IN response to my letter, Andy Anderson (Letters, Jun 28) suggest that we cannot use the existing legislation to achieve independence. We all recognise the existing problems with that, but what is the practical and workable alternative? Have any of the objectors to the current strategy actually thought their simplistic ideas through?
There is no mechanism or higher authority that has any actual sway over Westminster if they choose to ignore external direction. How many states have been able to achieve independence by the use of international law? If it was that easy, why has no-one else tried it? Look at Catalonia for a recent example. I’m not arguing against such a process, but no-one has produced any evidence or legal opinion that it would or could work. How many lawyers, who clearly will be well aware of the limitations of international law, have ever proposed that as the key?
READ MORE: Who is sovereign in Scotland – King Charles, or the Scottish people?
The difficulty is that there is no mechanism by which international authorities can impose a decision on sovereign governments, which sadly Holyrood is not yet. And even if a case could be constructed and pursued, it still needs an internationally recognised and constituted set of representatives reflecting majority opinion to bring it. This means in our case that attempts to undermine or split a Holyrood and Westminster vote are very counterproductive. If such action could be brought then it may be a means of forcing a formal referendum to test opinion, but what happens if we again fail to gain a majority?
It is very easy to sit on the sidelines demanding someone else does something, and then complain after that when someone has looked at and considered whether it is feasible or not and realises that it isn’t. As with all negotiations, it requires both sides to engage in debate. If either side refuses to engage then stalemate exists. And even when we get yet another SNP majority at Westminster and our negotiators start negotiating, what do we do if they just ignore us? We don’t really have any mechanism to bring actual pressure to bear. We can’t even divert tax collections without their consent as the system is not under our control, and even then we would need a substantial majority of our fellow citizens to support unilateral action. All the myriad states that have gained independence from Westminster have all had substantial majorities in favour. We have to work together constructively to achieve that.
READ MORE: 10 key moments from Humza Yousaf's first 100 days as First Minister
If international law was easy would we not already have gone down this route? If it is worth exploring formally then I welcome it, but beware any negative conclusion. In the meantime, we must still apply pressure through our current representation, and we still need to convince a fair majority of our citizens to support independence. If that could be demonstrated then we will get somewhere, but while Westminster encourages division and misdirection, we won’t. We need to stop doing their work for them. Fundamentally also, our SNP government and party cannot be seen to be condoning or even encouraging anything not within the law as it stands.
Nick Cole
Meigle, Perthshire
WHEN Nick Cole tells us that disgruntled activists don’t have a workable alternative to the FM’s plan (Letters, Jun 26), shouldn’t he be asking the pertinent question why those activists are disgruntled in the first place?
Isn’t it because voters have delivered a string of popular mandates in elections to both parliaments and yet his party has failed to capitalise on them?
I suspect Cole and his ilk fail to understand omelettes can’t be made without first cracking the egg.
READ MORE: Labour in their current form are just like the Tories only less honest
Doesn’t highlighting and confusing the issue with the surmountable complexities of disengaging Scotland from the Union serve no purpose other than to dissuade those tentative voters fearful of sanctioning change?
For me, the first step must be to commit to being independent. And I agree with Graeme McCormick (Long Letter, Jun 26) that the key to making that commitment is through our Westminster MPs elected under the auspices of the internationally recognised Act of Union itself. It is only through acting in accordance with that mechanism that we can legitimately take back our country.
And if that results in political confrontation then isn’t that entirely at the behest of our biggest UK “partner” exposing the actuality of its real standing as a colonial master occupying its foreign territory of Scotland, which it dominates and in doing so denies our right to democratic expression?
READ MORE: Orkney council to look at proposals to leave UK and become Norwegian territory
So, let’s make the coming General Election solely about independence. Let’s get all the issues out in the open and use the hustings to highlight Scotland’s future and potential, and explain how it will be delivered and in what timescale.
And let’s leave rUK to flounder in the futile choice of which colour of Tory party they want to try to drain the political swamp that is Brexit UK.
Let’s convene our democratically elected MPs at the old Scottish parliament in the High Street – the location of the 1707 calumny – assert our claim of right, vote to repeal the Act of Union and begin the transition that Westminster would find it internationally ruinous to obstruct.
With 62 territories having already gone down this route, doesn’t Westminster have all the experience necessary to ensure the smooth transition for its new neighbour and ally?
Jim Taylor
Edinburgh
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