REGARDING your headline: “Marriage no bar to deportation” (The National, July 10). Is there anyone who still believes that marrying someone will prevent deportation by our Tory Government?
The Tory Government has separated spouses and prevented parents from being with their children (Home Secretary Amber Rudd under fire over deportation of grandmother Irene Clennell, The National, February 28).
Theresa May as Home Secretary implemented the cruellest of immigration policies and continues to do so. This Tory Government has reneged on promises given to immigrants regarding post-study work and other visas.
People are turned away from our borders and refused entry on a regular basis despite having family and legitimate reasons to be here. This policy has caused untold heartache and pain for many, many people.
I applaud the SNP MPs who stand up in Westminster to challenge this. However, with Scotland having only 59 seats, the only answer is our own immigration policy.
Liz Kraft
Strathpeffer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separating indy from the EU is an important step
A VERY interesting idea from veteran SNP member and political commentator George Kerevan (Scotland should hold a referendum on the outcome of Brexit negotiations, The National, July 10).
I would argue it should be looked at by everyone in the Yes movement and discussed seriously by the Scottish Government.
I have consistently argued that indyref2 needs to be decoupled from the EU question so that Yes-supporting Remain voters and Yes-supporting Leave voters can unite around a general campaign on all the other very good and enduring reasons for Scottish independence we all agree on.
My preferred method for doing that would be to promise a binding and legal referendum on our relationship with the EU once Scotland has achieved independence. George suggests instead a consultative referendum held by the Scottish Government at the end of Brexit negotiations on whether Scotland accepts the deal that has been negotiated or not.
You don’t necessarily need to agree with George or the SNP’s position on the single market to find this idea intriguing and worth exploring. It certainly should not be dismissed out of hand.
As George points out here – in not so many words – the idea of a consultative referendum in Scotland on the Brexit deal also does the job of effectively decoupling the EU issue from indyref2.
Yes Remainers and Yes Leavers could both have their say and make their arguments, with both sides agreeing to respect the result as the initial status quo for an independent Scotland.
We would all need to take steps to ensure that the debate dealt with the real political, philosophical and economic questions in relation to the EU.
We would also need to ensure the debate reflected all of the positions held in Scotland by legislating to ensure equal media access and funding for those outside of the pro-EU parties of a Leave or EU-sceptic bent who wanted to argue acceptance of the deal from a left, progressive perspective (or any other perspective).
Whether it’s through a post-indy legally binding EU referendum, or through this idea of a consultative referendum from George Kerevan, the important thing is that the Scottish people would decide ... and all of us, regardless of our view on the EU, could then enthusiastically rally around building a majority vote for Yes to Scottish independence whenever indyref2 is called –knowing OUR decision on Brexit/EU is either behind us or still in front of us. Thank you for being prepared to think “outside the box” George Kerevan!
Steve Arnott
Inverness
AN excellent proposition. The Scottish political landscape has been muddied by Brexit confusion. George Kerevan’s idea would help focus minds and be a clear indication of Scotland’s intent.
Campbell Waterman via thenational.scot MAYBE Edinburgh Council should hold an uncalled-for unilateral referendum on Brexit. Or maybe they shouldn’t bother. If people wanted such a referendum they would have voted LibDem. But they didn’t.
Nelson Burns
via thenational.scot
AN interesting piece from Carolyn Leckie on Catalonia (It’s our duty to stand with Catalonia in its indy fight, The National, July 10). However, in the interests of accuracy may I point out that it wasn’t “Franco’s Civil Guard”
– the Guardia Civil was around long before Franco and, of course, still is.Also it’s a wee bit false to refer to the new constitution being approved after “the fall of Franco”, when in fact the road back to democracy for Spain only began after Franco’s death in November 1975. He was never displaced as Caudillo while he lived, unfortunately.
G Foulis
Edinburgh
IF economics moves in cycles, so too should money, the life-blood of the economy. The problem is that the Government has had its rightful place at the heart of the economy supplanted by powerful elite members directing money to select parts of the economy, withering other parts through deficit and causing economic imbalance.
If the Government was to regain its cardinal position to direct the flow of money to all parts of the nation and receive it back again by taxation, it could nourish the whole country and abolish a great number of taxes. This could be achieved, in the main, by an excess wealth tax on corporations and individuals and a basic universal citizen’s income.
Geoff Naylor
Winchester
REGARDING Michael Fry’s article (Why May should not fall for Trump’s sweet nothings on striking a trade deal, The National, July 11).
Michael Fry is right in pointing out that prospects for a trade deal on the strength of a few words between a president who lacks the necessary powers and a prime minister with her coat on a shoogly peg should not be expected “very, very quickly” after Brexit.
In fact, any trade deal with the US coming into effect immediately after Brexit would probably have terms and conditions similar to that of a buccaneer offering to sell a lifebelt to a drowning man with no other ships in sight.
It might be a lifesaver for the UK Tory Government but at such a cost that life would not be worth living for the rest of us.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry
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 here