Quality of legal advice taken by SNP important to restoring confidence

Historically, legal advice on public policy initiatives was obtained on a basis of seeking to test the proposal to destruction: hostile advisers were sought out to provide opinion, for two reasons. First was the logic of "if even they agree we can do it". The second was as an indication of arguments which unsympathetic courts may put up at a later date in the event of a legal challenge. This approach was significantly eroded in the 1980s and onwards, as government at all levels increasingly sought legal opinions from supportive sources which covered their actions with a veneer of lawfulness, albeit sometimes ambiguously. A glaring 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 it was duplicitous. This will inevitably lead to suspicions of legal jiggery-pokery unless future advice is beyond reproach. The best way 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, this would be the only way in which 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 UK would continue to exist and so farm payments and other EU functions continue to apply.

While these negotiations are proceeding, the whole 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 probably want Scotland as a member, the real question is whether Scotland wants 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 they were a single entity.

I am surprised he is so concerned about Scotland remaining in the EU (job prospects perhaps) when many of his Westminster colleagues are stumbling about trying to find a way of leaving and the Conservative MP Douglas Carswell is presenting a Bill this week to promote EU withdrawal.

Bruce D Skivington,

8 Paic a Ghliob,

Strath,

Gairloch,

Wester Ross.

Amusing though it is to watch 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.

While we need to find out what 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 how it reacts will be principally governed by two political imperatives: no member state will want to punish another member state where a minority of its population breaks away to form an independent state. And no member state will want to make it too easy for a new independent state to break away.

So it must 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 am sure the EU will want Scotland to join, but not at a price which 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 know for sure what the outcome will be. But political reality and the current rumblings from Spain suggest it won'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 England when he acceded to the English Throne.

This de facto union of crowns was formally recognised only 104 years later in the first clause of the 1707 Treaty of Union between Scotland and England, the purpose of which was 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 England were part of it.

It must surely follow that, 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 this must mean an independent Scotland still within the United Kingdom must 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 which must be recognised.

Scotland's claim to continued membership cannot be dismissed out of hand by such as the Spanish Foreign Minister, who obviously has an internal axe to grind regarding Catalonia.

Enlightenment from experts in constitutional and international law on the current legal position is required as a counter-balance to the political posturing of both Unionist and Nationalist politicians.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court,

Glasgow.