I READ the report of the disappearance of Marci the hen harrier, which was last known to have been on an estate in Strathdon (Concern raised after hen harrier ‘disappears’, May 23).

Again no trace of the bird or its transmitter has been found. It is clear that the safeguarding of protected species cannot be effectively policed so the law needs changing to that of strict liability. If that were introduced, where the both the bird and transmitter cannot be found then the estate owner would be liable to prosecution in the same way as a driver would be prosecuted where a tail light bulb stops working even although dislodged by going over a pothole ... strict liability.

And I suggest that once licences are introduced, a sporting estate should have their licence removed where a bird and transmitter cannot be traced. Also if the bird and transmitter are moved to another location then the incumbent fine should be trebled, with £50k being the starting point.

If the Scottish Government are to rid us of this criminality then these strong measures must be introduced.

Peter Macari
Aberdeen

SANDY Stronach (Letters, May 24) says that the Battle of Mons Graupius never happened. However the Emperor Domitian certainly awarded triumphal honours to Agricola post the Caledonian Campaign and there are Roman marching camps in an arc from Aberdeen to Cawdor showing that the legions were active in this area.

Given all this, there is little reason to doubt that an engagement between Roman forces and the Caledonian Tribes took place in the north-east of Scotland, although it may not have gone down as Tacitus records it. Mr Stronach’s main complaint seems to be that if the battle took place it somehow promotes a view of history as seen from the Roman point of view. However, even Tacitus seems leery of that interpretation, giving Calgacus the line in his speech “the Romans bring a desert but they call it peace”. Admitting there were conflicts between Celts and Romans doesn’t mean we have to ignore the achievements of Celtic civilisation.

Keith Wright
Aberdeen

I WISH to answer Kenneth Macrae’s comments (Letters, May 23) on my previous long letter (May 19). I would not have stated what I did if I was not sure. Unfortunately, despite searching I cannot now find the place on the internet where I saw the statement that defined the fact that the English Parliament did not dissolve. When I do – and I will keep on looking – I will refer you to it.

However, the mere form of the Treaty itself should be enough to confirm that what I say is correct.

The Treaty of Union was not a federal treaty – in which case the two governments would have remained in existence and acted in co-operation with each other. It was a treaty of incorporation. That is to say that the Scottish Government was dissolved and incorporated into the English Parliament at Westminster, which did not dissolve but merely changed its name, and

the promised constitution for a “British Government” was never drawn up. I still maintain (this bit is opinion) that therefore there is no “British” government – and there never has been.

The Parliament at Westminster continued exactly as it had done prior to the treaty, based on the Magna Carta and a series of precedents, which is what it is based on to this very day. In actual fact, the UK is the only European country without a written constitution.

Not only that but the House of Lords, which was in existence prior to the treaty, also continued exactly as it had done previously. Surely that alone must confirm that the Parliament at Westminster is not a new British Parliament but simply the English Parliament with a new name?

The House of Lords is the remnant of the English government, from before the Magna Carta, that still existed (and still exists) and was then run by the English nobility. Indeed, after the Treaty of Union it became the court of last resort even for Scots Law, which was supposed to remain separate but was also incorporated into English law. It was many years before we got it back!

So many of the promises made in the Treaty were broken that in 1713 a proposal to revoke the Treaty of Union went before the House of Lords. It was defeated by a mere four votes. I think we lost our chance then!

By then, Scotland was being referred to as “a county of Britain”. That has continued to this very day. Can anyone remember Tony Blair saying: “Scotland will never have any more power than an English burgh”?

How can Theresa May invoke Henry VIII laws which not only precede the Treaty of Union (1707), but also precede the Union of the Crowns (1603), if it is not still the English Parliament that operated on those laws, and obviously still does? I know I am right. The Government at Westminster is “The English Parliament continuing…” All the evidence says so.

Charlie Kerr
Glenrothes