Letters II: Policy debate is fine but it’s principle that lies at the core of indy

However, it would be unfortunate, to say the least, if the question at the heart of the constitutional issue was to be obscured by a plethora of policy options.

That core question is not about what kind of social security system is best for independent Scotland. Nor is it about what sort of health service we should have. Or how our military should be organised. Or how much tax we should pay. Or what our currency is called and whose picture appears on the notes.

The core question does not concern policy at all. It concerns principle. It is about who decides what kind of tax/benefit system we have. It is about who is acknowledged as the ultimate constitutional authority. It is about where power lies.

It is about addressing the fatal anomalies which have dogged the political union between Scotland and England since its inception.

It is about rectifying the democratic deficit inherent in the grotesque asymmetry of influence.

It is about deciding, once and for all, the contest between the incomparable and irreconcilable concepts of popular and parliamentary sovereignty.

When, in September 2018, the people of Scotland vote again on the constitutional question, we will not be voting for any policy or any party or any ideology. As was the case four years previously, for the 15 hours that the polls are open, the people of Scotland will hold in their hands total democratic power. Or something as close to that as we can ever hope to have.

The choice facing us will be whether to keep that power to ourselves, or whether to hand it back to a political elite that is remote from us in every sense of the term.

In 2014, we chose to relinquish our democratic power. More than that, by voting No, we not only gave the British political elite our power, we gave them licence to define the power that we had given them. They were allowed to decide what a No vote actually meant after the votes had been cast. We cannot afford to make that mistake again, so we cannot afford to be distracted by debate about policy in an independent Scotland.

Thinking about policy is essential. Discussing our options is important. This is just normal political discourse. It is relevant regardless of and quite apart from the issue of independence. But the matter of being independent cannot possibly take precedence over the matter of becoming independent.

Those whose support for independence is conditional on a particular policy agenda are putting the cart before the horse. In fact, it might be more accurate to say they have abandoned the horse completely and are sitting on the cart hoping that the fervour of their dogma will be enough to get the thing moving towards independence.

It cannot logically be maintained that independence is about seizing the power to decide while simultaneously insisting that the decisions have to be made before the power is seized.

So, fine. It’s good to have a vision. It’s even better to have a range of visions. But can we please keep at the forefront of our minds that, while the Yes movement is very much about developing such broad and diverse visions, the independence campaign is about achieving a very specific goal — bringing Scotland’s government home.

Should we fail in that mission, all the thinking on policy will be for nothing. Without independence, the vision will fade to black.
Peter A Bell
via thenational.scot

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Partition is a subject that has echoes in the here and now

I’VE been watching some of the historical fact-dredging from the partition of India on TV. We could call it “its struggle for independence” from a Westminster monster that was ripping the wealth out of the country and impoverishing its citizens while at the same time using the mainstream media to show how nasty the Asians were and how fair and generous Britain was being.

The BBC seems at ease describing the unbelievably bad behaviour of the British establishment back then without realising that, 70 years later, they are still doing it — to us, today!

The degrading terms, the collusion of the mass media and of course the words of the super-intellectuals at Westminster all belittled India’s, (Scotland’s), efforts to regain control over its own country. The Pakistan debacle shows that when Scotland wins independence, the Westminster tribes will do as much spiteful damage as they can before we get free. But it will still be worth it.

If you missed these broadcasts, find them somewhere and watch in horror. If you are Better Togetherers, watch and see exactly what that means. I’m ashamed to be called British. It’s a term that should be banned. I remember the Declaration of Independence for India, I want to be able to remember the same for Scotland.
Christopher Bruce
Taynuilt

IN the recent slew of letters regarding who should and should not be allowed to vote in the next referendum, I think we have perhaps overlooked the fact that identity and politics are intertwined and have been so for generations, and not only in Scotland.

My father started life as “British Indian”, not through choice, but being so defined by the British Empire. Despite marrying my mother and making here his home for more than 30 years, he chose to become Pakistani as per the statement on his much valued passport. But having believed in Quit India and Quit India and Divide, he whole-heartedly argued for Scottish independence, despite being a Labour voter all this life. Had he still been alive, then I know what he would have voted for, and wouldn’t want to think his vote depended on length of residency.

We have to be able to show we mean to achieve an independent Scotland (no matter the make-up of governments in an indy Scotland) that pays regard equally to all its citizens, and those who choose to make this their home.

I understand the frustration that is there: voting by many for some disunited state that appears to want to regress into a mythical past, including warm beer, cricket and, yes, days of Empire. My own identity is fluid, not least influenced by living through one bloody revolution — something I wouldn’t want to see ever again.

But now, and more immediately, I see politics and (my) “maturing” becoming intertwined. I don’t want to live in a country that sees its ageing population as statistics — how many beds, how many homes for the elderly, bed blocking; a country that privatises its older people by regarding them as paying clients in a privatised health care service. I see not a utopian future here, but one where social morals have a greater value than profits. That was brought home to me at a focus group held by Edinburgh Women for Independence this month, asking what the priority would be in an indy Scotland. After much discussion, they chose Universal Basic Income, identifying the need for the state to recognise and value us all equally, a bedrock of social inclusion on which to build a better future. That’s the type of identity I’d like to see and one I’m happy to engage in with all prospective voters.
Selma Rahman
Edinburgh

YOUR article on Lord Lovat (Dashing Scot a hero despite Dieppe disaster (The National, August 15) said Churchill considered him “the handsomest man that ever cut a throat”. He similarly described Sir Fitzroy Maclean, as “the mildest-mannered man that ever scuttled a ship or cut a throat”. It seems Churchill was a bit obsessed and a bit limited in his line of banter!
Kevin Cordell 
Broughty Ferry 

BRITAIN’S new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth is now ready to sail the high seas as the Royal Navy’s flagship. Might I suggest she flies the Jolly Roger?
Terry Keegans
Beith, North Ayrshire