I’VE been reading some disturbing suggestions recently and never expected a member of parliament to come up with what Adam Tomkins came out with. To suggest that the UK use force to keep Scotland as part of the UK smacks of dictatorship rather than the democracy we are meant to be living in. I can of course understand an off-the-cuff remark from someone who is not as experienced politically as an MSP, or in Adam Tomkins case both a politician and a law professor.

Ireland is a prime example of what happens when you try and force a country to remain in a union they don’t want. It has been 100 years since the partition of Ireland and the fallout is still going on. Is that what Adam Tomkins and Douglas Ross really want, or is this another daft proposal by bonkers Boris given to one of his lackeys to see what the fall-out is like?

READ MORE: Is Adam Tomkins trying to goad Yes supporters into civil disobedience?

If Adam is serious, then he should remember that when you use force against a country, people tend to get killed. And I mean innocent people like children, and people without any political allegiance.

For the century we have been seen as a voluntary Union by consent, and not one by force. As such only a democratic solution can change things, not tanks, guns or batons. Adam wants the “constitution” of the UK changed so he can facilitate his “use of force”, but as a legal professor he should know full well that the UK doesn’t even have a constitution and more so as an MSP.

He also wants to rip up the Act of Union. Well it is actually two Acts, as one was in the Scottish Parliament! Then there is the Treaty itself, which doesn’t say that we have to stay or be in by force or about a time frame. As it is an international treaty and two sovereign nations agreed to it (supposedly, but we know otherwise!), surely then Scotland would have an equal say in negotiating the terms and wording of any new treaty or act that follows.

READ MORE: Tory MSP says Scotland should be legally forced to stay in the Union

This would imply that Adam Tomkins will have to have Boris Johnson for England negotiating and whomever is the next First Minister of Scotland doing the honours for us. Or is Adam advocating that Boris does it for both sides? Not that I would put that past him! And surely if we do as Adam wants, and tear up the Act of Union, then as a law professor he is then saying that the Act is null and void, so Scotland reverts thereby to being independent until such times as Scotland decides to join a union with England. That would certainly be my interpretation of his statement.

In a democracy the majority of the people decide things, not an individual promoting violence. When it is force and the power of force from a government, then that is a dictatorship. Let’s hope that sense prevails here!

Alexander Potts
Kilmarnock

ADAM Tomkins’ proposition that Scotland should be forced to remain in the Union “by force of law” fails on two counts.

First, there is force, something the UK has been only too willing to use on those who wanted to leave the Empire, including India, Kenya and Cyprus. In no case was the use of force successful. Nor was it successful in the case of Ireland. Indeed, the lasting outcome has been a divided island, and continuing hostility toward the UK in parts of Ireland.

However, Tomkins’ formulation is more subtle – he is not recommending force (at least not in the first instance), but the force of law – ie that Scots would remain in the Union because that is what the law required. Leaving aside such as the campaigns against the poll tax or for the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act, we know that law works best not by force, but by consent. Or is Tomkins’ argument founded less in law, and more in force?

Tomkins’ second difficulty is when he turns to the EU. He points out that the EU has a provision requiring that “member states shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks”. In this regard, and as time went on, the UK’s commitment was less enthusiastic than other member states. Eventually, of course, the UK chose to leave because it no longer shared the aims of the EU.

However Professor Tomkins goes on to suggest that the UK should have a similar requirement for its member nations – “‘Devolved administrations shall facilitate the achievement of the UK’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the UK’s objectives”

Just as the UK progressively ceased to share the aims of the EU, Scotland has done likewise, whether it be no higher education fees, an NHS with little private-sector involvement, and of course opposition to Brexit, to name but three. Tomkins is obviously blind to the consequences of his argument – that just as the UK got out of sync with the aims and objectives of the EU, Scotland is doing likewise.

Alasdair Galloway
Dumbarton

I WAS interested in Thursday’s article by Martin Hannan on the proposals in the SNP election manifesto to establish a Register of Interests for the Scottish Judiciary, not because I have any particular self interest in the matter but more because I was surprised one didn’t exist already! On reading further I was even more surprised at the opposition to the idea from senior members of the legal profession.

Why would it be inappropriate and unnecessary? Why would it be detrimental to the recruitment of judges and the administration of justice? What do you have to hide or fear from registering interests so that the public can be assured of impartiality in the administration of justice?

READ MORE: SNP set for clash with judiciary over pledge to introduce register of interests

Why should we need to show corruption in the legal system before a register is established, since having one in the first place is to ensure corruption doesn’t have a chance to become established rather than waiting to shut the stable door after the event!

I have no reason to doubt Lord Carloway’s assurances on the probity of the Scottish judiciary but all that does is add to the strength of my question ... why?

John Curren
Edinburgh