Sir or Madam:
I would contest the right of the Scottish Office to interfere in this matter in any shape or form and along with it the Westminster Parliament, the reasons are all legal or pertaining to international charters, treaties or accords:
1. The UN Charter of Human Rights gives all people's the right to a plebscite on the subject of regaining their independence.
As Scotland is already an independent nation state in a seperate relationship with the crown defined by the 1689 Claim of Right, in Scots Law ( protected for 'all time' by the 1707 Treaty of Union) that the people of Scotland are sovereign, not Parliament at Westminster, a condition first entrenched in Scots Law in 1328, reasserted in the 1689 Claim of Right,conceded by the Lord Advocate in res[onse Lord Cooper's Judgement on this particular issue, as President of the Court of Session, in 1953 and most recently conceded by the current Prime Minister during Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday 25th of January 2012 in response to a question from the SNP. Given the people of Scotland are sovereign, in Scots Law lend their sovereignty to the Scottish Parliament (resumed from its March 1707 temporary suspension under the Treaty of Union in July 1999) in the first instance (a point conceded by the Supreme Court in AXA vs The Scottish Government in stating the bill AXA were contesting represented the will of the Scottish people) and have elected by a sizeable majority a government committed to a referendum on the subject of Scottish Independence I can not see any contesable legal right or issue for the Scottish Office to interfere or prejudice the sovereign people of Scotland's 800 year old rights and priviledge on this matter.
2. The sovereign Scottish people in two plebescites in May 2010 and May 2011 roundly rejected the current Westminster Government by a large vote share and thus the current government can have no claim to any legitmacy in this matter in Scotland even given that Westminster under section 5 and 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 lays claim to the people of Scotland's sovereignty and constitutional rights, for itself, as a parliamentary democracy. This is clearly at odds with Lord Cooper's 1953 judgement on this issue where he upheld that such a state of parliamentary democracy was contrary to Scots Law, there was no tradition of parliamentary democracy in Scotland, restated Scotland is a representative democracy and much of what passes for constitutional theory in Westminster was by that condition, inapplicable in a Scottish context.
3. The Treaty of Vienna opines that a political unions or any other political arrangement undertaken in duress is unsustainable and while Westminster did not sign up to the Treaty of Vienna, a sovereign Scottish peoples' appeal to the Council of Europe would be likely to be found in favour of the sovereign Scottish people enabling the sovereign Scottish people to unilaterally declare independence.
4. As to other matters:
a) The question proposed by the Scottish Government is concise, literate and to the point
b) To claim the sovereign Scottish people have not the wit, education, knowledge and commonsense to understand the SNP's proposed question is both insulting and inaccurate
c) The issue of FFA or 'Devo-max' lies only in the gift of Westminster and will require a detailed and binding White Paper on this issue to be laid before Westminster, an issue on which all three Westminster Parties have agreed can not be placed on the referendum paper, so is a 'red herring', a jam tomorrow option.
d) The timing of the referendum is outwith Westminster's competence as the sovereign people of Scotland agreed to the timing of the referendum, as laid out in the SNP manifesto prior to the election in May 2011, by electing the party to be Scotland's government, lending their sovereignty and in so doing giving legitimacy to the SNP Government in Holyrood.
e) I see no place for the Electoral Commission having a supervisory role in this referendum given its failure to uphold PPER 2000 and refusal to raise a prosecution against high profile Westminster politicians for criminal breaches of this Act on numerous occasions since it became law. The Electoral Commission cliamed this was because they wished the law to 'bed in' and give MP's time to understand the new regulations - a courtesy the law in either Scotland or England does not give to ordinary people. This does not refelect well in the Electoral Commission being impartial and even handed. I would prefer the independence referendum was run and observed by members of the Council of Europe and the UN.
f) It is questionable under the UN Charter of Human Rights that the Westminster Parliament has any legitimate role to play in the conduct of a referendum on the subject if independence for Scotland given it has no legitimate claim in Scots Law or constitutional practice as a representative democracy.
Yours faithfully,
I would contest the right of the Scottish Office to interfere in this matter in any shape or form and along with it the Westminster Parliament, the reasons are all legal or pertaining to international charters, treaties or accords:
1. The UN Charter of Human Rights gives all people's the right to a plebscite on the subject of regaining their independence.
As Scotland is already an independent nation state in a seperate relationship with the crown defined by the 1689 Claim of Right, in Scots Law ( protected for 'all time' by the 1707 Treaty of Union) that the people of Scotland are sovereign, not Parliament at Westminster, a condition first entrenched in Scots Law in 1328, reasserted in the 1689 Claim of Right,conceded by the Lord Advocate in res[onse Lord Cooper's Judgement on this particular issue, as President of the Court of Session, in 1953 and most recently conceded by the current Prime Minister during Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday 25th of January 2012 in response to a question from the SNP. Given the people of Scotland are sovereign, in Scots Law lend their sovereignty to the Scottish Parliament (resumed from its March 1707 temporary suspension under the Treaty of Union in July 1999) in the first instance (a point conceded by the Supreme Court in AXA vs The Scottish Government in stating the bill AXA were contesting represented the will of the Scottish people) and have elected by a sizeable majority a government committed to a referendum on the subject of Scottish Independence I can not see any contesable legal right or issue for the Scottish Office to interfere or prejudice the sovereign people of Scotland's 800 year old rights and priviledge on this matter.
2. The sovereign Scottish people in two plebescites in May 2010 and May 2011 roundly rejected the current Westminster Government by a large vote share and thus the current government can have no claim to any legitmacy in this matter in Scotland even given that Westminster under section 5 and 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 lays claim to the people of Scotland's sovereignty and constitutional rights, for itself, as a parliamentary democracy. This is clearly at odds with Lord Cooper's 1953 judgement on this issue where he upheld that such a state of parliamentary democracy was contrary to Scots Law, there was no tradition of parliamentary democracy in Scotland, restated Scotland is a representative democracy and much of what passes for constitutional theory in Westminster was by that condition, inapplicable in a Scottish context.
3. The Treaty of Vienna opines that a political unions or any other political arrangement undertaken in duress is unsustainable and while Westminster did not sign up to the Treaty of Vienna, a sovereign Scottish peoples' appeal to the Council of Europe would be likely to be found in favour of the sovereign Scottish people enabling the sovereign Scottish people to unilaterally declare independence.
4. As to other matters:
a) The question proposed by the Scottish Government is concise, literate and to the point
b) To claim the sovereign Scottish people have not the wit, education, knowledge and commonsense to understand the SNP's proposed question is both insulting and inaccurate
c) The issue of FFA or 'Devo-max' lies only in the gift of Westminster and will require a detailed and binding White Paper on this issue to be laid before Westminster, an issue on which all three Westminster Parties have agreed can not be placed on the referendum paper, so is a 'red herring', a jam tomorrow option.
d) The timing of the referendum is outwith Westminster's competence as the sovereign people of Scotland agreed to the timing of the referendum, as laid out in the SNP manifesto prior to the election in May 2011, by electing the party to be Scotland's government, lending their sovereignty and in so doing giving legitimacy to the SNP Government in Holyrood.
e) I see no place for the Electoral Commission having a supervisory role in this referendum given its failure to uphold PPER 2000 and refusal to raise a prosecution against high profile Westminster politicians for criminal breaches of this Act on numerous occasions since it became law. The Electoral Commission cliamed this was because they wished the law to 'bed in' and give MP's time to understand the new regulations - a courtesy the law in either Scotland or England does not give to ordinary people. This does not refelect well in the Electoral Commission being impartial and even handed. I would prefer the independence referendum was run and observed by members of the Council of Europe and the UN.
f) It is questionable under the UN Charter of Human Rights that the Westminster Parliament has any legitimate role to play in the conduct of a referendum on the subject if independence for Scotland given it has no legitimate claim in Scots Law or constitutional practice as a representative democracy.
Yours faithfully,
Spot on Peter, well put.
ReplyDelete