Legally kidnapped? Not really

Your article on power of attorney by Vicky Allan (Herald on Sunday, March 10), clearly tried hard to give a balanced view of power of attorney usage. However, in my view it still left readers with an erroneous impression by omission.

I do not know the facts of the case or the dynamics of the family, but the implication of the article was an Attorney could prevent family members from seeing the ill person (named the “adult” in the legislation) and that the law provided no remedy for that.

That is not the case. An Attorney must take decisions to benefit the adult and also take account of the present and past wishes of the “adult”. Consequently an Attorney may prevent access by a family member but only where it can be shown that this would benefit the “adult”.

Further where evidence existed that the adult would have wanted to see that person, then the person can apply to the relevant sheriff court for a direction by the sheriff that access should be allowed, and the Attorney’s decision overruled. The sheriff can also revoke particular powers or the whole power of attorney where the Attorney is not acting to benefit the "adult".

David H Borrowman

Solicitors for Older People Scotland

What if it was Scotland, Ms Sturgeon?

The question remains.

What would happen if the people of Scotland were ground down into having another break-up-the-UK referendum, and the SNP managed to win?

What would their position be if a majority of Scots then came to realise they had been hoodwinked into voting for breaking up the UK? Say this happened a year or so into the actual process of breaking up – exactly as we are now with Brexit. What if they decided the risks to jobs and wellbeing were such that they wanted another referendum? Or should I say a ‘’People’s Vote’’?

What would the nationalists say then? That we have had a referendum already? That another was undemocratic? In fact all the arguments being used by the ultra-Brexiteers today? Surely not even the SNP would have that much brass neck.

For the record, I voted Remain.

Alexander McKay

Edinburgh

Is it not time to take a fresh look at the real cost of EU membership?

Many people will have recently received their tax code notice and tax summary for 2017-2018. On the back of the letter is a pie chart showing where all of the tax was spent. The UK contribution to the EU budget is bottom of a long list and is just over one half of the next lowest, namely Overseas Aid - in reality about 0.75% of total spend.

In practical terms, my wife and I between us, annually pay less than the cost of 3 gallons of fuel. In comparison with our Council Tax, it is less than 1% of annual local taxation contribution. This does not take into consideration the 50% return of this from the EU to the UK.

Why is the nation bickering over a few pence per day for all of the benefits unless it is due to politician’s personal xenophobia and imperialistic attitude that is the real problem?

Ron Wynton

Fortrose, Ross-shire

So Nicola Sturgeon states at First Minister's questions in Holyrood this week that her preference is for a 'lengthy extension' to Article 50. Of course it is.

Since her last failed attempt at using Brexit to demand indyref2 went down so badly for the SNP at the 2017 general election, Ms Sturgeon has seemingly been running scared. She talks a good separatist game for the sake of her loyal band of dyed-in-the-wool nationalist supporters, yet does little.

A lengthy delay to Article 50 can be used by Ms Sturgeon to justify further indyref2 procrastination. The canny nationalist leader realises opinion polls suggest her chances of winning are far from certain. But what is certain is that Downing St will turn her down.

Ms Sturgeon is playing a waiting game and so every Brexit delay and Downing St rejection suits her well. Her sights are firmly set on a nationalist majority in 2021 and indyref2 in 2023. That gives her four years or so to embrace the grievance game even more enthusiastically than usual.

Martin Redfern

Edinburgh

Martin Redfern need not worry about Keith Brown et al holding an “illegal” referendum that would land them in the Bar L (Letters, March 10). There are within the powers of Holyrood perfectly legal ways of ascertaining the will of the people in Scotland.

The most obvious is to hold an advisory referendum, as the EU one was. Should that result in a less than 50% turnout, no problem. After all, no referendum has ever been declared null and void because of turnout, it being normally believed that those who do not bother to vote do not care one way or the other.

In any case, it could easily be justified by comparison with the EU one which ascertained the “will of the people” on only 34.4% or so of the vote, with a margin of win slightly less than that gained by “Yes” in 1979. Obviously, by current standards, ignoring that earlier vote is now seen by Westminster as a wrong decision and a lesser margin from less than 50% of electors can now be regarded as mandatory.

Moreover, the acceptance last July by Westminster of the Claim of Right, with its confirmation that the people of Scotland, not any parliament or government, hold sovereignty, means that we do have a legal right to vote on the type of government we want without any need of permission of any sort. The fact that such “permission” was sought last time was merely a courtesy and a means of avoiding controversy and recrimination, which could have marred the civilised event that followed.

Perhaps Mr Redfern and his colleagues in the letter-writing cabal of Scotland in Union would do well to contemplate the terms of the American Declaration of Independence, largely the input of Scots based on the Declaration of Arbroath:

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ... it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

What nation on earth requires permission of another to decide how it will be ruled?

L. McGregor

Falkirk

Revolution? Really?

John McDonnell told party delegates that a Labour Government would deliver 50,000 new jobs in Scotland as part of a "green industrial revolution". If you believe that ...

This will be similar to the job promises that the wind industry made saying they would create thousands of jobs. Numerous "renewables" companies applied to the Scottish Government and were given substantial grants on the promise of new Scottish jobs then true to form they collapsed.

Wind turbines are manufactured in China, Denmark and Germany and then shipped over here to be built by mainly foreign labour. The only Scottish jobs are picking up the dead birds and bats and concealing them.

Clark Cross

Linlithgow

Time to reflect on online behaviour

In the week in which the world wide web celebrated its 30 year anniversary, its inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee urged us all to support a new contract for the web, in which governments, companies and citizens cooperate to protect the positives of the web while avoiding its pitfalls.

Comments in the latest episode of BBC Scotland’s "Yes/No – Inside The Indyref" remind us that exchanges on social media during the 2014 referendum campaign too often saw unpleasant nastiness becoming commonplace among some trying to make their case ("Yes digital chief criticises Wings over Scotland during indyref," Herald on Sunday, March 10).

As the head of the Yes movement’s digital campaign, Stewart Kirkpatrick, pointed out, the “expletive littered rants” from Stuart Campbell of Wings over Scotland were considered unhelpful to their cause by many in the independence movement. As ever, Stuart Campbell appears unrepentant, happy to throw his digital weight about online, hoping perhaps to intimidate into silence those who do not agree with him.

Those who have gained prominence through the platform of the world wide web should reflect on Sir Tim’s words and find it in themselves to calibrate their comments to “respect civil discourse”, making the web and the debates taking place on it more open and safe for all.

Keith Howell

West Linton