GR Weir (Letters, November 10) puts forward an eminently logical, democratic suggestion to draw the hard/soft/invisible border at Gretna, thereby giving each of the countries of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland the kind of deal with the EU that each of them wants and voted for.
Unfortunately, the UK Government doesn't do logical and its urge to control always trumps democracy.
The last thing they want is Scotland and Ireland lumped together. For 300 years the policy with regard to both these satellites has been divide and rule.
So all four of the UK's constituent countries will be force-fed with what England wants and voted for.
Mary McCabe,
25 Circus Drive, Glasgow.
DR Gerald Edwards (Letters, November 10) fails to consider the following issues:
1. There is no demand for a re-run of the devolution referendum.
2. In a democracy the most recent vote overrides previous votes. General Elections are designed to do this.
3. Attitudes and circumstances change with time. This is the reason why new votes are needed. Regarding Brexit, attitudes and circumstances have changed massively due to the discussion of the effects of Brexit. This discussion took place after the vote. Clearly it should have taken place before the Brexit vote. That is why a new vote is needed.
4. The principle purpose of the EU is to prevent the wars of 1914 and 1939 happening again.
John Fleming,
34 Kessington Drive, Glasgow.
As "they" urge us to vote again, will the proponents of the People's Vote be quite clear of the consequences, namely: how much will losing the rebate cost per year? What grants are due for re-evaluation like farming in 2020, with a probable reduction as new members share the pot? What laws are we signing up to for freedom of movement, no external trade deals and the like? What will be the impact on fishing?
To suggest we will negotiate "better" flies in the face of past EU negotiations.
Will this be a final People's Vote or will we be entitled to one whenever the consequences of electoral policies does not quite match our expectations?
James Watson,
20 Randolph Crescent, Dunbar.
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