Letters to The National: There is no ‘Act of Union’ as it is, of course, a treaty...

There never was nor is there an “Act of Union”. There was and there is “A Treaty Of Union, 1707”.

This treaty was signed by the then separate national governments of Scotland and England following which these two national governments mutually agreed to go into “Abeyance ad Interim”. Thus setting up the new Westminster parliament with which we are all familiar to this day. Since that time Scotland has recalled its national parliament which sits in legislative authority in Edinburgh. It may be time for England to recall their national parliament given their use of Evel at Westminster in the meantime.

Talk about “a new Act of Union” is just so much English nationalist constitutional nonsense.

Scotland is the only nation within the United Kingdom with a legally binding written constitution. I suggest all parties read it. Look it up in Scotland’s National Library, The Advocates’ Library, et al.

Finally Westminster has neither the power nor constitutional authority to draft or attempt to pass a new Act of Union where none has ever existed.

John JG McGill

Kilmarnock

A SO-CALLED Constitutional Steering Group is aiming apparently at devising a new Act of Union to replace the one of ill-repute, aka 1707. The replacement one is guaranteed a good fit because it betokens the same ill-repute of its predecessor. Weighted with five House of Lords members and not a single SNP representative doesn’t augur much towards Act of Union improvement.

The message obviously still hasn’t been received down Westminster way in that Scotland isn’t after a second, third, or twentieth Act of Union, it is, if anything, after a second referendum, and better still, an end to its incarceration in the only Act of Union that is relevant (and this sorely tries the meaning of “relevant”), that of infamous recall, of 1707, when the citizenry of Scotland’s capital, Edinburgh, rioted in the streets while a “parcel of rogues” from Scotland connived with their English counterparts and gave away self-government of their country against every historical precedent and anecdotal commitment in favour of Scotland remaining sovereign and self-ruling.

In this hundredth anniversary of what happened at the Dublin Post Office in 1916, such bare-faced meddling with the Act of Union, by people ill-chosen for the task, is but flint to stone and is doomed before a word is minuted of any such meeting of any such group.

Ian Johnstone

Peterhead

IN my social life I come across quite a number of English people, mostly of the better-educated and reasonably affluent kind. With a very few exceptions I detect a worrying hardening of their attitude towards Scotland and the Scots.

By this I do not mean an increasing awareness of their English identity, for that I would regard as entirely desirable. Instead, I sense a distinct and growing hostility to political events in Scotland, and this amongst intelligent and otherwise well-balanced individuals.

This increasing xenophobia was summed up recently by a remark made to me by a casual acquaintance who detected my Scottish accent but wrongly assumed that I shared his politics. To my astonishment he casually described Nicola Sturgeon as “the Poison Dwarf, as we call her south of the Border”.

The remark was offensive on several different levels, not least the gratuitous insult to a charming young woman. But perhaps even worse than the latent hostility it revealed is the sheer hypocrisy of the sentiment, given the nauseating “love-bombing” of Scotland during the referendum campaign and the cries of “please don’t leave us”.

Peter Craigie

Edinburgh

MY letter questioning why another indyref would be considered, seemed to strike a chord with a number of your readers, though not a happy one (Letters, January 14).

One common thread in the strongly felt replies is clearly a great mistrust verging towards loathing of the financial sector.

Yet given how our oil industry is under such severe strain right now, surely the last thing we want is to treat this other key Scottish industry as if it is some kind of pariah? Effective financial regulation is critical and there were certainly failures in the past, but financial services provides employment to tens of thousands of people across Scotland.

One respondent also asked me to answer the question, “Why do Unionists pursue the too wee, too poor, too stupid strategy of talking Scotland down?” – and I will happily do so. I have spent the last 25 years working across the private, public and voluntary sectors in Scotland and have never knowingly “talked Scotland down”, but on the contrary have chosen to make my life here, and have been nothing but impressed by those I have worked with as we have developed businesses together or worked to try to address some of the fundamental issues that the country needs to tackle. My role has been a modest one, but I hope always positive.

As for the “too wee, etc” phrasing, that was a product of SNP spin doctors who put it in their politicians’ speeches implying this insult came from their opponents whereas there is no case of a credible Unionist politician ever saying such a thing.

Keith Howell

West Linton

FIRST Minister’s Questions at Holyrood this week left me somewhat bemused as opposition parties went on the attack. 

Health and social care, housing, education and the living wage all featured and it was like a scene from the pantomime season. 

Yet those issues are serious and affect all aspects of daily life in Scotland, something the Scottish Government recognises and has taken cognisance of in the recent spending plans laid out to parliament by John Swinney. 

On housing, the Labour Party really have a nerve in challenging the Scottish Government’s housing record considering the SNP government are on target to deliver the 30,000 promised affordable homes in this parliament. 

Perhaps it is worth reminding readers that Labour managed less than 10 social houses during their last term in office in Scotland. 

It is always easy to criticise the policies and plans of the governing administration, but opposition parties really need to come forward with their funded plans, no use shouting if no credible and fully funded alternatives are forthcoming and with an election on the horizon there will be plenty of opportunity. 

Catriona C Clark

Falkirk