THOUGH I’m not sure whether his biblical Exodus metaphor was wise, I find myself broadly in agreement with Dr Elliot Bulmer on the necessity of a written constitution for an independent Scotland (Scotland’s ‘constitutional moment’ has arrived – the SNP must act, Jul 4), and that the building of such a constitution, led but not dominated by the Scottish Government, could give the Yes movement the impetus it needs in the run-up to our promised post-Covid indyref2
A draft constitution, built from the ground up by the whole of the Yes movement and civic Scotland, could be a way of energising our grassroots movement, focusing on independence, and raising the sights towards indyref 2.
READ MORE: Scotland’s 'Constitutional Moment' has arrived – the SNP must act
We all need to participate in the drafting of a written constitution for an independent Scotland that can command broad support.
The Scottish Government should take the initiative on this, but make it a non-party-political issue to which every Scottish citizen and group can contribute. The constitution can then be put to a vote of the Scottish people as soon as independence itself is secured.
And, making a contribution to that very discussion, in my view the constitution should enshrine both representative democracy and mass direct democracy for a future independent Scotland.
That is to say, political policy should be decided by the mandates and leeway given to the elected government of the day, but all major constitutional or existential matters that cross party boundaries are put to the whole Scottish people in peoples’ referenda.
For instance, whether or not to rejoin the EU, or to be part of EFTA, or to retain an open border on the basis of the current status quo. Or whether or not to retain the monarchy and its feudal appendages or become a modern democratic republic. Other such issues may suggest themselves to your readers.
Referenda results should be binding and not be revisited for a period of three parliamentary terms or 15 years, whichever is the greatest, to reassure soft No or Yes voters we won’t forever revisit issues in our indy Scotland, but that things decided by the people can be changed by the people if they don’t work out.
Independence is about giving the Scottish people REAL choice, and a constitution should reflect that democratic trust in the Scottish people.
Steve Arnott
Inverness
AS repeatedly evidenced in the letters pages of Scotland’s newspapers (with the exception of The National), the “penny” does not appear to have yet dropped for many of those who question the economic viability of an independent Scotland. While most pro-Union politicians know, but will not openly admit, that the greater economic concern is for an independent England, the general public, regrettably aided and abetted by less-than-objective media commentators, are inveigled into thinking that it is Scotland that will struggle (even should it decide to “re-join” the EU, perhaps after first joining EFTA).
Shorn of the relatively much greater resources of Scotland, how will a country that wishes to become the “successor state” of the UK, and thus would assume the UK’s huge debt of more than two trillion pounds, economically survive never mind prosper? Even with the immense past economic advantage arising from the exploitation of the resources of its empire colonies and more recently the oil and gas reserves of Scotland, the UK is currently among the poorest states, relative to GDP, in Europe (the lowest wealth per person in north-west Europe, according to the IMF).
READ MORE: Study exposes UK as 'poor man of north-west Europe' and sparks independence call
In reality the best prospects for those who remain in a near-bankrupt England will be founded on the enlightenment gained from the commercial and social successes of more vibrant smaller economies (such as that of the country to its immediate north), not on erecting more “cultural barriers” in pursuit of an arrogant ideological agenda that’s increasingly out of step with a more interconnected and more humanitarian world.
Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian
TO those people who bemoan the fact that one poll has dipped below 50% for independence, I would point out that a consistent majority exists for under-50s in Scotland. In fact a recent Panelbase survey for The Sunday Times found support for independence at a remarkable 62% among Scots aged 16-35. But Scots of all ages are now realising that only with independence can a fairer and more equal society be attained.
However, for young people, who have only endured UK Tory governments they did not vote for, leaving the EU was a game-changer. They see Scots being asked to remain part of a UK in which they have no real say as unacceptable.
READ MORE: Independence poll putting Yes on 48 per cent must be ‘wake-up call for SNP'
In recent events independence is not only about choice and economics but more specifically about Scotland’s democrats rights as a nation. To remain in a mutually agreed union for the sake of solidarity or togetherness, when the UK does not now espouse such principles, is not an option.
Make no mistake, unlike many countries in the last 60 years, Scotland is not seeking to gain independence, it is only seeking to regain it.
Grant Frazer
Newtonmore
NI HOLMES writes (Letters, Jul 6) of “the third in line to the throne” attending a church service to celebrate the work of staff in the NHS. I assume he is referring to HRH The Duke of Cambridge, who is in fact second in line to the throne. As we used to say in the army, “from the right, number”. Hence, Prince of Wales, “One”. His son, the Duke of Cambridge, “Two”. Not difficult at all, really.
Keith Halley
Dalkeith
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