Jim Sillars and Gordon Wilson make sound sense with their proposal that Scotland, in the event of regaining independence, could join the European Free Trade Association alongside the likes of Norway and stay outwith the EU ("Independent Scotland could be forced to join euro", The Herald, November 6).
This proposal could be the answer to a rebuff from the EU, although, as they point out: "As the EU's major oil producer and important contributor to the Common Fisheries Policy, Scotland is not in the position of a beggar at the Brussels gate."
In 1973 Ted Heath's Tory Government sold out the UK's thriving fishing industry in order to gain entry into the then EEC, whose 1970 Common Fisheries Policy decreed that vessels belonging to member states would have equal access to the waters of its members.
This meant, as far as Scotland's own extensive territorial fishing grounds were concerned, the European Community fishing states could exploit the resource of a fish-rich member in order to maintain fishing fleets and employment levels they could not obtain from the resources of their own waters. The direct cost to Scotland included thousands of jobs, a great loss of wealth creation and the formerly competent management of fish stocks evolving into damaging exploitation.
Former busy harbours and fish markets, from where Scots fishing boat crews would travel home, are now used only by large Spanish and French trawlers to offload catches directly into refrigerated trucks bound by road and ferry to Spain and France. The Spanish fishing fleet is by far the largest in Europe and there would be powerful business lobbying to allow Scotland easy entry into the EU, for obvious reasons.
Could there be a second chance for Scotland's fishing industry if independence is achieved? Could this nation once again, in good time, revert to its pre-1973 halcyon days when this important industry was in complete control of its own destiny?
Frederick Jenkins,
The Lodge,
Burnton,
Kippen.
I have no notion as to Allan C Steele's political affiliations but I suspect he is at least a tacit supporter of the Liberal Democrats (Letters, November 7). Federalism is a nostrum that has been advocated by that party and its forerunner, the Liberal Party, for more years than I care to remember.
The idea has a superficial attraction as a half-way house between Scottish Nationalism and Unionism but though federalism has been long espoused, it has gained little traction outwith the Liberal camp and has one gigantic flaw.
For federalism to work in Britain all the disparate parts of the kingdom would have to embrace the notion with equal enthusiasm. However, the attempt to spread devolution to parts of England other than London has already failed and seems unlikely to come about any time soon.
This is because, to most English people, Britishness and Englishness are the same thing. There seems, therefore, little need for a number of separate legislatures when Westminster suits admirably. They are encouraged in that belief by a metrocentric media that considers Holyrood, Cardiff and Belfast elections to be regional matters while the London mayoral election is national news.
It is futile to think these attitudes can suddenly change or that a party whose fortunes have varied between slightly hopeful and futile since the days of Gladstone and Lloyd George can gain a majority any time soon.
The only choice on offer to the people of Scotland is either to become a normal country, making its own choices, or remaining a forgotten backwater of a Westminster Government that only sits up and takes notice when the prospect of Scottish independence seems imminent and real.
Even now, less than two years away from the independence referendum, the Tory/LibDem Coalition is behaving as though the result is a foregone conclusion, as witness Phillip Hammond's crass pronouncements when he briefly flitted in to Faslane recently.
David C Purdie,
12 Mayburn Vale,
Loanhead, Midlothian.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article