THE recent English High Court ruling over triggering Article 50 re-asserted the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament, but Scotland’s constitutional position that the Scottish people are sovereign must also be upheld. Henry McLeish is right that we must have a final say on the Brexit deal, whatever it is. While the SNP sleepwalks towards indyref2, there is instead much to gain from changing the proposed question to “should Scotland leave the European Union along with the rest of the UK?”.
Although notionally advisory, a No vote would empower the Scottish Parliament to negotiate whatever degree of self-government under the British crown is sufficient to retain EU membership, and, if that is not possible, to declare independence. Faced with that possibility, Westminster will agree to a sensible deal (presumably involving shared defence and currency).
As we have already voted to remain in the EU, the onus would be on the Yes side to justify our current status within the UK and to explain why, despite our vote, our wishes should always be subordinate to those of England.
Robert Fraser, Edinburgh
I TOOK great encouragement from Alex Neil’s recent statement that he voted Leave and that five to six other SNP MSPs did so as well. I expect that some of our MPs also did so. Some day it would be interesting to know who they were. I must say that I sympathise with the secret Brexiteers. Regrettably, our party is in the thralls of overpowering groupthink and “iron discipline”, as Jim Sillars would say. The best avenue for free thought in our movement is now the letters column of The National.
I do not find the recent revelations at all surprising. During the short campaign I had good information that some SNP parliamentarians were backing Leave. More to the point, I found little or no genuine enthusiasm in the north-eastern party for Remain. On a Saturday during the campaign, I stood in a Vote Leave tent in a local fete. My two colleagues were Yessers. Time and again visitors to our booth would say that they were actually SNP but in disagreement with the party. Close beside us I saw the booth of Remain. I felt a deep hostility from the group of three people there and I wondered where I knew them from. Suddenly I identified the connection. They were the Better Together team of 2014 decked out in different colours.
A few weeks earlier, at a campaign meeting of Vote Leave, I was amazed to find that those leading Vote Leave in Scotland were actively targeting areas which had voted Yes in 2014.
The SNP is trying to embrace a series of Unionist tigers. Firstly the 62 per cent of Scots who wanted the UK to remain in the EU. Most of these people are not nationalists. Secondly, we applaud the recent decision of the High Court on Article 50. This precedent, which will not stop Brexit, is very dangerous for our movement. Lastly, of course, we embrace and adore the EU which is the biggest Unionist tiger of all.
Our slogan used to be “Put Scotland First” and it needs to be so again. I would like our party be “something to do with nationalism”.
William Ross, Address supplied
IT’S ridiculous for Toni Giugliano to suggest that Alex Neil is undermining the independence campaign by voting to leave the EU ('Neil's position on Brexit is undermining the case for independence', The National, November 5). You get the impression that to some of the SNP leadership joining the European Union is more important that achieving Scottish Independence, amounting almost to an obsession. I’ve never understood the argument that EU membership is a necessary step in securing an independent Scotland nor why the SNP wants to dilute sovereignty by handing it over to one of the world’s most undemocratic institutions.
Ron Halliday, Bridge of Allan
I’M glad to see that Alex stepped up to the mark about his vote on Europe, I think a lot of Eurosceptics look at Greece and Portugal, as well as Ireland, in regards to their vote on the EU. I gave this vote a wide mark because I couldn’t bring myself to condone the British state either, but at least it clears the hindrance of the debunked policy of independence in Europe and the inevitable veto from Spain. Remember the EU backed the British state during the referendum.
Stuart Jackson, Address supplied
THE current flurry of comment on the English High Court decision that the executive does not hold the Royal Prerogative, and that Parliament alone is sovereign, rests on English constitutional law, which also covers Wales and Northern Ireland.
It has no equivalent in Scottish constitutional law, which had entirely different intellectual foundations. It clearly states that the people of Scotland are sovereign, and Indeed the English constitutional theorist A V Dicey, in asserting that Parliament was sovereign, was careful to restrict his maxims on this to the law of England. The casual assertion by Theresa May that the EU referendum covered the whole of the UK fails to take into account the above facts and the Scottish Government is acting constitutionally when it seeks, as instructed by a large majority of the people of Scotland, to retain our position within the EU.
Bruce Moglia, Bridge of Weir
IT’S funny to see Brexit politicians, who had proclaimed their support for Westminster sovereignty, now squealing at the prospect of having to justify their actions to the Parliament they claimed to support.
However, it does have to be pointed out this was a decision by the High Court of England, in accordance with English law, not Scots law. We have to insist that in Scotland, sovereignty belongs to the people of Scotland.
Scotland voted decisively, in every part of the country, to remain. While it is, of course, possible that decision might change in the future, that is the position for now; and, since the people are sovereign in Scotland, that decision must be respected. Since it is clearly not being respected, there has to be a new independence referendum within a matter of months. If and when that delivers a decisive Yes, then that decision by the people must be respected.
Dave Coull, Edzell
THE poppy controversy could be solved if both teams wear the white poppy to remember all those lost in conflict. The red poppy commemorates one side only. Politicians will hijack the red poppy movement for whatever purpose suits them at the time. Topically, this is for propagating the union myth. How political is that!
Peter Barjonas, Latheronwheel
Letters II: Another fine mess for the UK means fresh independence hope
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