FORGIVE me, but I don’t follow what Mr Anderson is trying to say in his letter of October 26. In his original letter of October 20 he was putting the case that if only the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was incorporated into law by Scottish Parliament legislation there would be nothing to stop Holyrood from setting up an independence referendum.
The ICCPR, admirable as it is, has nothing to do with the achieving of Scottish independence, and the only thing the Scotland Act says which has any relevance to Mr Anderson’s claim is that it does not reserve to Westminster “observing and implementing international obligations”.
READ MORE: Tributes paid to 'outstanding' politician and 'dear friend' Alex Salmond at funeral
But let us assume, for argument’s sake, that Holyrood was not prohibited from bringing the ICCPR into law, and that Holyrood was to enact the legislation. That would still not allow Holyrood to set up an indyref without London’s consent, because it is in its very creation a subsidiary body, in whose founding statute that power is expressly withheld by the reservation to Westminster of all legislation which “relates” to “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England” (as interpreted, unremarkably, by the UK Supreme Court). Any attempt to use the precepts of the ICCPR to get a Holyrood indyref would similarly be struck down.
And even if, by some stretch of the imagination, such a referendum could be set up and could be won, what then? Absent London’s cooperation, exactly what power would the devolved and subsidiary Scottish Parliament have to actually take Scotland out of the Union, when the supreme representatives of the Scottish people do not sit at Holyrood, but at Westminster?
READ MORE: 'Speaks volumes': SNP offered one seat on Westminster Scottish Affairs Committee
The absurdity of the position is revealed in Mr Anderson’s present statement that “it is not the UK Government, the Scotland Act, or the so-called UK Supreme Court which is denying the Scottish people the full rights they are entitled to under the UN ICCPR, it is the failure of the Scottish Government to incorporate this into Scottish law”. If everything hinges on the Scottish Parliament passing it into law, does that mean that Scotland could never have left the Union at any time in the nearly three centuries before either Holyrood or the Convention came into existence?
The exercise of sovereignty by the people of Scotland to take their country out of the Union can be accomplished in the most direct, constitutional, lawful, democratic, regular, long-standing, simple and peaceful way (even, if necessary, without London’s cooperation) by the majority voting for it in a true plebiscitary General Election, and thereby filling the Scottish seats at Westminster with Scotland’s supreme representatives mandated and empowered so to do. Why on earth seek to build a crooked path when the straight one is available?
Brian Boyce
Motherwell
SINCE the General Election the Prime Minister has been telling the country repeatedly that Labour did not know about the £22 billion black hole in the economy! Staggering as this sounds considering the country is experiencing a cost-of-living crisis, is it in fact an admission by the Labour Party that while in opposition they took their eye off the ball? I sincerely hope the Chancellor takes on board the word of the PM in his speech on Monday, preparing the country for the Budget on Wednesday: “We have to be realistic about where we are as a country”.
Ms Reeves, working families who depend on claiming Universal Credit know only too well the realities of austerity, the realities of increased fuel costs, and demand realistic answers from the party who promised “change”.
Catriona C Clark
Falkirk
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