THE article by Scott Crichton Styles is very clear and helpful in looking at the legal aspects of an independence referendum but it has one very important missing aspect (How we might force the UK’s hand over a Section 30 order, June 22).
It fails entirely to address the political implications. Not surprisingly a lawyer, particularly an academic lawyer, tends to focus on the law, and the letter of the law and its likely interpretation.
Now, important as that is, it is not all you need to know about the application of the law in any society.
No law can function in any society without the consent, or at least the compliance, of the majority of the population. Without community compliance then no matter how authentic the lawmakers may be, or however clear and well-written the law is, it will not be possible to operate it.
READ MORE: Scottish Government CAN prepare for independence, legal advice confirms
I have, in my own experience, observed this twice in my life in the UK, when I was very close to the events which displayed it.
In 1972, while I was negotiating for the trade union NUPE in an Oxford College, I was organising a strike on behalf of low-paid college servants. I was informed by the college officials that my actions were in breach of the then Westminster trade union laws. I did not doubt their opinion on that, indeed I believed they were right, but I had no intention of changing my position.
I learned from contacts I had on the college governing body that the college had advice, from practicing lawyers they had engaged, to the effect that while they were right that our actions were in breach of the legislation it would be unwise for the college to act on that basis, because if they did, our small strike would get a lot of attention and support and they would end up worse off.
Years later, while I was living on Skye, a bridge was built to the island and a private company got legal authority to charge us a heavy toll to use it. I refused to pay that toll and had 100 criminal charges brought against me. I went through the legal process on many of these charges and was found guilty but refused to pay any fines. The law was clear enough, but the community refused to accept it.
The law was abandoned, I never paid any fines and the toll was taken off the bridge.
The lesson is clear. If there is a consultative referendum and the Scottish Government decided to accept this as the legitimate voice of the sovereign Scottish people and they get the political support of the Scottish people then they will carry the day, whatever any English court might think about the legality of these actions.
Andy Anderson
Saltcoats
SCOTT Crichton Styles’s article flies directly in the face of historical reality. That the Scottish people are sovereign has been established, and re-established, on several occasions and to effectively argue that our sovereignty is rendered irrelevant by the Scotland Act is the argument of someone who either believes that legal process has greater importance than democratic right, or even human freedom, or he has another agenda.
READ MORE: Indyref2 to be 'consultative' in attempt to bypass legal issues, reports say
His statement “it is the Westminster Parliament that is sovereign not the Scottish people”, may be correct in the narrowest legal sense in the interpretation of the wording of the Scotland Act. This does not change the fundamental position of our sovereignty, or does he not understand the basic principle of human rights as enshrined in international law, or even legal precedent? The practice of changing law when it does not suit your purpose is what we can expect from Johnson but to have such an attitude enthusiastically supported by someone claiming to be an educator is disgusting.
Should The National be publishing material whose obvious intent is to undermine our sovereignty and further the interests of the evermore imperialist coterie of corrupt fools who run Westminster?
Stuart McHardy
via email
REGARDING the article by Scott Chrichton Styles in today’s National. In the Treaty of the Union of Parliaments, Article 19 provides for the continuation of the Scottish Court of Session, the High court and the Court of Justiciary and a separate legal system. Would this not make the Supreme Court an English Court only?
Bill Purves
Galashiels
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