HOW nice it was to see an article by Alex Salmond in The National. Not a party political article, much less a factional article; just an article focusing, in the context of the death of Sean Connery, on our shared love of Scotland and desire for independence.
You might be forgiven for wondering where that love of Scotland and desire for independence has gone when you read the endless squabbling and egocentric actions and announcements. I understand that people want to lead their own little part of the independence movement. But to risk splitting the independence vote just to satisfy their egos and their particular view of what independence will look like?
I understand Salmond feels aggrieved by the way he has been treated, but to turn that into a battle against the SNP (which, let me remind him and everyone, is the only vehicle through which we will gain our independence) and the First Minister (who, let me remind him and everyone, is a fallible human being like the rest of us and capable of memory-failure and misjudgments)?
If I may borrow a well-worn phrase, now is not the time. Now, with support for independence at an almost unassailable level were we to hold a referendum tomorrow, with support for the SNP and our First Minister at an almost unbelievable level after a decade in government, is not the time to attack all we have fought for for so long.
Fortunately most of the electorate doesn’t follow internal politics with any great interest and I think it unlikely that the person on the Newhaven omnibus would have much of an opinion on the NEC or the squabbles around selection rules. However, there are limits and much more of this and the mainstream media will catch on and build a new case for Scotland being not only too wee and too puir but also too stupid (seriously?
Major figures in the independence movement choosing this moment to attack each other? Seriously? Aggrieved minor figures in the independence movement inventing ways of splitting the independence vote?) to go it alone.
There are different ways to ca’ canny. One – which we have followed successfully – is to wait until support for independence reaches a certain level before planning for a second referendum. I think the official refusal to consider Plan B is part of that, and although my heart disagrees, my head knows it’s wise if we are not to end up like Catalunya. But there’s another way too and I think it’s essential: to haud oor wheesht about our dissatisfactions with the SNP or the wider independence movement.
When we have our independence, let our Scottish love of free speech run free and flourish. But now, no. Close ranks, stand under one banner and speak with one voice. This cause is far too vital to lose just to make a point or to feel important for a day.
Max Marnau
Selkirk
ON UN Day last month, the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was ratified by its 50th country, triggering a 90-day countdown before nuclear weapons become illegal under binding international law.
On behalf of UK-based partner organisations of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN, the 2017 Nobel Peace Laureate), we welcome this treaty as a game-changer in banning the development, manufacture, testing, deployment, possession and use of nuclear weapons and laying the groundwork for their total elimination. The treaty also prohibits giving assistance to others in these illegal endeavours.
Already, international banks and financial institutions are divesting from nuclear-related activities, informed by ICAN’s “Don’t Bank on the Bomb” campaign. While the UK Government may not currently support this multilateral disarmament treaty, Britain cannot afford to ignore its political, financial and legal impacts.
The Scottish Government publicly endorses this Nuclear Ban Treaty, which will help to rid Scotland of Trident and end the dangerous transportation of warheads between Faslane, Coulport, and Berkshire’s bomb factories, Aldermaston and Burghfield. Local and county councils are lining up to join Manchester, Edinburgh, Oxford and Renfrewshire (and international cities and states including Paris, Washington DC and California) with legislation to support the treaty’s implementation.
Nuclear weapons are dangerous security risks, not assets. They are useless for tackling today’s major threats like Covid, climate and biodiversity destruction. Whether intentionally or accidental, nuclear weapon use would have catastrophic humanitarian consequences.
As the treaty enters into force on January 22, 2021, we urge the Government to engage more constructively, and, until the UK signs, to participate as an observer in meetings of states parties and contribute British expertise on disarmament verification.
Dr Rebecca Johnson, ICAN International Steering Group; Ben Donaldson, United Nations Association UK; Dr Gari Donn, United Nations House Scotland; Janet Fenton, UN House Scotland/WILPF; Prof Alan Maryon-Davis FFPH FRCP, Medact; Paula Shaw, WILPF UK; Dr Stuart Parkinson Scientists for Global Responsibility; Dr Kate Hudson, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; Greenpeace UK; Angie Zelter, Trident Ploughshares; Tim Devereux, Movement for the Abolition of War; Prof Lynn Jamieson, Scottish CND; PDavid Maxwell, Christian CND; Kenneth Wardrop, Stirling CND; ; Marian Pallister, Pax Christi Scotland; Dr Lesley Morrison, MEDACT (Scotland); Gina Langton, 80,000 Voices; Brian Larkin, Peace and Justice Centre
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