JEAN Monnet, Machiavellian founder of what is now the European Union, a de facto if not de jure world superpower, understanding perfectly well that the nations of Europe would not easily give up their sovereignty, made no secret of the fact that “ever closer union” – a process that could have only one ultimate goal – would need to be achieved incrementally, and even then in response to perceived need.

“Europe will be forged in crises,” he declared, “and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises”.

This is not strictly true, of course. Arguably more progress towards European integration has been achieved through the use of commonly accepted watchwords – words like sustainability, participation and diversity – together with the adoption of a European Union flag (its anthem has made little impact) than through any specific treaty.

But the greatest boost to the realisation of Europe as a single political entity came not with any treaty but with the little-noted report A People’s Europe by Pietro Adonnino, approved by the Milan Council of 1985 in response to poor turnouts for European elections.

The peoples of Europe were to be gradually conditioned to accept a new nationality as Europeans. Historic patriotism was an obstacle constantly impeding grass-roots integration in a supra-national state. No matter how committed the individual political elites might be to rule from Brussels, they had elections and referendums to consider.

The people were the problem and its solution has been two-fold: systematic weakening of elected local government not only through the integration of service provision with business and voluntary agencies but also through the creation and funding of unelected bodies controlling “community” projects.

So that the top-to-bottom erosion of sovereignty has proceeded from national governments, where control has been reduced to little more than an obligatory rubber stamp of EU Regulations and Directives, to the UK’s community or parish councils.

Alongside this undermining of elective democracy has gone Mr Adonnino’s gradually implemented plan to influence sport, culture, the media, research and education, including the universities.

But reality has now produced two major crises that will surely test Mr Monnet’s prophecy. Massive emigration into Europe from North Africa and the Middle East are threatening the West and North Korea’s latest nuclear test has demonstrated the inadequacy of non-proliferation agreements.

It will be interesting to see what effect these two new international crises have on both our law-making masters in Brussels and those Britons who voted to leave the EU. Will not “United in Diversity” be replaced by “United in Adversity”?

Mary Rolls (Mrs),

1 Carlesgill Cottages,

Westerkirk,

Langholm,

Dumfriesshire.

NICOLA Sturgeon unveiled her Programme for Government at the Scottish Parliament last Tuesday (“Sturgeon eyes up tax rises”, The Herald, September 6). Her strong focus on making Scotland a global leader in innovation and the low carbon economy could allow Scotland’s economy to diversify and grow. The low carbon economy now supports more than 58,000 jobs in Scotland and generates over £10 billion in turnover, and Scotland could benefit further in the right conditions.

Last month Ruth Davidson set out her strategy for housing in Scotland underpinned by innovative financing approaches to meet the huge demand for more homes (“Tory leader is accused of hypocrisy as she calls for push to build 25,000 homes”, The Herald, September 1).

The European Movement in Scotland is a cross-party, voluntary organisation campaigning for a European future for Scotland. There are those who argue that Scotland can pursue the ambitions set out by our politicians regardless of the outcome of Brexit. We do not agree. The negotiations between the EU and the UK are increasingly making it clear that the UK can only secure the benefits of continuing trade in goods and services with the EU single market if we maintain our commitment to European values such as freedom of movement and a common regulatory approach to issues such as food safety and climate change. If the UK wants to diverge from these principles and standards, for example to reach new deals with the United States, then barriers will come up with the EU which will limit Scotland’s ability to pursue ambitious goals.

It is also clear that if Scotland is excluded from key European programmes, such as Horizon 2020 or European Investment Bank loans, then funding streams will dry up which are crucial to the delivery of Scotland’s policy ambitions. There can be no guarantee that the UK will replace these programmes either in full or in part, and no commitment to allow the Scottish Parliament to manage the budgets outwith a framework decided by London

Most worryingly, the determination of the Prime Minister to restrict freedom of movement for EU nationals after 2019 creates a major barrier to the delivery of Scotland’s economic objectives. There is clear evidence that Scotland’s future economic health, key services such as the NHS, construction, the strength of our universities and our future public finances depend on the ability of EU nationals to work and study freely in Scotland. Freedom of Movement is also a prerequisite for full participation in key EU programmes such as Erasmus (“the European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students).

It is for these reasons that the European Movement in Scotland, while continuing to campaign for our EU future, has also called on the Scottish Parliament to argue the case, on an all-party basis, for Scotland to take control of migration through the devolution of the power to work and study here. Whatever the result of the Brexit negotiations, giving Scotland the power to regulate its own migration will be essential to matching labour supply to the economic needs we face here rather than those of the south of England.

Vanessa Glynn,

Chair of the European Movement in Scotland,

c/o 91 George Street, Edinburgh.

I WAS struck by the report quoted by Ian McConnell (“Tories build high fences in the Great British Steeplechase”, The Herald, September 8) that after Brexit the UK would introduce restrictions to deter all but highly-skilled EU workers.

This would mean a natural bar on all medical, hospitality and agricultural workers; seems like they want cherry pickers, and are not interested in berry pickers.

Please tell me they know what they are doing, because I cannot work it out.

Jim Lynch,

42 Corstorphine Hill Crescent, Edinburgh.