Sovereignty of the Scottish people is a chimera that we must make real

The National

18-07-2025

And I entirely subscribe to Jim Murphy's notion (Letters, Jul 15) that 'until this movement stops confusing theory with force, and starts acting like a people denied their nation – not petitioners in someone else's parliament – we will never be taken seriously, at home or abroad'.
The only difficulty I have is, what does a people denied their nation actually look like? If we're to believe the views of Professors Crawford and Boyle as set out in Annex A, Opinion: Referendum on the Independence of Scotland International Law Aspects: 'Scotland certainly was extinguished as a matter of international law, by merger either into an enlarged and renamed England or into an entirely new state.' Follow that with the views of Ciaran Martin, Professor at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford but in a previous incarnation as Constitution Director (2011-2014) within the Cabinet Office and at the centre of the Edinburgh Agreement negotiations: 'Ultimately there are no constraints on what Westminster can do to block a lawful path to Scottish independence if it's so minded. There are, in effect, only two things that matter. One: The law is in [[Westminster]], Two: The votes are in Scotland. So if these two forces clash, one has to give way to the other'.
READ MORE: Will John Swinney surprise us with a courageous election manifesto?
So the choice would appear to be between social disruption (not easy to control in the highly likely instance that the UK deployed agents provocateurs) and the alternative that we make real the chimera that is the sovereignty of the Scottish people.
That it exists is well established with the Claim of Right of 1689 and subsequent iterations in the Scottish Constitutional Convention 1989, Holyrood and [[Westminster]] debates. The only problem is, we can't find the switch to flick or handle to pull to bring it to life as the lawyers tell us it's not justiciable.
What would make the chimera real is the incorporation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) into Scots law. Jim Murphy is anxious that 'constitutional change in states founded on parliamentary sovereignty cannot be achieved through legal argument alone. It requires political authority that transcends existing legal limits – exercised by the people themselves, not their parliamentary proxies – through actions that alter the facts on the ground'.
READ MORE: Legal rights without enforcement are merely political ornaments
This is precisely the power of Article 25(b) of the ICCPR, which would allow for a 'home grown' referendum of Scotland's citizens and the emancipation of direct democracy in our country.
It's good to talk. If it so happens to follow on from a majority of independence-minded MSPs being elected to the new Holyrood Parliament in May, so much the better for undisputed validation of the sovereign will of our nation by 'actions that alter the facts on the ground'.
All the more reason, then, to support PE2135: Implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in Scottish legislation' at the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in our 'pretendy parliament'.
Iain Bruce
Nairn
REGARDING the government admitting that the previous government released details of Afghan supporters and that this was done by a "defence" civil servant. Firstly, none of the newspapers reporting this mention if he/she has been dismissed, and secondly, would you be happy with your defence in such hands?
Paul Gillon
Baintown, Leven