The Canon Fires a Salvo

Dave Coull · The Canon Fires a Salvo

The Herald, March 24th 2009

Scottish sovereignty

Hugh Andrew urges the Scottish Liberal Democrats to opt clearly for the sovereignty of the people in Scotland, not that of Westminster (Letters, 18th March). The point is, they have already done so; at least in theory.

On March 30, it will be the twentieth anniversary of the first meeting of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, and, therefore, of the crucial Act on which all its subsequent work was firmly based.

I mean the "Claim of Right for Scotland" with its clear statement: "We acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine what form of government best suits their needs."
advertisement

The original, signed by all Liberal Democrats and all Labour MPs but one in Scotland, and by the broadest cross- section of Scottish society, is in the Donald Dewar Room at Holyrood.

I have often wondered whether all of those who lined up to sign the claim that day really understood they were denying the absolute authority of Westminster in matters of governance.

The claim of 1989 is probably now an embarrassment to many who signed but it will, I believe, one day be recognised as the foundation stone of Scotland's democracy, and a historic document comparable to the two previous Claims of Right in Scotland's history - and maybe even in constitutional terms to the Declaration of Arbroath itself.

Its importance goes beyond historical interest. It may well be the bulwark against any attempt by any future Westminster government to impose constitutional changes on Scotland.

I have asked the Calman Commission on the devolution process to give clear answers to two questions: (1) Do you recognise and reaffirm the sovereignty of the people of Scotland in questions of how they will be governed as the fundamental basis on which all your work will be undertaken?

(2) If so, do you recognise that the final authority on any changes to the current arrangements, or any future proposals for change, lies with the people of Scotland, expressed through their parliament in matters of minor change, or through referendum in the case of any major proposals fundamentally affecting relationships within the UK?

Canon Kenyon Wright,
Ettington,
Stratford.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/featur...497361.0.scottish_sovereignty.php

Aventinian

Interesting letter.

For one, it would not be for the Calman Commission to 'reaffirm' anything of that sort, for the Commission has never affirmed it in the first place: it didn't exist back then, never mind sign the Claim of Right.

But he does have a point: the Lib Dems have indeed affirmed this, or indeed affirmed it to some extent. Quite how far that belief goes, I am certainly not sure. The sovereignty of Parliament is accepted by the present Labour government; the Liberals do not accept it, but believe it is 'pooled' - as is the situation with the EU. The Conservatives, of course, believe it to be absolute in legal terms.

In reality, I suspect most MPs who signed it view the Claim of Right not as a statement of a legal position, but as a statement of a moral one. In legal reality though, the sovereignty of parliament is accepted even over and above the Act of Union, which has been amended liberally over centuries.

Dave Coull

The Claim of Right, which asserts the sovereignty, in Scotland, NOT of the Westminster parliament, but of the people of Scotland, was signed by all Lib Dem MPs in Scotland, and by every Labour MP in Scotland except for Tam Dalyell. It was also, of course, signed by numerous prominent figures from the churches etc.

Some of the signatories of the USA's Declaration of Independence were very reluctant and half-hearted signatories, and some of them later got the jitters about having signed such a document. But their jitters didn't affect the significance of the document.

Aventinian

I hardly think the Claim of Right is in the same league. But yes, I know exactly who signed it.