THE admirable First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon insists “a legally binding referendum is the only way to win independence” (FM rejects rebel plan for Scottish independence, October 11). No reasonable person would disagree, but how do you do it if the other party is Perfidious Albion?
The first example that came to mind was that posed by the Brexit referendum. The UK seems to be able to have such a vote whenever the Tory party feels threatened by Nigel Farage or is encouraged to do so by the mega-rich who back them and see a chance of a quick profit.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon: Plan B for indyref2 is unionist trap
Scotland has to gain a Section 30 before it can proceed and then can be thwarted by delays, changes in wording or vote rigging and control of propaganda in the media. The separation of Scotland from the UK is analogous to the UK leaving the EU, it should be on the same basis; at the will of the national parliament. But it won’t be.
That the UK Government is willing to break the law on the matter of proroguing parliament should not be a surprise. They have done the like for centuries, either by disobeying it or simply changing the rules of the game. The treaty that ties Scotland to England has been broken often. When the Jacobite soldiers were caught they were treated as alien prisoners of war and killed, instead of as citizens and put on trial. In the treaty there was a promise of keeping the Scots Mint which was broken (this may have altered the position regarding the currency).
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon to request Section 30 order in a 'matter of weeks'
The most egregious example of this practice is Scots law itself, which was to be separate and the only law in Scotland. The recent proroguing case in Scotland and separately in England shows that the Supreme Court under English law has been put above Scots law, contrary to the Treaty of Union, ie illegally. This has happened in many case – changes to local authorities, banks and control of Scottish seas were done under English law.
Changing the rules (even the size and shape of the pitch) is another commonplace practice. This is followed by violence by the baffled players, so that the English referee feels free to intervene. The partition of India is an example in the past, and the wars in the Middle East are unresolved cases of altered boundaries. When the referendum in Ireland did not go to England’s taste they changed the boundaries, a change which is still causing serious problems.
Wishing to end on a positive note, I propose not law but more democracy. In science an experiment is accepted as valid when it is repeatable. By instituting regular referendums (elections are at regular intervals) and making these part of the Scottish constitution, the whole world will know the will of the Scottish people. Then we will be spiritually free, even though it is not at first legal.
Iain WD Forde
Scotlandwell
I HAVE to disagree with the letter from John Edgar asking “Would Johnston really be bothered about losing us pesky Scots?” (Letters, October 12). Mr Johnson will not under any circumstances let Scotland go; there is a simple reason for his apparent nonchalance. Scottish independence would mean the end of Trident and England’s s seat on the United Nations Security Council.
A few Scottish Tory MPs are academic to Mr Johnston’s thinking – not even thought about.
Jim Lynch
Edinburgh
“A NO-DEAL Brexit will make the UK a ‘paradise’ for speculators, spivs and smugglers to make money out of medicine shortages, warns Gordon Brown” (Brown in No-Deal smuggler warning, October 10).
Well, shameless Gordon, the hypocrite, would know. He “disappeared” the 100 year-old, venerable, professional anti-smuggling HM Customs & Excise in 2005. Gordon has set the scene for a smuggling tsunami by ensuring there are no anti-smuggling teams to oppose the criminals.
READ MORE: Gordon Brown warns speculators will 'cash in' on No-Deal Brexit
Why? Gordon ensured his City and corporation chums had minimised controls during his light-touch era by amalgamating HM Customs with Inland Revenue to form HMRC. A wee problem is that HMRC was set up for inland controls of VAT, excise and income tax. HMRC doesn’t do borders anti-smuggling.
The UK Border Force does borders, but is 90% focused on anti-immigration.
Gordon has personally created the circumstances where the Tory government are now waving the white flag as the smugglers appear on the horizon by raising parliamentary Statutory Instrument (SI) The Cross-border Trade (Public Notices) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
So what? The SI seeks to allow HMRC to change the law (ie suspend VAT and excise controls) for up to six months after EU withdrawal.
Why would HMRC do such a thing? Firstly, they are totally under-resourced to cope with the scale of the impending carnage. Secondly, asset stripping has ensured they have neither the infrastructure nor competent IT systems to deal with this insanity. Thirdly, which customs legislation will HMRC apply on Brexit Day given No Deal is currently the default position?
Gordon Brown set this predictable disaster in motion. Having no professional customs service was always going to facilitate smuggling. Now, through this SI we have a suspension of customs law, when Scots businesses will have zero protection from undercutting importers, which is what revenue smuggling does. Revenues lost will be measured in billions.
An independent Scotland must aim for a new professional, resourced Customs & Excise, within the top five in the world, supported by a written constitution and customs legislation in order to protect our revenues and communities.
Bill Austin
via email
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel