I FOUND Iain Gunn’s long letter in the Sunday National (August 9) very interesting – interesting, but not persuasive.
1. He began by painting a hypothetical scenario in which the strategy of voting SNP in the constituency vote and voting for another party in the list vote, has been very successful. I take issue with that idea. It could indeed be so, but there is no certainty that such a strategy would be successful, and it is my opinion that it would not succeed. I envisage a sustained campaign by the Unionist press and media to encourage us to adopt this idea, in which case it would probably be a failure (from our perspective and a huge success from theirs) and we would have squandered a promising opportunity.
2. I understand the mechanism of how the D’Hondt voting process works, and I thank him for his explanation. I do wonder, however, why, if he really does think that a split vote is a solution, he favours some party which has recently been set up (regarding which we have no background information at all), and does not think to spare many words on the Scottish Greens.
If a split vote works at all, why would it not work if we gave our second vote to the Greens? All it would need would be a prior arrangement with the SNP to withhold their own candidature for the list vote. So I would be grateful if Mr Gunn would write another letter to explain, in some detail, exactly why he wants a split vote to be given to a new party and would not advocate the giving of that vote to the Greens. I would be very interested indeed to read such an explanation.
READ MORE: What SNP voters told pollsters about their support for Salmond and Sturgeon
3. I think that the length of time for which he suggests we wait patiently for a referendum on independence (about five years) is very much too long. That would give ample time for the Westminster Government to get up to all kinds of mischief – reducing the powers of Holyrood, introducing new powers to Westminster, denying us access to legitimate sources of funding, giving the technical advantage of Scotland’s immense renewable energy assets to others elsewhere.
In the past I have advocated taking our legal argument to external authorities, like the UN and EU. On further reflection, however, I favour a two-pronged assault – the first, in a domestic context, for our own independence, and the second, aimed at those external authorities, would be an attack on all legislatures which have no satisfactory constitution.
The world’s attention is currently on Lebanon, but there are others, perhaps not so dramatic, but, as in our own case, insidious. An unwritten constitution, which can be changed on a whim, without a prescribed mechanism for doing that, is, if I may coin a phrase an “unconstitutional constitution”. The UN/EU would surely be willing to express an opinion on that.
Hugh Noble
Appin
FURTHER to David Henry’s letter (Sunday National, August 9) concerning the continuation of the governance from Holyrood, I have written previously within the wider Yes movement and a letter to this newspaper regarding this matter.
As a great deal of damage can and will be done to Scotland between January 1, 2021 and the May elections. Much of it will be hidden behind the guise of resurgent Covid-19 requiring a UK-wide effort.
The real reason will, of course, be the reducing of all devolved powers and the power grab. I would suggest, that the election be brought forward to this November (albeit postal) and following a manifesto commitment to independence, and with a strong Yes vote we will have time to notify the UK, EU and UN of our intention to resile the various documents tying us to UK.
The postal election could be overseen by a neutral observation team, perhaps The Finnish government, to ensure fairness.
M Ross
Aviemore
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