Readers' Opinion: Devolved governments can be major stumbling block on Brexit

But there is another layer of even greater complexity when faced with the devolved administrations in which there are EU-mandated provisions embedded in, for example, the Scotland Act of 1998 that under the Sewel Convention cannot be repealed except by the Scottish Government. So if Nicola Sturgeon says “no” then Scotland would retain certain EU directives, provisions and constitutional rights that with no little irony might require the Court of Justice in Strasbourg to adjudicate.

As for Northern Ireland, the incredible and dangerous “impracticability” of Westminster (aka Boris Johnson) unravelling the Good Friday agreement in order to remove EU-related content will require the agreement of the Government in Dublin and the agreement of the two hostile constituencies who signed the agreement.

I have said before in The Herald, but it is worth repeating, that such fundamental ‘”revolutionary” legislative changes in the governance of the various nations of the United Kingdom (sic) must gain Parliamentary scrutiny and approval.

Thom Cross,

18 Needle Green, Carluke.

NICOLA Sturgeon portrays to anyone who cares to listen that 62 per cent of Scots want to remain in the EU once Great Britain has terminated its membership.

Well, I voted Remain, meaning that I did not want Great Britain to exit the EU. But I most certainly do not want Scotland to be a member of the EU if the rest of Great Britain stands outside it. The euro? Customs points along the breadth of Hadrian’s Wall? The dilution of trading goodwill between us and the Auld Enemy, by far our biggest import and export market? The loss of the comforting Barnett formula, a safety net which all other countries with fragile economies would bite your hand off to have underpinning their balance of payments? Is that what 62 per cent of Scots want? I think not.

But Ms Sturgeon, a very able politician with a wide range of skills, goes pretty much unchallenged on her 62 per cent figure. And I can guesstimate from many discussions with colleagues, friends and family that there are hundreds of thousands of Scots like me who are thoroughly depressed by the thought that our political leader’s seemingly obsessive, compulsive quest for independence will drive her to use the EU issue as the catalyst to achieve her life’s goal, regardless of consequences.

I think Scotland would be best served if our First Minister pursued the following path:

Contribute to, and take full cognisance of, Britain’s exit plans, as agreed with Europe.

Review the impact of Brexit on the EU itself after the ramifications of Brexit become apparent. Will it strengthen or weaken, or perhaps even implode?

Ascertain the terms and the timescale of an independent Scotland joining the EU. Are they palatable?

Pre-negotiate the arrangements between Scotland and the remaining part of Britain which would prevail should Scotland become independent and thereafter implement the terms and conditions of its EU entry. How are conflicts to be managed?

Update the 2014 referendum White Paper, Scotland’s Future, based on the outcome of the steps outlined above. Call for another plebiscite, to let the nation have its say on independence within the EU, one way or another, for once and for all.

This will take years. Years of uncertainty. Years when, most unfortunately, our collective eye will be right off the ball of creating the wealth and prosperity which is the sine qua non of improving the lot of our people. Years when, most unfortunately, the rest of the world will take a rain-check on investing time and money into a country which doesn’t know whether or not it has a viable constitutional plan.

David Cameron made a serious political misjudgement; Ms Sturgeon has backed herself into a corner vis-a vis her party. Impetuosity is the new enemy. It’s time to put the interests of the nation before the demands of party politics.

Stuart Ross,

6/33 Portland Gardens, Leith, Edinburgh.

JP Anglim (Letters, July 19) should avoid not only misattribution of comments that appear in your columns but also wilful omission of significant parts of a sentence so as entirely to corrupt its original meaning.

In particular Mr or Ms Anglim (The omission of a forename makes response awkward) appears to have difficulty with the application of the term “parent state” to the United Kingdom, deliberately extracting it from the EU context where it was employed (Letters, July 18), quite properly, to denote the relationship of a European member state with one of its subsidiary regions.

And this relationship is not part of any sinister plot by a Westminster government. It was devised by the European Commission at some time before 1971 and imposed as one of the conditions of British membership of the then EEC. It was explained to ministers in the now-notorious advice by civil servants released under the 30-year rule together with a map annotated in French showing the EU’s 12 regions in the UK almost exactly as they exist today.

And immediately after the 1975 referendum, when Great Britain, including Scotland, voted to remain in what its people had been led to believe was a free trade area, the European Commission set up its regional office in Edinburgh and established the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) from which Scotland has benefited so hugely over the years.

Your head-scratching corresponden t, remarkably voluble on the subject of Scotland’s status, appears to be in denial of the most important aspect of it: the paramount power wielded, not by our puppet government at Westminster, but by the ultimate lawmakers in Brussels.

Mary Rolls (Mrs),

1 Carlesgill Cottages, Westerkirk, Langholm, Dumfriesshire.

I WOULD suggest that Rosemary Goring (“Democracy is not a pick and mix … we must accept Brexit”, The Herald, July 19) is seriously wrong in her view that it is somehow ‘undemocratic’ to consider the possibility of another referendum on EU membership. We have to respect the fact that the majority of votes cast across the UK were in favour of withdrawal, but surely those who are convinced that this was a misguided and irrational decision have the right, or even the duty, to make every effort to persuade people to change their minds. The Government which was responsible for holding the referendum must of course proceed in good faith with the arrangements for withdrawal, but this should not prevent others from continuing the campaign to retain our EU membership.

Since Brexit cannot come into effect for more than two years, and possibly considerably longer, there must be a possibility that the small majority in favour of withdrawal could be overturned within that time. A second referendum would provide an opportunity to look again at the franchise for the vote, about which there was some disagreement on the recent occasion. It would also be hoped that there would be some clarity about the practical implications of withdrawal.

After the failure of the campaign for Scottish independence the SNP was not immediately disbanded, and the wider Yes campaign was not abandoned. In the same way those who campaigned for remaining in the EU have every right to continue that campaign.

Ewen McMaster,

Flat4, 20 Castlebank Gardens, Anniesland, Glasgow.

ONE consequence of our withdrawal from the European Union should be the resinstatement of traditional measures, which can coexist perfectly happily with other ones and should never have been vanquished by them. Here’s to the quarter hill once more.

Christopher Ruane,

1 Ridgepark Drive, Lanark.