Case is flawed

The first part argues that “an independent Scotland would preserve the right of access to justice of all people who live in this country”. Has anyone seriously suggested that this would not be the case? Are they claiming it is only by having a written constitution that our rights are protected and that at the moment we are at risk?

There are other legal views on this issue, such as when Professor Adam Tonkins, giving evidence to the External and European Affairs (EEA) committee (12 June), raised serious doubts about the nature and content of a written constitution.

The letter states that “Scotland has its own legal system”. Presumably, then, these lawyers do not subscribe to the SNP version of a constitution which, for example, subordinates Scots law to European law in any case where there is a conflict.

Their comments on EU membership seem to have come straight out of the SNP handbook of catch phrases. I am astonished they use the same emotive language as independence die-hards in saying Scotland would not be “expelled” from the EU.

How can Scotland be expelled from the EU when it is not a member? It could not “remain in the EU as long as it wished to” because it is not a member.

Not even the white paper claims Scotland is currently a member state of the EU. The EEA committee report (12 May) confirms Scotland would have to go through a process to become an independent member state.

There were differing views from those legal experts giving evidence as to whether the process would be via Article 48 or  49. But there was absolute  unanimity that an accession process is required – for the obvious reason that Scotland is not a member.

There was also unanimity that Scotland would be successful in its application. The real crux is the terms of membership, which the lawyers’ letter does not mention.

With one exception the expert evidence given to the EEA committee concurred that Scotland would not get the same opt-outs as currently enjoyed by the UK. I wonder what proportion of Scots would wish to be in the EU if there were no opt-outs on the budget, VAT impositions, Schengen, the euro etc.

The letter concludes by saying Scotland could become a “democratic independent state”. Was there ever any doubt about this? I am not sure why we need “lawyers in the real world” to tell us Scotland could become an independent country in which citizens’ rights would be protected.

The public looks to the legal experts for information on less self-evident questions. And on the issue of the legal status of Scotland within the EU these “experts” have got it wrong!

Colin Hamilton

Braid Hills Avenue

Edinburgh