Time wasted on constitutional bunfights is costing us dear

AS we are bombarded with news on the likelihood of a no-deal Brexit, one reflects on the state of the UK over the last decade. One can only conclude that both the Brexit and independence campaigns were absolutely unnecessary, and a drain on public funds, with no tangible return. I say this for various reasons.

First, if we take a rational look at both issues, it can be seen that they are purely political and cultural constructs; they are not real, tangible things. No one will ever die as a result of the UK not having broken away from the EU; no one will ever die for lack of independence. They are constructs of the mind, designed to make you think you need something that is completely unnecessary. You are not shackled. You are free to pretty much do as you please. Yet, look at the time, money and brainpower that has been wasted, trying to convince the British and Scottish electorate, that both are essential to the well-being of an imagined community. It’s been the biggest propaganda coup in recent history.

Let us look instead, at what really is harmful to one’s life and well-being. Lifelong, crippling poverty seems like a good place to start. An ineffective and underfunded NHS might be on the list. Sleeping rough on the streets would be up there too. Achieving Brexit or ceding from the Union would solve none of these, and a whole host of other myriad problems. They would still exist despite politicians telling us we were free or had just taken back control.

Wouldn’t it be nice to think that, rather than waste critical thought on creating issues that do not exist, and giving importance to things that are totally unnecessary, and spending millions upon millions of pounds on campaigns, referenda, and elections, that our elected representatives might apply some of that critical thinking and scarce public funds to solving the problems of the real world; tangible things that blight people’s lives day and daily? Is that too much to hope for?

Every minute that a politician spends on promoting Brexit or Scottish independence, is a minute lost to solving the real issues facing our island; every pound spent by both governments on promoting pet projects, or running constant polls or focus groups, to prove how popular their ideology is; every pound sacrificed by our governments in universal benefits, to woo voters to their cause, is a pound stolen from the poor of this country. The politicians involved should hang their heads in shame, and we, the electorate, should hold them to account.

The pandemic has shown what positivity can do: scientists and researches across the globe have put aside narrow commercial interest, to work together to produce vaccines and break the genetic code of the virus. Imagine what positive things our politicians could do, if instead of constantly trying to divide us over political ideology, they tried to unite the country with some positivity?

Stuart Brennan, Glasgow G44.

Why leave the UK but not the EU?

ACCORDING to Michael Russell “there will be very significant damage to Scotland’s economy and society because of the UK Government’s decision to leave ... the EU ... in the middle of a pandemic and a recession (“Wait continues as UK and EU ‘go extra mile’ in bid to seal Brexit deal”, The Herald, December 14). Yet he supports leaving the UK while we are still in a pandemic and recession.

If Brexit is bad for Scotland, surely leaving a 300-year union with the fifth-largest economy in the world would be much worse. After all, we have an open border with England, speak the same international language, depend on England for more than 60 per cent of our exports, share a free and open single market with high safety and environmental standards, have unfettered access to that market, share a common currency, and enjoy support from one of the most prestigious central banks in the world.

Surely even the most zealous supporters of leaving the UK can see the contradiction between saying that leaving the EU will be disastrous but leaving the UK will be great. It doesn’t make sense. William Loneskie, Lauder.

A European yardstick?

THE good news is that the UK and the EU have agreed to extend the deadline for the conclusion of their negotiations on a post- Brexit trade deal. The respective leaders, Boris Johnson and Ursula von der Leyen, announced their decision by each saying specifically that they were “prepared to go the extra mile “to see if agreement can be reached”. Could this use of the imperial rather than the metric unit of measure be a subconscious signal from the EU of a softening of its negotiating position, rather than just an indication of a longer extension? Alan Fitzpatrick,

Dunlop.