AT the time of writing we have no idea whether Johnson will be in a position by Friday to force Brexit through against the will of the majority. There has been discussion as to whether his proposal for a border staffed by unicorns in the middle of the Irish Sea is legal under the Good Friday Agreement.
Another international treaty will definitely be breached if the proposals are passed. I refer to the Acts of Union between Scotland and England in 1707. The Union was created by the passing of two acts, one in each Parliament. Both are still in force, although they have been amended over the years.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson's media spin cannot hide how nasty Conservatives are
They make interesting reading, but could I point out from Article VI of the English Act of Union with Scotland (1706 c.11): “That all Parts of the united Kingdom, for ever, from and after the Union, shall have the same Allowances, Encouragements, and Draw-backs, and be under the same Prohibitions, Restrictions, and Regulations of Trade, and liable to the same Customs and Duties, and Import and Export. And that the Allowances, Encouragements, and draw-backs, Prohibitions, Restrictions, and Regulations, of Trade, and the Customs and Duties on Import and Export settled in England, when the Union commences, shall, from and after the Union, take place throughout the whole united Kingdom.”
I am not a lawyer, but that reads pretty clearly to me. No differences in customs and rules of trade between the parts of the United Kingdom. So no different rules for Northern Ireland.
READ MORE: Tories defend austerity at Scottish leaders' debate
The equivalent act of the Scots Parliament (Union with England Act 1707 c.7) has the same wording in Article VI.
Could someone raise this with the government lawyers? Does this in fact make the Brexit “deal” illegal? Does this give the Scottish Parliament a veto? If the “deal” does get passed, does it imply that the UK Parliament has deliberately broken faith with the Scottish Parliament, and rendered the Act of Union null and void? I’d love to hear an expert opinion. I’m surprised the matter hasn’t been raised before.
Nigel A Callaghan
Machynlleth, Cymru
FIRST Minister Nicola Sturgeon says that “Scotland’s interests, voice and views” have been ignored over the past three years and the “contemptuous way in which Scotland has been treated” is justification for a new vote on independence regardless of Brexit.
Ms Sturgeon is referring to the treatment Westminster is giving Scotland and in this claim is offering an alternative to more of the same.
Scotland voted to remain in the EU, yet there has been no place at any negotiation table for Scotland’s voice, in other words we have been ignored and silenced. Scotland is already feeling the damaging consequences of any future Brexit, especially regarding the issue of free movement.
Migrant workers are crucial to our public services, which are feeling the effects already, and as a consequence of those effects the Scottish Government has called for the powers on immigration to be devolved immediately to stop the damage, but that has fallen on Westminster’s deaf ears.
The Scottish Government has continually called for full welfare powers to be devolved, so as to treat the vulnerable and needy in society with dignity and respect, but once again this call has fallen on Westminster’s deaf ears.
If Scotland is to become a caring and progressive society with social justice at its heart, then Ms Sturgeon in her role as First Minister would be failing in her duties if she was not presenting an alternative to more of the same from whoever is the inhabitant of No 10 on Friday morning.
Catriona C Clark
Falkirk
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