Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


No majority to quit EU

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 10 January 2008
Bill McLean (Letters, 8 January) may do well to heed his own advice and "examine his own letter more carefully". If he did, he would discover that his contention – "the majority of people in England would like to leave the EU" – is easily refuted.
An ICM poll last August found 21 per cent of people from across the UK agreed with total withdrawal from the EU (with the separate Scottish and English figures unlikely to deviate significantly from the UK average). An even more comprehensive Eurobarometer survey, in December, concluded "there are no countries where EU support is outstripped by opposition".

Such conclusions provide a far more accurate reflection of reality, as well as a far firmer starting point for debate.

ELSPETH ATTWOOLL, MEP
Queen Street
Glasgow

Bill McLean must be deluded if he thinks Scotland has no enemies and is unlikely to create any (Letters, 8 January). The Nationalists' anti-English rhetoric is making no friends anywhere.

Apart from people on the right of the Tory party and UKIP, the vast majority in England are pro-UK and pro-EU, so there is no need for Scotland to apply to be the 51st state of the US.

But Mr McLean does confirm that it is not independence that the SNP wants but secession from the UK only.

COLIN WILSON
Maggie Woods Loan
Falkirk



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 09 January 2008 8:15 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

FrancesP,

10/01/2008 00:38:13
Colin Wilson - what 'anti-English' rhetoric have the SNP actually used? That's such an easy charge for the Nat-bashers to make, but it's a lot harder to substantiate. The next time you want to peddle that particular line, let's have some hard examples.
2

Sierra Foothills Scot,

Diamond Springs 10/01/2008 05:08:24
Scotland would be well advised NOT to associate with the profoundly undemocratic, power-hungry, bureaucratic, corrupt EU when (not if) it becomes independent. Scotland should maintain its association with the European Economic Area (EEA). EEA members (eg Norway, Switzerland) trade freely with the EU but avoid its power-grabbing, social meddling and corruption, as well as much of its bureaucracy.
3

Dollar Tim,

Dollar 10/01/2008 08:35:09
FrancesP - I was thinking the very same thing myself. I don't recall any anti-English rhetoric from the SNP and would be interested in knowing what this was supposed to be.
4

Solomon,

Dunfermline 10/01/2008 11:35:03
Elspeth Attwool (MEP !!) shows the same contempt that most of our MPs have for the electorate. If, as she supposes, the people of the UK DO wish to continue membership of the EU - with all the loss of control that that entails - then why does Bruiser Brown and his cohorts continue to deny the people the chance to endorse his signing of the Lisbon "constitution"? I can see the logic of an MEP being in favour of the EU: she's joined the "gravy train club". But MPs? That's like "turkeys voting for Christmas", as one of her predecessors said!
5

Mikey,

10/01/2008 11:37:36
So colin wilson raises his head above the parapet again? I'm never sure about you, Colin. Are you simply anti Scottish or are you mentally ill?
6

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 10/01/2008 11:58:34
I am not concerned here with whether or not UK public opinion is in favour of withdrawal from the European Union (note: not from "Europe"), since that is largely speculation at this stage. What concerns me is that the voting public, including MEPs, are so ignorant of the broader implications of recent developments in the EU that they are sleepwalking by stages into the creation of a new European "nation state" that in the light of the Lisbon proposals is becoming not merely anti-democratic but positively despotic in nature. A parallel with the Soviet Union is by no means far-fetched.

I don't know what has been going on recently down in King Charles Street, but when I think of the great past figures of British diplomacy I can see that the intellectual quality of present UK foreign policy has gone drastically down the hill. How else could they allow the UK to be railroaded into a supranational institution (all the others, including the WTO and the UN are intergovernmental) that destroys the very democratic fabric that has been built up over centuries?

EU legislation, and there are verdicts by the EU Court that confirm this, is superior to all national law, including constitutional law - Habeas Corpus, the Acts of Union and all the rest. The power given to the so-called European Council under the Lisbon proposals allows it to alter the treaty provisions and extend them into areas that are not presently covered, with no further reference to the electorate.

Get rid of any illusion that this runaway juggernaut has any claim to moral superiority or idealism. For all its partial success in some areas it has long since ceased to represent the complete answer to Europe's needs. Its main beneficiaries are the political caste and the multinational interests that exert a dominating influence at the top level. The people of Europe have long since drawn the short straw.

I may not agree with all of the following, but it is a valuable contribution to the almost
7

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 10/01/2008 12:00:37
I may not agree with all of the following, but it is a valuable contribution to the almost nonexistent debate, and the facts it presents are indisputable:

http://www.brugesgroup.com/LostIllusionsWeb.pdf

http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/comment.live?article=13989

8

Amanda Huginkiss,

10/01/2008 12:14:23
#5
I think we all have come to the same conclusion about your mental health, Mikey!
Are you anti-Scottish writing from Ireland?
Being anti-nationalist does not make me or anybody else anti-Scottish.
Quite the reverse, in fact.
Not like Kenny McAskill who equated England with the devil. The mere fact that the SNP never mention N. Ireland or Wales that they also wish to separate from, but only England, does not make friends with its people and does show how anti-English its activists are.
And you Mikey are amongst the worst examples of this.
9

Amanda Huginkiss,

10/01/2008 12:14:25
#5
I think we all have come to the same conclusion about your mental health, Mikey!
Are you anti-Scottish writing from Ireland?
Being anti-nationalist does not make me or anybody else anti-Scottish.
Quite the reverse, in fact.
Not like Kenny McAskill who equated England with the devil. The mere fact that the SNP never mention N. Ireland or Wales that they also wish to separate from, but only England, does not make friends with its people and does show how anti-English its activists are.
And you Mikey are amongst the worst examples of this.
10

bill-alba,

fife 10/01/2008 13:30:13
Amanda...the reason why we want independence only from England and never mention N.Ireland, Wales on our call for independence is that the union was between England and Scotland...england already had wales and ireland.
11

Amanda Huginkiss,

10/01/2008 15:29:09
10# Excuse me bill-alba, but it was James V1 of Scots who became King of England and Ireland in 1603. The UK was formed then and not 1707 as you little Nats assume.
Why your problem with England, and not N. Ireland and Wales which the SNP want to distance themselves from?
Are you only anti-English as well?
12

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 10/01/2008 16:23:17
#11. Amanda. The UK was not formed in 1603. That was a purely personal union, whereby one man held the crowns of two otherwise independent states. James VI & I and his successors had two designations up to 1707. For example, William II, King of Scots, was simultaneously William III, King of England. The crowns were separate.

The crowns of Scotland and England were united under Article 1 of the 1706 Treaty of Union, as ratified and implemented by the two Acts of Union of the Scottish and English Parliaments, which went into force on 1 May 1707. There was no mention of Wales or Ireland in the agreements.

The Union of the Crowns to form the present United Kingdom took place in 1707, and not in 1603. And there was no union of the parliaments in 1707. Article 3 set up a completely new parliament for the new United Kingdom. Please check your facts before rushing to comment. This is not the first time you have been wildly off the mark.


13

Neil,

Glasgow 10/01/2008 18:57:44
It seems Elspeth is taking a selected result from a poll whose primary question was whether we should have a referendum on the subject - 82% saying yes to this (which puts them in line with the referendum her party promised to support at the last election but which they now oppose).

In fact I don't think that it does any good to claim, as Bill clearly did, that the majority support a particular line when most people know little about the intracies of the argument & popular opinion is thus fickle producing different replies depending on the question asked & what the people had for lunch.

Either way, the apparent result of an obscure part of a selected poll should not be the "starting point" of debate. Traditionally & properly votes are held at the end of debates.

I would welcome a debate, carried out with both sides getting serious air time (something we rarely see on the BBC). If the public came down, squarely for the EU, having seen each side's case presented honestly then I would accept this EU result. To be fair a debate in which the media reported the statement that the EU bureaucracy cost the continent £405 billion a year (ie £66 billionn for us or just over £2,000 for every employed person), made by the EU Enterprise Commissioner is one I suspect sceptics would not lose.

I was at a recent debate in Glasgow University Union on this very question (the sceptics won but not decisvely). Green MSP Robin Harper gave, as his primary reason for supporting the "ever closer union", that it would ensure the end of the "massive economic growth" we are suffering from & indeed the EU countries are already visibly growing far slower than the world average of 5%. By his standards that is a quite proper reason for supporting it. As someone who thinks economic progress a very good thing & would not like the next generation to be poorer than the Chinese it is a reason to leave.
14

EWB,

UK 10/01/2008 20:53:12
11#. A proof that it was only a regal union and not a political union from 1603 onwards can be witnessed in the Darien Venture. When the Scottish settlers were being attacked by Spanish ships - Spain considering Darien their turf - a number of English ships refused to intervene. England had no wish to ruffle mighty Spain's feathers and puir wee Scotland could be left to her own fate.
15

Steve,

Bo'ness 10/01/2008 20:58:27
9 Amanda
Kenny McKaskill has never "equated England with the Devil".

you are a sad, desperate little liar.
As someone who follows the national team all over the world, he once, (with tongue firmly in cheek), described the English football team as the "great satan". We may be friends and neighbours, but on the football pitch, Scotland and England are still bitter rivals. It's called sporting rivalry. Get over it.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.