THE assessment from the Scottish Government report that Scotland’s economy could be £12.7 billion a year worse off by 2030 under a so-called hard Brexit, is deeply disturbing and demonstrates why the economic suicide that is Brexit must be reversed (“Sturgeon: Scotland needs to embrace immigration”,The Herald, January 16).
The report notes that even if the UK were to remain in the single market and customs union, and even if the UK Government’s preferred option of securing a free trade deal were to be realised, there would still be a cost to the Scottish economy compared with remaining in the EU.
Such impacts should, however come as no surprise, as we will be leaving the largest single market in the world of more than half a billion people, and by far the best option for the Scottish economy is to stay in the EU. This brings not only considerable economic advantages, but also immense social, environmental and consumer protections.
As the costs of Brexit become clearer and the public mood begins to shift, more people are realising that Brexit is seeing us sleepwalk to economic suicide and must be stopped, to the benefit of both this and future generations. Brexit is no longer the “settled will of the people” in the UK, and it should be noted that Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. Given this we require a fresh public debate as support for Brexit wanes.
Although another national referendum isn’t legally necessary to stop Brexit, we recognise that political reality may require a further test of public opinion before a majority in Parliament is prepared to stop Brexit altogether. If another referendum is held, over-16s and EU citizens settled in the UK should be able to vote, just as they did in the Scottish independence referendum.
We will continue to work to make the case for a democratic debate and decision on our European future.
Vanessa Glynn,
Chair, The European Movement in Scotland,
91 George Street, Edinburgh.
IN answer to Archie Burleigh (Letters, January 16) I can tell him that I place more credence on what Nicola Sturgeon says than on any of the pronouncements of the Westminster Government. If that makes me a fool, so be it. I’m sure that if our First Minister was seeking easy plaudits and votes by the barrowload, she would not be talking about the benefits brought by immigrants but of ways of keeping them out. This is, after all, a tactic that has paid dividends for populist politicians down the ages.
Did Mr Burleigh actually listen to Ms Sturgeon’s speech? If he did he would surely have realised that she was not just pulling figures out of the air but quoting a study commissioned by the Scottish Government about the likely effects of Brexit. I commend the Scottish Government for undertaking this exercise and am puzzled as to why the Government of the UK has not sought similar advice.
David C Purdie,
12 Mayburn Vale, Loanhead.
THE Scottish Government’s analyses of the costs of Brexit is welcome – they are clear and to the point. They demonstrate a clear “no win” situation for our country under any of the likely outcomes. It was never going to be any other way given the growing weight of private and public evidence and opinion against the cost of Brexit UK-wide. As usual it has been rubbished by Theresa May and co including, as usual, our own Scottish Secretary, who has had nothing to say on the subject other than “we should all work together to get the best outcome for the UK”. His own efforts at “advancing” Scottish views in Parliament have been cringeworthy and shameful, particularly his posturing and deception on Scottish amendments to the EU Withdrawal Bill.
At least in Scotland we are getting near to the truth. Leaving the EU will cost every family here between £800 and £1,500 a year, our standard of living will fall, unemployment will rise. The figures are pretty straightforward and make very unpleasant reading. Yet, in spite of this mounting evidence the true blue Brexiter zealots in the Tory Party are still determined to pursue this economic suicide regardless of the consequences.
This is truly an elected dictatorship at work. The Scottish Tories, especially Mr Mundell, are simply doing what they are told by their bosses in London, party before country. I hope they pay the price.
Ian McLaren,
27 Buchanan Drive, Lenzie.
WITH the release of the Scottish Government’s economic forecast as to the consequences of Brexit on Scotland, we might have expected a reasoned debate from our political classes, perhaps with different economic forecasts (something the UK Government promised a year ago). But no; it’s the same old deflection mode from the Scottish Tories and Scottish Labour.
Brexit must really mean Scottish independence, asserts Ruth Davidson, her one-trick independence referendum pony doing its usual one trick. “Scotland trades four times more with the UK,” blahs David Mundell. Well, so does Canada with the United States, and it manages an EU trade deal, so what has that to do with Brexit and Scotland? Scottish Labour is at best disingenuous on Brexit, and at worst promulgates a lie, that countries like Norway cannot trade in the single market unless they are members of the EU.
A serious debate in Scotland on a serious issue? No, the same old deflection, content free waffle and personal smear. Sad.
GR Weir,
17 Mill Street, Ochiltree.
I NOTE Nicola Sturgeon has undertaken various impact studies on Brexit, which is a professional approach. Has she undertaken similar studies on the impact of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom?
Alan Watt,
Auch na Gaoith, Gryffe Road, Kilmacolm.
I READ with interest the First Minister’s assessment of what a hard Brexit would cost the economy of Scotland. I am unaware of any clearly defined explanation of what a hard Brexit looks like but, that aside, imagine we had secured independence in 2016 and become a separate nation of some six million people outside the EU, with zero indication from the remaining EU countries that we would ever be readmitted thus out of the single market, customs union and every other union.
Now that’s what I would define as a hard Brexit, and some.
Kenneth S Morrison,
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