THE recent spat between Brian Lawson and Sarah Mackenzie set me thinking of other aspects of the legality of a referendum.

Firstly, if it is still legal for the so-called “Union” Parliament to invoke Henry VIII powers, granted to the English Parliament before 1707, when it was supposed to have been dissolved, then it is still legal to invoke all or any Scottish legal documents pre that date, which confirm the sovereignty of the people in Scotland and their right to choose their own form of governance, including even their monarch.

Secondly, if the Devolution Act supersedes and nullifies previous legal conditions pertaining between Scotland and England, then it must also nullify all other prior conditions. Yet it is legally accepted that the English idea of “Sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament” does not apply in Scotland, thus confirming the sovereignty of the people.

Finally, the Treaty of Union has been broken unilaterally by Westminster multiple times from the day it was signed. The English Parliament was not disbanded but continued with only the addition of a few Scottish representatives, too few to have influence. The promised separate Mint for our own currency was never established and our separate, supposedly inviolate, Scots legal system now has to bow to a Supreme Court established under English law ...

Would someone out there like to catalogue all the other breaches? The Treaty of 1707 is surely already dead, killed by Westminster’s self-serving arrogance and duplicity.

L McGregor

Falkirk

I WAS not offended by the recent comments of Sarah Mackenzie of Lochbroom. I suspect, like me, she shares a disappointment and frustration that the past eight years have not greatly advanced the cause of an independent Scotland.

If opinion polls are to believed we appear to be rather stuck at or around the 50% barrier. If a second referendum was held fairly soon there is a risk that a well-financed, GERS-based, Unionist fear over hope campaign might just manage to hold us to a little under the 50% mark for the second time.

While massive increases in the cost of living might push some towards independence, others may seek comfort in the allegedly strong arms of the Union. I sadly cannot share Sarah’s joy at discovering “the brilliant news that any referendum organised by the Scottish Government would be entirely legal due to the provisions in the Treaty of Union”.

The rather obvious questions this statement raises include why has the Scottish Government not sought to enact this provision? Perhaps the terms of the more recent legislation which re-created the Scottish Parliament, now being subjected to scrutiny by the Supreme Court, is the answer to this question. Clearly any decision to use the Treaty of Union is in the hands of the current First Minister, who certainly shows no sign of heading down that route any time soon.

Sarah also told us that me and my family are entitled to a rental from all the properties on the Royal Mile, based on a legal document from 1689. There is a distinct danger that claims like this become intertwined with the so-called Claim of Right in the public’s mind and that both then become the subject of ridicule.

I assume the “Edinburgh Proclamation” Sarah refers to is the statement recently read out by Neale Hanvey MP on the steps of Queen Elizabeth House in an apparent attempt to re-create the Irish declaration of 1916.

Perhaps this was not the greatest or best-thought-out political gesture. In the few days that followed the 1916 declaration, 485 people were killed, 260 civilians, 143 British military and police personnel, and 82 Irish “rebels”, including 16 executed for their roles in the Rising.

More than 2600 people were wounded. Many of the civilians were killed or wounded by British artillery fire or were mistaken for rebels. Others were caught in the crossfire between the British and the rebels. The shelling and resulting fires left parts of central Dublin in ruins.

The bloody civil war that followed some time later claimed the lives of around 2000 people including Michael Collins, Cathal Brugha and Liam Lynch. The economic costs were massive.

I fear that petitions and bold declarations will easily be ignored, do nothing to advance the independence case beyond the magic 50% mark and are in danger of damaging the credibility of the already frustratingly slow campaign for an independent Scotland.

Brian Lawson

Paisley

While I am sure we all wish to congratulate the First Minister on her statesmanlike performance in cutting through the obfuscation of the Tories and Labour to reach a settlement of recent industrial action, I have to say that I find the settlement terms a bit cockamamie.

Those earning £20,000 get £2000 more while those on £60,000 get £3000 more. It seems to be enshrined that the better off get better off and the poor get slightly less poor. I wonder who is more effective in cleaning up the streets: those on £63,000 or those on £22,000?

Ian Richmond

via email