Letters: Independence deal would not have the poison of Brexit

Mr Smith also mentions negotiations and asset/debt apportionment. The Attorney-General, Geoffrey Cox, has already referenced the Vienna Convention in the context of Brexit. So there we have a ready-made set of rules for the Dissolution of States. Faslane, as a “fixed asset” would be Scottish, but as we don’t want it, it would be a negotiable asset.

The last part of his article is surely a tongue-in-cheek attempt at humour. Scotland simply has no Nigel Farage, or Jacob Rees-Mogg or ERG, and to paint Patrick Harvie as the “ring leader of the hard separatists” is a tad over the top.

The wounds and poison of Brexit are not reflected in Scotland’s constitutional debate, thankfully. Any differences should be solved at the ballot box, not by diktat from London.

GR Weir,

17 Mill Street, Ochiltree.

ON his way to his conclusion that the process of securing Scottish independence could mirror the omnishambles of Brexit, Mark Smith adopts the Westminster Government’s position in 2014, that the remaining UK (rUK) would be the “continuator state” – “the same state [continuing] to exist despite changes in its territory and population”. This position was elaborated by Professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle in their 2013 legal advice to the Westminster Government in “Scotland analysis: Devolution and the implications of Scottish independence”.

An important example they cite was the breakup of the former USSR, for which Russia was universally acknowledged to be “the continuator state of the USSR or that it was a new state that nonetheless succeeded to all the extinct USSR’s rights and obligations.” Those last three words are crucial, for they mean that while the UK might have first claim on any UK assets (rights), they also inherit the debts (obligations). The UK Treasury has in any event made clear that “a share of outstanding debt would not be transferred to Scotland”.

As the Growth Commission notes this would mean “an independent Scotland would start with zero debt”. However, it proposes that an independent Scotland should negotiate an “Annual Solidarity Payment” to rUK as a “reasonable share of the servicing of UK debts and assets”, echoing a similar commitment in “Scotland’s Future”. The intention is “to set a tone of respect and good order toward the rest of the United Kingdom, with which, we anticipate, an ongoing relationship that is as strong, positive and productive as between any two independent countries”.

However, the default position, following Westminster’s own legal advice on international law, is that UK debt (and assets) belong to rUK. International law also clarifies other potential issues. For instance, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea makes clear that the oil and gas around our coasts would belong to Scotland. In many regards, the UK position is circumscribed by international commitments, which they would be required to respect.

But Mr Smith fails to recognise the greatest problem, that despite all the rhetoric about “honouring” the result of the EU referendum, referenda in the UK are never more than advice to Parliament, as there is no constitutional mechanism to directly transform the outcome to legislation. Therefore, while the precedent of close outcomes has been set by Brexit, it would still be open to Westminster to refuse to legislate appropriately for Scottish independence. Indeed, it seems clear that securing a S30 order will not be straightforward, but our difficulties may only be beginning even if a sound Yes majority is secured.

Perhaps David Davis makes my point best when he said on the Andrew Marr Show, “There is no other treaty in the world I’m aware of where a sovereign nation undertakes to join up and can only leave when the other side says so”. For how much longer is it acceptable for the 1707 Treaty of Union to act in exactly this way?

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue, Dumbarton.

Read more: Mark Smith – First Brexit, then Scoxit:

MARK Smith's comments on Scoxit are timely. The true realities of splitting the Union are never dealt with by those who want to cast it asunder.

The Scottish National Party is forever proclaiming to stand up for Scotland. At best, it might scrape to 52 per cent of us. It is more likely to represent far fewer Scots when it comes to independence.

All politicians claim they come into politics to help people. The SNP, having had one shot at independence, lost it heavily. That sent out a clear message. We now see the SNP trying to find ways round the rules in order to try again. More division, uncertainty, name-calling and general unpleasantness await. All this simply because 62 per cent of Scots ( 37 per cent of the voting population) voted to remain in Europe. The SNP only plays the percentage game when it suits it. This is not standing up for Scotland, it is dragging Scotland down. Caring politicians try to help everyone.

Dr Gerald Edwards,

Broom Road, Glasgow.

YOUR correspondents are absolutely correct in their assessment of the inadequacies of referendums as a means of taking decisions in a parliamentary democracy (Letters, March 18). Personally, I regard them as being a bit like root canal surgery – I would like never to have to experience one ever again.

However, if there is a need for further referendums in the future, the time has surely come to regulate them much more stringently.

What we need is a new Act of Parliament which sets out a limited range of subjects on which a referendum may be called (so as to avoid referendums being called for spurious or party reasons); a requirement for a minimum number of MPs voting for a referendum (possibly the same as to dissolve Parliament under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act); and strict rules on majorities required.

These same requirements would of course apply to proposals for future Scottish independence referendums as well as all-UK plebiscites. To not learn the lessons of Brexit would be negligent in the extreme.

Peter A Russell,

87 Munro Road, Jordanhill, Glasgow.