ALISTER Jack, the Secretary of State for Scotland, embodies the type of Conservative
MP which the Ruth Davidson revolution had supposedly banished from Scottish politics. Rich, landowning, expensively educated and wrapped in tweed, he also appears in fancy dress as a member of the Royal Company of Archers when the Queen undertakes ceremonial duties in Edinburgh.
This entitled back story would be irrelevant if he had been an effective advocate for Scotland during the tenure of his post. However, his Cabinet position is predicated on his enthusiastic Brexiteer credentials and he has remained anonymous while the Brexit process and the Internal Market Bill have been imposed on Scotland. Perhaps the best summation of his political effectiveness is that he has made his predecessor, David Mundell, appear almost dynamic.
READ MORE: John Major tells Boris Johnson not to rule out a second independence referendum
Last Friday, Mr Jack declared in a BBC interview that a Westminster Tory government would not sanction a second independence referendum for 40 years. This pronouncement certainly put the Scottish Secretary in the political spotlight for the first time since his appointment.
Timing is crucial to the art of politics so you have to ponder why, when Donald Trump is denying the democratic vote which confirmed his defeat and opinion polls show consistent majority support for Scottish independence, would Mr Jack announce that the constitutional question was settled until 2060. The total lack of strategic thought in this pronouncement is breathtaking. Does our Scottish Secretary really believe his rhetoric that the Scottish electorate has no democratic route to revisit this vital question for 40 years?
There is no clause in the 2012 Edinburgh Agreement which dictates the timing of, or excludes, a second referendum. Any political claim that it was once in a generation is crushed by the material change that is Brexit.
Alister Jack’s statement on independence will do nothing for his cause. It will simply be another signpost on the road to why Scotland must take charge of its own affairs.
Iain Gunn
Elgin
I FOUND it quite amusing to read the latest anti-indy drivel uttered by Alister Jack, a known Brexit man, in what was effectively a re-run of some of his previous unconstitutional remarks. Does any Scottish citizen actually take this grim-faced man seriously any more? His whole presentation of any coherent narrative on the subject is flawed and undemocratic.
READ MORE: Alister Jack’s referendum claim is straight out of the Trump playbook
What irks me more than this con of a Secretary of State for Scotland is the fact that the BBC actually give him a media platform to spout off his nonsense to the general public. The same applies to the other usual Tory suspect, Douglas Ross, who has now turned out to be a less popular Scottish Tory leader in Scotland than his failed predecessor Jackson Carlaw, in spite of all the efforts that have been made by the Johnson government to provide him with a BBC media platform and favoured tabloid coverage to boost his image.
His recent anti-indy lies/rants on the BBC were astounding but it is good to hear individuals like Jack and Ross resorting to infantile name-calling and cheap rhetoric/lies – a good indicator that they are losing the fight against Scottish self-determination. LONG MAY IT CONTINUE!!!
Bernie Japs
Edinburgh
UNION Jack and his mates are saying that we should not be allowed another referendum on independence until 2054. That is presumably based on the concept that Westminster’s sovereignty lets them deny us that right.
At the same time, the Westminster sovereignty principle says that no parliament’s decision can bind a subsequent parliament.
So what exactly is Jack telling us here? That the next Westminster parliament (2024 at latest) is bound to deny us a referendum because a previous parliament decreed it so? But they’re not bound by that previous parliament’s decisions...
Help, I’m getting confused.
Andrew McCracken
Grantown on Spey
I WRITE regarding the letter from Airdrie for Independence (November 7), which called for a Scottish Referendum Fund to be established. There are many organisations carrying out valuable pro-indy work, and most of them do some form of fundraising. Only one such body will be designated the “Lead Campaign Group” by the Electoral Commission, and it will certainly need to raise substantial funding. No organisation has received this designation yet, however, and that won’t happen for some time.
Meanwhile, only one organisation exists to raise money for funding the wide range of pro-indy groups. The Scottish Independence Foundation (SIF) was formed in summer 2018 and, to date, has distributed £170k in grants to about 100 organisations. The National has reported on many of the projects which we have funded and hopefully will be doing so again quite soon.
READ MORE: A statement written on behalf of the Airdrie for Independence group
If anyone wants to fund grassroots campaigning right now – rather than wait for the referendum itself – then they can do so through our website, www.SIF.scot, where you can make one-off donations or set up regular ones. For organisations needing support now, the website also explains what type of work we fund and how to apply for a grant.
Meanwhile, good luck to the many pro-indy groups that are working hard to achieve our national independence.
Your work gets more important every day.
Greg McCarra
Chief Executive, SIF
I SENT an email to a friend on Saturday saying that Boris , Dominic and other prominent Brexiteers will not be popping the “champers” in Downing Street this weekend. “Aye” was his reply ... “they’ll be Biden in.”
Graham Noble
Kinlocheil
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