Claims of 'sovereignty of Scottish people' won't hold up in real world

The National

2 days ago

On November 23, 2022, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the Scottish Parliament has no power to legislate for an independence referendum, not because of opinion, but because constitutional authority lies solely with Westminster. Holyrood, regardless of the mandate, is legally bound.
People then shift the conversation from Parliament to 'the people'. But the people can't act through a Parliament that holds no legal authority. That's the trap. You're told to win a majority, but once you do, you're told you have no right to use it. That's not democracy. That's occupation dressed up as devolution.
And what happens if we push anyway? Let's be crystal clear: Westminster has the legal power to shut Holyrood down, just like it did to Stormont on March 30, 1972. Northern Ireland's Parliament was suspended, and the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 formally abolished it. A precedent exists – and the UK Government has already demonstrated its willingness to use it.
Still, some cling to UN treaties. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is often invoked as a means of protection. However, in the 2010 ICJ ruling on Kosovo, the court made clear that international law doesn't prohibit declarations of independence, but it also doesn't enforce them. It depends entirely on power and recognition.
In 2017, Catalonia declared independence. Spain declared it illegal. The EU looked away. Catalan leaders were jailed or fled. Why? Because they had no power to make their sovereignty real.
Compare that to Kosovo (2008) or the Baltic states (1990–91). They didn't ask for permission. They created a crisis, gathered support and forced recognition through action, not appeals.
Even Canada's Supreme Court (1998) stated that Quebec had no right to secede unilaterally, but rather that a clear referendum would create a political obligation to negotiate, not a legal one.
Every route that Andy and others cling to – votes, courts, petitions, the UN – has already been tested. Every door is locked. Every demand for proof of public support is just a stalling tactic. And when we meet the condition, they move the goalposts again.
It always comes back to one truth: you either have the power to enforce your sovereignty, or you don't.
Scotland does not. Not yet.
And until this movement stops confusing theory with force, and starts acting like a people denied their nation – not petitioners in someone else's Parliament – we will never be taken seriously, at home or abroad.
James Murphy
Bute
ANDY Anderson in commenting on my long letter (July 7) writes that I mistakenly assume 'that the so-called UK Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish people can't have a referendum on independence'. He correctly states: 'The Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to institute a referendum on that subject because it can only act within its allotted powers under the Scotland Act, and constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster. This says nothing about the powers of the Scottish people, who in fact hold sovereign power in Scotland.'
The only reference to the 'Supreme Court' in my letter was when I said: 'The only item in Jim Fairlie's 2020 article not still entirely relevant is his perceptive warning – that went unheeded by the then leadership of the SNP – against taking the right to an independence referendum to Westminster's 'Supreme Court'.'
The entire substance of Jim's article was that neither Westminster or its legal creations could legitimately overrule the sovereign rights of Scotland's people and further he sets out how those rights could be asserted in a Scottish Parliament with a democratic mandate.
My own agreement on that position was, I thought, made pretty clear in my last long letter of July 7. If there can be any doubt, I draw Andy's attention to my long letter of June 24 where I stated: 'Some assert that this would be to ignore Westminster's Supreme Court ruling that Holyrood could not act on reserved matters without Westminster's permission. Not so; this approach tackles Westminster's attempted roadblock to democracy head-on. Westminster can be notified of our intent as a protocol courtesy. However, any problem with regard to their Scotland Act and a 'transfer of powers' is a problem for Westminster to address, and not a Scottish Parliament with a specific mandate from Scotland's highest legitimate authority – that of the Scottish people.'
Perhaps, Andy was wilfully misreading me to, yet again, mention Scottish Parliament, Petition Number PE2135 on Implementing the International Covenant on Civil and International Rights (ICCPR). A petition I fully support and signed a while ago. The only point on which we may differ is that I regard having the ICCPR passed into Scottish law as a potentially powerful extra lever in the inevitable (political) struggle to prise away Westminster's death-like grip on Scotland. Just not as a magic key that alone will vanquish all obstacles to the exercise of Scotland's democratic rights.
Mike Wallace
Edinburgh
AS I've mentioned a few times before in my letters, I have been guilty in the past of the cardinal sin of voting for Labour. For my sins, I eventually saw the light and ditched them for the SNP and independence sometime in the early noughties.
It got me thinking, though. What if I lived in England? Well, as Labour have now basically turned into the equivalent of the Democratic Party in the US, we clearly now have a US-style political situation in England where you can choose between the Tories and Reform UK (the equivalent of the Trumpian Republicans in the US) or Labour (the Democrats). I reckon it's a case of Bernie Sanders's 'no more', England style!
As in the US, none of these options now tackle the grotesque inequality and poverty in our society, so basically as a voter that actually has a heart and cares, you are well and truly screwed!
If I lived in England, I would definitely vote for the Greens but they ain't gonna win power any time soon so it would basically feel pointless, which is so sad!
So, clearly progressive voters in England have no say in who governs them. Well, actually they do but not in the way they would like. Ditching Labour for the Greens or the new party on the left potentially being jointly led by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana will almost certainly make it even easier for that awful man Farage to be the next prime minister.
What aboot us, though? There are thankfully two progressive parties to vote for – the SNP and the Scottish Greens. As we all know, these two parties were in coalition in government. Happy days as far as I'm concerned!
Then shitty politics got in the way!
The non-progressive wing of the SNP (ie the right-wing types!) got into a fankle and wouldn't settle until they had persuaded Humza Yousaf to ditch the 'lefty' Greens! The rest, as they say, is history.
So where am I going with all of this? Well, I'll tell ye where am gaun! Folk with a heart and that actually care are well and truly being squeezed oot o' the democratic process. Nowadays, and it's aye been, it's aw aboot shitty 'growth' which is meant tae trickle doon tae the masses (aye right!).
We perversely pride ourselves in Scotland and the UK of living in a democratic society but this 'democracy' doesn't stop the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer year after year after year! Aye. Ye can stuff this type of 'democracy' up yer arse!
Ivor Telfer
Dalgety Bay, Fife
I WAS disappointing to see the celebrations of the Entente Cordiale by two heads of state. That treaty deprived Scottish citizens of the right to French citizenship that they'd had for centuries.
Maybe French education is not what it's cracked up to be. Macron, like his predecessors at the start of the last century, considered Scotland to be a throwaway for better relationships with England.
Trump is not the only leader to enjoy having his ego massaged!
Drew Reid
Falkirk
FURTHER to Alan Hinnrichs's letter (The National, Friday, July 11), this should be compulsory reading to a far greater audience, such as the UK and US governments and to all those who believe all the Israeli propaganda.
I have previously written to your wonderful newspaper and to others about the genocide that has been happening in Gaza for a very long time.
It seems to have been the aim of the Israeli state since 1948 to rid Gaza and the West Bank of the Palestinians.
Previously, they have encouraged their population to remove peaceful Palestinians from their rightful homes by using force and even murder of these innocent Palestinians.
Now, for a very long time, they have been bombing household buildings and killing many thousands of innocent civilians, mainly women and children.
The UK and US governments have been complicit in this genocide by continuing to supply weapons to Israel.
How many hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have been murdered under the pretext that there has supposedly been a Hamas leader sheltering in one of the bombed buildings?
For a very long time, the Israelis have denied food and sustenance to the fleeing and sheltering population.
Now, the IDF has been guilty of shooting civilians, who have been queuing at so-called safe relief stations, to supposedly receive some meagre scraps of food.
Hospitals have been bombed and many medics have been killed, just trying to do their job of treating the injured and trying to save lives.
These, all, are crimes against humanity and the Israeli state must be held accountable and punished for these criminal actions. However, the governments of the UK and US must be held accountable for supporting and supplying weapons, thus aiding Israel in committing this genocide and ethnic cleansing.
During the Second World War, people and governments denied being aware of what was happening to the Jews in the German concentration camps.
However, with modern technology, the whole world can see what is happening in Gaza every day and they should do something to stop the murder of innocents.
Robert Cumberland
Blantyre