Readers’ remain exercised by the prospect of closer links with the European Union raised by the prime minister
Andy Burnham’s desire for closer links to the EU is a valid idea. I voted to remain in 2016. If I had voted to leave it would have been because of the increasing loss of sovereignty suggested by all the “European super state” talk, and the UK’s historic geographic and historic distance which protected us from many wars but saved the world when it came to our involvement and alliance building in the Napoleonic and world wars.
I also didn’t and still don’t think the EU was – and is – to blame for our decline in education, industry, health, good citizenship, all the social regulation and DEI excesses and the benefits culture. And as an active hitchhiker and vacation worker during my student days in the mid-70s the whole middle-class Erasmus thing is a red herring.
What I never anticipated was the surge in immigration and it will be to Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and the other Brexiteers’ eternal shame that legal immigration ballooned and they either never anticipated it, or kept quiet about it and neither did the useless Remain campaign, probably for fear of being labelled racist and anti-immigration.
I certainly don’t think we should repeat the 2016-2019 turmoil by rejoining, especially when we see the rise of far-right, Russia-leaning parties like the AfD but I do think we should seek better research, military, economic, people movement and cultural engagement – when it suits us. Whatever happened to “Canada-plus plus”?
Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire
We wuz robbed!
It looks as if Andy Burnham has predictably fallen into a trap of his own making. Having put his size ten loafers into the debate about rejoining the EU right up to his neck, the SNP has spotted a chance to say, “Whit aboot uz?”
The trouble with the Rejoiners is their total belief that “We wuz robbed!”, just like the SNP and Scottish Greens. Democracy is a moveable feast for the left, of course. Just as fascism has changed from being a right-wing phenomenon in the thirties to being a left-wing one nowadays, the fundamental view of the Rejoiners and Remainers is that their opinion is the only right one and there is no contradiction in demanding a second referendum in order that the “right” decision is made. Then you stop.
Since the biggest-ever democratic exercise held in the UK came out with a decision they didn’t like, just like the SNP, they will strain every sinew to override it. Anyone would think that these referenda were merely decorative and not held to decide an issue.
Mr Burnham believes that it would be a “dereliction of duty” not to renegotiate with the EU after his party gave away our fishing grounds for 12 years for… for… ah, yes. Nothing. No wonder the EU is licking its lips. They can see a mug approaching from 20 miles away, across the Channel.
Still, it’s more fun than improving the economy, or even our defence.
Andrew HN Gray, Edinburgh
Misdirection
Yes, to be or not to be, that is the question. But, what is the question regarding revisiting Brexit really about? Closer ties with Europe? That cannot be when the likely terms for rejoining will be so onerous that even europhile Labour will balk at asking the UK to swallow such pottage. Or is it one of those tricks beloved of politicians of creating noise to deflect from actual real issues that require urgent attention?
Is it worth suggesting that the forthcoming Budget will contain such a bitter bill for taxpayers, business and home owners that raising a furore over such a divisive issue such as Brexit will cloud the discussion regarding such issues as the high price of energy, food and fuel inflation, the introduction of yet another layer of bureaucracy with mayors and thousands of illegal immigrants still landing on our shores every month. The list is endless but the Labour Party want to talk about revisiting Brexit!
We the public can judge in the next few weeks after the Budget and subsequent small print has been properly digested. Oh the tension.
A Lewis. West Linton, Scottish Borders
Unpardonable folly
Allow me turn Stan Grodynski’s question around (Letters, 14 October). What will it take for those still wedded to the childish dream of Scottish secession to realise finally that, in a world of rapacious aggressors, breaking up the UK, particularly with its geographic and strategic importance, would be an act of, to quote Alex Salmond in another context, “unpardonable folly”?
And what evidence has Mr Grodynski that breaking up the UK into its constituent parts would enable these parts to “achieve the dynamic rates of growth of other countries in Europe”? Hint: the option of using predatory corporate taxes to attract large and profitable companies has already been bagged by Ireland.
How is Mr Grodynski proposing to create growth in Scotland comparable with that of more prosperous countries in Europe? What mechanisms and devices would he use to boost the economy of a separate Scotland? I think we should be told.
Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh
Holyrood’s purpose
It is surely obvious to everyone that the majority of Scots do not want Scotland to be independent from the 300-plus-year-old UK.
Does John Swinney really believe that if he stamps his foot long enough that he will get his own way?
In any case, just how capable would an SNP administration be if it were in the position of being the overall government of Scotland? Currently Holyrood is totally reliant on key Westminster ministries for: the Treasury and Central Bank in the form of the Bank of England; the Home Office; the Foreign Office and Ambassadorial Service throughout the world; defence; currency in the form of the sterling
One might be excused for enquiring: “Just what is Holyrood’s purpose?” It has only minor responsibilities compared to Westminster, and has shown precious little competence in dealing with these. Major change to the system is essential.
Robert IG Scott, Ceres, Fife
What a waste
There are lies, damned lies and statistics but now there are lies, damned lies and cheap electricity promises.
We have been promised cheap, reliable, green electricity and £300 off our bills for ages but nothing happens.
Figures from Octopus Energy’s “Wasted Wind” tracker shows figures that the wind industry and those of a green disposition would rather be hidden away from sight.
Last year consumers were hit with a bill for £1.47 billion, yes billion, to switch wind farms off and gas plants on. At the end of September this year the figure was £1.5bn. September alone harvested £404 million, with £30m on 30 September. Government analysis, cited in the Octopus Energy report, suggests that annual constraint payments could reach £10bn by 2030. No wonder there is fuel poverty.
One must ask who was the not-so-bright spark who agreed to pay wind turbine owners not to produce electricity. No wonder the cost of UK electricity is among the highest in the world and manufacturing companies cannot compete.
UK households and industry are paying for politicians’ net zero 2050 fixation. Meanwhile most of the rest of the world is harvesting and burning cheap fossil fuels, predominantly coal, to drive their economies.
Clark Cross, Linlithgow, West Lothian
Energy efficiency
Of the many recent letters praising Scotland’s renewable energy capabilities none have addressed the most essential factor – the efficiency of the total network system.
The simplest metric for this is constraint payments. For the last complete year 96 per cent of UK payments went to Scottish generators, so by some margin we have the least efficient part of the system, and this can only get worse if Torness is replaced by yet more intermittent generation.
A McCormick, Terregles, Dumfries
Save hospitality
I am an 83-year-old widowed pensioner living in Davidson’s Mains, which is a small community on the outskirts of Edinburgh.
The village has two pubs one with a restaurant. These venues are a vital social hub for local residents and provide meeting places for all generations to get together.
The financial pressure these businesses are undergoing with higher National Insurance and VAT costs is unsustainable and thought must be given to the social and community implications of maintaining the economic viability of all such establishments throughout Scotland. Hopefully common sense will prevail in the forthcoming budgets.
DG McIntyre, Edinburgh
Racism row
Alarming, repulsive and ignorantly biased as it was, the motion passed at the Greens’ conference that Zionism be recognised as a form of racism had historical precedent.
On 10 November 1975 the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 3379 which determined that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination” by 72 votes to 35, with 32 abstentions. The enduring bias and hostility towards Israel in and by the UN and its members and officials was further shown by the fact that the vote took place on the 37th anniversary of “Kristallnacht”.
One rare exception to the bias was the fact that 16 years later the motion was recalled and repealed. I pray that it does not take as long for the Greens to do likewise.
Bill MacDonald, Bonnyrigg, Midlothian
Write to The Scotsman
We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to lettersts@scotsman.com including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, and in the body of the email – no attachments – and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading. No poems or open letters.