I HAVE noted Brian Boyce’s letter in the National which refers to Scottish independence and to my proposals as being a “crooked path” to independence as opposed to his “straight path”.
Well, it appears that Brian and I both accept that the Scottish people are sovereign. So that is a good place to start from.
However, Brian’s concept of sovereign power seems to differ substantially for mine, or indeed from a dictionary definition. Sovereign power is the highest state power. No authority has higher state power than the sovereign, and in Scotland that is the Scottish people. The problem we have, Brian, is that this power the Scottish people have currently has no voice.
READ MORE: With a rump of SNP MPs remaining, we need a new strategy for indy
Now Brian, in a valiant attempt to give this voice to the Scottish people, claims he can read and interpret the UK constitution and that if the sovereign Scottish people just wait, and play by the UK establishment’s constitutional rules, he can guide us on a straight path to independence.
Well that sounds good, Brian, but there are some obvious flaws that I can see. If Brian can read and interpret the UK constitution some years ahead, he is a very talented lad, because, unlike most countries, the UK does not have a written constitution. The UK establishment just make up the constitution as and how they like. Indeed there is only one written part to the UK constitution and that is the Treaty of Union.
From that part of the written UK constitution Brian will note that there are two separate legal systems in the UK, Scottish law and English law, and that there are two separate concepts of sovereignty in Scottish and English and they differ significantly. He will also be able to note that the UK is constitutionally committed to a number of written international agreements. One of these is the Good Friday Agreement for Northern Ireland in which the UK agrees to direct democracy in Northern Ireland open to the people to operate at will.
READ MORE: John Swinney gives pithy response to Donald Trump's Scottish independence comments
Also he will note that the UK signed acceptance of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1976, which gives the people in the UK the right to direct democracy, provided this covenant is put into domestic law.
Brian, we in Respect Scottish Sovereignty take the view that the Scottish Government should put this covenant into Scottish law, which they have the power to do under the Scotland Act. Now you may not agree with that, but more significantly the Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) does agree with us on that, and is insisting that the Scottish Government has a legal right under the Scotland Act and a duty to the Scottish people to do that.
Now Brian, just think for a minute, what if we and the SHRC are right, and the Scottish people can have access to direct democracy legally in Scotland and in international law? Does that not give the sovereign Scottish people the political voice they so desperately need, and give it to them quickly?
If that is so, why do you oppose it?
Andy Anderson
Ardrossan
WHY do we in Scotland (irrespective of religious persuasion) continue to commemorate (celebrate?) the Gunpowder Plot and gory execution of the plotters? This occurred while we were independent, although “sharing” a King, and had it been successful, it would have made little difference to the population of Scotland, as it was the ENGLISH parliament building they wanted to blow up.
As Bonfire Night causes substantial distress and annoyance to many people and most animals, what is the point?
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 here