EVERY day it is just another damn thing. So what do you think of “freeports”? For my money if it has any thing to do with the Tories and Boris Johnson, what the heck are we doing even to consider it? Johnson says it will level us up, or will it just give two areas of Scotland a bit of an advantage? Levelling them up and the rest down?
The European Union does not think “free economic zones”, as they are also known, are such a fine idea; since the UK left the EU they have been clamping down on 82 “free zones”. They found that the special status of such areas had aided the financing of terrorism, money-laundering and organised crime.
In international terms they are supposed to simplify and harmonise customs procedures, which I find ironic as the Westminster government’s outstanding achievement, since Brexit, is to make trading between the UK and the continent of Europe, and the UK, mainland, and Northern Ireland, so complex that many exporters and importers have given up.
READ MORE: SNP Trade Union group demands answers on plan for 'green freeports'
You may be conversant with the term “Cinque Ports”. These were/are a group of towns in Kent and Sussex in England. Hastings, New Romney, Hythe, Dover, Sandwich and Rye. The tale that is told is that these coastal towns were required, by the English Crown, to provide and maintain ships for the use of the Crown. In return these places were given quite a number of privileges; including an exemption from certain taxes. This was around 1135 and in 1155 there was a Royal Charter.
However, there are those who believe that Cinque Ports were established earlier by “Edward the Confessor”, almost a century before, when he needed to bring a group of “troublesome ports” to order, for the people of these places controlled cross-Channel traffic. So I wonder if that is a part of this “freeport” idea from the Johnson mob – toss the troublesome Scots a “kind-of” Cinque Port and then if they are making money they will stay in the Union.
There was a lot of talk in the SNP about these, and the Greens were vocal in objecting. Nicola Sturgeon’s government objected to the idea but the UK Government said they would be happening anyway. The establishment of “freeports” in Scotland, without the involvement of our government, would override areas of devolved competence. So the Scottish Government engaged and said well they will have to help us deliver the “green economy”, to help fight climate change.
READ MORE: Why is there an SNP-Green row over freeports in Scotland?
Of course there are a number of voices from Scottish business people, and some local authorities, who feel that a “freeport” in their back yard is just what they need.
Maybe with that last sentence I have found it. “What THEY need” ... it may well be what THEY need to make them more money. It may be that they make more job opportunities. However, that is not the path I want for Scotland, I want a path that says “This is what this good for the whole of Scotland”, because we are Scots, this is our country, and we want to make it better for everyone, not just those in the 45 miles around Rosyth, or Stranraer, Aberdeen, or wherever they end up.
Oh yes, you can say well, the money will filter through to all parts of the country. I think that is naive; economics in the UK is totally skewed towards providing shareholders with dividends, and the Tory government shows very little empathy for those in society who find it very difficult to ride the various “hamster wheels” that society provides by way of employment.
Just one more idea to throw out. “The creation of jobs” is one of the selling points of these “freeports”. How many news stories have you come across, recently, which say that there are to few people to drive HGVs, pick crops, to be bouncers outside night clubs, to be workers in care homes, to be doctors, to be nurses. There are not enough people to do all the things that need doing now!
I do not support these, I do not think the SNP government supports these, we know that the Greens don’t support these, but the UK Government will do them anyway, and trample over us yet again. Are you Yes yet?
Cher Bonfis
via email
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