INDEPENDENCE campaigners have welcomed the SNP’s proposals for a way forward to indyref2, but have raised some concerns over how it will work.
Rob Rosie, north-east regional convener of Young Scots for Independence, said the first priority for holding a referendum had to be securing a big SNP majority at the Holyrood elections.
“From there, if the UK Government is still refusing to agree to a referendum, then the plan is to do it without their agreement.
“I think that’s the right strategy, but it isn’t without risk,” he said.
“The UK Government could challenge the legality of such a referendum in court. There’s a strong legal argument in favour of a referendum on independence being within the Scottish Parliament’s competence, but it could go either way.
“Alternatively, the UK Government could do a ‘reverse Section 30 order’ where they legislate to put a referendum outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament.”
However he added whichever way the UK Government resisted a referendum it would mean they would be “standing against democracy”.
“That isn’t a good place to be in. In fact, it’s a very unpopular place to be in,” he said. “It’s where Donald Trump was for the past few weeks, and we can all see where he’s ended up now.”
He added: “I hope that at the National Assembly, the membership will get behind this plan and we can go forward as a unified movement. In terms of the campaign we’re in a good place just now – and the UK Government isn’t.”
Marlene Halliday, who is treasurer of Pensioners for Independence, said her personal view was a “thumbs up” for the overall plan.
She said: “The referendum needs to be set up so that it is recognised internationally.
“Section 30 is the straightforward way to do this. So it is sensible to go for this first. If – or when – Westminster refuses a Section 30 then Holyrood has been seen to try.
“That’s essential for international watchers. And I am certain that there will be many international watchers.”
However she said she had some queries over the plan, such as the meaning of “after the pandemic” in relation to the timing of a referendum – adding she would still be in favour of a vote in autumn this year even if Covid cases were high.
She said she would fully expect Westminster to refuse a Section 30 and go to court over a referendum, but was optimistic this would not be a long process.
Halliday added: “It could be that Westminster agrees to a Section 30 and then attempts to wangle the choices, the wording and maybe even the eligible electorate in their favour.
“I think that would be a cleverer option for Westminster than an outright refusal.”
Fran Hobson, of Mums for Scottish Independence, said she believed today’s National Assembly should be focused on discussing a Plan B.
She said: “Johnson is never going to agree to a Section 30 and in any case, although he talks a great deal about the need for democracy, what he means is democracy for England.
“What the Scottish people want doesn’t matter and we are not entitled to democracy. I think we need to show him we are entitled to it and we will fight to get it by other means if he denies us what is considered to be the gold standard.
“I think other nations would recognise it and, no matter what the vote here at home, Westminster and the establishment are never going to recognise it.
“They will seek to change goal post and raise the bars to us gaining independence.
“I don’t trust the English courts to see Scotland’s will as important and I think any judgement would be in favour of Westminster.” She added: “I’m not young and want to see independence for Scotland in my lifetime, for myself, my children and grandchildren and all the people of Scotland who deserve so much more than being ‘governed’ badly by a party we didn’t elect.
“Scotland is more than capable of governing itself but we need independence to do it.”
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