I WATCHED Channel 4 News from start to finish on Wednesday night with little expectation of some good news of the outcome of the second day in the Supreme Court. I was disappointed that my go-to news broadcaster did not have an item on this, but it did give me the chance to see the exchange between an “economist” and Alastair Campbell.
To my personal astonishment I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Mr Campbell, who cannot believe, along with most Scots (people from aw the airts who live in Scotland), the absolute confusion around Brexit caused entirely by the Brexiteers who cannot tell us what will happen next with March 29, 2019 rapidly appearing. The economist – sorry, I forget her name – then blamed Mr Campbell for exaggerating the whole affair.
The economist is clearly not on the same planet, and Mr Campbell was a source of common sense and practicality.
To compound the horrors of my news check, Liam Fox appeared speaking in Washington to start discussing a trade deal with USA when no agreement has been reached on Brexit. Such typical arrogance that anyone would want to listen, when the main event was The Donald meeting Mr Juncker to discuss ... yes, you guessed it right – trade!
Mr Trump’s body language was fascinating, disinterested, whilst Mr Fox appeared out of place and overwhelmed by the microphone. You just cannot make this up.
At the time of writing and without an outcome from the Supreme Court, I remain optimistic about the efforts of Lord Wolffe. Another false dawn?
Alex Thomson
Coldstream
READ MORE: People are pointing out the huge hypocrisy in an Alastair Campbell tweet
ACCORDING to Lord Keen, the Advocate General for Scotland, the Scottish Parliament is a subordinate legislature.
If we lose the current court case perhaps we should change all the signage on the Scottish Parliament building to reflect this, and change every occurrence of the words Scottish Parliament to Subordinate Legislature in everything from websites to stationery.
The thesaurus defines subordinate as inferior, secondary, minor, dependent, junior, underling, subsidiary, lower, subject, subservient.
This would then reflect the apparent status of the current Scottish Parliament.
Brian Lawson
Paisley
THE Scottish Parliament’s Continuity Bill currently being considered by seven Supreme Court Judges has been argued by Lord Keen for the UK Government and by the Lord Advocate, Lord Wolffe, on behalf of the Holyrood Government. The UK case is that the EU is not a reserved matter, so it cannot affect the UK’s negotiations with the EU, while the Scottish case is that Lord Keen was drawing too wide a definition of international relations.
It might be instructive to the Supreme judges to refer to a document released under the 30-year rule, FCO 30/1048, concerning the issue of sovereignty in the event of the EU joining The Common Market.
Paragraph 24 (iv) states, “the process of consultation between the Commission, Government experts and the European Parliament is complex. The issues dealt with are neither ‘foreign affairs’ nor wholly domestic to the member states”. The document pre-dates the devolution process, of course, but may still be germane to their decision.
This very interesting document has many things to say about the sovereignty of member states of the then Common Market but they apply equally to the present EU, eg paragraph seven: “Sovereignty is a technical concept with in many ways only limited bearing on the questions of power and influence that form the normal preoccupation of foreign policy”.
And, in paragraph 11: “By accepting the Community Treaties we shall have to adapt the whole range of subsidiary law which has been made by the Communities. Not only this but we shall be making provision in advance for the unquestioned direct application (ie without further participation by Parliament) of Community laws not yet made (even though Ministers would have a part, through membership of the Council, in the making of some of these laws).
Perhaps, then, the Supreme Court and Lords Keen and Wolffe have been wasting their time by debating the Continuity Bill and the issue should be settled by the European Court, the real source of power.
Lovina Roe
Perth
THE article by Martin Hannan (The sentence that says it all about the dis-United Kingdom, July 25) outlines the position in Scotland well. Sovereignty resides in the people, not in any parliament or monarch. That is long established.
It is understandable that people from south of the Border may not understand this fact. As someone who spent most of his education in Wales and England, I had assumed that the position in Scotland was the same as there.
What is less understandable is that people from Scotland should misrepresent what they should have been taught in school. Tories and some other Unionists may not like the fact that the people are sovereign in Scotland but they should know it, even if they were not born here.
Our parliament, unlike the Westminster one, is elected by a reasonably fair system and thus represents the will of the people pretty well.
Scottish National Party, Labour, Scottish Green and Liberal Democrat MSPs voted for this law. Had there been any Socialist MSPs at the moment they would certainly have done so too. The Tories did not vote for it.
The will of the people has been properly represented, and the Tories should be ashamed that they acted as a branch office.
David Hansen
Inverkeithing, Fife
READ MORE: The sentence that says it all about the dis-United Kingdom
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here