Trading with the US is not as simple as it sounds
Brian Monteith writes: “We signed a trade deal with the EU to avoid tariffs. Starmer should seek a trade deal with Trump to avoid any he might introduce” (Perspective, 18 November).
Tariffs are not the only obstacle to international trade. Non-tariff barriers, regulations about what can and cannot be marketed, are a further problem. British exporters to any of the 30 nations of the European Economic Area (EU 27 plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) normally need only contend with one set of product regulations for the whole single European market. But the 50 states of the USA do not form a single market. The Commerce Clause in the US Constitution on the trade regulatory powers of the individual states lacks the bite of the EEA’s ban on state-level “measures having equivalent effect” to trade restrictions. This means that checking compliance for exports to the USA is a more complex exercise than for sales to Europe.
Jim McLean, Edinburgh


Near neighbours
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdBrian Monteith apparently does not understand why the Prime Minister seems to be moving more towards Europe rather than the USA. Might I suggest that a glance at a map will provide a full explanation?
Jane Ann Liston, St Andrews, Fife
Tactical tariffs
Marketeers espouse the virtues of free trade: complementary trade patterns are a win-win for trading partners, cost based-competition a win-lose, tariffs distort prices leading to sub-optimal outcomes (for businesses and consumers) etc. So goes the theory.
But governments and trade blocs (like the EU) don’t follow theory. Tariffs are used tactically as a response to subsidised imports which undercut domestic prices, thereby unfairly damaging domestic competition. Tariffs are also used strategically as a response to overseas threats (hence talk of the US imposing a 60 per cent tariff hike on China).
Counterintuitively, the latter can confer longer-term economic benefits. For example, in chip wars of old, the EU imposed an external tariff of 14 per cent on semiconductors to protect EU manufacturers (eg Philips and Siemens). Overseas chip manufactures (eg Motorola, DEC, NEC etc.) then set up shop inside the EU to overcome this barrier and gain market access. This combination of cross-border investment and technology transfer helped create the phenomenon that was Silicon Glen.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe US Administration-in-waiting could be looking for similar effects via the re-shoring of jobs from US companies overseas (eg Apple in China) or attracting investment from companies like Taiwan’s TSMC (the world’s largest semiconductor manufacturer).
The prospect of widely applied tariffs of between 10 per cent and 20 per cent by the US is an obvious concern, especially for price-sensitive UK exports. The first Trump administration promised a trade deal but didn’t deliver. Inter alia, higher UK food standards proved a stumbling block. Looking forward, what’s changed? On a country basis, 15 per cent of UK trade is with the US, making it our single largest export market. However, over 40 per cent of UK trade is still with the EU; lowering non-tariff barriers to achieve trade that is more “frictionless” remains a significant on-going challenge, post-Brexit. But stronger trade with the EU is also, by far, the greater economic prize.
Ewen Peters, Newton Mearns, East Renfrewshire
World on brink
In yesterday’s article “UK pledges to double down on support for Ukrainian forces” you report that the Prime Minister denied easing the restriction on the use of British Storm Shadow missiles would escalate the Ukraine conflict; while you quoted Professor Luke March as welcoming the decision. Yet the conflict is a tinderbox. Ever since the Ukraine/Russian war began, Russian politicians, including Vladimir Putin, Sergey Lavrov and Dmitry Medvedev, have threatened a tactical nuclear strike. In addition, there is the continuing threat from the Russian occupation of the largest nuclear power plant in Europe at Zaporizhzhia.
President Joe Biden must feel empowered that so many red lines have been crossed that, in an action one would have anticipated from the incoming President Trump, he will now allow Ukraine to fire a limited number of US missiles at Russia. Has anyone checked that President Volodymyr Zelensky understands the concept of “limited”?
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdOne month ago, ignored by most UK media, Russia launched a massive drill of its nuclear forces which Defence Minister Andrey Belousov explained was a rehearsal for precisely the situation Biden is now envisaging. The drill involved ICBMs, nuclear missile submarines, TU95 nuclear bombers and Cruise missiles. Russia recently revised their nuclear doctrine and they are not bluffing, the Russian ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, has reiterated.
Russia has 5,580 nuclear warheads and the world is on the brink. The European countries must put pressure on the USA to de-escalate the situation and force Zelensky to attend peace talks but, given the grandstanding at the White House by Sir Keir Starmer and David Lammy, who suggested much the same with UK Storm Shadow missiles, such hopes may be misplaced. Sir Keir had bilateral talks with Chairman Xi at the G20 event in Brazil and the Chinese proposals for talks were never more crucial. Xi would be the ideal honest broker.
John V Lloyd, Inverkeithing, Fife
Out of road
Double jobbing might be a current problem for the SNP but it seems long-term single jobbing is a near impossibility (“Hyslop insists A9 dualling is on track for 2035 target”, 19 November) When a minister thinks announcing a target over ten years in the future when it should have been finished right now is acceptable, there is no shame in the SNP.
It is like the ferries. Delay after delay and no resignations, or even compensation for the islanders. Not only is 2035 far into the future, so sadly many more deaths on this road will have occurred, but we might even have humans on Mars quicker. The SNP has run out of road.
Gerald Edwards, Glasgow
Wrong priority?
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe SNP needs help from another party to get its Budget through the Scottish Parliament, and several parties have put forward suggestions (your report, 19 November). The Greens say spending on independence planning must remain in said budget. What, pray, has this to do with saving the environment, or the planet – their reason for existing?
William Ballantine, Bo'ness, West Lothian
Do the right thing
I am in total agreement with the editorial (18 November) on the subject of Stephen Flynn's move to replace the sitting Aberdeen South and North Kincardine MSP Audrey Nicoll to further his own ambitions, ultimately, it is rumoured, to become the leader of the SNP himself. Mr Flynn has described the whole matter as “unpleasant”. How much more unpleasant it must be for Ms Nicoll. Without doubt, Stephen Flynn is both able and ambitious, as he has proved as an MP. The whole issue of SNP MPs in Westminster is anomalous, as the party's raison d'etre is to separate themselves to an independent Scottish Parliament. To that end, it's encouraging to see MPs of the calibre of Mr Flynn and Stephen Gethins seeking to serve as MSPs.
However, the electorate who appointed Audrey Nicoll as their MSP must surely must be less than impressed by her unceremonious ousting to further Stephen Flynn's ambitions. The recent example of Douglas Ross being shunned in the nearby Banff constituency is surely a cautionary tale showing that the electorate cannot be taken for granted. To aim to become an MSP, Stephen Flynn should first resign from his Westminster seat.
Ian Petrie, Edinburgh
Right to shop
This past Sunday, the Tesco in Stornoway opened despite a small group of religious traditionalists protesting that a Sabbath shopping trip was “a sin, damaging to a person's soul” and of course, a distraction from attending their church.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdWhile a weekly quiet day is a defendable personal choice, unless you lived next to the Tesco car park how could someone else’s different behaviour affect you in any way? Religious belief surely does not entitle you to tell others when to buy groceries.
Neil Barber, Edinburgh Secular Society
Flights to failure
The Prime Minister and Ed Miliband took an unbelievable number – 150-plus – officials with them on gas-guzzling flights to the latest COP summit. While other countries seem to be cutting back on attending these occasions, the UK, under new leadership, seems to be going in the opposite direction.
With Ed Miliband in control as Energy Secretary, they appear to be concentrating on palpably unattainable net zero targets. Grandstanding on this matter is wrong. They seem determined to shut down all our domestically available fuel sources and then simply hope for the best. The UK will rely on intrinsically unstable wind and Middle Eastern, and perhaps Russian, fossil fuels to survive. All to make some incomprehensible point about how woke we are.
Of course, climate change must be tackled. But many other countries do it pragmatically and without the abject surrender to extreme methods that appears to be the UK's only approach.
Have they, for example, even seriously considered nuclear?
Alexander McKay, Edinburgh
Write to The Scotsman
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdWe welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.