Scotsman Letters: Getting cosy with EU is best way to offset Brexit 'disaster'

I would argue that the EU itself is in the process of resetting, not least with Hungary and Slovakia increasingly looking towards Russia. Germany has its own domestic angst, dealing with the alarming possibility of the AfD surging to shared power, at the very least, in the imminent election.

The UK's tragedy was her exclusion from being a founder member of the European Coal and Steel Community shortly after the Second World War, mainly for imperial reasons. As the EU continues to evolve, now is the UK's opportunity to forge a lasting influence in the process. Resetting means moving forward and never harking back to a pre-Brexit past.

Ian Petrie, Edinburgh

Refuse to pay?

So a judge has ruled that the Scottish Government can be sued for its failed waste deposit scheme – Biffa is suing for £160 million. What do you think is the most likely outcome? That Lorna Slater, the “brains” behind the scheme, is forced to stand down as an MSP?

Or she blames Westminster, is completely exonerated by the SNP, and continues in her parliamentary role?

With someone as weak as John Swinney in charge, we all know it'll be the latter. When push comes to shove, nationalists stick together.

Martin Redfern, Melrose, Roxburghshire

Failed experiment

We hear talk of the probable demise of the SNP from Holyrood, the implosion of Labour, gains by Reform and very little change within the Tory or Liberal Democrat ratings; Green Party members are not [directly] elected. There will be little joy politically in Scotland at the time of the Holyrood elections in the spring of 2026.

Perhaps, long before 7 May 2026, a decision should be made at Westminster by the UK Government to abandon the concept of regional parliaments? They have been an abject failure politically, structurally and economically. Most of the powers devolved, for instance, to Holyrood, have been misused, or deliberately misinterpreted.

Within Scotland we have so-called Ministers running departments which to all intents and purposes are still totally under the control of the Foreign Office, Home Office or Exchequer, etc. Surely the time has come to stop all such costly duplication?

The UK is not in global terms a large country. Without doubt central government at Westminster, together with local authorities or councils throughout the land, should have sufficed for all.

Robert I G Scott, Northfield, Ceres, Fife

Don’t betray fans

There has been much debate and conjecture following rumours of the ending of the Six Nations tournament being televised on terrestrial channels ie BBC and ITV. The suggestion is that it may be offered to a pay per view channel, which would be an unfair decision affecting the many people who have watched and supported the tournament for many years.

I would remind the SRU in particular that over the years the supporters of rugby union have made substantial financial contributions to the SRU to help with the building of the new stadium, its stands and facilities.

There were advanced sales of tickets (£400) and the sale of debenture seats. The supporters of Scottish rugby and the Six Nations have enjoyed watching the international matches over many years on terrestrial TV. For the rugby union authorities to consider, or sign up to, “pay per view” to make that quick buck would be a detrimental move for the many supporters in general and the ones who made the financial contributions over the years. Many are much older now and probably less able to afford the “pay per view “system or actually attend the matches. The result will be a reduction in the Six Nations viewing audience.

I sincerely hope common sense will prevail over the short-term decision to go for the bigger money to the detriment of the fans

James B Campbell, Loanhead, Midlothian

Game of cards

As a Scottish rugby supporter I was happy enough with the weekend’s results. However I am, as no doubt many others are regarding the red card substitution, a bit bemused. A red card is precisely that, a banishment from the field. To allow a substitute player on if the offence is deemed less worthy of a red just seems bizarre. It should therefore just be a yellow. The present option of upgrading it to a red would appear to be working.

Also, I am not sure how this new red card rule speeds up the game, which seems to be the main aim of World Rugby.

Time is being levied on line-outs and kicking, but we still have constant resets of scrums and time-consuming TMO decisions. Maybe a time limit on these would speed up the game much more.

Ian Smith, Troon, South Ayrshire

British Burns

When Stan Grodynski extols the merits of Scotland taking “its rightful place as an independent nation”, how does he square that with the EU’s stated aim of “ever closer” union, which flies in the face of a separate Scottish identity (Letters, 31 January)? He compares Scotland to a “youth who nervously contemplates living away from home for the first time”, which is an outright insult to people who are adult enough to make their minds up about Scotland’s future and made it emphatically in 2014.

Mr Grodynski, who is an exponent of Scottish nationalism, cites “Rabbie” Burns in his support for independence. Burns was known as plain Robert Burns in his own day, not “Rabbie”. He could write some stinging invective in his poems, as a proud Scot, when he thought that things had been done ineptly, or corruptly, or when looking at a time in the past. Like cheering on a Scottish try against England, it doesn’t mean any more than that.

Similarly, in regard to his own time, Burns was unequivocal in his British patriotism and I am happy to advise Mr Grodynski accordingly. In his day the French Revolution affected many (most?) young men with ideas of freedom, but he remained loyal to “the British Constitution” which he held to be “the most glorious on earth” to which, “after God, I am most devoutly attached”.

Perhaps Burns's view of historical wrongs was best summed up by him when he wrote: “For never but by British hands / Maun British wrangs be righted.” Historic wrongs? Indeed, but ones which must be corrected in a British context. That is Burns’s lesson to us all.

Andrew HN Gray, Edinburgh

Two nations

On Wednesday 29 January, Chancellor Rachel Reeves, in her latest economic growth plan launch, announced the third runway at London Heathrow Airport, an expansion at Gatwick, Luton and Stansted airports, and the creation of “Europe’s Silicon Glen” in a growth corridor between Oxford and Cambridge. It was a speech designed for England, popular to English ears, and supported by the Tories.

A few days earlier, in Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg (26 January), Reeves spoke enthusiastically about the perceived benefits of the third runway. She argued that to grow the economy one must invest in new technologies, and highlighted sustainable air fuel. This would lead to reduced carbon emissions, there was huge investment now in electric aircraft, it would mean cheaper holidays in the long term and far fewer aircraft burning fuel as they circle Heathrow. In short, economic growth goes hand in hand with investment. This was an open goal and Laura Kuenssberg was hardly going to miss. She asked why was Labour reneging on its commitment to Grangemouth, given Labour was allowing the oil refinery to close when nowhere in the UK actually makes the sustainable oil fuel, which Grangemouth could.

How well Reeves knows Grangemouth, I do not know, but there was a look of horror on her face. She floundered around in a desperate bid to distract Kuenssberg by going off at a tangent, highlighting the enormous carbon capture plans with BP and Equinor in Merseyside and Teesside. That is where much of the huge £22 billion to be invested will end up, with thousands of jobs created; and the contrast speaks volumes.

In contrast, after transition, Grangemouth will have fewer and different jobs. This disparity between the two nations’ infrastructure projects is something else which is becoming “unsustainable”, as Scotland misses out.

John V Lloyd, Inverkeithing, Fife

Paws for thought

The Scottish Government's catastrophic proposals to put Jock Tamson's pussies under house arrest has been put on indefinite paws after coming within a whisker of becoming the most ridiculous claws added to Scotland's statute books.

Within 24 hours of the cat being out of the bag and the fur flying – along with flocks of tweets that their justification it was to protect our feathered friends was for the birds – the whole idea was put out for the night.

While the whole matter has been hiss-terical to some, una-mew-sing to others, it typifies the catalogue of failures of a purr-litical class that pussyfoots on matters of major public concern – the usual excuse being, never enough in the kitty – while caterwauling night and day over trivia. No wonder they're feline the public's wrath. Either you like cats, or you're wrong.

Mark Boyle, Johnstone, Renfrewshire

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.