Sir, – After Theresa May’s Brexit speech, Nicola Sturgeon claimed the UK Prime Minister wants to take the UK off a hard Brexit cliff, while Fiona Hyslop the Cabinet secretary for external affairs, ensured no one is in any doubt over the SNP’s view saying that Theresa May has set out a plan for the hardest of hard Brexits.
Yet they are reacting not to what Mrs May said but rather a caricature of her speech.
Theresa May was setting out a positive route for the UK to reach compromises with the EU over Brexit that would be to the advantage of both the EU and the UK.
The SNP leadership chooses to ignore that conciliatory tone, preferring to pick out the necessary warnings that no deal is better than a bad deal, which are required to ensure the other side of the negotiations does not think it can get all its own way.
Perhaps what rankled most for the SNP was Theresa May’s talk of protecting the precious union of the four nations of the United Kingdom, phrasing that no doubt in part is responding to the Scottish Government choosing to view the Brexit result as a lever to try to break up the UK.
From the start, the First Minister has been playing political games with the outcome of the EU referendum, including tabling proposals she knew the UK or the EU could not agree to.
Now she and her colleagues will seek to demonise Theresa May’s approach to Brexit by constantly misrepresenting what the UK Government is trying to achieve.
If Ms Sturgeon proceeds with her threat of a second referendum she will be gambling on the basis of this attempted deception.
Keith Howell.
White Moss,
West Linton.
We need clarity over Brexit
Sir, – I am left a little confused after Theresa May’s Lancaster House speech on Brexit.
In the run up to the EU referendum, Ms May, campaigning on the Remain side, argued that leaving the single market would leave the UK economy worse off.
Now, only a few months later, Ms May is looking to take the UK out of that same single market.
This leaves us with two obvious conclusions. Either Ms May was wrong in her pronouncements in the run-up to the referendum, or she is taking us down a road which will leave the UK economy worse off.
The British public clearly has a right to know which one it is.
Alex Orr.
77 Leamington Terrace,
Edinburgh.
Invidious comparisons
Sir, – Shona Robison and Nicola Sturgeon can hardly hide their glee when referring to reports that Scotland’s failing NHS is better than England’s failing NHS.
I’m sure those being let down in Scotland every day will take little comfort from those reports.
Perhaps Ms Sturgeon will give the same comfort to her constituents in Govanhill by telling them that the housing conditions in Aleppo are far worse than theirs.
It is significant that John Swinney eschews drawing comparisons between English and Scottish education standards and attainment gaps which are improving in England while worsening in Scotland.
Donald Lewis.
Pine Cottage,
Beech Hill,
Gifford.
Gambling on our futures
Sir, – The rapacity of pension providers, with their endlessly invented charges and exit fees, is now on a par with the duplicity of the banks and their needless insurance products.
The entire financial services sector really has only one objective, which is to get hold of your money for use in its private casino.
Then the Government comes along and interferes with the tax advantages of lifetime pension arrangements.
All this makes providing for one’s future as predictable as the outcome of the 3.30 at Kempton Park.
Malcolm Parkin.
15 Gamekeepers Road,
Kinnesswood,
Kinross.
Circuitous argument
Sir, – There is a standard piece of SNP logic that goes as follows.
Scotland should be an independent state.
Scotland currently is not treated as an independent state.
This is unfair, because Scotland should be an independent state.
Therefore, Scotland should become an independent state. The circularity of the argument is plain but seems to pass unchallenged.
Richard Lucas.
11 Broomyknowe,
Colinton,
Edinburgh.
Get back to basics
Sir, – We are yet again being subjected to another flurry of SNP-created referendum speak from Ms Sturgeon’s multiplicity of spin doctors.
It sounds at times almost like a version of the bogeyman is coming if you misbehave.
Most certainly there is nothing to prevent the First Minister putting forward such a proposal to the UK Government; this is her right but the holding of another such referendum is still the prerogative of Westminster.
The game being played by Ms Sturgeon is becoming rather tiresome.
She really does need to get on with the task of trying to make a better job of the key areas under the control of her devolved administration.
Therefore, all this referendum talk is just a means of diverting attention away from her administration’s failure or inefficiency in so many of the key sectors such as health, education, policing and transport.
How would Scotland fare economically if it was out of both the UK, and the EU?
In its own economic performance it is already in trouble with a deficit of £15 billion, equivalent to 9.5% of GDP.
There is simply no quick route into membership of the EU when the UK departs.
In any case, why would Scotland want to sever links with its biggest customer for its goods and services – the rest of the UK?
Surely it is high time that Ms Sturgeon changed the record.
Robert IG Scott.
Northfield,
Ceres.
Hidden bill of oil shutdown
Sir, – Where are all the nationalist voices that cried “it’s oor oil” now we are seeing a £24 billion oil rig decommissioning bill?
Those of us who accepted it was UK oil can accept and expect the bill to fall into the in-tray of the UK taxman.
However, if Ms Sturgeon is able to lead the country to separation, it is inevitable that independence would include a grab on North Sea oil and, with it, would be the closing-down tab too.
That in reality is a long way from the pre-2014 independence rhetoric that we heard from the SNP about oil wealth.
Colin Cookson.
Stenton,
Hatton Green,
Glenrothes.