Letters special
NICOLA Sturgeon’s admission that the Scottish Government has offered an independence referendum without full knowledge of its legal implications is a revelation of her party’s tendency to unpardonable folly (“Bruised Salmond denies lying as rows engulf SNP”, The Herald, October 24).
It iswelcome to knowthis legal advice will be sought but the focus should nowbe on the quality of that advice, including howit is obtained.
Historically, legal advice on public policy initiativeswas obtained on a basis of seeking to test the proposal to destruction: hostile adviserswere sought out to provide opinion, for two reasons. Firstwas the logic of “if even they agreewe can do it”. The secondwas as an indication of argumentswhich unsympathetic courts may put up at a later date in the event of a legal challenge. This approachwas significantly eroded in the 1980s and onwards, as government at all levels increasingly sought legal opinions from supportive sourceswhich covered their actions with a veneer of lawfulness, albeit sometimes ambiguously. Aglaring example is the opinion by Lord Goldsmith on the legality of the invasion of Iraq.
Despite Ms Sturgeon’s protestations, even with the most charitable interpretation, Alex Salmond’s statement was ambiguous and in many people’s minds itwas duplicitous. This will inevitably lead to suspicions of legal jiggery-pokery unless future advice is beyond reproach. The bestway for the Scottish Government to test its hypothesis on this, and other legal questions arising from the Edinburgh Agreement, will be to revert to former practice and to seek the opinion of legal advisers known to be hostile to their case. Indeed, thiswould be the onlyway inwhich the First Minister and his deputy might restore any modicum of confidence in their fair dealing with the legal position in the independence debate. Peter A Russell, 87 Munro Road, Glasgow. SCAREMONGERING by Struan Stevenson MEP over the EU is unjustified (Letters, October 25). He seems to forget that following the devolution referendum on September 11, 1997, it took until July 1, 1999, for the Scottish Parliament to sit.
Assuming a successful 2014 independence referendum there will be a probably longer delay before full independence is granted. There is the division of defence, pension contributions, taxation, debt and many other important subjects to decide. During that time the UKwould continue to exist and so farm payments and other EU functions continue to apply.
While these negotiations are proceeding, thewhole question of Scotland’s membership of the EU can be decided. It might be that Scotland initially decides to remain outside the EU and provide farm subsidies directly from the savings in EU payments. It is without doubt the EU would probablywant Scotland as a member, the real question iswhether Scotlandwants to be a member.
Regarding borders, perhaps if he spends some time on Google Maps Streetview(to save on travel expenses) he can look at what serves as border control between Norway (non-member) and Sweden. The straight bit of unblocked road with a freight customs post to one side looks in better condition than our roads. Incidentally just over 100 years ago theywere a single entity.
I amsurprised he is so concerned about Scotland remaining in the EU (job prospects perhaps) when many of hisWestminster colleagues are stumbling CLIMBDOWN: Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon admitted the Government has not taken legal advice on an independent Scotland’s membership of the EU. Picture: Danny Lawson/PA about trying to find away of leaving and the ConservativeMPDouglas Carswell is presenting a Bill thisweek to promote EU withdrawal. Bruce D Skivington, 8 Paic a Ghliob, Strath, Gairloch, Wester Ross. AMUSING though it is towatch the SNP wriggle over the mess they have got into over missing legal advice, it is important to remember that if Scotland becomes an independent state, the EU’s treatment of Scotland, and of the remaining parts of the UK, will be governed largely by political interests.
Whilewe need to find outwhat the legal position is, we can be sure that, like most legal matters, it will not be black and white, leaving the EU member states plenty of scope to impose terms largely based on their political wishes.
Should Scotland break away from the UK, the EU decision on howit reacts will be principally governed by two political imperatives: no member state willwant to punish another member statewhere a minority of its population breaks away to forman independent state. And no member state willwant to make it too easy for a newindependent state to break away.
So itmust be likely that, if Scotland votes Yes, the EU will not punish the rest of the UK and will not bend over backwards to help Scotland. The rest of the UK will likely inherit the current UK’s membership, along with all its opt-outs and rebates. Scotland meanwhile will most likely have to apply to join. I amsure the EU willwant Scotland to join, but not at a pricewhich could stir up separatist groups in other member states. The terms they offer are likely to be painful and damaging to Scotland’s interests.
Unless Scotland votes for independence, so the EU has to react, we can’t knowfor surewhat the outcome will be. But political reality and the current rumblings from Spain suggest itwon’t be anything like as easy as the Yes camp claims. Blithely to assume they are right is to gamble with Scotland’s future. Alistair Easton, 6 Glencairn Crescent, Edinburgh. THE United Kingdom came into being in 1603, when James VI of Scotland also became James I of Englandwhen he acceded to the English Throne.
This de facto union of crownswas formally recognised only 104 years later in the first clause of the 1707 Treaty of Union between Scotland and England, the purpose of whichwas to create a new parliament to govern the United Kingdom. But the United Kingdom did not start with this Treaty, it had already existed since 1603 and both Scotland and Englandwere part of it.
Itmust surely followthat, even if Scotland becomes an independent nation state after the 2014 referendum and the parliamentary union is ended, the United Kingdom will continue to exist and Scotland will remain an integral part of it as long as the Queen and her successors are recognised as Head of State.
This is crucially relevant to the current argument about membership of the EU. It is the United Kingdom, not Great Britain, which is currently a member of the European Union. Surely thismust mean an independent Scotland still within the United Kingdommust also remain within the EU, on exactly the same terms and conditions as presently exist.
I understand this is a unique situation never before faced by the EU, but the constitutional position of the UK is a fact whichmust be recognised.
Scotland’s claim to continued membership cannot be dismissed out of hand by such as the Spanish Foreign MMinister, who obviously has an internal axe to grind reregarding Catalonia.
Enlightenment from exexperts in constitutional aand international lawon tthe current legal position iis required as a counterbalance bcounterbalance to the political posturing of both Unionist and Nationalist politicians.