WE should all take note of Wee Ginger Dug’s analysis of “ how we can hold indyref2 if Westminster refuses permission” (The National, October 25).
It is quite clear that a Section 30 Order is unlikely to materialise any time soon and the pitfalls of proceeding with a consultative referendum are as WGD describes them. The stalemate has the potential to carry on for a very long time and this is only to the advantage of the Unionists. Meanwhile, as Brexit comes to a conclusion, it is possible that a large section of Remain voters, including 2014 Yes voters, will give it tacit “losers’ consent”. For them Brexit may become the status quo and the incentive and reason for wishing to live in an independent Scotland within Europe will no longer apply.
Better by far that we seize the initiative and take control of the agenda. We have to force the pace and dictate the terms and grounds of the next referendum. WGD concludes by suggesting the strategy for doing this and the tactics to be employed i.e. make the 2021 Holyrood election (or, ideally, an earlier General Election if there is one) a de facto independence referendum. This approach corresponds with one I have advocated previously in these columns (October 9 and 11).
There will be those who say that this is a reckless strategy and one that risks failure. To them I would ask what is the alternative. You may be prepared to wait for Theresa May to graciously agree a Section 30 Order, I say we don’t need her approval and will not wait any longer. You may say but what if we lose the election, I say what if we win.
The prize is enormous, it is indisputable and it is complete and total. Truly, fortune might favour the brave! The job needs to be done, so let’s get on and do it.
J F Davidson
Bonnyrigg
I HAVE to say I like the cut of the Wee Ginger Dug’s jib. I rarely, if ever, disagree with a word he barks.
He effectively suggests hijacking the next Holyrood election in 2021 and I think this may well be a cute means to an end. If that was done it would not, however, be the first time a national election was hijacked.
The credit for that surely goes to Ruth Davidson, whose smug, arrogant mug clattered uninvited umpteen times through my letterbox in the lead up to the last hastily called UK General Election with the inspiring, shrill, positive, and policy groundbreaking message: “No to indyref2!” And you know what? Together with the collusion of “Scottish” Labour, and wee Wullie’s LibDems, it seemed to work! Nothing ventured...
Jim Finnie
Pitlochry
GIVEN the work put into The National, it irks me to hear of Unionist imbeciles sabotaging the paper with the simple “hide The National” ploy.
A friend of mine of a jaunt to St Andrews several months ago visited a newsagent for a National and after searching found them under some Unionist rags; annoying, but hey-ho, we move on.
However, in the past month in Broughty Ferry he has found the same situation, once in a supermarket, twice in a corner ship and once in a large newsagents on the outskirts. My friend has now concluded that this is not random, unconnected, schoolkid-mentality Unionist idiocy but is organised, possibly nationwide, slightly sinister British Nationalist bitterness.
Name and address supplied
HEALTH and social care featured much during First Minister’s Questions and heard opposition parties challenge the SNP government’s record as a result of Audit Scotland’s report on NHS performances.
During rather heated exchanges the public was informed that the Scottish Government was making changes that Audit Scotland recognised was having positive results and the First Minister informed the chamber that spending per head on NHS services in Scotland was £143 more than that being spent on health services in England or Wales. So it was a bit rich of those opposition parties who are running NHS services in England (Conservatives) and Wales (Labour), facing mounting challenges and not achieving any targets to have the arrogance to challenge the SNP government in Scotland.
Catriona C Clark
Banknock, Falkirk
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