IT’S less than a year to the next Holyrood election, after which there will be three more years till the next Westminster one. But the high importance of those time factors for the independence movement is overlooked in current discourse. If the SNP sticks to its posture of supplicating London for a referendum, there’s not the slightest indication we will get it, if ever, while the Tories remain in power. If we win Holyrood, we’ll be twiddling our thumbs till at least May 2024, and how fractious might the movement be by then?
The question of the need for London’s say-so is currently the subject of Forward As One’s court action. There could be several stages before that is resolved, the outcome is uncertain, and no-one has a clue what the SNP’s position would be. Meantime, there are tensions, which could burst at any time, over the Salmond mess, the Brexit disaster, the the pandemic, various policy issues, and the perplexing embargo on pushing for independence.
Is there a démarche which the SNP could adopt to relegate those difficulties, unify the whole movement and bring about a proper independence plebiscite under their own steam? Well, yes there is, and it’s staring us in the face. It’s the method which was always SNP policy, was always taken to be the obvious route by London itself, and which is beyond doubt fully legal and constitutional. That is to use an election as the plebiscite. It can easily be done through the appropriate manifesto, and its propriety can be enhanced by including a requirement for a majority of votes cast, making it as directly democratic as any referendum.
It is preposterous to put the blame for our own fecklessness on London, which in its very rare statements on the point has always accepted Scotland’s right to independence if its people so choose. It has no obligation to help us, though, and so why the SNP insists that London must do so, by granting consent to a referendum, is a mystery of mysteries. The SNP’s servile line has become an obstacle to independence, because it gives London a veto to which it neither has nor claims any right. There is no rationale for it whatsoever.
If the SNP wants to proceed by referendum, it should tell London that if Section 30 permission is not forthcoming by a certain date its manifesto will turn the Holyrood election in May into a plebiscite on independence. Only under that threat might London concede, but otherwise the plebiscitary election could proceed without further reference to Westminster. Following a Yes to independence at Holyrood, at an appropriate time the Scottish MPs would by majority leave Westminster and set up a sovereign Scottish parliament, and the steps to fully effect independence could take place, whatever they might be. Doubtless, independence negotiations with London would have commenced by then.
It’s not London we have to convince. It’s the people of Scotland. Circumstances are right. Public appraisal of the SNP Government is high and indy support is holding up. The time is upon us. Are we afraid of losing? Or are we afraid of winning?
Alan Crocket
Motherwell
I ENJOYED Shona Craven’s piece on queuing, but surely flat pack manufacturers at least have the advantage over Westminster in that they usually have a few screws missing.
Richard Easson
Dornoch
WHY is it that every time I see Boris Johnson and his cabinet on TV they appear to be hiding something? Could it be the obfuscation and the reluctance to answer the simplest of questions, using instead memorised statements from their media coaches.
The contrast between them and Nicola Sturgeon is stark. The answer is, of course, they have a great deal to hide – dodgy deals with Trump, no deals with the EU and a reluctance to reveal exactly how many people have been taken by Covid.
This shifty bunch of charlatans have the power ... for now.
Mike Herd
Highland
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