THE US Supreme Court ruling on Roe v Wade should serve as a warning to us all. Nine appointed judges have made a fundamental change to the law governing more than 330 million Americans. Elected politicians on both sides of the underlying debate did not have the final say in the decision. The views of the majority of Americans have been ignored.
In Scotland the fate of a second referendum may rest on the view of ten justices in the UK Supreme Court. Nine men and one woman – hardly gender representative of the UK population. A look into their career progression and backgrounds, freely available on the internet, will do little to suggest they are representative of the UK population, let alone Scotland’s.
READ MORE: What is Roe v Wade? Explaining the legislation which gave women the legal right to abortion
Currently each earns well over £200,000 a year, and they are rather unlikely to uphold the reasoning that Scotland cannot afford to remain part of the bankrupt UK. I suspect they have little recent personal experience of poverty.
Perhaps the First Minister has found a legal loophole which will avoid Scotland’s political fate for the foreseeable future being decided by these ten individuals. We shall have to wait and see. It seems likely, even to those of us with no legal training, that they would simply rule that without the so-called gold standard Section 30 agreement the Scottish Parliament cannot hold a referendum on the same terms as 2014. It will be a fairly easy decision for them to make.
Given that, despite the outcome of the recent council elections, most of Scotland’s local authorities are still in the hands of Unionist parties, the very smallest hint of any form of illegality will give them the excuse (as if they needed one) to refuse to organise the ballot process.
READ MORE: Indyref2 legal analysis fails to address crucial political implications
Tomorrow’s announcement by the First Minister will shape the future of Scotland for many years to come. I hope a credible way round or over or under any legal hurdles has been found.
In any case, this would only be the start of a year-long journey ending on polling day in October 2023. Far more of a concerted effort needs to be made over the coming months to link the very current political issues like the price of fuel, food, inflation and the NHS to the benefits of independence.
Indyref3 would be a very long long way in the future – we cannot afford to fail this time.
Brian Lawson
Paisley
WOMEN in US states affected by Washngton DC legislation are currently stockpiling oral and other contraceptives, fearing the consequences of abortion restrictions. In Britain, the 1967 abortion legislation was passed to prevent “backstairs” abortion being carried out, sometimes by doctors who would have been unable to perform a termination.
However, the 1967 Act is somewhat of an puzzle wrapped up in an enigma. Part one of the Act states that “abortion in the United Kingdom is illegal.”
READ MORE: SNP MSP criticised for supporting Supreme Court abortion decision
It then goes on to say that “there are, however, two exemptions. These relate to the health of the mother and the health of the health of the unborn child.”
Whether we are pro- or anti-lobby, we have to be careful how governments and citizens interpret the (rather vague) provisions of the Act.
WJ Graham
East Kilbride
WELL said Jim Clark (Letters, June 26). The Supreme Court was a Labour government invention in 2008. Its purpose as the highest court in England is to hear and rule on civil and criminal cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and “constitutional cases for the whole population”.
Seems the Labour sleight of hand goes much further than Section 30 and the “removal” of around 6000 square miles of the North Sea from Scottish territory.
I for one don’t recognise its position in Scotland and neither should the Scottish law fraternity or Holyrood.
Paul Gillon
Leven
YOUR Ferret article “Industry lobbies MSPs to back nuclear power” (June 19) reminded me of my seven-year-old self in West Kilbride Primary School being
given a glossy mag trumpeting the marvellous Hunterston nuclear power station.
My school desk had a functioning inkwell in the top right corner; the ink of newspapers turned everything it touched black, including fish and chips; the Biro pen was a novelty, high-tech piece of kit.
The mag was glossy, like the Fablon used to cover moldering kitchen surfaces or, out in the Outer Hebrides, the gunge-dripping walls of blackhouses. It was “modren”, like the plastic cups and plates and those dehydrated “curries”.
Even at seven I could smell the snake oil and BS dripping out of UKAEA’s glossy ad. My pal, the station manager’s son, confirmed some of my suspicions, that there was something well dodgy in the whole nuclear industry. Seems they’re still at it. My advice to those MSPs presented with the nuclear sales pitch is: peel back the Fablon on that.
Gwilym Barlow
Edinburgh
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 here