I DO not share the concern of Professor McHarg in her Agenda article (“Reasons we should worry about future of devolution”, The Herald, June 19 ).
The so-called Sewel Convention is set out in a memorandum of understanding dated October 2013 between the UK Government and the devolved administrations.
That agreed memorandum states specifically (Article 14) that the Government at Westminster retains authority to legislate on any issue, whether devolved or not, but tempers that by saying that it will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters except with the agreement of the relevant devolved legislature.
The use of the qualification “not normally” means that the memorandum envisaged the possibility that abnormal circumstances could arise when the UK Government would exercise its authority to legislate without the agreement of the devolved legislature .
This is what is happening as regards Scotland, which has disagreed with the proposed legislation, but is not happening as regards Wales which has agreed to that legislation.
On any reasonable interpretation, Brexit clearly falls into the category of an abnormal circumstance, so the UK Government is not threatening the future of devolution by acting quite properly in accordance with the agreed terms of the memorandum of understanding.
I understand this is the view expressed by Lord Sewel himself.
Alan Fitzpatrick,
10 Solomon’s View, Dunlop.
IT is absurd that Theresa May should stand her ground against changes in the Brexit Bill on the basis that such a change would “tie her hands” and weaken Britain’s negotiating position (“May faces new threat as Brexit vote goes to the wire”, The Herald, June 20).
My experience has been that it is an advantage to go into negotiations with clear instructions. Anyone who is negotiating without a clear mandate is always at risk of being persuaded to agree to an unacceptable compromise.
When the Scottish people voted on independence in 2014 there was a clear plan as to what that would entail.
There was no guarantee that these objectives would be achieved and, in the case of remaining in the pound currency union, there was a clear indication from George Osborne that this was not an option.
In this case the Scottish negotiation position would have been strengthened by having its hands tied to the currency union as the preferred option.
It is the lack of clarity that is leading to the problems with the Brexit negotiations. There might well be strong and stable government but, if so, there is certainly no clarity as to what that government is trying to achieve.
Sandy Gemmill,
40 Warriston Gardens, Edinburgh.
ALTHOUGH the source of Theresa May’s Birthday Funding for the NHS is uncertain, the fact that the Government are giving it to NHS England means that Scotland will receive approximately £1.8 billion via the Barnett Formula (“Sturgeon is urged to spend extra £2bn on healthcare” & Letters, June 20).
This gives Scotland a unique opportunity to pour the funds into Social and Primary Care necessary to return to the Dewar (1912) and Bevan (1948) principles that the universal healthcare system is based upon primary, community services as the gatekeepers to control the flow into the more specialised (and expensive) secondary care.
At present we spend less (about 7%) of the burgeoning healthcare budget than at any time since the Highlands and Islands medical service came into being in 1913.
If primary care were functioning efficiently, the pressures would be reduced on secondary care and that would then function more efficiently, allowing people to be returned safely and efficiently to their communities. This would require primary care to take on these responsibilities, mainly by trusting health care professionals to deliver without being hampered by unending bureaucracy and red tape.
If this windfall is squandered among health boards like stardust perhaps the last chance to re-organise and revitalise our cherished health service will be lost.
Kenneth Robinson as minister of health did it in 1965 and the health service revitalised itself . Now is the time to repeat that and learn from history.
Dr Iain McNicol,
Dunvegan, Port Appin, Argyll.
RATHER than ceaselessly complaining about 24 powers that will come to Holyrood over the next seven years, it would be more interesting if Nicola Sturgeon outlined for us how she plans to transfer and implement efficiently and effectively the 134 new legislative areas that will arrive in Scotland on day one.
Judging by the costly problems and delays the First Minister has had administering EU farm payments and establishing a Scottish social security agency, I fear it’s not going to be a walk in the park for the SNP.
Martin Redfern,
Woodcroft Road, Edinburgh.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel