PROFESSOR Sionaidh Douglas-Scott’s comments asserting that the UK Government’s refusal of an independence referendum is immoral and that there is a requirement for the UK Government to act in “good faith”, made for a heart-warming read
It is always encouraging to see the views of eminent academic lawyers, particularly when they are in tune with your own. However, Douglas-Scott also says the right to self-determination can only be legally actualised through consensual negotiations with the UK Government which should not be unreasonably withheld.
In my experience, the best predictor of future performance is past behaviour. An independent Scotland means the UK as a state would no longer exist. Scotland is 8.2% of the UK by population and 32% by land mass. Scotland is geopolitically and geographically strategically important, and rich in natural and human resources.
The 2014 referendum was only agreed to because the UK Government was confident, rightly as it turned out, that it would win.
READ MORE: UK Government ‘undermining law' by ignoring SNP independence mandate
In the current circumstances, the UK Government would be more likely to fear losing and so it will merely continue to refuse to agree to a referendum. Why would you get into a debate you thought you would lose, especially if there were significant consequences of losing?
Majority opinion seems to be that the Supreme Court is unlikely to hold that the Scottish Parliament has the competence to hold a referendum under the 1998 Scotland Act.
Plan B to turn a future General Election into a plebiscite on independence is fraught with difficulty. Returning a majority of independence-supporting MPs in Scotland is no guarantee of independence.
I fully support Douglas-Scott’s suggestion that it is important that the UK Government’s conduct be exposed as unreasonable and immoral, but also illegal.
SNP MSP Emma Harper was quoted as saying the UK Government’s position is not sustainable. I wish she was right on this but I suspect its position, from its point of view, is perfectly sustainable. I’m reminded of a line from the song Hotel California by the Eagles: “You can check out any time you like but you can never leave”.
READ MORE: SNP say Labour should be 'ashamed' for voting against automation of social security payments
So here is my question to politicians and lawyers. If Scotland has a right to self-determination how does she avail herself of that right? Is it the case that when Scotland as a sovereign state entered into a “voluntary” Union with England, she unwittingly condemned herself to that Union in perpetuity?
Arguing that the UK Government should not make decisions that violate Scotland’s fundamental right to self-determination or democracy without a clear, rational and evidenced basis for doing so, would only be fruitful if we were dealing with a clear, rational and principled UK Government. Perhaps there are other places where such arguments might be heard.
The UK Government will never agree to Scotland leaving the Union. I hope our divorce lawyers are on the case. We need a credible exit strategy and strong leadership to get us out of a state with a UK Government we did not vote for and with which we share no values.
Professor Alan Boyter
Inveraray
WE are now on our third Tory prime minister in almost as many months. Johnson, who at least had a mandate, was forced out of office by his fellow MPs. Neither Truss nor Sunak was chosen by the wider electorate.
This is what passes for democracy in the UK. It is one of the consequences of a first-past-the-post Westminster voting system which guarantees either Labour or the Tories elections usually on a minority of the votes cast.
READ MORE: Home Office contractors fired after 'trying to sell drugs to asylum seekers at Manston'
Almost every other mature democracy uses some form of proportional electoral system. There is a reason for that. It’s fairer.
Proportional representation ensures that the views and preferences of most citizens are reflected in the composition of their parliament. That is what happens in Holyrood elections. In contrast, the Westminster system means the views and preferences of a majority of voters are of no consequence.
Scotland as a whole hasn’t voted for a Tory Westminster administration since 1955 but whether it wants one or not it keeps on getting them thanks to the voting preferences of the English electorate. I make no comment on the voting preferences of our English cousins. They are entitled to vote for whichever party
they wish.
But why should the citizens of Scotland essentially be deprived of Westminster representation simply because the voting system allows our votes to be ignored by the party in power – whichever party that is? Surely it’s time for change!
David Howdle
I ADMIRE the work of the amputee Scottish football team in general but next week they will play the Israeli amputee international team in a tournament held in Scotland.
READ MORE: Perth shop owner Kairen Ruse blasted over 'racist' Facebook post
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B’Tselem have concluded that Israeli practices of oppression and dominion over Palestinians meet the international definition of apartheid.
Not only that, the Israeli army (IDF) has created a reign of terror that has systematically inflicted thousands of limb injuries, many leading to amputations on Palestinians.
By playing against Israel, the Scottish team are helping to “sportswash” Israel’s brutal regime of military occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid.
Israel’s cruelty towards Palestinians was brought to light during the Great March Of Return in Gaza from 2018 to 2019, when unarmed Palestinians walked towards the Israeli separation fence where they were mown down by Israeli snipers.
More than 7500 Palestinians were injured by live bullets and 148 directly resulted in amputations.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz interviewed IDF snipers who were quoted as saying – “knees were the hardest thing to rack up. … I brought in seven-eight knees in one day.”
Many athletes and teams around the world are refusing to normalise Israeli apartheid and surely principled teams in Scotland could follow their example and not invite teams representing Israel?
Gerry Coutts
Glasgow
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