Charles Buchan Ritchie (Letters, 23 July) makes a good point that decisions effectively leading to the replacement of the UK Supreme Court following independence should not be made in haste – even if the words he employed would appear to be overly colourful, if not derogatory, in reference to “the First Minister and his team”.
He could have gone a step further and made a constructive suggestion as to how this might be practically achieved, while ensuring the necessary safeguards would be in place.
Perhaps others, including members of the Law Society, may rise to this challenge without waiting for the outcome of the vote on 18 September.
Others such as George Byron and (Prof) Tony Trewavas (Letters, same day) would also seem to prefer to see obstacles rather than opportunities when considering the merits of independence.
Of course we all have reservations about expecting politicians to determine the best possible solutions on our behalf, especially on matters that may fundamentally change our day-to-day lives, but where we can we all have a responsibility to constructively contribute to our society.
Hopefully as Scotland’s date with destiny draws nearer, more people will feel less daunted by the challenges and see more of the many opportunities offered by independence in a positive way and realise that they can also make positive suggestions that can be taken forward by themselves or others to achieve outcomes of which we can all be proud.
Charles Buchan Ritchie’s letter on the merits of staying with the Union so that we retain access to the Westminster-based UK Supreme Court (UKSC) has an air of a desperate man.
He extols the virtue of 300 years played by the House of Lords but omits to mention that it was recently replaced by the UKSC because it was unfit for purpose.
He cites case law from 1932 to illustrate his point, forgetting that it originates from the most undemocratic, unrepresentative institution in the UK, the House of Lords, when it was pretty much at its self-centred peak.
He then admits, thankfully, that the UKSC has no monopoly on infallibility, and works within an international and European framework – so where is the benefit?
I would rather have our own “tartan fudge” than a Westminster “fix”.