IN her rehash of Cat Boyd’s article, Lovina Roe (Letters, August 8) agrees with her that there would somehow be a trap for independence if we were to hold a second referendum on Brexit while regurgitating misinformed views about the economic state of Greece and Italy, the structure of the EU and the position adopted by its negotiators concerning Britain’s Brexit.
In holding a second referendum there is no “trap” for the independence aspirations of Scots, because the Brexit referendum was a unique case. It was an ill-conceived political ploy by Cameron to use a public vote to quell unrest in the Tory party. Legally, the referendum was only advisory. The campaigns were predicated on lies. Spending rules were breached during the campaign. 63% of the electorate did NOT consent to Brexit. Extrapolated to the whole population, nearly three-quarters did NOT vote for Brexit. With the denial of the right to vote of many UK citizens living within the EU, it is likely these proportions would only be higher. Even under this flawed scenario Scotland did NOT vote for Brexit.
For these many reasons a second referendum appears not only not a trap and justifiable but uniquely essential, as the only reasonable mechanism, in the face of parliament abandoning its jurisdiction, to get the country out of the twist it got its knickers in.
Isn’t it time to consign what EU detractors consider its “Achilles heel” to the dustbin of history? Greece and Italy are not the norm, they are special cases. Both got themselves into their economic plights on their own volition; Greece through poor tax collection and fiscal responsibility, and Italy because of its inherent historical political weakness; elections traditionally coming with a frequency approaching a Glasgow Celtic Scottish Premiership title.
So, any EU intervention is designed to help recovery, and as we all know this takes time. It’s in both countries’ hands to act with political, fiscal and economic responsibility, helped by the EU.
What makes me laugh though is the naivety of both writers about the structure of the EU; because isn’t the very solution to the problems they raise about the alleged lack of “democratic control” of those administering the EU the federal Europe they would disdain? David Crines (Letters, August 8) explained the structure clearly. Doesn’t it appear that both Cat Boyd and Lovina Roe fail to grasp what the EU actually is; a family of autonomous nations, working in harmony through the level playing field of the single market and funded according to the means each can afford?
Equally amusing is criticism of the EU and Barnier for holding true to the four principles. Get this: it’s Tory-driven Britain that is leaving the club, founded on a false nationalistic fervour. You can’t leave and reasonably expect to continue enjoying the benefits of membership. Brexiteers can’t get it into their heads that the Brexit clique never held any of the cards. All their claims of getting a “good” Brexit deal are fatuous nonsense, believed only by those seeking someone, anyone, to scapegoat for the many years of austerity inflicted by Westminster.
Doesn’t this explain why the biggest gobs have never stepped up to the plate to challenge Theresa May, and the architects of this folly have slunk back into the shadows to let others clean up the abject mess they’ve put the whole nation in; crashing pound, slowest growth of G7, no trading agreement going forward with our biggest trading partner, clear difficulties in gaining alternative trading agreements in any reasonable timescale with other countries and large employers already relocating key parts of their business?
So, Cat and Lovina, fortunately Scots do have a solution. Their mission, if they choose to accept it, is independence first, then an informed national debate about whether yes or no to Europe.
Jim Taylor
Edinburgh
READ MORE: Letters: Joining the EU as an independent country is not the answer
READ MORE: First Minister is right not to back a second EUref – it sets a dangerous precedent
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