Latest news with #ScotsLaw
Scotsman
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Scotsman
Making a will can spare your loved ones further pain
What would have happened if Liam Payne had died intestate while living in Scotland? Aileen Entwistle has the answers Sign up to our Scotsman Money newsletter, covering all you need to know to help manage your money. Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... When a loved one dies suddenly, their loss throws those they leave behind into turmoil as they grapple with the shock and pain of their unexpected bereavement. And in the midst of their grief, family members must also get to grips with sorting out the legal and financial affairs of the person whose died. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In situations where the deceased hasn't left a will, though, this becomes an even more daunting task. Aileen Entwistle, Private Client Partner at Aberdein Considine (Picture: David Ho) It was reported recently that former One Direction star Liam Payne died without a will aged 31, leaving his estate worth over £24 million to be divided according to the laws of intestacy in England. His ex-partner Cheryl Tweedy, mother of his only son, has been appointed Administrator of his estate, along with lawyer Richard Mark Bray. As Liam Payne died domiciled in England his estate will be administered and distributed in accordance with the statutory intestate succession rules under the laws of England and Wales. Intestacy is the term used when you die without leaving a will. Applying the law of intestate succession in England and Wales, Liam's young son is the sole beneficiary and his family, including his parents and siblings, will not be entitled to a share. The law ensures that a young person's inheritance will be managed on their behalf and protected until they turn 18. However, applications to court are required to have a suitable Administrator appointed to manage the funds and there is a strict order of priority as to who can be appointed. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Would the outcome have been different had Liam Payne died in Scotland? On the whole, no, as under intestate succession in Scots Law, his son would still have been the sole beneficiary and an executor appointed (in Scots Law referred to as Executor Dative) to administer the estate, again following a strict order or priority. The primary difference in Scots Law is that under intestacy, a minor will inherit at age 16 with the management of the funds being directed by the Accountant of Court. Arguably, this is a young age at which to inherit such wealth. It's quite possible that the outcome of his son being his sole heir is what Liam Payne would have wanted had he drawn up a will. However, having a will in place would have allowed him to control who was to look after his son's inheritance and specify the age at which his son was to inherit. Through a will he would also have been able to make provision for his partner who, under intestacy, would have unlikely met the criteria for a dependant's claim under English Law. Under Scots Law, as his cohabitant, she may have considered lodging an application to court for financial provision, bearing in mind the strict deadlines involved in this type of claim. Having a will is important, but particularly so where young children may inherit as it gives you control as opposed to leaving it for the law to decide. According to the National Wills Register's most recent [2024] National Wills Report, in the UK only 50 per cent of women, and 57 per cent of men have made a will. This means that nearly one in two people dying in the UK (42 per cent in Scotland) are potentially setting their loved ones up for an even more tumultuous and stressful experience after they are gone, if there is no will in place.
Scotsman
7 days ago
- Business
- Scotsman
What happens if you die without a will in Scotland?
The sad death of pop star Liam Payne highlights the importance of having your affairs sorted Sign up to our Scotsman Money newsletter, covering all you need to know to help manage your money. Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... When a loved one dies suddenly, their loss throws those they leave behind into turmoil as they grapple with the shock and pain of their unexpected bereavement. And in the midst of their grief, family members must also get to grips with sorting out the legal and financial affairs of the person whose died. In situations where the deceased hasn't left a will, though, this becomes an even more daunting task. It was reported recently that former One Direction star Liam Payne died without a will aged 31, leaving his estate, worth over £24 million, to be divided according to the laws of intestacy in England. His ex-partner Cheryl Tweedy, mother of his only son, has been appointed Administrator of his estate, along with lawyer Richard Mark Bray. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad As Liam lived in England his estate will be administered and distributed in accordance with the statutory intestate succession rules under the laws of England and Wales. Intestacy is the term used when you die without leaving a will. Applying the law of intestate succession in England and Wales, Liam's young son, Bear, is the sole beneficiary and his family, including his parents and siblings, will not be entitled to a share. The law around wills in Scotland is different to that in the rest of the UK, writes Aileen Entwistle The law ensures that a young person's inheritance will be managed on their behalf and protected until they turn 18, however, applications to court are required to have a suitable Administrator appointed to manage the funds and there is a strict order of priority as to who can be appointed. Would the outcome have been different had Liam died in Scotland? On the whole, no, as under intestate succession in Scots Law, his son would still have been the sole beneficiary and an executor appointed (in Scots Law referred to as Executor Dative) to administer the estate, again following a strict order or priority. The primary difference in Scots Law is that under intestacy, a minor will inherit at age 16 with the management of the funds being directed by the Accountant of Court. Arguably, this is a young age at which to inherit such wealth. It's quite possible that the outcome of his son being his sole heir is what Liam would have wanted had he drawn up a will, however, having a will in place would have allowed him to control who was to look after his son's inheritance and specify the age at which his son was to inherit. Through a will he would also have been able to make provision for his partner who, under intestacy, would have been unlikely to meet the criteria for a dependant's claim under English Law. Under Scots Law, as his cohabitant, she may have considered lodging an application to court for financial provision, bearing in mind the strict deadlines involved in this type of claim. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Having a will is important, but particularly so where young children may inherit as it gives you control as opposed to leaving it for the law to decide. Liam Payne, pictured in March 2023, died after falling from a hotel balcony in Argentina (Picture:) According to the National Wills Register's most recent [2024] National Wills Report, in the UK only 50 per cent of women, and 57 per cent of men have made a will. This means that nearly 1 in 2 people dying in the UK (42 per cent in Scotland) are potentially setting their loved ones up for an even more tumultuous and stressful experience after they die, if no will is in place.
The National
25-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
Research group laid out best way for Scots to take back our nation
In particular, I'm wondering how I can do justice to the Saturday afternoon session in the main hall under the title Decolonisation & Self-Determination. This was an event that future historians will refer to as a pivotal moment in the campaign to restore Scotland's independence. That is how important it was. The speakers for this session were Sara Salyers (Salvo), Professor Alf Baird (Salvo), Craig Murray (Salvo/Liberation ambassador), Sharof Azizov (executive director of JPTi,), and Professor Robert Black QC (professor emeritus of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh). The topic was the Salvo/Liberation initiative to have Scotland included on the UN's list of non-self-governing territories (NSGT). That is to say, territories recognised as having been annexed and now slated for decolonisation. Regular readers will be aware that I have expressed some reservations about the Salvo/Liberation initiative. There were, for example, concerns about the cost of failure. Should the initiative not result in Scotland joining the existing 17 NSGTs, this could be interpreted as validation of the Union. which would seriously undermine the 'case for independence' and deprive the independence campaign of a vital line of argument. When I held this view, I put the Salvo/Liberation initiative's chances of success at no more than 50%. Having attended the SSRG conference session on Decolonisation & Self-Determination, I now put the chances of success at 80% or higher. One cannot say better than that due to the vagaries of international relations. But the 'risk assessment' has been turned around by what I heard at that conference session. Not to diminish the contribution from the other speakers in any way, I suspect they themselves would allow that the most significant contribution was Professor Black's momentous legal opinion on Scotland's status within the Union. Having said that, I would urge everyone to listen to the entire session. I guarantee you will find doing so well worth two hours of your time. For the moment, this quote from an article in The National will give a flavour of Professor Black's perspective: 'The evidence, the facts on the ground support no judgement other than that Scotland ceased to exist as a state in international law and was absorbed into a still-extant England, cosmetically renamed 'Great Britain'. Scotland's legal status today, more than three centuries later, is therefore not that of a partner in a union – unequal, perhaps, but a union nevertheless – but is that of territory absorbed into a larger country. A territory with only limited self-government and with its resources exploitable and exploited by the larger country for its own benefit and purposes.' This together with the contributions from Sharof Azizov was enough to persuade me that the case for Scotland being recognised as a colony was unassailable, leaving only the factor of internationalised relations as a potential fly in the ointment. A couple of concerns remain. The first is the question of timescale. Nobody can put a timescale on the procedure for applying to have Scotland listed as an NSGT. If we regard Scotland's predicament as urgent – as we must – then we have to recognise the possibility (probability?) that a response from the UN may not come soon enough to be a factor in the campaign for the 2026 Scottish Parliament election. Recognising the urgency of the situation, we are obliged to treat every democratic event as if it were our last chance to get Scotland's cause out of the mire in which it has been stuck for a decade. We cannot rely on the UN's support in this effort. We can only hope their response to the Salvo/Liberation initiative is timely. The other remaining concern relates to the reality of what success for the Salvo/Liberation initiative will mean for Scotland's cause. The following from The Scotland Channel's Facebook page illustrates the point: 'Moves to have Scotland decolonised by the United Nations have moved up a gear with meetings set to take place with diplomats from more than 30 countries.' Scotland will not be decolonised by the United Nations. Only the people of Scotland can decolonise our nation. There seems a strong possibility now that the UN will support our efforts to liberate Scotland. But the effort must be made by us! What that unfortunate quote from The Scotland Channel illustrates is the tendency to regard success for the Salvo/Liberation initiative as a complete solution. Spend any time on social media and you will find this notion to be common. At the SSRG conference, I was graciously permitted a couple of interventions in which I sought to stress the importance of ensuring people are aware that having the UN onside is of little use if there is not an internal political and parliamentary process. The UN will provide support. But first, there must be something to which that support can apply. One may think of this UN support as them clearing the road ahead. We still require a vehicle to travel that road. And that vehicle must be built by us, the people of Scotland. We must ensure that there is a political/parliamentary process in place regardless of the outcome of the Salvo/Liberation initiative. But it would be tragic if the UN recognised Scotland's status as annexed territory of England-as-Britain and nothing came of it because there was no internal political/parliamentary process to exploit this new advantage. This is where the Manifesto for Independence comes in. It sets out the political/parliamentary process that is required. No other such process has been identified. The #ScottishUDI process works even without UN support such as will be secured if/when the Salvo/Liberation initiative succeeds. With that UN support, it all becomes much easier and the restoration of independence is guaranteed. I said earlier that it was up to us, the people of Scotland, to build the vehicle that will travel the route cleared for us by the UN. We do that by combining in sufficient numbers that we can force the political parties to be the engine of that vehicle. They have an essential role as it is the political parties which should connect the people to the effective political power of the parliament. As things stand, they are failing abysmally to perform this function. We must join together so that our combined strength becomes an irresistible force compelling the politicians to do the things we elect them to do. The Manifesto for Independence Petition is the means of demonstrating our unity of purpose and instrument we wield in order to secure from the nominally pro-independence parties a cast-iron commitment to parliamentary action for the purpose of decolonising our nation. By means of the petition, we take back our government and direct it to take back our parliament. Then, with or without the aid of the UN, we take back our nation. Visit the Manifesto for Independence Petition page now! Sign the petition and then share it as widely and as often as possible. Do not squander this opportunity! There may not be another! Peter A Bell via email
The National
23-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
Why are independence supporters acting like ‘now is not the time?'
In the first place, if Alba and the SNP make an election pact prior to an election, it could be seen by the Election Commission that they are only one party, so it isn't going to happen. What the two parties do after an election is up to them, and I hope they join forces to help persuade Westminster and whoever else needs a shove in the right direction. Secondly, even Michael Gove said that we may not need a second vote. I may not trust him as a politician but with the Scottish Sovereignty Research Group (SSRG) petition on the desk of the United Nations, he's maybe right for a change. And as the petition has been with the UN for nearly two months now, don't try and tell me that the red and blue Tories don't know about it yet! The SSRG conference at the weekend was certainly an eye-opener, especially the Saturday afternoon talk on the petition at the UN and the points therein. If you didn't manage to see it over the weekend, catch up on Youtube (SSRGTV). If we can persuade the UN of our case, we won't need a referendum as such, we just need to demand what is ours by right under international law and assert our rights. Some years ago in this very paper, people were already talking about a petition to either the European court or taking it straight to the UN. The petition is there now, and we have some backing already so it's now a matter of moving on and starting acting like the independent country we want to be. That means that the next election for Holyrood must be a majority vote for independence-backing parties. In the meantime, let us start getting some ambassadors out there even if it is unofficial, and get talking to heads of state and persuade them that we are a country, and above all else that we are an independent country and well able to manage our own affairs. At the end of the day, it's when other countries see us as being independent that we actually become independent. Alexander Potts Kilmarnock A QUITE extraordinary event took place at the SSRG conference on Saturday in Dunfermline, when Professor Robert Black announced that he had examined the papers prepared by Sara Salyers and the Liberation Group for the United Nations Decolonisation Committee and believed the case was a strong one and showed that Scotland was not a partner in the Treaty of Union but had in fact been annexed by England after 1707. Professor Black was part of an amazing line-up and the first expert in Scots Law to support the Liberation case. The lead person in the Liberation team, Mr Sharof Azizov from the organisation Justice pour Tous Internationale, was also at the conference and stated that the UN would examine Scotland's case without interference by the UK Government because of the process involved. This procedure will be supported by Mr Craig Murray, former diplomat, who was also on the panel. Professor Alf Baird, another panel member, would perhaps argue that the lack of media interest in the conference reflects the stasis that is a stage in the liberation process where the status quo is frozen in inaction – unable or unwilling to acknowledge what is changing. This procedure will be viewed with interest by the international media, who are also watching the UK Government's position on Gaza and its relationship to the International Court of Justice. Maggie Chetty Glasgow
The National
20-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
Case for Scottish independence greater now than ever
PROFESSOR Robert Black, who was a professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University until his retirement in 2007, has said that in his legal opinion, Scotland was absorbed into England by the Acts of Union of 1707 and as such is not a "partner in a union". Indeed, in the opinion of Professor Black, the "Union" is merely a political fiction bereft of any substantive meaning. Black likened Scotland's situation post 1707 to that of a corporate 'takeover' rather than a 'merger". He said that contrary to the prevailing opinion in legal and political circles, Scotland and England did not merge into a new state with the Acts of Union, pointing to the facts that for England nothing much changed after 1707, treaties that the pre 1707 English state had entered into, such as the Treaty of Windsor which the kingdom of England signed with the kingdom of Portugal in 1386, continued to remain in force, whereas treaties signed by the pre 1707 Scottish state were rendered null and void as Scotland had ceased to exist as a state in international law. Speaking at the Scottish Sovereignty Research Group's conference on Saturday, he said: 'No honest and conscientious lawyer can look at what happened in the first decade of the 18th century to the institutions of government north and south of the Tweed and reach the conclusion that the pre-existing states of Scotland and England both ceased to exist and that a new state emerged, phoenix-like out of the ashes. READ MORE: Statistics from Canada do not back up assisted dying concerns 'The evidence, the facts on the ground support no judgment other than that Scotland ceased to exist as a state in international law and was absorbed into a still-extant England, cosmetically renamed 'Great Britain'. Scotland's legal status today, more than three centuries later, is therefore not that of a partner in a union – unequal, perhaps, but a union nevertheless – but is that of territory absorbed into a larger country. "A territory with only limited self-government and with its resources exploitable and exploited by the larger country for its own benefit and purposes." He explained that in legal terms, Scotland's legal system was altered while England's remained intact, with the House of Lords becoming Scotland's final court of appeal over its pre-Union equivalent. He also highlighted a legal opinion by distinguished legal experts Alan Boyle and James Crawford published before the 2014 referendum, which said that in the event of Scottish independence, the remainder of the UK would be the 'successor state' in terms of international treaties. The Scottish Sovereignty Research Group is associated with an attempt by the organisations Salvo and Liberation Scotland to have the United Nations recognise Scotland as a 'non-self-governing territory' like Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, or Guam. The groups are working with Geneva-based Justice Pour Tous Internationale (Justice for All International) to present Scotland's case to the United Nations. The Swiss organisation rates as "strong" Scotland's case to be recognised as having colonial status and thus to come under the aegis of the United Nations' special committee on decolonisation. However, the United Nations is very much a creature of the powerful existing states and is highly reluctant to add new territories to the 17 which it currently considers to have colonial status. An attempt by West Papuan leader Benny Wenda to have the territory's case heard by the special committee on decolonisation was rebuffed in 2017. West Papua was a Dutch colony which was annexed by Indonesia in 1962 despite Dutch attempts to prepare it for independence in its own right. The population of West Papua are culturally, linguistically, religiously and racially distinct from the rest of the Indonesian population, having far more in common with the people of the independent Papua New Guinea which occupies the eastern half of the massive island of New Guinea. In 1969 Indonesia organised a 'referendum' amongst 1,026 hand-picked village elders who were bribed, threatened and cajoled into voting to ratify the Indonesian annexation. Since annexation, Indonesia has exploited West Papua's natural resources and embarked upon a campaign of resettling hundreds of thousands of people from the over populated islands of Java and Madura, displacing the native Papuans. Political activity amongst native Papuans is severely repressed by the Indonesian government. West Papua is unarguably a colony if the word is to have any meaning, nevertheless, the UN's special committee on decolonisation refused to hear a petition signed by 1.8 million West Papuans and smuggled out of the territory. Committee chair Rafael Darío Ramírez Carreño of Venezuela said that the committee could only deal with the 17 states that had already been identified as 'non-self-governing territories' by the UN General Assembly. As West Papua proves, having a strong, even unimpeachable, case is no guarantee of recognition by the UN as a non-self-governing territory. Given this background, Salvo's and Liberation Scotland's chances of success in presenting Scotland's case to the UN seem slight. The Conservatives have catastrophically collapsed to fourth place in a major new opinion poll from YouGov, behind Reform UK, Labour, and even the Lib Dems. The poll confirms other recent polling showing that the hard right English nationalist Reform UK is currently surging ahead, at least in England, where Westminster elections are decided. Despite Keir Starmer's Labour party currently being as popular as the BBC executive who cancelled River City, the Tories are not the beneficiaries of Labour's fall from grace. That support is going to the political con trick that is Reform UK, the party of 'anti-elite' millionaires. (Image: PA) The YouGov poll of Westminster voting intention puts Reform UK on 29%, Labour on 22%, the Lib Dems on 17% and the Tories on just 16%. Reform UK remains in third place in the poll's Scottish subsample, which puts the SNP on 28%, Labour 19%, Reform UK 18%, Liberal Democrats 15%, Greens 11%, and the Conservatives trailing far behind on just 8%. Neither of the Tories's new leaders, Kemi Badenoch in the UK party or Russell Findlay in Scotland, are able to reverse what increasingly looks like a death spiral for the Conservatives. According to Electoral Calculus, if the poll were the result in a General Election, the Tories could be reduced to 17 seats while Reform UK would have a majority on 346 seats. The need for Scottish independence is growing increasingly urgent.
