Sir, – In the negotiations in the 1970s when we signed up to what was then the Common Fisheries Policy in the European Economic Community, the then Prime Minister Edward Heath believed the Scottish fishing industry was expendable.
Later, it was made plain by the EU that it was nonsensical of Scottish fishermen to believe they would have control of the waters around Scotland.
In the run-up to the last general election, Scottish Conservative Party leader Ruth Davidson made the pledge to Scottish fishermen that the Tories would take back control of our waters on day one of leaving the EU.
Just last week Ruth Davidson and her partner-in-crime, Michael Gove, reiterated this promise.
Guess what?
With the Brexit transition deal just struck in Brussels, the Scottish fishermen have been sold down the river.
Fishing will be in the hands of the EU for another two years and who knows for how long after the transition period ends in 2020.
Unless Scotland has control over fishing when the powers come back from the EU, (something Mrs May is unwilling to give the devolved Scottish Parliament, and we can now see why she can’t) then the Scottish Conservative Party is in big trouble. They will again be able to hold their conferences in Scotland in a phone box.
Not that this will bother the Conservatives south of the border.
Scots don’t vote Tory.
So again fishing – and the Scottish Conservaties – are expendable.
Of the million people in Scotland who voted to leave the EU, I believe the largest majority of them were involved in the fishing and ancillary industries, and regaining control of our fishing is vital to them.
Walter Hamilton.
Flat 3,
City Park,
City Road,
St Andrews.
Hypocrisy at fishing deal
Sir, – For sheer brass-necked hypocrisy, Nicola Sturgeon takes some beating.
On Monday at Holyrood, she was berating Ruth Davidson because the Tory Party had failed to achieve immediate return of sovereignty over offshore fishing rights in UK waters during the Brexit transition period.
But, the SNP policy on Brexit has always been to maintain the status-quo of the single market in perpetuity, with the effect of continuing the present CFP (Common Fisheries Policy) ad infinitum.
Maybe Ms Sturgeon, or our local SNP MPs or MSPs, can explain to us how such obviously conflicting views can be reconciled with the reality of the Brexit transition period of 21 months, when UK fishermen have been stuck with the CFP for the past 40 plus years.
In addition, if the SNP had its way in the Brexit negotiations, UK fishermen would be stuck with the CFP agreement forever.
Derek Farmer.
Knightsward Farm,
Anstruther.
The reality is SNP/GOOD
Sir, – In finding another way of saying, “SNP/BAD”, Allan Sutherland (Letters, March 17) attempts to convince readers that the Scottish Government’s ongoing popularity stems from the ineptitude of the unionist parties aligned against them.
This state of affairs, apparently, lets “the SNP get away with all sorts.” What this bag of all sorts consists of, he doesn’t specify.
The sorry state of the current unionist cabal and their baleful influence on Scotland isn’t unique. Arrogant and inept, even by Westminster standards, Mr Sutherland continues his support regardless.
He demands that any future Holyrood unionist government scrap the Curriculum for Excellence, a cross-party policy the SNP inherited when taking office.
It has since been praised by the International Council of Education Advisers as “delivering clear and positive momentum in Scottish education, particularly in relation to the devolution of more powers and resources directly to schools.”
In addition, a recent study of the Attainment Scotland Fund found that 97% of head teachers expect the attainment gap to close in the next five years.
The setting up of the new Scottish welfare agency, criticised by Mr Sutherland, will give Scots the opportunity to escape a Westminster model slammed by the UN as breaching international human rights.
The SNP, contrary to his claims, have earned their position by having the best track record of any administration in the UK. We have truly democratic representation which puts Scotland’s welfare front and centre.
As to voting, the unwelcome reality for Mr Sutherland is that, even in the toxic media environment in which they operate, the SNP are the Scottish electorate’s representatives of choice whether it be elections under Westminster’s FPTP or Holyrood’s PR system, the SNP are the Scottish electorate’s representatives of choice.
Ken Clark.
15 Thorter Way,
Dundee.
Why not seat in the Lords?
Sir, – Given his crucial role – along with that of the late George Cunningham – in devising the unprecedented 40% rule for the 1979 Devolution vote, thereby gifting Scotland’s huge oil wealth to London, it seems strange that an ungrateful Westminster has never seen fit to reward Brian Wilson with a seat in the House of Lords for services rendered.
James Stevenson.
Drummond Avenue,
Auchterarder.
Tough topic well handled
Sir, – I would like to congratulate the producer and the actors for the handling of the male rape storyline in Coronation Street.
I think it has been brilliantly acted and very true to life, and this topic has needed to be raised for a long time.
As a male survivor myself I can totally relate to the issues raised and the way it is portrayed.
For men, possibly more so than women, there is the issue of shame and identity confusion.
As a man you feel could you have done more to prevent it or fight the perpetrator off and that produces shame, and the perpetrator rarely takes responsibility.
While there is a lot of support for female rape victims, there is very little for men.
I hope that people watching this will have the courage to speak out and get help if it has happened to them.
Well done also to Coronation Street actor Jack Shepherd, who plays David Platt, for his fantastic portrayal.
Gordon Kennedy.
117 Simpson Square,
Perth.
Jury service guidelines bias
Sir, – The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service Guide states you are eligible to apply for excusal from jury service if “you are a practising member of a religious society.”
This excludes the majority of us.
In addition, atheists or freethinkers don’t have ministers who are also specifically named as eligible for exemption.
Why do the Scottish courts undermine their credibility by awarding religionists special treatment?
If you ask to affirm rather than swear by an almighty God, you are singled out and separated from everyone else, to affirm what everyone else swears to do: To give a true verdict according to the evidence.
This treatment might explain why the number of jurors swearing on the Bible is out of all proportion to the number of Christians in society at large.
Robert Canning, the chair of Secular Scotland sensibly advises: “The religious oath chosen by courts as the default option is the less inclusive one, since not everyone can honestly swear it, whereas the secular affirmation, neither endorsing nor denying the existence of God, can be honestly spoken by everyone, but is available only on request.”
Garry Otton.
Secretary,
Secular Scotland,
58a Broughton Street,
Edinburgh.
