Border issues should not be minimised – benefits should be emphasised

Joanna Cherry appears to be minimising the impact of a border, and its assets and liabilities, by focusing on the minimal legal requirements that could be agreed between the willing/unwilling adjacent nations of England and Scotland, by their willing/unwilling leaders (Here’s how an indy Scotland in the EU could avoid hard border with rUK, Aug 6).

That there is a border here on both land and out to sea is a given, but there is also a border between Northern Ireland and Scotland in the Irish Sea which includes Scotland’s Beaufort’s Dyke.

So, moving east to west, Scotland will need to address the North Sea annexation by England actioned by former UK PM Blair, then the border alignment which does not always follow the latest river boundary, then the border catchments currently jointly overseen by SEPA/EA, and then the UK’s Beaufort Dyke munitions dump which lies within Scotland’s territorial limit.

READ MORE: Expert says Wall of Gretna claim is ‘mischievous exaggeration’ by Tory

On the face of it the border should be as porous as possible if Scotland, as an independent EU nation state, wishes to retain free movement as close to the status quo as possible.

However, once the need to retain GM-free catchments, retain factory farm-free catchments, pandemic control, EU phytosanitary controls, goods and products control etc along the border are added, it will be a hard border in all but name.

Bonded warehousing, located within these border catchments, may well ease the border effect locally and beyond, and indeed provide much-needed employment in these border areas. Certainly, it is not in Scotland’s interest to generate/facilitate a Sudetenland-style border crisis.

Let’s also not forget the huge sea border to the west, north and east, either, which includes many different needs, and citizens with different outlooks, both politically and culturally.

In conclusion, perhaps we should not be pretending to minimise border issues, but to emphasise them, and highlight not just how the citizens of Scotland could benefit, but the citizens of England and Northern Ireland also.

As for the border with Northern Ireland itself, well, currently it would require a dialogue with the both willing and unwilling power-sharing assembly, and willing/unwilling rUK, and a necessarily facilitatory EU. This is a true Gordian knot of outlooks, belonging, history, politics, creed, and is acutely affected by Scottish independence, and the operational independence timescale. On balance, the fast-tracking of EU membership for an independent Scotland might well provide the optimum choice for both the EU and Northern Ireland.

Stephen Tingle
Greater Glasgow

WHAT if a bunch of ultra-right-wing imperial politicians, helped enormously by their buddies in the equally ultra-right-wing press, managed to convince the person in the street that all their problems were caused by being in the EU? Furthermore, that if the aforementioned person in the street voted to leave the EU, all his or her problems would be solved as we would all have the best of both worlds. Outstanding trade deals, full employment and a NHS no longer under pressure.

I mean, who would actually buy that one? Who would actually have the blinkers and short-sightedness to believe that?

READ MORE: Brexit blamed for halving number of EU students going to Scottish Universities

So anyhow, fast forward and rumours have it that the military are being placed on standby to deliver supplies to the supermarkets. This is a military that is already on overstretch, one that has incredible difficulty in retaining people because of the poor conditions of pay, housing and single accommodation. One that is seeing those with experience of command at the junior level leaving, thus degrading the military’s ability to function correctly as they are no longer moving up through the ranks.

All because a few ultra-right-wing fascist politicians and their mates wanted to protect their secret bank accounts offshore.

How far is a Westminster prepared to destroy a country to protect its own? Well we are all now witnessing that as it unfolds. Scotland needs now to move as one for independence.

Cliff Purvis
Veterans for Scottish Independence 2.0

YOU recently printed a letter from me in which I hoped the Greens keep at arm’s length from the SNP. In Monday’s National Richard Mason reports that it is likely that there will be a “New Zealand-style” co-operation deal between the parties. This fills me with gloom. For decades I have voted SNP while wanting to vote Green, believing that I was speeding the happy day when we became a free country and could start to look after it properly.

READ MORE: New Zealand-style SNP-Green co-operation deal being studied by civil servants

The gloom is caused by the part of the report which quotes Jacinda Ardern, the NZ prime minister, saying: “Importantly for the government, [the deal] brings stability”. I thought the next parliamentary term in Scotland would be one of dramatic change, of referendums, constitutional construction, reform, action and decision. There might even have been an independence day parade.

If the Scottish Government is looking for stability and the Greens are rash enough to link themselves with this, will the choice in the next election be between their joint and immobile stasis and Alba?

As Scott of the Antarctic said, “Oh God, this is an awful place.”

Iain WD Forde
Scotlandwell

MURDO Fraser’s track record over his time at Holyrood can be summed up in an anagram of his name – MURDER SO FAR!

James Arthur
Paisley