FIRST let me say that when I started reading the letter from Alan Crocket of Motherwell, I was a bit uptight about the thought that here was someone going to tell me that there is no legal way out of the Union with England. I must say the first bit of his letter seemed to block any possibilities. However, in the second half, he went on to clarify and made a statement that I agree with entirely. There he states that “the UK is a Union of consent and the constitution of the UK does not prohibit Scotland’s exit.”
Let me just point out, before agreeing, that there is no written constitution of the UK. It is based on the Magna Carta and various subsequent Acts of Parliament, which have formed precedents. Instead, he should perhaps have said that nothing is contained in the Act of Union itself, which would prevent Scotland simply withdrawing from it.
As the Scottish MPs are the legal, in situ, successors of the original Scottish MPs who signed the Act of Union, all it would take would be for them, as Alan states, to secede from Westminster, and the Treaty of Union, and constitute themselves as the sovereign parliament of an independent Scotland.
This would kill two birds with one stone. First it would give us the independence we crave, without the bother of a referendum. And second, there has always been the suggestion that Scotland should have a second house in Government but an elected one. Well, they were elected so could form that “second house”, although we might just trim the numbers down a bit. So simple and straightforward! Let’s get on with it!
Now I would like to answer the question posed in his letter by Andrew Sanders of Glasgow when he asks, “What have Queen Victoria and Prince Albert ever done for Glasgow or Scotland?”
Prior to Queen Victoria visiting Scotland during the 19th century, tourism here was almost non-existent. Scotland was considered a wild, dangerous and primitive place to come to. But, following their visit, it became fashionable for the English gentry to visit Scotland. Large country shooting lodges sprang up almost everywhere to accommodate landed gentry and the numbers visiting Scotland jumped by a massive amount. From about six coaches per year there were suddenly six coaches per week. Tourism is now one of our major industries and those two undoubtedly founded it.
In fact, Queen Victoria liked it so much that Prince Albert bought and paid for the Balmoral Estate for £11,000, as a holiday home. That estate is a private estate. It belongs to the Royal family and is not subsidised from the public purse. So, now I can correct part of the letter from Maggie Forrest via e-mail.
Prince William would still, no doubt be welcome in an independent Scotland, but he would not need to downsize his holiday home because, no doubt, when his grandmother passes away, Balmoral will pass, first, to Prince Charles and then, later, to William. Even if we choose to become a republic, he will still own a home here.
Charlie Kerr
Glenrothes
CARDS on the table, I have been a republican since at least 1962. However I was naive enough to believe that “the monarchy” was apolitical and did not interfere in political matters!
I still thought that until 2014 when the head off the House of Windsor advised Scots to “ think very carefully” before voting on September 18. I could just about stomach that as a “natural reaction”.
Since then we have learned how the same person interfered in legislation to ensure their personal financial assets were not affected – and this when we have the greatest number of homeless and the biggest demand for food banks ever known.
Now we have the eldest grandson and wife being sent to Scotland, “a Scotland that they love” to meet Gordon Brown, a political figure who has resurrected a Unionist grouping to thwart any idea of independence, and Channel 4 News being forbidden to show film of that meeting on the premises of Holyrood palace. A palace which is owned by the Scottish people!
I would not wish harm on anyone and wish the latest generation of the “Windsors” many years to enjoy this land “that they love” and to pass that love onto their offspring if they so wish, but as long as they pay their way and no longer apply for reduced council tax or corporation tax on their private residences such as Balmoral.
And the sooner the Scottish Government introduces land reform according to the plans by Andy Wightman, the better.
Paul Gillon
Leven
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel