered will of the people of Scotland, in the first place?

Peter Thomson

AS a current supporter of the conflation for Yes2/EUref (Scotland), I must confess that I was previously a supporter of Yes, followed by a Holyrood election, followed by an EUref (Scotland). Perhaps I should also add that whilst in this condition I simply did not accept that 30% of SNP supporters wanted Brexit in its many guises.

There was the “all powers devolve to Scotland” Brexit, the “abolition of red tape in Scotland” Brexit, the “deportation of EU migrants from Scotland” Brexit, the “£40m per week extra for the Scottish NHS” Brexit, and the “land and sea of opportunity of the Scottish agricultural and fishing sector” Brexit – as portrayed by Ukip, Tory, Red Tory, and the ever-all-inclusive DUP – had all the fact-based enticement of horse de-worming medication.

Visiting past SNP conferences (not as a delegate) I was surprised by what I encountered in EU-related votes, in that support for any EU-phobia didn’t seem to even extend to the limits of statistical error ie 5% away from unanimous rejection. Others may have had a different view from me as I was situated near the middle of the conference seating and would have had to look behind to notice any such substantive groupings.

READ MORE: Rural clearances have been ongoing thanks to EU agricultural policies

I have seen reported in the past that the pro-EU stance of citizens of Scotland had moved from some 62% to some 75%, and given that the current Brit Nat Tory party of Scotland now represents Ukip/Tory and Red Tory pro-Brexit views, and is standing at around 25% of the Holyrood list electorate, it certainly now looks as if the Brexit support amongst indy supporters is indeed closer to 5% than 30%.

That said, the pro-EU stance “of the many” in Scotland must take into account the views of the “few”, and not merely discount them as the UK Government has done with pro-EU Scottish citizens and their elected government, and indeed their parliament.

In conclusion, I now hold to the view that a substantial Yes2 win vote requires EU membership to be part of the referendum offer, and that rapid progress with settling the Scotland/rUK relationship post-Yes2 will indeed require the assistance of the good offices of the EU. Raising the issue of a hard border as a “bad” consequence of EU membership is to ignore the resistance to free movement in a future Scotland from the rUK government, who will insist on an English-side border, and the export across said border into Scotland of what rUK see as fit for consumption by the citizens of Scotland, for which Scotland will likely require a Scottish-side border.

There clearly will be a hard border, so the only question is really how to ensure it is as porous as possible given the Brit Nat attitude of the rUK, a much bigger entity than Scotland, and indeed its substantively amoral nature. That is where there is potential for the EU, in turn a much bigger entity than the Brit Nat rUK, to assist Scotland as one of its member states.

Membership of the EU is not a given, however, nor an end in itself, and the EU will no doubt be concerned that such a determined Scotland seeking substantive change in its international status will, whilst being a willing member of the EU, bring to the EU a momentum for change that it may not be over-comfortable with.

But, back to the concerns of the pro-indy “few” and of course the Brit Nats who support the Unionist “No” cause – all Scottish citizens after Yes2.

Aside from tax haven protectionism for the wealthy, I do not see any benefits of Brexit, but eschewing Trident, broad shoulders etc it is an incumbent duty of those of a Yes/Leave persuasion to now identify any tangible benefits of Brexit that the Yes2/EU supporters can try and accommodate within a Scotland that is an independent EU nation state.

Stephen Tingle
Greater Glasgow