MARKING a most successful and united SNP conference, with an inspirational First Minister declaring that indyref 2 was definitely on, with or without permission from a broken Westminster, a packed and rapturous audience, hingin frae
the rafters, clapped and roared
their approval.
This was in stark contrast to a Unionist poll which spectacularly backfired. This new Survation poll, commissioned by Scotland in Union, found that the SNP was on course to win at least 51 of the 59 Scottish seats in a General Election. And another poll has revealed that the SNP have a 23% lead for Westminster, a 24% lead for Holyrood and a 26% lead for European Parliament elections.
The time is now when we need to galvanise all SNP members and those of other parties and none to come together under the Yes banner and campaign for an independent Scotland run by the people who live, work and love in this rich and well-endowed land.
Grant Frazer
Newtonmore
TORY Cabinet minister David Lidington is the latest Unionist to parrot the phrase that a referendum on Scottish independence was meant to be a “once in a generation event” and thus implies that we Scots should get back in our box. Let’s nail this one down!
It is true that prior to the 2014 referendum the leadership of the SNP indicated that it would be a once-in-a-generation prospect. But it is simply unrealistic to deny that circumstances and events can instigate a change of view or of approach. For example, I recall a certain Ruth Davidson, shortly after her appointment as leader of the Scottish Conservatives, resolutely declaring that she was drawing a line in the sand over the devolution of additional powers to the Scottish Parliament. Her fortitude on that one quickly evaporated! There have been numerous further declarations and U-turns from her since then, particularly around the EU referendum and the pursuit of Brexit. But that’s OK, she is a Tory and a Unionist: different rules apply
But getting to the core points in relation to the “once in a generation” issue. 1) At best, Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon could only have spoken in those terms on behalf of the SNP, and at that point in time. 2) They could not, and did not, speak on behalf of the wider Yes movement, other political parties,
or individuals with no party affiliation. 3) Prior to the referendum, the membership of the SNP stood at some 15,000. That figure has since increased dramatically to circa 120,000. These new members have their own voice and cannot be governed, directed or limited by what the party leadership may have said in the period before they joined. That is democracy!
4) There is a long-standing convention that no incoming government is bound to follow or adhere to the policies, directions, statements etc pursued or proclaimed by any of its predecessors.
Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP were elected as a new government in 2016 and with a specific manifesto commitment concerning the circumstances in which a further independence referendum might take place. Quite frankly, that fact supersedes anything said previously on the subject.
Brian McGarry
Inverkeithing
I SEE in Friday’s National that we have a “world-leading” economist, Mr Andrew Hughes Hallett, supporting the prospectus for a Scottish currency as laid out in the Growth Report (Stability and flexibility are at the heart of the currency debate, April 26). Well, he would support it, considering he was involved in writing it. His article is written in Banker Speak and carefully chooses scenarios that fit his neoliberal agenda.
I notice that he avoids the simple scenario of a Scottish currency, from the first day of full independence, that would be the sole legal tender in Scotland and only legal tender in Scotland. This would prevent it from being traded on the international money markets and so protect it from attack. Changing the country’s money from GBP to Scots pounds would be no more difficult than when we changed from pounds, shillings and pence to decimal currency, given sensible planning.
It is clearly very stupid to use a currency over which we have absolutely no control, when it is completely unnecessary – unnecessary until you ask a banker, that is.
Just a thought, but I wonder if the “world-leading economist” foresaw the 2008 crash coming and cried out warnings from the roof tops. Strangely, I don’t remember
hearing them...
Tony Perridge
JAMES Kelly presented the case
for any indyref question to require a Yes/No answer and, while I agree,
I propose also that the question should be considered carefully (Why question must be Yes/No, April 27). In view of the fact that Scotland was an established
nation for some centuries before
the USA or most of the countries
of modern Europe, I propose that the correct question would be: “Should Scotland be an independent nation again?”
PM Dryburgh
ISN’T it a sad day that now the models for behaviour in public or on TV are the braying, insult-hurling Tory MPs and the wannabes who swill beer and hurl insults at anyone who dares to be “different”? In the US, Trump sets a low standard. In Europe, anti-anything decent is becoming the fashion too. There is, however, the dignity and honesty of a young climate protester, the compassion of the PM of New Zealand, the tolerance and integrity of Ian Blackford and his team. They give hope to those of us who simply want to be in charge of our own future. I hope the latter models will be those followed in the campaign to secure independence for Scotland.
E Ahern
East Kilbride
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 here