PETER A Russell (Letters, January 18) criticises the Scottish Government for focusing on losses from leaving the single market on Brexit, but not those incurred by Scotland independence and leaving the UK to protect trade with Europe. Important as the immediately post-Brexit situation is, and assuming such forecasts are correct, surely a no less significant question is “what happens next?” What would happen after Scotland has left the UK, and the UK has left the European Union?

The key problem is that Mr Russell compares the present pre-Brexit situation with the immediately post-Brexit situation. However, the latter will not be an equilibrium, but the beginning of a period of adjustment in which Scotland will have more advantages, and perhaps fewer problems, than he allows for.

For instance, how many employers operate in the UK only as a location to access the single market? Nissan in north-east England is one of the best known, but how many others are there? If these businesses can no longer trade into Europe without restrictions will they stay, or go? If they go, where will they go to?

There are already reports of financial sector jobs going to Frankfurt and Paris, which points to another serious shortcoming in Mr Russell’s argument, for he compares the value of the EU only to the value of UK under present arrangements. What would the “60 per cent of Scottish exports to the rest of the UK” be worth in the event of a

hard Brexit, as the UK economy shrinks?

Nor is there much sign in Mr Russell’s letter of awareness of the number of establishments in Scotland which are part of an integrated UK operation, such as those making components exported elsewhere in the UK, but within their company, for final assembly. Is Mr Russell seriously arguing that these Scottish establishments will simply be closed because of new trading arrangements?

Much the same could, of course, be said about Brexit, but Scotland has been part of the UK for more than 300 years, and is tightly integrated into the UK economy, which would be difficult to end in the short run. In contrast the UK’s integration into the EU has existed for only 45 years, and is that much less well developed.

Finally, were Scotland independent, and a member of the EU or the European Economic Area (EEA), might it not be at an advantage to the rest of the UK outside the EU and EEA, with no trading agreement that did not create at least some obstacles to European trade? For instance, if a company currently elsewhere in the UK wanted to relocate to maintain its present trading relationship with Europe, where would it go? Particularly if it wished to continue to use English as its business language, would Scotland not be a serious option? Or, would companies currently outside the EU, but looking to develop trade with Europe, be more likely to look to Scotland or the rest of the UK for a European base? The future would be much less bleak than Mr Russell suggests.

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue,

Dumbarton.

LES Dickson (Letters, January 18) states that research shows that the people of Scotland do not share Nicola Sturgeon’s view of immigration. The reality is far less clear-cut: the latest social attitudes survey shows that 63 per cent of Scots would accept freedom of movement from the EU in return for a free trade agreement.

He goes on to say that anyone with a European passport can “cross our borders with impunity”. In fact, under EU rules this is only true for visits of less than three months. He repeats the tired old canard that EU migrants claim benefits, ignoring the fact that nearly 80% of adult EU migrants are in employment and pay their taxes. Instead of spreading ridiculous fears of millions of quarrelsome Serbians and Macedonians descending on Lenzie, Mr Dickson should embrace the fact that, were it not for inward migration, Scotland’s population would decline, and age even faster than it is doing at present. UK state pensions are already amongst the lowest in the EU: without tax-paying migrants, who will pay for them in future?

Mr Dickson rightly claims pride in his Scottish heritage: he will therefore already know that its European roots go back centuries. Today’s migrants, like their forbears, contribute to enriching Scotland’s culture. Brexit is a forlorn attempt to put this process in reverse, against the freely expressed wish of the Scottish people. The sole positive aspect of this sorry saga has been to see our First Minister stand up for the rights of EU citizens who have chosen to settle in Scotland, and forcefully articulate the benefits of migration, like no other politician has done.

Paddy Farrington,

46 Marchmont Road,

Edinburgh.

WE have to admire the SNP’s magnanimous stance on the issue of tuition fees for the courses of EU students post-Brexit.

John Swinney has pledged that the fees of EU students already enrolled or enrolling in 2018 will be paid for throughout their courses by the Scottish Government – though he might have more accurately said the Scottish taxpayer. Indeed so beneficent is he with taxpayers’ money that he is not ruling out spending £93 million of it every year on EU students in the long term – even although post-Brexit there will be no legal requirement to do so.

This is to “demonstrate Scotland’s determination to welcome all EU nationals who choose to live, work or study

here”.

How noble. But do I detect yet again the whiff of hypocrisy in the air?

Documents released under Freedom of Information reveal a rather different SNP approach in the recent past. Former Education Secretary Mike Russell lobbied the EU in 2011 complaining that the rules on fees were “unfair” and pleading that Scotland be allowed to “charge appropriate fees on the same basis to students from outwith Scotland”. This was in a bid to “discourage academic tourism”.

Why such a change of heart? Why are the recently discouraged “academic tourists” now to be welcomed with open arms and boundless generosity? The change of tune plays well, of course, with the SNP’s current love affair with the EU – the most recent ploy in its relentless programme of stirring up grievance.

It reveals yet again a single-issue chameleon party utterly without principle.

Colin Hamilton,

3 Braid Hills Avenue,

Edinburgh.