It's time to stop our history being airbrushed out

Charles III of England can't become King of Scots unless he takes the Scottish oath. But then he'd have to acknowledge the primacy of the People over any monarch or government. And because the English Crown is the monarch, the two Crowns are irreconcilable. Like oil and water, they can't mix. The Scottish throne may be vacant, but the Crown remains.

Any true union of nations should be a constitutional blend of both. But Scotland’s constitutional documents, the Declaration of the Clergy and People 1310, Declaration of Arbroath 1320 and the Claim of Right that limited royal power and subordinated it to the People, are airbrushed from UK history. We’re left with English documents – the Magna Carta 1215, Petition of Right 1628, and Bill of Rights 1689 that gives Parliament sovereignty over the People. The English Crown merely pretends to be a new state and kingdom.

The UK is nothing more than a hostile takeover by a foreign power that has tried and failed to eradicate Scotland. The Scottish People are finally fighting back.

Margaret McGowan, Edinburgh.

📝 Sign up for our Letter of the Day newsletter and receive our Letters Editor's choice every weekday at 8pm.

Get insight from fellow readers and join in on what has Scotland talking. Exclusive responses to our writers and spirited debate on a whole host of issues will be sent directly to your inbox.

👉 Click here to sign up

Look to the Claim of Right

BILL Brown (Letters, June 16) argues that the sovereignty of the Scottish people is of political rather than constitutional significance, without considering whether it could be both.

For instance, like many critics of the Scottish Government he lists his own selection of the usual litany of perceived disasters – ferries, Prestwick, the A83 and A9. However, he does this in the absence of comment about two things.

First that a government that doesn’t make what are at least perceived mistakes is extremely unusual. UK governments elected by majority vote are very exceptional and there will therefore be a majority of critics to argue they are getting it wrong.

But secondly, an election will be coming down the tracks to offer the opposition the chance to change things, or for the government to get their comeuppance.

However this is not only true in Scotland, where the people are sovereign, but also England where the tradition is the sovereignty of the Crown. If so, the political implications seem limited as such consequences apply wherever sovereignty lies.

Mr Brown concludes that he “would trust King Charles III, whose judgments have not perhaps always appeared to be gilt-edged, to make better decisions on the future of Scotland than the SNP.”

Mr Brown is of course entitled to his view of the new King’s judgment, but the reality is that his degree of political control is likely to be limited, as he will be expected to follow the advice of whoever is the current Westminster government, something made crystal clear when Boris Johnson had the late Queen close down Parliament while he “got Brexit done”.

When this was challenged in the Supreme Court, it transpired Mr Johnson’s error was to have considered the Executive sovereign. Had he secured a majority vote in the House of Commons there would have been nothing to stop him, for it was there sovereignty lay.

Perhaps there is more protection in the sovereignty of the people which is guaranteed by the Claim of Right, which is more than a mere historical curiosity, when one of the first acts of the new King was to be required to swear an oath to uphold it.

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

• IT is very rare for me to agree with Bill Brown.

However, given the glacial pace of the SNP to address their raison d’etre and mindful of the fact King Charles dissolved one union so he could join with his preferred choice, perhaps indeed he is to be trusted “to make better decisions on the future of Scotland”.

Alan Carmichael, Glasgow.

Read more: Don't blame the system. Blame the Scottish people

Will Labour ever snub Lords?

DENNIS Canavan (Letters, June 15) invites Sir Tom Devine to send his knighthood back as a step in trying to bring an end to the British honours system, including nominations to the House of Lords. Sir Tom, I suspect, appreciated his honour as a form of recognition of his distinguished career as a historian. I would be surprised if Sir Max Hastings and Sir Anthony Beevor ever contemplated the return of their knighthoods.

A more powerful step in the direction of abolition of nominations to the House of Lords, in my view, would be for the Labour Party to refuse to take part in the process of submitting names. There are a few Labour members of the Lords who earlier in their careers advocated the abolition of that body. The Labour Party should follow the example of the SNP in this regard. However, I do not plan to hold my breath waiting for the Labour Party to so act.

Ian W Thomson, Lenzie.

Let state fund political parties

THERE’S a simple solution that would end the practice of wealthy individuals donating large sums of money to their political favourites (“Property in Scotland linked to Tory party donors”, The Herald, June 13). I suspect most donations are driven by self-interest, not altruism, and when the rich benefit it generally means the poor end up worse off.

The solution is state funding of political parties. This would limit the ability of the wealthy to buy access to, and influence in, the corridors of power. It would also save Labour from its constant fretting about how deep in the pockets of its trade union backers it wants to be.

Some will object to state funding as it would mean a small portion of their taxes would go to parties they didn’t support. However, much as democracy itself, state funding may well be the worst of all possible systems of party funding, except for all the others that have been tried before.

Doug Maughan, Dunblane.

Put this claim to the test

I WOULD happily see Stan Grodynski's assertion (Letters, June 16) that support for Scottish independence averages above 50% put to the test via another referendum. I'd also respectfully accept the democratic outcome of said referendum. Would he?

Laurence Wade, Ayr.

Read more: Dear Sir Tom – do us all a favour and bin the gong

Address issues over end of life

THE Scottish Government’s unveiling of its cancer strategy ("Cancer strategy aiming to cut late diagnoses", The Herald, June 16) is very much needed.

By 2040, up to 10,000 more people will be dying with end-of-life support needs in Scotland, and at least two-thirds will be dying in community settings such as care homes and hospices. Cancer deaths themselves are expected to increase by 20% in this time. This means palliative care needs will be greater, and more complex, especially for people living in deprived communities who can face barriers when accessing palliative care.

Sadly, at Marie Curie Scotland, we know that living in socio-economically deprived areas worsens health outcomes for terminally ill people. This is often because of longstanding health inequalities and inequities around access to palliative care support, which was exacerbated during the pandemic when health and social care services were overwhelmed. But worryingly, we also now know that terminal illness is pushing people into poverty and state support is currently insufficient. Financial hardship should never be a barrier to having an end-of-life experience which reflects what is most important to each person.

The Scottish Government’s commitment to publishing a Palliative Care Strategy in its Cancer Strategy is welcome, however, if we’re to ensure everyone has the best possible end-of-life experience, these must work together. Person-centred palliative care should be the heart of this, but the Government must address overlapping end-of-life issues simultaneously, such as housing and financial insecurity, all of which have been more acute over the past three years, as well as providing adequate funding to ensure full implementation and measurement of the cancer and palliative care strategies.

Ellie Wagstaff, Senior Policy Manager, Marie Curie, Edinburgh.