IF I correctly understand it, the basis of Richard Mowbray’s argument about last year’s European referendum (Letters, June 26), is that the majority of people chose to vote Leave because “they believed the institutions of the EU to be profoundly unaccountable and undemocratic, its elite (and that of the UK too) to be in need of being taken down a peg or two, and they wanted control of the UK back”.
As far as control over UK affairs is concerned, as a UK resident I have been marginalised for virtually the whole of my voting life under the current undemocratic and backward two-party, first-past-the-post system at Westminster. Given that, under this system, Scotland has been represented by only one Conservative MP in the last seven years, there is no “mystery” at all in our collectively feeling more comfortable with Brussels than with London.
With all the current faults of the EU, including its democratic deficits, I still see Europe as much more forward-looking, democratic, and, in principle at least, enlightened, generous and humane, than Britain under its present system and particularly under its present Government. The idea of justice, human rights, and safety and environmental standards being taken back and neutered under the likes of Theresa May and Boris Johnson frankly appals me.
With regard to the 580 MPs elected this month “on manifestos to leave the EU single market and customs union”, this was a General Election on a wide range of issues, not a referendum on one issue. Neither of the two largest parties, between which all the other parties under the present system were inevitably squeezed, offered the electorate any clear choice on the subject.
I prefer to interpret this month’s outcome, resulting significantly in a hung parliament, as evidence of the perplexity and confusion of the British people, now faced with the reality of an increasingly uncertain future under a Theresa May-style Brexit. “Taking back control” is already being exposed for the lie it was, as the British people, too astute to be fooled twice, immediately recognised with the other lie, “strong and stable government” under the Conservatives.
Robert Bell,
40 Stewarton Drive, Cambuslang.
JIM Sillars asserts that the Scottish Government was wrong to go to the Supreme Court over the Sewel Convention when it was seeking to oppose Article 50 so that Scotland could not be withdrawn from the EU and single market against its will (“Sillars urges Sturgeon to stop ‘grandstanding’ over second independence poll”, The Herald, June 27). He concludes that the Scottish Government should have left matters vague. An opposite conclusion can be drawn.
Many people had faith in the Sewel Convention, dating from July 1998 when the UK Government asserted that it would "not normally legislate on devolved matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". "Normally" turned out to be the weasel word. The Scotland Act 2016 then repeated this supposed pledge but it turns out not to have been worth the paper it was written on.
We therefore now have clarity that we cannot trust the Westminster Government on anything meaningful, including on our place in Europe. It points to independence as the only way for the Scottish people to make their own decisions. We have to trust ourselves. It is no use trusting Westminster.
Susan Grant,
Mansfield Cottage, Scotsburn Road, Tain.
I’D like to know how the First Minister can honestly complain about a “Brexit” effect on Scotland.
The Scottish economy has been teetering on recession since before the Brexit vote. It’s underperforming compared to the UK average. Both consumer spending and business confidence is lower than the UK. Wages are still lower than they were a decade ago.
Since the Edinburgh Agreement was signed in 2012, Scotland has been suffering from a pernicious “independence referendum” effect, which, at a minimum has been compounded by Brexit.
At the insistence of the SNP this effect could last up to a generation despite the fact that the issue was democratically resolved in 2014.
Most people are now getting on with their lives, even if they didn’t vote for Brexit. Most political parties have also accepted that some form of Brexit will occur rather than campaigning for another referendum on the EU.
Such acceptance, sensible politics and reconciliation has never really occurred in Scotland, much to our detriment.
David Bone.
1 Ailsa Street West, Girvan.
BEFORE the EU referendum, the term “Brexit” was used as a rallying cry by those wishing for withdrawal from the EU. Now that the die is cast and we are leaving, the negotiations in progress will decide how this country will sit in relation to Europe. As we will at the end of the day be out of the EU, I suggest dropping the term Brexit and adopting the term Eurout.
Lawrence Laing,
151 Peveril Avenue, Glasgow.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel