Scotland should have its own rules for quarantining of visitors

Perhaps for politically ideological reasons this includes UK residents returning from countries, such as many of our European neighbours, where Covid-19 infection rates have been a fraction of the overall UK rate. In fact throughout Europe, where countries have experienced lower infection rates than the UK, it would seem more logical for those countries to impose quarantine regulations on visitors from the UK, rather than vice versa, and so “reciprocation” (as already evidenced by the reaction of France) will probably result in UK citizens being perhaps unnecessarily subjected to equivalent quarantine regulations on entering those countries.

Of course, even as lockdown measures are eased in Scotland there will be few “visitors” to our country as long as these austere regulations, potentially of severe detriment to Scotland’s economy, remain. However, there may be options the Scottish Government can explore.

If an exception can be made for Ireland, then exceptions could also be made for Norway, Denmark and all countries experiencing infection rates significantly lower than those of the UK, although in practice it may be simplest to extend such “exceptions” to all EU/EEA countries. Should the UK Government not be prepared to extend exceptions under its new regulations, and if it is also not prepared to enable exemption for visitors arriving at Scottish ports, then perhaps the Scottish Government should pursue bilateral arrangements with other countries that would still facilitate notification of local addresses during visits but without compulsion to self-isolate. In other words there would be no enforcement by Police Scotland in accordance with, if necessary, suitably revised Scottish law.

Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian

I NEVER cease to be amazed at the naive, rose-tinted view of capitalism in action expounded by Michael Fry (Scotland should be proud of its Rich List billionaires and millionaires, May 26).

I suppose we should all just gloss over things like the Wall Street crash and the almost ditto of 2008 to name but two, caused by unbridled greed and lust for unlimited financial wealth and power. The really galling thing is that although companies and banks may fall, those who CAUSE these events invariably swan off to sunny climes holding on to a substantial chunk of their booty, la Fred the Shred.

This wonderful system has a track record of undermining and destabilising ANY state which refuses to play its game. The thought of any other system being allowed to exist is anathema to them, and quoting Russia (which has NEVER been a communist country, although it paid lip service to the principles) is suggesting that there are only two alternatives.

Corruption and greed will exist in ANY system of government unless you have laws preventing it WHICH ARE ENFORCED with Draconian penalties. Greed and selfishness is an unpleasant facet of human nature which should be discouraged.

Free-market economics rewards it, and is therefore unsustainable.

Barry Stewart
Blantyre

YESTERDAY’S National gave me a dilemma: whether to comment on Neil Oliver’s latest intervention (Oliver sparks outrage by supporting Cummings, May 26) or Michael Fry’s rich list column. I chose the latter.

While hailing Anders Povlsen’s achievements on rewilding, a term I never liked, with its aim of restoration of a more natural landscape, Michael Fry suggests that “without capitalism it would not be possible at all”. I suggest that the method of land management rather than money is the crucial thing here.

Ending the sporting approach to deer and grouse management and following practices that encourage more natural habitats is crucial. Coupled with this, we need to see people re-inhabiting the valleys and glens, preferably community owners, who tend to make more sustainable decisions.

And Neil Oliver? Well, sufficient to say that having been a lifelong supporter of the National Trust for Scotland, I resigned my membership on his appointment.

John C Hutchison
Fort William

“THE Trust’s president is an ambassador for our charity”, claims the NTS website. Fine. But ambassadors are appointed by someone and the choice of candidate will reflect that someone’s values. The kind of people Trump would appoint as American ambassadors are not going to be the same kind of people that Obama would have chosen, and vice versa.

For the NTS to be represented by someone who is so loudly opposed to Scotland running its own affairs must surely make some people wonder what the point is of having an independent National Trust for Scotland instead of a branch office of the English one.

Andrew McCracken
via email