There’s yet time for independence debate

WITH an independence referendum imminent, there are two points that concern me: the Scottish National Party has had decades to plan for this moment, and yet First Minister Alex Salmond still cannot, or will not, inform us of the details of what separation will really mean.

His attitude seems to be, “just trust me, and we’ll see what happens”.

Secondly, eminent Scottish legal scholars are now raising questions (your report, 12 November) on Scotland’s constitutional right within the Union with regard to secession.

This is surely a basic matter that should have been looked into and clarified right at the very beginning. Nationalists have yet to answer this and the usual counter-accusations of “scaremongering” or being a “feartie” will just not do.

Confusion is also evident in everything from membership of the European Union to the shouldering of substantial debt on separation, and while I know that there are those for whom the mere mention of the word “independence” sends common sense flying out the window, independence is not like the Scottish Parliament building: an objective to be achieved regardless of cost or consequences.

This is the biggest decision we are ever going to be called upon to make, so a detailed case must be presented. Otherwise, more Scots will begin to realise why we entrust our government ultimately to Westminster.

Walter J Allan

Colinton Mains Drive

Edinburgh

PRECEDENT is an important factor in English and Scots law. The academics have discussed the letter of the law, Gerry Hassan the politics (Perspective, 12 November), but nobody the precedents. Scotland would not be first country to relinquish Westminster rule. The Americans did it in 1776, Ireland in 1920, India in 1947, and many others have since.

In how many of these countries did Westminster arrange a referendum; how many were arranged by the local government; in how many was it just negotiated with the de facto government of the day. Were they “legal”. This needs a lot of work, especially by academics who would deny the Scottish Government the right to organise a referendum.

Fortunately, the government does not plan a vote before 2014 at the earliest, so there should be time for a few theses on the subject.

George Shering

West Acres Drive

Newport-on-Tay

Fife

AS UNIONIST parties have spent the past 50 years refusing a referendum on independence Alexander McKay and Rod Wallace (Letters, 12 November) need to calm down. Political parties now have the time to develop and promote their policies for an independent and devolved Scotland before a referendum.

Civic Scotland needs the time to discuss the opportunities and challenges which independence will create. Equally people will wish to consider the effects of continuing in the UK.

Two to three years of mature consideration are required. I’m sure Messrs McKay and Wallace wouldn’t want the Scottish people to decide in haste and regret at leisure.

Graeme McCormick

Arden

by Loch Lomond

PROFESSOR Adam Tomkins (Letters, 12 November) may be correct in his interpretation of the legality of the Scottish Parliament calling a referendum.

He would probably be equally right were he to claim that the American Declaration of Independence, not having had the approval of the British Parliament, was an illegal act and that the US is thus an illegitimate state.

This merely illustrates the irrelevance of such legal nitpicking.

Ultimately, the legality of a state derives from the will of the people: and the will of the people is that the Scottish Parliament has the right to ask what questions it will, and when to do so.

Where Prof Tomkins is egregiously fatuous is in his claim that “Scottish ministers do not speak for Scotland generally”. The electorate gave them an unambiguous mandate to do so at the last election.

In Prof Tomkins’ alternative universe Michael Moore, as Secretary of State for Scotland in the Westminster government, apparently has more authority to speak for Scotland than Alex Salmond.

Michael Moore is an MP from a marginal constituency, representing a party humiliatingly rejected by the Scottish electorate, occupying his post only as the result of a betrayal of his party’s principles for the sake of office in a right-wing Tory administration. As a result of this, he has been promoted beyond his wildest dreams and, it seems, beyond his competence. 

James W Morrison

Bryce Road

Currie

THE Scotsman (Comment, 11 November) quotes Prof Tomkins as suggesting that the wording of a referendum on the status of Scotland be: “Do you wish Scotland to secede from the United Kingdom?”

If these were the professor’s words it questions his knowledge of the relationship of the countries.

The Union of the Crowns in 1603 formed an entity called the United Kingdom.

In 1707, a Treaty of Union of the Parliaments was agreed. The recent re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament must have been a step in the renegotiation of that treaty, and “devo-max” would be a further stage in the process. Full independence would be the ultimate abrogation of the Treaty of Union.

None of this would involve “seceding from the UK”.

The great value of having a royal head of state is that you can denigrate the beliefs or actions of your elected leaders without being considered traitorous to the Crown. So it would be of value for Scotland to retain the Crown as an apolitical symbol of the state, the United Kingdoms (plural).

Iain WD Forde

Scotlandwell Kinross-shire