Hospitals are paying the price of both Tory and Labour rule of the UK

May I also add an additional point which Ms Clarke does not mention. I refer to the shortage of hospital beds in Scotland, which has, apparently, also contributed to the difficulty in releasing patients who might otherwise have been discharged from hospital in a timely fashion. A causal major factor of this circumstance (we are told) can be identified as being not just the 13 years of austerity imposed by the Conservative Party of government, but also the way in which the previous Labour governments (associated with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown) funded various hospital maintenance and replacements projects, which were often characterised by a planned reduction in bed capacity and for which current taxpayers are paying dearly under what were termed “PFI” agreements.

Since Brown has of late been keen to lecture us on various constitutional arrangements, perhaps Mr Brown would see fit to apologise for his role in the creation of these NHS problems.

Hugh Noble
Appin

I AM in the process of writing to Pete Wishart MP concerning his article in Wednesday’s National (De facto referendum is now the only route to indy).

I believe he is wrong and that there is an international route to independence as suggested by the Alba Party in their latest move to investigate different routes via “Top people – not cheap” (top lawyers hired by Alba to probe indyref options).

I believe we are held to Britain by an international treaty and not by English domestic law. The Scotland Act, on which the determination of the Supreme Court was based, is Westminster, (English) domestic law. It does not bind us to Britain. The Treaty of Union does.Thus, the route to independence has to be by withdrawing from that treaty under international law. To do this, we need to go to the international court in The Hague and put to them our case that we have the right under the United Nations Convention to determine how we wish to be governed.

As Pete Wishart quite correctly pointed out in his article: “The way to solve the constitutional future of a nation is to have a referendum in which both sides of the debate put their case in respective campaigns.” Since the United Nations supports the right of any and every country to decide how it wishes to be governed, then surely, by implication, they must support the means by which any country achieves the opinion of their electorate on that subject, ie by holding a referendum on the matter.

We must therefore ask the International Court to grant us that right, to which we seem to be entitled under the United Nations Convention. And we must ask for it before even attempting any “de facto referendum”. I believe we are likely to lose such a de facto referendum and that doing so would slam shut the door on any further international action.

Unless we do seek some means of achieving independence, other than the next General Election, which is more likely to be about getting the Tories out than getting independence, then I believe we are unlikely to have another chance for at least another 25 years. I hope that Alba receive confirmation that there is an optional route and that the SNP don’t dash any future hopes of gaining independence by not investigating those routes.

Charlie Kerr
Glenrothes

CHRIS Hanlon’s arguments (Long Letter, Jan 12) aimed at bringing the majority of the Scottish electorate together to progress independence by transforming the next UK General Election into a “de facto referendum” on amending the Act of Union to secure and guarantee the democratic rights of the Scottish Parliament, specifically including the legal right to conduct constitutional referenda, seem to warrant serious consideration.

While all long-time supporters of self-determination would like independence to be achieved immediately, or they would at least like to be provided with the opportunity to vote in indyref2 this year, without a legally legitimate alternative we regrettably appear headed to participating in a “de facto referendum”. Manipulation of the current mandate of the Scottish Government to bring about an early Holyrood election may seem attractive but could actually diminish support for independence as the current trust of the electorate in the SNP, and also the Greens, could be significantly undermined. Furthermore, even if majority support for independence was achieved in such an election, “wrangling” with the UK Government in order to achieve acceptance of the result so as to commence formal negotiations on legal withdrawal from the Union could take many years.

That is not to say that even with independence parties winning a majority of the seats and a majority of the vote in the next UK General Election in favour of amending the Act of Union that the UK Government would not seek to prevaricate on introducing appropriate legislation. I am not a lawyer, but given that apparently legitimate concern, the wording of manifestos promoting a “de facto referendum” consistent with that amendment would probably need to be constructed to include a clause that would authorize the Scottish Government, on behalf of the people of Scotland, to immediately declare independence should appropriate legislation not be introduced by the Westminster Parliament and enacted within, say, the first three months following that UK General Election (anticipated for 2024).

With 2023 just beginning 2025 seems like a long way off for a second constitutional referendum, but perhaps at this critical juncture in Scotland’s progression to self-determination, pragmatism needs to take precedence over frustrated aspirations.

Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian

IN the UN Charter of Human Rights, to which the UK is a signatory, it is clearly defined thus: “Whereas a state is self-governing, whereas a colony is governed by another country, often overseas.”

This definition is undeniably clear. Scotland is not a state. Scotland is a colony. Further, our territorial integrity has been injured.

The General Assembly of the United Nations has declared that:

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.

I solemnly declare that the United Kingdom has failed significantly, with regard to the state of Scotland, in the matters described in clauses one through seven above, and demand that all member nations of the UN, they themselves being free and protected under the UN Charter of Human Rights, urgently pursue the issues of the non-compliance of the UK in this matter, with regard to Scotland in the first instance.

Christopher Bruce
Taynuilt

BRIAN Lawson’s letter in The National on Wednesday was another excellent letter from him, with his usual clear and rational style. Brian sets out the options open to the Scottish Government to take the next step towards independence. Unfortunately, Brian fails to consider the most obvious and most effective option available to the Scottish Government and to the Scottish people.

Brian, like many others, seems to assume that the pronouncement on Scottish sovereignty by the English Supreme Court has to be complied with, but why should he make that assumption?

The English Supreme Court – and I call it that because it is a Westminster creation and has used the English definition of sovereignty in its judgement – has no sound constitutional basis for its claim that the Scottish people and their parliament are subject to the sovereignty of “the king in the Westminster Parliament”. That claim is not, and never was valid.

Indeed, if this assertion was valid and the Scottish people and Parliament were “subjects” of the Westminster Parliament, then all the options Brian suggests would be futile, because whatever the Scottish people think, or vote for, could be ignored by their sovereign masters in Westminster, so none of Brian’s options would be open to us.

So let us get back to basics. The Scottish people are sovereign. That is not just an empty political slogan, it is a constitutional fact. The last time this was demonstrated by a Scottish Parliament was in 1689 when, applying the Buchanan principle of the sovereignty of the people, the Scottish Parliament removed King James VII from the Scottish throne and replaced him.

Nothing in Scotland’s constitutional history since then has challenged this Scottish view of sovereignty. So if Brian, like myself and most Scots today, believe that this is how sovereignty must apply in 21st-century Scotland, rather than some archaic, feudal, undemocratic concept which ignores the people entirely (Scots or English), then we must accept and proclaim it and reject the Supreme Court nonsense.

If we in Scotland want the world to see us as a modern, democratic, independent nation, then we must behave like one, and not some colony which has to comply with feudal English law.

The Scottish people do not need to impress the Westminster Parliament in any new vote to win their favour, frankly that would be a waste of time. If we want to do something positive, the Scottish Government should hold a referendum to seek the Scottish people’s view on who should control the Scottish Parliament

– them or the Westminster Parliament,

I think we know how the Scottish people would answer that question, and this would give us an up-to-date sovereign decision on the power of the Scottish Parliament. We could then discuss arrangements with our other British partners on relationships between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK from there

Andy Anderson
Ardrossan