At last, a tangible Brexit advantage has emerged: the UK has escaped the worst of Donald Trump’s tariff wars (“‘We are finally going to be able to make America great again’”, The Herald, April 3). While the EU faces a 20 per cent levy on exports to the US, Britain’s hit is just 10%. This advantage stems from our departure, sparing us from the EU’s inevitable tit-for-tat tariff spiral, which could escalate to 40-50%. Free from Brussels’ constraints, the UK now has the flexibility to negotiate lower or even zero tariffs – an impossibility within the EU’s rigid framework.

This gives British industry a competitive edge in the US market. Think Scotch over Cognac, Scottish salmon over Scandinavian. It’s a material shift in global trade – and a severe blow to the SNP’s vision of leaving the UK for the EU. Furthermore, EU manufacturers may relocate production to Britain to sidestep higher tariffs while maintaining access to the European market. But this advantage is not guaranteed. To truly capitalise, we must act decisively.

Net zero policies and excessive regulation are choking growth and deterring investment. Scrapping costly net zero mandates would slash energy prices, making UK manufacturing globally competitive. Cutting red tape would supercharge this shift, attracting firms to our shores. Without these bold moves, EU producers might bypass us for cheaper, less regulated markets elsewhere.

Brexit’s promise – the freedom to shape our own destiny – is now a reality. President Trump’s tariffs are shaking global trade, but the UK has a chance to turn this disruption to our advantage. Inside the EU, we would be shackled; outside, we are free to seize opportunities. If we do, we won’t just weather this storm; we will thrive, proving Brexit’s worth for the whole of the UK beyond doubt.

Ian Lakin, Aberdeen.

Read more letters

Thoroughbreds and donkeys

With the apparent reining-in of the ambitions of Anas Sarwar and the UK Labour Party in Scotland, thanks to Keir Starmer’s abandonment of socialist principles and Mr Sarwar’s deafening silence, the anti-SNP rhetoric has been stepped up of late. Presumably this is occurring out of fear that the SNP might not only win the next Holyrood election but win a mandate for Holyrood to determine if and when another constitutional referendum should be held.

Ian W Thomson (Letters, April 3) seeks to denigrate the SNP by claiming there has been a lack of “thoroughbreds” among Scottish Government ministers. This is an interesting analogy given the proliferation of braying donkeys at Westminster recently led by a UK Government Prime Minister who attempted to fix the odds by proroguing Parliament and another Prime Minister who was beaten by a lettuce.

Perhaps spurred on by an infusion of able former SNP MPs we can all look forward to a Scottish Government at Holyrood that will finally lead the people of Scotland to their rightful independence.

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry.

Voters appreciate SNP polices

Ian W Thomson quotes the old saying "if you are looking for a thoroughbred there is no sense moseying around in the donkey corral". I would suggest to Mr Thomson that opinion polls show the SNP galloping ahead because voters appreciate the wide-ranging policies the SNP Government has delivered since coming into office, and don't want to lose them. So wisely, voters won't risk saddling themselves with a stable full of nodding donkeys wearing either red or blue rosettes who take their starter's orders from Westminster.

Before coming to power nine months ago, we were promised Change and a new way of doing politics straight from the horse's mouth; instead, Labour has fallen at almost every fence. The public won't bet on them again.

Ruth Marr, Stirling.

Opposition not up to scratch

Ian W Thomson bewails the quality of SNP politicians and wonders how it is that, in spite of their spectacular failures, they may still win the 2026 election?

It is hard to disagree with his assessment but the answer to his question is self-evident, both in his own contribution and the opposition benches at Holyrood.

John F Kennedy said: “There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without alternatives, finding fault but never favour, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking influence without responsibility.”

Alan Carmichael, Glasgow.

Decision time for Flynn

The time has come. Stephen Flynn has declared his intention to contest the next Holyrood election ("SNP MP Flynn ‘set for tilt at Holyrood’", The Herald, April 2); hardly the biggest surprise of the year. Now comes the real test of his character. Will he have the courage to resign his Westminster seat before standing for Holyrood? Or will the party rule – as applied to Joanna Cherry recently – that a current Westminster seat must be given up have to be imposed on him? Does he expect the SNP crown merely to be passed on?

Then, of course, if he happened to lose the seat in the 2026 election, he would look very foolish indeed. Almost as foolish as putting on a faux crying display when Spain put his fellow islanders out of the Euros.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh.

No Green has ever been elected

Patrick Harvie will relinquish his role as co-leader of the Scottish Greens ("Harvie’s exit plan sparks Scots Greens battle to be next co-leader", The Herald, April 3). He says that he will, however, stand for election again. Let us be clear about one thing: Patrick Harvie has never been elected to anything by anyone, except his Green Party buddies. At Holyrood, the list system allows parties to claim seats for individuals they choose who are rejected by voters in constituencies. There are MSPs from all the parties who take office by virtue of having been nominated by their party for a list seat. However, the Greens are alone in never also having had a candidate elected as a constituency MSP. The Greens currently have twice as many MSPs as the Liberal Democrats, yet all of the Lib Dems’ four seats are constituency seats. That is, the voters have elected these four, but none of the Greens’ eight.

Mr Harvie has been a list MSP since 2003. What has he contributed at Holyrood that has been of any value? Isn’t it about time his party gave someone else a turn on the gravy train?

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh.

Patrick HarviePatrick Harvie (Image: PA)

Power couple

Catriona C Clark (Letters, April 3) quotes from the Labour MP for Hamilton and [the] Clyde Valley's intervention at Wednesday's PMQs. It should be noted that in another persona the MP (Imogen Walker) is Mrs Morgan McSweeney.

Mr McSweeney is of course call-me-Keir's henchman equivalent to Boris Johnson's Dominic Cumming. One notable figure to cross the Labour Together founder and benefactor (Mr McSweeney) was one former senior civil servant and head of staff at number 10 Downing Street, Sue Gray, now Baroness Gray of Tottenham no less. She got her jotters accordingly. To the contrary I suspect we shall see much more of the former actor now MP, Ms Walker, who I have no doubt has a mind of her own.

Douglas McBean, Edinburgh.

Trouble ahead for Labour

On March 26, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced an additional package of politically divisive welfare cuts to "kickstart economic growth" and fill a hole in the country’s finances left by short-sighted decisions of previous governments.

It seems that she was too preoccupied with the need to balance the budget and decided to ignore the real needs of the population, significantly worsening the financial situation of its most vulnerable part through radical cuts. A massive £6.4 billion will be cut from the health and disability benefits bill by 2029/30, analysis by the Office for Budget Responsibility shows. This will push 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, into poverty by the end of the decade and 800,000 disabled people will lose their Personal Independence Payment entitlement. The Labour Party is divided on the issue, but opponents of benefit cuts are unlikely to make any progress with Keir Starmer being in the opposing camp.

Labour's economic policy will still cause the party a lot of troubles. Given the £1.6bn military aid package to Ukraine announced by Keir Starmer in March, the decision to cut disability welfare spending raises even more questions. It seems that the British Government is ready to do anything to solve the problems of other countries, while turning a blind eye to the difficulties of its own people. Does Downing Street remember whose interests it is supposed to be protecting?

Iain Brocklebank, Glasgow.