CHARLIE Kerr (Long Letter, Aug 6) and a number of others seem to think that the independence referendum case being brought before the Supreme Court is, to quote Charlie, “a waste of time.” I beg to disagree, even although we might lose. The reason being that a war is not won with one battle.
In this case: who has the right to call a referendum on Scottish independence – and it certainly isn’t England in my opinion! If it is as clear-cut as some want to suggest, then the case would not have reached the stage it has, with written evidence being presented and the planned two-day hearing in October.
There are basically two options the court can give: Option 1: Scotland has the right to call an independence referendum without Westminster approval. Option 2: Scotland does not have the right to call an independence referendum without Westminster approval.
READ MORE: Scotland won't be able to ignore disaster of Liz Truss's economics
These two options are fairly straightforward and even a child in primary school understands a simple yes or no result. However, if we go back a couple of years to when Joanna Cherry and others were suggesting this very route and alternative ways to get independence, people were saying that if Scotland loses in the Supreme Court, the next step will be to proceed to the European Court of Human Rights, and if necessary, all the way to the United Nations.
It would appear that some people have forgotten this alternative legal route. Likewise if the Westminster view is rejected, they could just as easily take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights and presumably all the way to the United Nations.
We forget at times that we are in the United Kingdom by an international treaty between Scotland and England and the world has moved on in the last 315 years since the treaty and acts of parliament were first enacted. To date it has never been brought up to date, and this must be an option for Holyrood to think about.
READ MORE: Liz Truss told Scotland to 'get lost' with Nicola Sturgeon jibe, says Brown
However, the suggestion of an appeal to the International Court of Justice brought the reply that it was hard to believe a treaty of such ancient date could still be regarded as tenable between two modern states without revision. Articles regarding tax on cinders, salt and windows emphasise this. Therein must lie that option I mention for Holyrood to start renegotiating the Treaty of Union – as the only two states able to do this are Scotland and England – and after this has been renegotiated, a referendum must be called to see if the electorate accepts the terms. If they don’t, then by nature of a No vote we become independent, and start negotiating the break-up of the UK.
Today it is international courts that settle disputes over treaties and not internal courts. The Supreme Court is effectively an English internal court in this matter. We need to bring it to a higher court but to do so you need to exhaust all internal routes first, hence the Scottish Government’s action of taking the matter to the Supreme Court in my view.
England/Westminster can’t take unilateral action over an independence referendum when it comes to Scotland. If that’s the case, then Scotland should be able to veto England holding a referendum to leave the UK!
Alexander Potts
Kilmarnock
RESPONDING to the ridiculous claim from “PM elect" Liz Truss that the Scottish Government is using its “entire resources” on campaigning for independence, I see our democratically elected First Minister reported that expenditure on securing a second referendum amounts to about a 100th of 0.5% of the total Scottish Government budget.
I wonder how much of this relatively small sum has been spent on legal costs that would not have been incurred had the government in London not seen fit to refuse to grant the Scottish people a Section 30 order?
Ni Holmes
St Andrews
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