The issues exercising minds today are Scots Law and the Supreme Court, independence referendums, biomass, and the right to die.
New Scottish Supreme Court is the answer
Sir,-With reference to the Supreme Court debate (June 6), I sympathise with the position the justice minister finds himself in.
We Scots have had our own legal system since before the union. Any accused has a 66% chance of not being found guilty. If that is not justice (within the law) biased in favour of the accused, I do not know what is.
Who is going to stand up for our law, that we may go about our (honest) daily business and recreation without fear or interference from others, including other national, federal and even international bodies?
Our parliamentarians voted to accept European law, which lets our legal people off the hook but only just. There was no protestation that I am aware of about interference from others.
Our Scots legal system is in danger of falling into disrepute and consequent disregard.
The Scottish Parliament must set up our own Supreme Court, an additional layer of discouragement to those who failed the three verdict test.
Our appeal judges have frequently allowed appeals to stand, irrespective of trial judges’ summings up.
With regards to police procedures, what ever happened to the duty solicitor system? Surely that would have nullified the Cadder appeal?
A. T. Geddie.68 Carleton Avenue,Glenrothes.
English would not like it
Sir,-Capt T. R. Willis (June 6) should understand that just because some politicians may have spoken unwisely about the UK Supreme Court, it doesn’t follow that there isn’t a serious issue to be addressed.
He also shouldn’t confuse a desire to protect the integrity and independence of Scottish law with anti-Englishness. The independence of Scottish law was guaranteed by the Treaty of Union in 1707 and until very recently the High Court was the final authority on Scottish criminal matters.
By an unintended and ironic consequence of devolution, however, the Supreme Court is now able, or considers itself able, to overturn a unanimous decision by Scottish courts even though it (the Supreme Court) only has a minority of Scottish judges.
How, exactly, does Capt Willis think the English would react if a court sitting in Scotland and comprising a majority of Scottish judges purported to overturn a unanimous decision by an English appeal court?
There is a real constitutional issue here and unfounded allegations of “anti-Englishness” are no more helpful than the sillier comments of the politicians.
I am delighted that the Scottish Government has recruited four of the country’s best legal minds to consider the problems.
(Dr) David B Griffiths.41 Haston Crescent,Perth.
One vote is enough
Sir-Michael Moore’s comment that there would be a requirement for not just one but two independence referendums is preposterous (June 6). This approach is of course nonsensical, and it is interesting to note that not one country in the world has been required to hold two referendums on the road to independence.
It, therefore, seems a little odd that while the likes of Montenegro (2006), South Sudan (2011) and Iceland (1944) are able to gain their independence through one vote, Scotland should have to go through the laborious process of holding two such votes.
Two referendums also throws up the interesting prospect of what happens if there is a ‘yes’ in the first vote but a ‘no’ in the second. Scotland would then inhabit some twilight world, not quite independent but not quite part of the union.
Alex Orr.77 Leamington TerraceEdinburgh.
Wellbeing is paramount
Sir,-Stuart Allan states that he is confident that there is more than enough wood in the world to fuel the four massive biomass and waste burning incinerators plants that are now being proposed by the Forth Ports Partnership.
I wonder, however, if Mr Allan has heard that the building of these biomass plants in or near population centres in the United States of America has been banned in most of the states. This is because of human health hazards.
Our NHS in Tayside has also raised some serious concerns. These concerns relate to the possible health risks related to the proposed biomass plant planned for Dundee’s waterfront.
Surely the health and wellbeing of people who are unfortunate enough to live near to one of these horrible plants is of more importance than the amount of wood and other waste that is required to fuel them?
Robert Addison.11 Forthill Place,Broughty Ferry.
When life is a burden
Sir,-I’ve been reading all the controversy regarding care homes.
It seems to me the medical profession is so adept at prolonging life that they are now hoist with their own petard. This is what has has created the present crisis.
Margo MacDonald’s right-to-die bill would partly alleviate this.
If we in this country enjoyed the same privilege which other countries give their population, and those who have “had enough” were allowed to end their intolerable lives without threat of prosecution to anyone who helped them, this would be one way of decreasing the number of elderly, and not so elderly, people who no longer enjoy life and wish to die a dignified death rather than endure a undignified one.
I hope Margo can get her bill through parliament before I need to take advantage of it. In the meantime, well into my 80s, I have renewed my passport in case I need to use it for one final trip.
Mary Smith.Maryburgh,Blairadam.
Get involved: to have your say on these or any other topics, email your letter to letters@thecourier.co.uk or send to Letters Editor, The Courier, 80 Kingsway East, Dundee DD4 8SL.