ALAN Roden is quite right to make his plea for civility in politics, and every reasonable person would wish him well (“End the toxicity in politics and agree top disagree well”, The Herald, July 2).
However, it is easy to recall that, after the 2014 referendum, the UK Government and the parties that had succeeded in convincing a majority that we are better together, made a massive compromise and reasonably negotiated extra powers for the Scottish Parliament. However, rather than accept the Smith Commission compromise, the SNP has continued in its fundamentalist pursuit of the goal of independence, rejected by two million Scots.
Likewise, the outcome of the Brexit referendum was a close win for Leave. The reasonable position here is that the UK should leave the EU but on terms that are the closest possible to membership. Like the SNP, however, the fundamentalist Brexiters tell us daily that any compromise European Economic Area/European Free Trade Agreement-plus type arrangement would not be acceptable.
The insistence of the SNP and its Brexiter counterparts on the strident and uncompromising pursuit of their dogmatic objectives is at the root of the incivility from which Mr Roden distances himself. It is a feature of the age of referendums in which we live that civility, reasonableness and compromise will always be in short supply. We are all much poorer for that sad fact.
WE should be grateful for Professor Iain Docherty for seeking to defend the Growth Commission report to which he has bound himself (“Concentrate on the real problem of our economy, Agenda, The Herald, June 12). However, there is one statement which stands out above all others which needs to be challenged: “There is nothing intrinsically different about Scotland that points to why it lags behind on a range of indicators…”
In fact, for comparisons with other small countries to be valid, these would need to be more similar to Scotland in having to deal with the legacy of a major post-industrial complex in their midst. Examples might be to imagine Austria with its own Wraclau or Finland with its own Kaliningrad. The former dominance of a heavy industrial economy would have similar far-reaching and enduring effects on the performance of those countries to that which Glasgow and much of the central belt has on Scotland, in terms of every feature of the economy from business birthrate to skills and employability.
Another element which is missing from Prof Docherty’s defence is the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK: it is surely not comparing like with like to compare economies which have developed independently with one which has been integrated into a larger (in imperial days much larger) whole for the whole of the several centuries that capitalism has existed.
Nationalists like Professor Docherty start from the dogma that integration within the UK economy must be a disadvantage, and work back from that conclusion. More objective and pragmatic people might see it differently, and consider the benefits of being part of the larger source of markets, skills, capital and materials, plus advantages of scale in issues such as national security and defence.
Add in the protection against economic shocks (including Brexit) of being part of a larger and more varied economy, and fiscal transfers of more than £10 billion per annum, and the case against any disadvantages becomes overwhelming.
THE management of immigration is a classic issue where devolution needs to be based on practicality, and it is disappointing that in his article Iain Macwhirter (“It is time immigration powers were devolved to Scotland”, The Herald, June 6) does not deal with exactly how a devolved immigration policy would be administered.
The problem is that Scotland shares an open land border with England. If people are admitted to Scotland, there is nothing to stop them immediately moving south – where there are more established Black, Asian, and minority ethnic (Bame) communities with social, economic and religious infrastructures and networks, as well as more and better paid jobs and (usually) better weather.
There are three possible solutions to this: a controlled border, tagging of individuals and differential visas and work permits. The first two are unacceptable in political and human rights terms respectively and the third is bureaucratic and expensive. In the latter case, it would also beg the question whether offenders would be deported from England to their place of origin or to Scotland, with the added complication that they might become Nationalist causes celebres if they happened to be SNP supporters (like the Brain family from Australia).
It remains the case that Scotland needs more people and there are ways in which we can attract them to study and work here. The biggest potential source of such people is the rest of the UK, and the Scottish Government might be more successful in attracting them if they stopped wanting to divorce us from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. A good start would be to extend to students from the rest of the UK the free tuition which is made available to those from all other EU countries.
The other point to be made is that with free movement from the rest of the EU, if people had wanted to come to Scotland in vast numbers, they would have done so already.
In the end, moreover, the best way to attract people will be to create more and better jobs, which will remain a very difficult task while uncertainty about Brexit is doubled and squared by the Scottish Government’s insistence on adding the uncertainty of the prospect of another independence referendum. As with so many other things, it would be much better if it concentrated on what its current powers can achieve, rather than the fantasy of independence.
YOUR correspondent Alistair Galloway (Letters, May 11) suggests that the SNP should seek a mandate for UDI in future manifestos. Your readers might like to consider the following example of what happens when you take people’s votes away, as he suggests.
When the National Union of Mineworkers was set up following the post-war Labour Government’s nationalisation of the coal industry, it was decided that never again would the miners go into national strike divided. To prevent this, it was decided that there would be popular vote in form of a mandatory pithead ballot on any proposal for a national coal strike. This process resulted in the successful strikes of the early 1970s under Joe Gormley.
However, when Mr Gormley’s successor Arthur Scargill proposed national strikes to the membership, he was defeated. His response was to change the NUM constitution so that a national strike could be called by a delegate conference, and in due course he secured the strike that he wanted through such a conference. As a result, the union was divided, the miners’ strike of 1984-85 did not hold and was defeated, pit closures accelerated and deep mining is now extinct as a major industry. Possibly worst of all, many mining communities were bitterly divided and remain so in the memories of all concerned.
Scotland has been bitterly divided too, by the 2014 referendum and its continuing aftermath, in which the First Minister and her Government perversely fail to represent the two million Scots who voted to stay in the UK. It is not hard to imagine the outcome if those two million were to be betrayed and led into UDI, having cast their ballots in good faith that their vote in 2014 was decisive and would settle the issue of independence for a generation.
Mr Galloway has made it clear on many occasions that he supports independence at any price. For most people, however, I hope that it is more important to put Scotland back together again in honouring the outcome of 2014 than in promoting further – and potentially catastrophic – division and bitterness.
YOUR correspondents (Letters, April 11 & 12) cannot be allowed to get away with rewriting history.
It is simply not the case that “once in a generation” was a throw-away comment by Alex Salmond. It was stated in the Scottish Government’s White Paper and in the information booklet issued to every household by the Electoral Commission.
Likewise, the Vow of 2014 comprised the following pledges: more powers for Holyrood, protection of Barnett, and the permanent status in statute of the Scottish Parliament. All of these have been delivered.
However, in the latter case, I agree the best way of achieving greater safeguarding of Holyrood would be a formal written constitution. As an ancient Charter 88 signatory, I would welcome this, especially as the necessary counterweight to permanent legal protection to devolution would be permanent legal protection for the Union.
Like they have in countries like the United States. And Spain. Nationalists should take care with what they wish for.
THE acreage of replies (Letters, April 7 & 9) to my simple request for pragmatic compromise (Letters, April 6) makes further comment on the subject of devolution feel a bit like intruding on the private grief of the SNP. However, it must be pointed out that the timing of any further independence referendum is not – as your headline (April 9) says – solely in hands of the Scottish Parliament, as it would be subject to the agreement of Scotland’s UK Parliament, into whose hands the task of defending the democratic decision voted for by two million Scots has fallen.
Moreover, the SNP Scottish Government, when it concluded the Edinburgh Agreement, agreed that the 2014 referendum would be decisive (and subsequently defined that as meaning “once in a generation” on several occasions), but has continued to agitate for a further referendum since the day after the last one. Likewise, the same Agreement included a commitment “to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom”. How the divisive and destructive antics of the SNP are designed to meet this commitment is anyone’s guess.
In short, the SNP has shown in breaking the Edinburgh Agreement on multiple occasions that its word is worthless. It is hard to see why Scotland’s UK government should ever trust it again. And if there is no agreement, there will be no referendum.
YOUR correspondent Peter Curran (Letters, April 5) rightly points out that the Tory Party opposed devolution for many years, but curiously omits to mention that the SNP held the exactly the same view until an 11th-hour conversion between the 1997 General Election and the 1998 referendum. Maybe this is because he wishes to disguise the fact that many of those who were present at the demonstration he describes are Scottish Nationalists who get up every day with the intention of destroying devolution by replacing it with independence.
In contrast, some of us see devolution not as a second-best, or as a stepping-stone to independence (and ruin) but as a practical way of keeping the best of the both worlds – Scottish governance of Scottish issues, backed by the shared resources of the UK. In doing so, there is considerable merit in taking time to determine the allocation of powers repatriated from Brussels and to take decisions on what is likely to work best.
For example, no-one would want a situation where Welsh hill farmers could undercut Scottish sheepmeat prices, or where Northern Irish chicken farmers could undercut Scottish eggs due to unfair subsidies from their own Assemblies. The question is whether a mechanism of devolved administrations plus the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can be devised, or whether regulation should be retained at Westminster, where it would be accountable to MPs of all parts of the UK.
The current devolution settlement is a monument to pragmatism and compromise: it would be wholly within that spirit to take time and to bring a bit of give and take to the current argument. Instead of “Holyrood Good (although we opposed it most of our lives), Westminster Bad,” it would be reasonable to come to a rational compromise for the mutual benefit of all.