Sir Professor Rodney Brazier (letter, Jan 16) questions whether the Scottish Parliament has the authority to hold a referendum on independence. Whatever the strict legalities, however, it would be politically and legally dangerous for the UK Government to try to prevent such a referendum from being held.

In 1998 the Supreme Court of Canada considered the position under the Canadian constitution and international law regarding the right of Quebec to secede from Canada. The Court held that under international law Quebec did not have a right to secede unilaterally because Quebeckers (like Scots) were neither a colony nor an oppressed minority.

However, Quebeckers did have the right to hold a referendum and if there was “a clear majority vote on a clear question in favour of secession” then “the other provinces and the federal government would have no basis to deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession”.

Therefore, if the SNP was to form a government in Scotland and was refused the right to hold a referendum, it could argue that it was being denied its rights under international law and therefore had the right to secede unilaterally.

However, if the SNP was allowed to hold a referendum with an unambiguous question, Scotland would not have the legal right to declare unilaterally independence.

Finally, if there was a “yes” vote in such a referendum then negotiations for secession would be with the remainder of the UK, ie, Gordon Brown and other Scottish MPs could not be part of a UK Government that negotiated the secession of Scotland.

NEIL ADDISON
Barrister
Liverpool

Sir, As the lineal descendant of an act of union between a Scottish woman and an English man, I believe that the Act of Union of 1707 usefully settled the succession question, resolved the position of the Church of Scotland and the Church in England and, critically, guaranteed free access of Scottish goods to the ports of England protected by the English Navy.

The Scottish negotiators made a prudent investment in Scotland’s future. Article IV guaranteeing free commercial access was the source of Section 92 of the Australian Constitution, which has had a profoundly beneficial effect upon the Australian Federation. It simply provides that “trade commerce and intercourse among the States shall be absolutely free”.

It, too, facilitated a constitutional union, although based upon a written instrument, providing for distributed power rather than a unitary model.

ANDREW GREENWOOD
Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Queensland

Sir, Those English people who believe that there ought to be an English regional assembly would do well to consider whether they really need another two or three hundred career politicians with their supporting civil servants and an expensive building.

Most business people find that a large decision-making group is rarely more efficient than a small one.

NIGEL OGILVIE
Eaton Ford, Cambs

Sir, Why should Scotland be enthusiastic about the Union when England clearly doesn’t seem prepared to make any demonstrable compromise or emotional commitment?

Two simple measures may go a long way as starting gestures — first to rename the Bank of England as the Bank of Britain, and secondly to admonish any radio or television announcer who use the word English when they mean British.

PETER MAHAFFEY
Biggleswade, Beds

Explore Letters

• Feedback