THIS letter follows the recent call from Alyn Smith for Scotland to take a place on the Arctic Council (The National, December 27) and the earlier piece on the Brexit options (Let’s pick from a smorgasbord of Nordic delights, The National, December 22) in which Lesley Riddoch referred to the powers held by the Faroe Islands. Space probably didn’t allow Lesley to expand too fully on these powers, and her point about the path to Faroese self-governance made Denmark appear sweet and reasonable. This letter here too will doubtless read as simplistic, and the Faroese history seem a bit potted. But anyway… The Faroese parliament, the Løgting, dates from the 10th century and continued beyond Norwegian rule to later Danish rule. In 1298, the islands received its first form of constitution, the “Sheep Letter”. Under Denmark from the late 14th century, the influence of the Løgting diminished until it was abolished in 1816. It was revived again in 1852. Faroese self-government did not actually come into force until 1948, not 1946.

In 1946 the Faroese themselves organised a referendum to determine their future, probably emboldened by the decision taken by Iceland a couple of years earlier to break away from Denmark and declare itself a sovereign republic. Both nations had had their links to Denmark broken in 1940 when Germany invaded Denmark and Norway.

The result of the referendum in September 1946 was close: 48.7 per cent in favour of secession from Denmark, and 47.2 per cent against. The process towards independence was started. Just over a week after the referendum, the Danish government contested the result and dissolved the Faroese parliament, and called an election for November 1946. The pro-union Union Party and the Social Democratic Party won the day, and the newly elected parliament accepted a negotiated settlement, which was based upon a home government arrangement that entered into force in 1948.

Until 2005, the self-government of the Faroes had been mainly developed in the internal sense. In 2005 however, the islands and Denmark agreed on a new negotiated settlement which included a certain degree of external self-government. As Lesley Riddoch explained, the Faroese enjoy autonomy in their foreign relations, but through the Act of July 2005 – the Takeover Act – which was supplementary to the Home Rule Act of 1948.

Through the 2005 settlement, the Faroes can drive their own external trade relations, imports and exports, taxation and financial policy, business regulation (except the banking sector), and can regulate their fisheries and other natural resources, energy and the environment, the labour market, social security, emergency preparedness, education, research and culture.

The Faroes have negotiated a fisheries agreement and a free trade agreement with the EU, and in 2006 entered into a special economic treaty with Iceland establishing a single economic area. They have also entered into regional free trade agreements with Norway and Switzerland as well as a Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment Agreement with the Russian Federation.

In their own name, the Faroe Islands are a full member of the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, and an associated member of three UN specialised agencies – the International Maritime Organisation, FAO and Unesco.

While the Danish state still administers some important areas such as the currency, the judiciary, police, defence, family and inheritance law, immigration and border control, the Faroe Islands are indeed a powerfully devolved nation and the Løgting is a powerfully devolved parliament.

Graeme D Eddie
Dunbar

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Davidson should try sticking to what she does best

I HAVE mixed views towards Ruth Davidson. Her calm and yet forcefully expressed denunciation of Boris Johnston’s policies, vacuous though they are, during the EU debate prior to last June’s EU referendum was indeed worthy of praise, as was her warning to the national party at the Conservatives’ national conference later in the year against anti-immigration sentiment and the surge to the right which has followed the implosion of the Labour Party.

Since then I have been far less impressed. If she liked membership of the EU for the UK then she should certainly not rule it out for Scotland. And she should desist immediately from predicting a fraught trading relationship for Scotland with rUK while at the same time her party’s refrain is to reassure anyone listening that the UK will achieve good trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world. To say that Scotland alone will not get a good trade deal comes over as not only illogical but even as being somewhat anti-Scottish.

The indyref1 experience means that the average Scottish political observer is quite astute now. We know when our intelligence is being insulted and we can very accurately identity the defecatory deposits of adult male bovine animals whenever we come across them.

Ruth Davidson has no particular need to be concerned about my opinion as I shall always vote and campaign for Scottish independence. Nevertheless, I think she would be well advised to keep doing what she is respected for and that is keeping her party from surging ever further to the right.

Petty point scoring about borders and trade barriers and giving us a pre indyref2 version of project fear does nothing to enhance Ruth Davidson’s status as a politician worthy to be at least listened to. As said earlier, stick to what you do best.

David Crines
Hamilton

YESTERDAY’s National, which I loved, had between its pages a couple of letters on homelessness.

In the 1980s the Tory government was in power, with a massive majority – nothing or no one could stand against them. Edwina Curry was Health Minister at the time when they introduced “Care in the Community”. I remember well the interview she gave on Bristol Radio, her rhetoric for the closing down of homes that served the old, mentally sick and vulnerable people in our society, who now found themselves cast onto the street.

“Such places are institutionalising” she told us. “Do you want us to drive THEM (different from us) around in buses with ‘Mentally Handicapped’ written in big letters along the side?” Such arrogance was the hallmark of a Tory party given ultimate power.

I along with two others set up a soup kitchen and delivered meals to the homeless, normally around 150 to 160 each Sunday afternoon.

I don’t know what I expected on opening the doors that first Sunday – old tramps, alcoholics I suppose.What we received was young people with complex problems that no charity had the skills or resources to help.

Homelessness is not the lack of a roof over one’s head, and putting a few coppers in a cup on the pavement may help your conscience but will not help the homeless person sitting on the street. I never give money, as money can be used to fuel an addiction, but will give a hot drink and some food. Homelessness, food banks, sanctions, fuel poverty are all complex problems, none the less shameful in the sixth richest country in the world. Maybe independence will change that.

Walter Hamilton
St Andrews

YOU can daydream of Edward Longshanks And Brit Nat Papers too In the morning you’ll still be British And under a Bucher’s Apron s too.

You can pretend you’re Butcher Cumberland And wear your ‘45 badge.

Tomorrow you’ll be still Brutish And live under a Royal Mirage You can hold your Loyal rallies if you like And scream and holler abuse But in the morning you’ll still be Brutish And worship a foreign Hoose.

You can cry at UDI if you want And all the Saltires free But in the morning you’ll still be Brutish While Scotland is rampant and free.

Donald Anderson
Glasgow