Let’s be patient

I hope you noted the Aidan O’neill QC caveat, that his opinion on the power of the Scottish parliament to hold an independence referendum, without a Section 30 transfer from Westminster would need to be tested in court.

Ultimately, that means the Supreme Court, the one that rejected the Scottish Government’s argument that Sewel has legal, and therefore justiciable, meaning beyond that normally applying to the term ‘convention’ and which took the opportunity to emphasise the sovereignty of Parliament over a devolved administraion. Fat chance there.

The Scottish parliament is a creature of statute and therefore not legally able to go outside the boundary set by the Act creating it. Outside of that boundary is the constitution.

Are we to watch the independence movement go down a cul-de-sac, wasting time, energy and money on a project that will see the Supreme Court point to Schedule 5 of the 1998 Act and again assert the sovereignty of Westminster?

I understand the impatience of activists, but patience is required, because until we know the full details of any free trade agrement between the UK and EU, and any other Free Trade Agreements negotiated, we cannot compile and deploy a coherent case for exiting the former or testing the SNP claim to re-enter the EU.

At 83 years of age I have more reason than most for impatience; but a few more years in the life of a nation is nothing if waiting means getting it right, and winning.

JIM SILLARS Grange Loan, Edinburgh