ON 30 July 2014, my wife and I attended a debate on Scottish independence, organised by the Saltire Society, between two fine modern Scots novelists, the late William McIlvanney and Allan Massie.
My wife asked a question of Allan Massie who had been arguing the case for No.
She suggested that, contrary to a point he had made, it was not certain that keeping Scotland in the UK would keep it in the European Union in the light of the forthcoming referendum on EU membership. Mr Massie replied he did not think that referendum would result in a vote for Leave but he added that the prospect of a Leave vote was the only reason that he could ever vote Yes for an independent Scotland.
I share this memory with other National readers because, despite all the recent Unionist obfuscation about a second independence referendum, I have not seen any recent acknowledgement of the argument made repeatedly in the 2014 referendum that the only way for Scotland to remain in the EU was a vote to remain in the UK.
We cannot let this be forgotten.
Gavin Brown
Linlithgow
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Branch manager knows who really calls Tory shots
RUTH Davidson has been getting a little bit of praise (did anyone notice?) for the Conservative Party in Scotland accruing a mind-boggling 13 seats in the recent General Election (Davidson in assertive mood due to new role as Tory saviour for meeting with weakened May, The National, June 13).
Indeed, some commentators are talking about this strengthening her hand with the Prime Minister. How so?
These Scottish Conservatives MPs stood on the Theresa May UK manifesto and were elected to Westminster, not Holyrood.
What influence will Ruth Davidson MSP have on them when a three-line whip is imposed to get them to toe the line in a vote?
Will they be duty-bound to contact Ruth and seek her feelings on the issue being legislated on?
Will they abide by her decision even if it goes against the Westminster view?
Will they put all thoughts of advancement aside to support Ruth’s position if it is contrary to the London party’s?
Of course not! And Ruth Davidson would be the last person to call for this.
Ruth is playing the political game brilliantly at the moment and has achieved so much with little more than her natural charm and the combined resources of the Unionist TV, radio and print media behind her.
She has been a shining light among Conservatives north of the Border and has even managed to eclipse the phenomenon that is David Mundell forcing him to ape some of Ruth’s winning features to stay in the media spotlight – embracing gay culture that is, not the beard!
Ruth may talk about being the leader of the Scottish Conservatives but we all know who calls the tune. When she was running for the leadership of the Scottish Conservatives her opponent, Murdo Fraser, stood for the severing of links with London and having a transparently autonomous Scottish party.
Ruth vehemently opposed this and was duly elected as Scottish branch manager. She is not about to jeopardise her position by moving her tanks (literally?) on to Theresa May’s lawn.
So, no one would or should expect her to do anything other than support her “strong and stable” leader and hope to ingratiate herself further with the real powerbrokers – the owners of The Daily Wail and The Torygraph!
However when it comes to influencing Theresa May, Ruth Davidson does have one big disadvantage – she is not Arlene Foster of the DUP.
James Mills
Johnstone
I READ with great interest Andrew Learmonth’s article in which he he threw in, as an aside, the touching fact that Mrs May was “very concerned” about unseated Tory MPs and was going to help them financially (Davidson in assertive mood due to new role as Tory saviour for meeting with weakened May, The National, June 13).
This, from one of the architects of selective austerity! Where is Ken Loach when you need him?!
Derek Ball
Bearsden
IT has been intriguing to note Conservative proposals to form a government with DUP support on a “confidence and supply” basis, especially with its obvious implications for the peace process in Northern Ireland.
That process is already under considerable strain following the collapse of the power-sharing agreement earlier this year and UK and Irish governments are engaged in mediating between the DUP and Irish nationalists to restore the Northern Irish government.
That negotiating process re-starts this week, however it is scarcely credible that the UK Government can continue to act as the mediator, an honest broker acting in a neutral capacity, when the DUP is going to have such a pivotal role in that very government.
It should also be remembered that in 1992 when John Major found himself short of a parliamentary majority he did not resort to forming an alliance with the DUP as he wanted to continue to be seen as even-handed.
If Ms May continues on this misguided path she will clearly make the current political crisis in Northern Ireland even worse, just so that her weak and wobbly administration can stagger on.
In the worst case scenario, should the DUP be involved in government, there must be an impartial independent individual or organisation which can take over from the UK Government in the peace process and act as a truly honest broker.
Alex Orr
Edinburgh
YESTERDAY Arlene Foster was to meet Theresa May to discuss terms for a supply and confidence agreement providing DUP support for the Tory Government in Westminster (Orange Orders as DUP meets May, The National, June 13).
Other than Unionism the two parties appear to have very little in common and lack common objectives.
The two parties will have to make clear that any agreement reached is for the benefit of the UK as a whole if they are to avoid allegations of self-interest being the dominant factor.
Maggie Jamieson
South Queensferry
HAVING lost 3.9 per cent of her seats at the General Election, Theresa May is called upon to resign. Ms Sturgeon loses 37.5 per cent of hers and nothing is said.
Malcolm Parkin
Kinnesswood, Kinross
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel