Sir, – Now that the Supreme Court has ruled Scotland is not allowed to hold an independence referendum legally, it makes you think why we needed to go down this route in the first place and why Westminster is so desperate to keep us since they say we are financially better off as part of the Union?
Surely being independent would help both countries. There will now be more division and hatred from both sides.
If the Westminster government agreed to a Section 30 order and were to state that if the vote favoured independence they would work with the Scottish Government and help establish our independent country it would be a win-win situation and we could be a partnership of equals.
One point the judges were wrong about was the sovereignty of the UK Government.
Westminster is not sovereign in Scotland, its sovereignty stops at the border. The people of Scotland are sovereign as stated in the Union of the Crowns.
Their view on self-determination is also wrong. Everyone has the right to self-determination not just the oppressed or those under military rule.
Herbert Petrie, Parkhill, Dyce.
First minister gets a clear message
Sir, – The Supreme Court ruling, regarding Nicola Sturgeon and her supporters not being able to have a referendum without the consent of the Westminster government, sends out a clear and honest message that Sturgeon must now concentrate on helping the Scottish people get through the UK’s problems right now.
Sturgeon needs now to focus on how to get the NHS back on a clear financial footing and being able to give NHS staff a pay rise without redundancies
She needs to stop trying to build ferries and help the Western Isles people in their plight for the infrastructure needed to keep their businesses and lives on a firm footing.
Yes, Sturgeon has a lot to do in order to help the real Scottish people.
Gavin Elder, Pruiner Drive, Peterhead.
Spending must end on IndyRef2
Sir, – As expected, the Supreme Court has ruled it is not within the power of the Scottish Parliament to legislate for an independence referendum.
This should not come as a surprise to anyone given it was always clear that constitutional matters under the Scotland Act were reserved for the UK Government to avoid endless referendums.
Given the court has provided a clear judgment that constitutional matters are reserved for Westminster, then the £20 million the Scottish Government had ring-fenced for another referendum should immediately become available for other priorities.
No taxpayer-funded civil servant working for the Scottish Parliament should be working on independence matters.
Also the position of cabinet secretary for constitutional matters should become redundant with any funding earmarked for this department in the forthcoming year reassigned elsewhere before the Scottish budget statement on December 16.
The SNP and Greens should really hang their heads in shame that during a cost-of-living crisis they have landed the taxpayer with yet another unnecessary legal bill.
It’s now time for the first minister and her government to deal with the issues in the areas which are fully devolved such as education and health rather than these endless constitutional battles.
Mhairi E Rennie, Finlayson Street, Fraserburgh.
Leader wages war on the ‘No majority’
Sir, – “Outright democracy denial.” These are the emotive words of Nicola Sturgeon following the clear and definitive ruling of the Supreme Court.
She conveniently forgets (a common trait during her term as FM) that she was a signatory, along with Alex Salmond, David Cameron and Michael Moore to the 2013 Edinburgh Agreement [2012 Edinburgh Agreement] which states:
“The governments are agreed that the referendum should:
• Have a clear legal base;
• Be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament;
• Be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, governments and people;
• Deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.”
The legally binding and fair Edinburgh Agreement has been ignored, disregarded and treated with absolute contempt since the day after the 2014 referendum by the SNP signatories and followers.
She has waged a war of attrition on the No voting public majority. If anyone is guilty of “democracy denial” it is Nicola Sturgeon.
She is an erstwhile solicitor who exhibits little understanding of either of the words “fair” or “decisive” and whose signature appears to be not worth the value of the ink used.
William Morgan, Midstocket, Aberdeen.
Sturgeon should focus on day job
Sir, – At enormous cost no doubt to the taxpayer, the legal eagles at the Supreme Court pondered at some length the legitimacy of IndyRef2.
They concluded it was a non-runner while anyone with a smidgen of common sense could have told them that in 30 seconds flat.
Nicola Sturgeon might as well throw in the towel.
She’ll harp on tediously about independence as is her wont, but in reality this court ruling says she’s finished.
If she continues on as first minister it would be appreciated if she’d turn her mind to her day job and to what she was paid to do in the first place.
Keith Fernie, Drakies Avenue, Inverness.
Legal questions for Scots embassies
Sir, – The holding of a referendum without Westminster’s permission is confirmed by the Supreme Court to be outwith the powers of Holyrood.
Pity their lordships didn’t also consider and rule on the legality of setting up foreign embassies, and the provision of foreign aid, by the SNP administration at Holyrood when such matters are also reserved to Westminster.
A M Keir, Newburgh Circle, Aberdeen.
How many years before next vote?
Sir, – Many pro-Scottish independence writers have written letters in recent days and I respect their views. But can one of them please answer a question?
Should IndyRef2 happen and if the unionists were to prevail for a second time, how many years should lapse before IndyRef3 happens?
Geoff Moore, Braeface Park, Alness.
Begin with the basics
Sir, – If the powers that be in the council give way to Mr Cormack, that’ll be a bad day for Aberdeen.
Why should the non-football citizens have to shell out our council tax money to a private enterprise when the basic infrastructure of our once-fine city is being wilfully ignored?
Just with the latest rainfall we are suffering extreme flooding because of a severe lack of gully clearing.
An awful lot of work needs to be done in town, never mind the grandiose plans for the beachfront that the majority don’t see as necessary.
Get the basics right before all the airy-fairy plans that are going to cost money we really don’t have.
Bill L, Aberdeen.
Stadium needs council money
Sir, – The council should be making decisions based on helping with the prosperity of all parties in the city.
They have contributed by partly funding the AWPR, Marischal College, the Art Gallery, Cowdray Hall, the Music Hall and His Majesty’s Theatre, completely funding TECA and Union Terrace Gardens to benefit the city.
What is wrong with the council and AFC working together to get the best deal for each party that overall benefits the city? Is it better just to say “no” and be anti before any firm facts are even out there?
To benefit the city it may be prudent for the council to help with some costs for any proposed stadium that would ultimately benefit the many businesses in the centre for the next 100-plus years.
Many businesses are trying to operate in very challenging times. Generating the footfall to keep people coming into the city to help the restaurants, pubs, B&Bs, cinemas, museums, shops, parks and hotels must be a positive.
Just saying “no” is not the best for the city, is it?
A proportion of the idea to redesign our wonderful beach area, which has been a beacon for many visitors, is the stadium, but it appears to be a negative to many people. Why?
We should be looking to help all parties in achieving these improvements of regenerating the beach, which may also require some funding to help with the bigger picture to achieve this.
Lindsay Bartlet, Sunnyside Road, Aberdeen.
Conversation