The irony is that Holyrood is contemplating the introduction of an ecocide bill – at the very time the [[Scottish Government]] is complicit in ecocide committed by renewable energy companies on an ever-expanding scale.

We note “SSE Renewables will have to provide a plan to counter any impact the wind farm may have on seabirds”, but this is thin gruel, especially as SSE is quoted as admitting in its own environmental impact assessment that more than 31,000 bird collisions are estimated during its lifespan.

READ MORE: Scottish crew ‘excluded from Spider Man 4 filming’

What will its proposed “mitigation” provide? It is to be hoped it will be something better than the farcically inappropriate plans that Equinor has put in place to construct an inappropriately sited nesting habitat for Arctic Terns hundreds of miles from its proposed massive wind farm extension off the coast of Norfolk.

Whatever it is, it is difficult to see how it can provide more than a small sticking plaster for an act of ecocide.

The Scottish Government may well have shot itself in the foot here. People who would not normally object to a wind farm are sickened by this decision. The sleeping giant of Joe Public has awakened.

Aileen Jackson

Scotland Against Spin, Uplawmoor

THE story about House of Lords peers warning UK recognition of Palestine may “breach international law” (Jul 31) is revealing, not just for what it says about Westminster, but for what it exposes about Scotland’s position.

The peers cite the Montevideo Convention, claiming Palestine doesn’t qualify as a state because it lacks a defined territory, unified government and full diplomatic capacity. This argument is flawed because the UK never signed the convention — it’s a regional treaty drafted in 1933 by US states, not global law – and even if you accept it as a standard, it backfires spectacularly when applied to Scotland. Let’s test the same criteria:

  • Permanent population? Scotland has that;
  • Defined territory? Clearly;
  • Functioning government? We’ve had one for over 20 years, with its own legal system, civil service, and tax powers.
  • Capacity for foreign relations? Scotland already hosts consulates and conducts international outreach, and could expand that overnight.

By any serious standard, Scotland meets the Montevideo criteria more fully than [[Palestine]], Kosovo at the time of recognition, or even Israel in 1948. So why are we still being told we must wait for a Section 30 order from [[Westminster]] to hold an independence referendum — and why are the SNP still building their entire strategy around asking for one?

John Swinney says a vote for the [[SNP]] in 2026 will be a vote for independence. But what comes after that? Nothing. Because the leadership still refuses to act without permission. The Supreme Court didn’t say independence is illegal – it said [[Holyrood]] doesn’t have the power under UK law to legislate for a referendum. That’s a political dead end, not a legal one. Recognition doesn’t begin with external approval, it begins with internal control. That’s how Estonia, Ireland, Kosovo, and countless others did it. They asserted the fact of statehood, governed as such, and forced recognition by acting like a state. That’s how international law actually works.

The real reason Scotland isn’t independent isn’t legal, it’s psychological. Our leaders won’t cross the line. They keep asking Westminster to validate our democracy instead of enforcing it. They quote laws they never intend to test. And they call that strategy.

So yes, the peers’ letter is cynical and legally thin. But it also hands us a mirror. Because if the UK can consider recognising Palestine under the Montevideo Convention, then the only thing stopping Scotland is the lack of a leadership willing to act on what we already are.

James Murphy

Bute

THE claims by a group of peers in the House of Lords that UK recognition of Palestine could “breach international law” warrant scrutiny. These assertions are based on a rigid interpretation of the Montevideo Convention and a selective reading of legal principles and risk politicising law rather than defending it.

A clear-eyed examination reveals that such recognition remains well within the bounds of international legality and reflects long-standing norms of state practice.

The UK is not a signatory to the Montevideo Convention of 1933 and state recognition in international law has always been as much a political act as a legal one.

Numerous recognitions have occurred over the years, including Kosovo and South Sudan, despite contested claims to defined territory or unified governance. Recognition of states remains a sovereign prerogative.

As confirmed by the International Court of Justice in its 2010 advisory opinion on Kosovo, international law does not prohibit declarations of independence or third-party recognition, even in complex or disputed circumstances.

Recognition by the UK would not constitute a breach of international law but rather an exercise of lawful foreign policy discretion.

(Image: Jonathan Brady)

More than 135 UN member states have recognised Palestine and in 2012 the UN General Assembly granted Palestine non-member observer state status.

These actions underscore the fact that recognition of Palestinian statehood is neither novel nor legally exceptional. If such recognition were truly contrary to international law, it would have triggered challenges in international courts – none have materialised.

It is time to move beyond legal obfuscation and act in pursuit of a just and lasting peace.

Peter Macari

Aberdeen