I HAVE been following the exchange on the subject of the proposed plebiscite on the future of the Union Treaty.

According the the UN Charter of Human Rights it is not the place of the current state to define or interfere with a plebiscite by one of its nation state components on the issue of independence. The UK Government is a primary signatory of this charter.

The Treaty of Union made provision for the termination of the treaty by protecting certain immutable rights of the Scottish people in terms of our legal code, constitutional rights and much else besides in Article 19.

Lord Cooper in his summary of McCormack vs The Lord Advocate (1953) pointed out there was no equivalent in Scots law of the English law constitutional practice of “The Crown in Parliament” as the people of Scotland are sovereign – given legal status by the Claim of Right 1689 (which remains “in law”) by which the current Queen was made “Queen of Scots” – and that their considered will is paramount. He argued that at some point in the future, unless this critical constitutional black hole and the series of fudges used to hide it, at the centre of the UK Parliamentary system, were not fully and properly addressed it could lead to the end of the UK Parliamentary Union. This warning was from a person who was a staunch Unionist.

We are now at the point Lord Cooper was concerned about, the future point where the “considered will of the people of Scotland (which remains paramount)” would trump an English law and constitutional practice used to give the UK Government and Parliament overweening powers that have no equivalence in Scots law or constitutional practice, especially as we watch the impact on the unwritten English constitution of being trodden under by a venal and corrupt UK Government, led by a serial liar and psychopath, for whom the law is for other people and not them.

So a plebiscite on Scotland’s future within the UK Parliamentary Union is vouchsafed under the UN Charter of Human Rights or on the basis it is the “considered will of the people of Scotland” which on vote share for parties supporting the plebiscite in Scotland, both in Holyrood and at Westminster, it clearly is and therefore can not be deemed “illegal”or requiring UK Parliamentary or UK Government agreement, as the Union Treaty itself allows for the sovereign parliament of either of the original signatories to repeal their Act of Union by which the Treaty is empowered. We Scots vote Yes to end the Union in a plebiscite then our sovereignty fully resides at Holyrood, which as a successor sovereign parliament in Scotland to the “Thrie Estaites” can repeal the Scottish Act of Union of 1707.

Given the degree to which England is reliant on Scotland for its energy (and much else) I would not perceive negotiations to sort out the divorce would be that painful or prolonged.

Peter Thomson
Kirkcudbright

IN his Long Letter about the single transferable vote (Apr 18), Brian Kelly writes: “The quotient, Q, is calculated by dividing the total votes cast (T) by the number of seats (S) available plus 1. Then an additional one is added.” This reveals a slight misunderstanding of how a quota is calculated using the STV formula. The final “additional one” is conditional. In STV if the quotient contains a decimal fraction, irrespective of whether or not it is above or below 0.50, it is rounded up to the next whole number. Only if the quotient is an integer (whole number) is that final “additional one” applied (see Electoral Systems and Party Systems by Arend Lijphart).

Michael Follon
Glenrothes

I AND most people recognise that young adults and sub-adults have a point of view and can make observations of the world around them. Sadly, as we all know, once we reach our later years we realise that our naivete at that age of the real world, events, history, work and more is seriously lacking.

At that young age we lack the knowledge of how the world works, how people relate to each other, and we also do not have the ability to fully understand how our own actions and reactions affect everybody and everything around us. This is bad enough with some older adults with decades of such experience. We all make bad choices, but none more so than in our teens and early twenties. How can a 16- or 17-year-old effectively represent and counsel anybody else? There has to be a far more effective way of involving young people in our decision-making instead of allowing them to directly control, analyse, create and vote on legislation.

Nick Cole
Meigle, Perthshire

NO taxation without representation. In Scotland at 16 you can marry under your own agency, join the armed forces, vote and have sex. Not every 16-year-old does all of these things. If “stand for election” as a community representative were added to that less than comprehensive list, I would not see it as more of a shocking responsibility than any of the others. Nor would a huge number of 16-year-olds make it their choice, but they should have the right.

Ro Bell
via thenational.scot