Madam, – It is ironic that Derek Farmer’s latest rant against Scots, the EU and the single market (Letters, January 23) coincided with two articles in the same issue which served to undermine his argument.
Firstly was the decision by arch Brexiteer James Dyson of vacuum cleaner fame to move his head office from Wiltshire to Singapore where he has already announced he will manufacture the company’s new electric cars. Hardly a resounding endorsement of the prospects for post-Brexit Britain.
Secondly, P&O, one of the few remaining British owned shipping lines, announced it is re-registering its British fleet in Cyprus to avoid the economic and operational problems that will be caused by Brexit. Previously Easy Jet announced it was re-registering 100 of its aircraft in Germany and the same number in Austria.
The Tories are making preparations for congestion in British Channel ports by giving a £13.8 million contract to provide extra ferries to Seaborne Freight who own no ships and who apparently intend operating out of Ramsgate, a port currently out of commission which will require major dredging work to make it operational. The late Brian Rix could not have dreamt up a Whitehall Farce to match this.
The latest warning has come today from Tom Enders, chief executive of French owned Airbus UK which directly provides 14,000 jobs in the UK with a further 110,000 in supply chain companies. He points out that in a global economy the UK no longer has the capacity to go it alone and that no company, however large, is too established in the UK to move. Mr Enders’ remarks are a stark reminder of the political and commercial vulnerability of a post-Brexit Britain and the fact that Westminster seems hell-bent on antagonising as many of its trading partners as possible.
The fact that Scotland voted decisively against the fantasies of the Brexiteers and is now having its views ignored, strongly suggests our best future is as a sovereign state in Europe working with rather than against our neighbours.
Ken Guild,
Brown Street,
Broughty Ferry.
So much for a union of equals
Madam, – It must surely by now be clear even to Derek Farmer that any UK-wide vote will always favour the huge English population majority over the opinions of the other three smaller nations in our so called union of equal partners.
He claims that staying in the single market was an option democratically rejected at the time of the Brexit referendum even although two of the other three equals returned a majority to remain.
So much for a union of equals.
In the same edition regular correspondent Jenny Hjul’s column contained its usual harangue against the first minister, hinting that she is afraid to move for a second independence referendum for fear of failure and is struggling to control the party zealots who would prefer to have another vote sooner rather than later.
Both observers must have missed the recent Commons speech by Tory MP David Mowat who totally destroyed the myth about England subsidising Scotland, adding that it never has done.
He explained that Scotland received a per capita bonus for the massive revenue the treasury gained from the oil wealth in Scottish waters. In the event of independence all this wealth would go straight into a Scottish treasury. So in reality there is nothing to stop Scotland going for independence now.
Allan A. MacDougall,
Forth Park,
Bridge of Allan.
On track for productive talks
Madam – It was reassuring to hear at Holyrood Portfolio Questions today (January 23) Michael Matheson, transport secretary, give an update of the progress of the business case report for the reinstatement of the Levenmouth line and confirm he is willing to meet with campaigners to discuss the project.
Many thousands of people have already shown their support for the plan for reopening the line between Leven and Thornton which would allow direct train services between Leven and Edinburgh.
The campaign also has, somewhat uniquely these days, complete cross party support.
When he does visit us he will no doubt be happy to discuss a range of questions such as:
How much funding has been or will be made available for new rail developments in Scotland, as opposed to simply trying to improve existing ones?
Do the existing control periods from the Office of Road and Rail and Network Rail still apply to Scottish proposals?
Is there a detailed timescale for a government response to the final business case report due in March?
What planning discussions/processes are in place involving Transport Scotland, Abellio and Network Rail to deal with future timetabling demands of new proposals such as Levenmouth.?
What discussions have there been between Fife Council and the Scottish Government over the need to ensure land is available to create an effective transport hub with bus/train interchange and active travel provision?
Most people are well aware that the campaign is about more than simply six miles of track; it’s about bringing hope and prosperity to an area which has been battered by economic and social storms for decades; it’s about addressing the unfair system that sees billions spent on prosperous areas such as Edinburgh with the City Deal but little in Levenmouth; it’s about bringing a sense of urgency to an issue which has already seen three positive external reports and has been under Scottish Government consideration for decades.
We will welcome Mr Matheson warmly to our community and hope he will do what is in his power to expedite the Levenmouth Rail Project as quickly as possible.
Eugene Clarke,
Chairman, Levenmouth Rail Campaign.
College Street,
Buckhaven.
Another fight for fair fees
Madam, – Now that the PM has decided to waive the Settled Status fee for EU citizens presently living in the UK (which would have generated millions of pounds to the exchequer),will she now re-think her stance in not paying the BBC the amount needed to finance waiving the TV licence fee for the over 75s?
Earl Russell,
Albert Street,
Arbroath.
And talking of licences…
Madam, – In response to your reader who suggested an upper age limit of 70 for drivers. Statistics show that young drivers are involved in a much larger percentage of accidents, both fatal and otherwise.
Could I therefore suggest it would make more sense to raise the age at which you can get a licence rather than lowering the upper age? Many young lives would not then be needlessly lost.
It is a pity that any change of the current rules would obviously unfairly penalise the careful and competent drivers in both age groups.
J. Wood,
Eden Park,
Cupar.
