HERALD LETTERS I AM astonished at the impertinence of Prime Minister David Cameron and his opportunism in announcing his investment of £500m for Glasgows economy over the next 20 years, and his invitation to the Scottish Government to produce a matching figure (PM pledges hundreds of millions for Glasgow over next 20 years, The Herald, July 4). And his contention that there is nothing in Scottish policy which comes close to the potential of the UK scheme is preposterous. Of course there is not. He must know that the economy is a matter reserved to Westminster, and without adequate powers over all taxation and the other levers necessary, such as borrowing, to indulge in this way, the Scottish Government is powerless to act. Furthermore, should the venture succeed in the way Mr Cameron claims, then the bulk of the tax proceeds, VAT, and so on, would accrue to the UK exchequer, and on top of that Westminster would pocket the resulting savings in unemployment benefits, which we in Scotland have paid the tax to provide for. And, by the way, what cuts in domestic services does he envisage the Scottish Government should make to produce its £500m share? In any event, such expenditure could be outwith the powers delegated under the devolution settlement, and they could actually be ultra vires. The initiative effectively dangled a bait for the Scottish Government, which has refused to be caught in the trap by agreeing to put up its share. We send all of our tax proceeds to Westminster, so Mr Camerons share must have come from these resources, too. The paradox is that, while he demands powers back from Europe which dominates what the UK can spend in so many areas, he denies the necessary powers for Scotland. Had we access to all of our own money, we could have, and would have, adopted the work now being touted as some sort of Westminster grace and favour exercise. Alternatively, English taxpayers may be subsidising the venture; if so, they need not be told about it. Its what they think anyway. Douglas R Mayer, 76 Thomson Crescent, Currie. I AM disgusted at the UK Governments announcement of investment in Glasgow, in particular the statement that it will also provide targeted support to more than 4000 ill or disabled people in work or looking for work and to 15,000 young people over the next three years. What utter hypocrisy. Since 2010 the Coalition Government has implemented a vicious hate campaign against the very people it now claims it is desperate to help. It has demonised, vilified, ridiculed and persecuted the unemployed, the sick, the disabled and the weak. Im sure this new investment will be scant compensation to the two million-plus unemployed who have had their benefit sanctioned for the most trivial of reasons, to the tens of thousands evicted from their homes under the so-called Bedroom Tax, to the Remploy workers whose factories have been closed down by this vindictive Government. To start a charm offensive aimed at the people they have treated like dirt, in a desperate attempt to bribe them into voting against independence, is truly nauseating. Its like being beaten up, robbed and left for dead, then to be told by the mugger: Heres some change for your bus fare to the hospital. Allan Webb, Flat 0/2, 45 Sutcliffe Road, Glasgow. YOUR correspondent Russell Vallance (Letters, July 4) has seen fit to describe my Agenda article (Legal arguments that would keep Scotland in the European Union , The Herald, July 2) as balderdash. I dont know if Mr Vallance has any legal training but, if he does, he will know that the value of any legal opinion may be measured by the extent to which it is vouched by reference to authority other than the authors mere say-so. Typically, reference will be made to case law or other learned sources such as recognised experts in the field. In contrast with the views expressed in Mr Vallances letter, my opinion was supported by reference to two decisions of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice and learned opinion on the citizenship argument from Sir David Edwards QC, Professor Emeritus and former British judge at the European Court of Justice, and Aidan ONeill QC, an expert on European law. Neither of these gentlemen is a member of Lawyers for Yes and so, we may assume, they are not partisan in the debate. I invite Mr Vallance to read the case law carefully. If he does so he will see that the cases are indeed about the concept of citizenship of the European Union and not merely national citizenship as he claims. This case law has inspired a large amount of academic writing on the enhanced importance of European citizenship in the eyes of the court, some of which can be readily accessed online. Should Mr Vallance wish to read and consider my fellow QCs views on the issues which arise and their relevance to the current debate, the references are available on the website lawyerforyes.org. Joanna Cherry QC, Advocates Library, Parliament House, Edinburgh.
Posted on: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 00:32:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015