BRIAN Lawson (Letters, July 25) says that I am impatient for independence and implies that this is distorting my thinking. Well, Brian is right I am very keen to see Scottish independence – impatient is too strong a word – but my keenness has in no way affected the logic of the case I put.
It was the First Minister who set out the proposal on how Scotland was going to achieve its independence and she made it clear that this would be done entirely legally. If Brian follows the logic of this statement it leads, inevitably, to the fact that the Scottish Government’s initial steps in this process have to comply completely with Westminster law.
The first step she has taken twice now, to get a Section 30 agreement from Westminster, has failed. Her second step is to seek a judgement from the Westminster-based Supreme Court, which will either agree to a “consultative” referendum or not. If they agree then the UK Government will likely appeal, and even if such a referendum is held, the UK Government may well refuse to recognise it. All of this is within the powers of the Westminster legal system.
READ MORE: Rishi Sunak vows to 'drive down support for Scottish independence'
The most likely outcome of the Supreme Court is that they will say the Scottish Government has no power to hold a referendum, and anticipating that, Nicola has said that the SNP will use the next UK General Election to ask the Scottish people to vote SNP and that they would consider such a vote to be a mandate for independence and proceed accordingly.
Now I pointed out that all of that is possible within Westminster law. However, it is only possible if the law is complied with in every respect. We could not, for example allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in this election because that would break UK election statutes.
If we do as Nicola asks and we get a majority of seats in Scotland, then we will clearly have won the election in Scotland and done so in accordance with the spirit and the letter of Westminster election law.
READ MORE: Kate McCann faints live on air during TalkTV Tory leadership debate
The number of votes cast in total has no relevance in UK General Elections – only the number of seats won are counted. In 1951 Labour had a greater number of votes than the Tories in the General Election, but the Tories had a few more seats than them and took over the government. That is how that system works.
Now, at that point Nicola and the Scottish Government have a decision to make. Do they accept the mandate they have asked the Scottish people to give them, or do they panic and get cold feet? Because, if they accept the mandate they will now be operating under international law to claim Scotland’s rights as an independent country and Westminster law will no longer apply, That is the logic of the policy Nicola has set out. If the Scottish Government, having declared for independence, wanted to hold a referendum of the Scottish people to confirm that, this would be a power they would then have.
Andy Anderson
Ardrossan
IT is truly uplifting to read of National readers getting excited about the Claim of Right (Sarah Mackenzie, July 25) and the forthcoming conference.
And I am in agreement with Andy Anderson that the Yes movement has to find ways to unite around the First Minister’s proposals – to test a referendum proposal in the Supreme Court and to consider a plebiscite election as a Plan B. At face value both these ideas seem to have much to recommend them but it must be remembered that we are dealing with Westminster, who always have two or three cards up their sleeve!
We have been reminded by Professor Alf Baird that our lawed referendum format, suitable for local government referenda, is not suitable for a referendum on constitutional matters and would never be used in Europe or other similar countries. Alf has also scrutinised the data and found that large numbers of new people are coming to Scotland annually and the great majority of them do not greatly admire Scottish culture and language or support Scottish independence.
While a plebiscite election sounds a very simple and attractive proposition, we have to remember that it will be governed by organisations controlled by Westminster like the Electoral Commission. The rules will be set by them and we will not be able to include 16- and 17-year-olds.
If we had the support of the United Nations Committee on Decolonisation we would be able to guarantee impartial observers to the process and no external interference from our bigger partner including negative media input. But we do not have this.
So my own view is that, like Sarah, I am excited about the Claim of Right and the capacity of the Scottish people to walk away from the Treaty of Union after calling a convention to decide if Scottish people’s rights have been abused in the many recent situations post-Brexit.
Come to the conference if you are able to!
Maggie Chetty
Glasgow
BRIAN Lawson in Paisley describes the idea that a majority of SEATS is not a valid method for commencing indy negotiations.
We seem to be operating a double standard here. In my 75 years there have been several UK Governments elected on a majority of SEATS. They have regarded this as sufficient authority to take MANY important decisions – alter taxation, declare war, implement Brexit etc. Suddenly the goal posts are on wheels and a DIFFERENT criteria is employed for Scotland.
If you want to talk about fantasy politics, the prospect of achieving +50% of VOTES for indy in a UK election is REAL fantasy. Look back at your stats, Brian, it’s virtually an impossibility. If ANYTHING is designed to kick indy into the long grass, it’s THIS!
Barry Stewart
Blantyre
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