ALLOW me please to present an argument on the issue of Brexit. There are two factors to be considered: 1) The relative numbers of votes involved, and 2) The issue of consequences.
1) The original referendum in 2016 ignored detail. It did not establish how many who voted to leave the EU also wanted to leave some of the associated arrangements – the customs union, the single market and several more specialist arrangements. Let us call that the LEAVE-ALL option. And now, in the aftermath of that vote it is being asserted by the Leave advocates that a “no deal” arrangement is in accordance with what Leave really meant. However, I believe that the Leave supporters did in fact investigate that issue and discovered that only some 60+% were inclined to leave all of these additional arrangements.
We can surely say with some confidence that 100% of those who voted Remain wanted to remain within those extra arrangements. To give leavers every benefit of the doubt, let us assign an arbitrary 70% to them. 70% of 17.4 million equals 12.2 million while those who voted to remain were 16 million. Therefore, in terms of the LEAVE-ALL option, the leavers LOST the 2016 referendum.
2) The consequences of not getting one’s preferred outcome are disproportionate. If we LEAVE-ALL, many in the car industry and the aircraft industry, in the agricultural industry (who rely on swift transportation of their goods to and from the EU), the fishing industry as well as those in the higher academic research field may well lose their jobs. That could result in a loss of income which may result in severe dislocation of their social lives (unable to pay a mortgage, losing homes and the break-up of families, etc). Compare that to what appears to be the disadvantages suffered by the LEAVE-ALL voters if they do not get what they desire – a puncture of their balloon of pomposity.
A tyranny of a (false) majority is NOT a true democracy. Let us adopt an option which delivers for BOTH remainers and leavers. Leave the EU but do not leave the single market and the customs union. Let us abandon this madness – and do so proudly, knowing that THAT is true democracy.
Hugh Noble
Appin
“Noo Sark rins ower the Solway Sands and Tweed rins tae the ocean
Tae mark whaur England’s province stands, sic a parcel o’ rogues in a nation”
For some reason these words came to me as I woke up on Friday morning; probably because Theresa May shows no sign of giving an inch on a referendum for Scotland, still bleating about “Now is not the time”.
More probably because she persists in ignoring the SNP, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. She clearly sees us a province, while her acolytes urge SNP MPs to “Go back to your country!”.
The only other country she acknowledges in the UK is Northern Ireland, and this is represented by the DUP, a party cheaply bought – with our money!
Also we have been seeing a lot of the Irish Prime Minister, being consulted warmly by various EU dignitaries, and other nations. This is in stark contrast to the cool reception Mrs May is getting.
It is well worth reminding people of the Irish War of Independence. England refused to give them home rule, and only ceded in giving them partial independence after the Easter Rising in 1916. I use the term “partial” because Westminster “solved “ the Ulster problem by partition; we know how that worked out.
The Irish attained their independence through blood, sweat, toil and tears; we have no wish for violence, and it looks as if it will be by boredom, sweat, toil and tears.
There is an argument going on about currency, and much comment is being given to London Says No. This was a feature in the 2014 referendum, hurriedly pulled out from a hat just before the vote by the Tory Chancellor George Osborne flying up to Scotland, declaring that we would not be allowed to use sterling, then hopping a plane back to London without answering any questions at all.
We now know from the current and previous governors of the Bank of England that this was a lie. Carrying on the Irish example, they used sterling for a few years, then switched to the punt before joining the euro.
What we do not need is a big debate and tying the hands of any incoming independent Scottish Government; this would result in a great target for the Scotland in Union wallahs. Broad guidelines would be the best approach.
I have been in the SNP for 52 years and have no wish to see us impaling ourselves on fixed approaches. As things develop we must be able to alter course and not be left to the mercy of circumstances engendered by an impoverished Westminster. I hope to be still around for the referendum.
Jim Lynch
Edinburgh
I MUST say I was surprised at the plaudits of Joan McAlpine in Friday’s National to Jackie Bird over her decision to resign from the BBC’s Reporting Scotland news show (BBC reeling as Bird leaves show, April 12).
There will be no plaudits from me. Indeed in my view, were the BBC not such a discredited organisation, they would and should have sacked her years ago over her disgraceful, unprofessional, disrespectful and biased interviewing of our then First Minister Alex Salmond during the 2014 referendum.
Jim Brady
Strathbungo
I HAPPENED to turn on BBC Radio 4 last Saturday morning just after 9am. The happy Londonish voices seemed to be having a laugh about not accepting Scottish bank notes. I turned it off . Isn’t it super to be included in a “multi-cultural UK”?
Douglas Hunter
Ancrum, Roxburghshire
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel