I WAS disappointed to read the remark from Bertie Armstrong, the fishermen’s representative, that the UK “will have complete sovereignty over who has access to our waters”, as this seems to indicate that he is unaware of the publicly expressed views of Theresa May and other Cabinet ministers which directly deny this possibility (Stark Brexit warning for Scottish farming and fishing sectors, The National, January 12). Is he really unaware of the following quotes, of which I made note as they became public?
Theresa May: “deal must not disadvantage EU fishermen”, and on another occasion: “Spanish fishermen should not be left poorer”.
Michael Gove, after Brexit: “Danish fishermen will still be able to fish in Scottish waters”.
David Mundell: “There is no way we would go back to Scotland or Britain controlling British waters”.
A Westminster White Paper: “It is in the UK’s interests to reach a deal that works for EU fishing.”
Civil servants advising on the negotiations: “[Scotland’s fishing] must be regarded as expendable”.
Do these comments not indicate that, as always, our fishermen are certain to be sold down the river to achieve benefits the Tories and the south-east want? Moreover, if the EU elements of control over fishing are returned to Westminster as proposed instead of to Holyrood, Scottish fishermen and their representatives will have only as much input as for the last 40-odd years – absolutely zilch!
Agriculture looks set to be treated in exactly the same way. When Scottish hill farmers received from Westminster only one-fifth of an EU grant specifically given for them alone, while the rest was retained by Westminster, what hope is there of any consideration for them in the face of what is considered good for England?
Was Leave really the right decision for so many fishermen and farmers? Whether ones likes or dislikes the EU – and it has many faults – would both these groups, nevertheless, not be better served by having their own directly elected representation in its deliberations – as they would have if we were independent – rather than trusting those who have let them down so drastically in the past? And even after independence, we could still later decide for ourselves to leave if we were sufficiently dissatisfied with the progress.
P Davidson
Falkirk
IF the general public are convinced by the elites to vote to destroy Brexit (a rejection by the people of elitist centralised powers), then the elites will have had our consent to impose modern-day slavery on all of us, and they shall also have had confirmation that the general public are mostly mindless sheep who don’t really want the responsibility to govern themselves free from the odious parasites that occupy politics at present.
The Scottish independence dream shall also be crushed in the same manner as Brexit independence, and ironically aided by those same indy supporters who will consent to destroying Brexit and so their own chances of breaking away from Westminster in future. Idiots!
James Andrew Mills
Renfrewshire
THE outrage we have heard from Adam Tomkins and Ruth Davidson these past few days regarding their frustration and disappointment at the Westminster Tories appeared phoney. Their comments regarding the government’s failure to provide the House of Commons with the material necessary to debate important aspects to Scotland of matters pertaining to the EU Withdrawal Bill didn’t ring true to me. At least one of them may be secretly thrilled that the issues are to be decided upon by the unelected House of Lords.
We know Mr Tomkins loves to hobnob around the Lords, so I’m wondering just how long it will be before he’s invited to don the ermine and join the other weasel wearers.
Surely a man of his talents cannot be overlooked by the Prime Minister.
Anne Thomson
Falkirk
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