Scottish independence: not every question can be answered in advance

Mike Russell not only demonstrated very clearly that the SNP are willing to involve others in shaping the campaign arguments but also nailed the topic which I consider to be the most important undertaking of an independent Scotland. He showed how the process to a new Scotland is as much about protecting what is good in Scotland from the ravages of Westminster as it is about what will be new. Lord knows we need it.

READ MORE: Michael Russell: Some choices about our future are for after independence

I was particularly pleased to read acknowledgement of the work done by Dr Elliot Bulmer. If he is unfamiliar to readers, then they may wish to read Dr Bulmer’s highly informative and easy to read discussion paper on an interim constitution, “Foundations for Freedom.” This paper is not merely just another draft constitution document like those presented by the many constitutional interest groups vying for position. Such draft constitutions have clearly been thoroughly researched and widely discussed but can be somewhat daunting for the average reader.

Most importantly of all, Dr Bulmer’s paper deals with the ubiquitous “unanswered question” and demonstrates very clearly that unanswered questions need not be a barrier to independence. Indeed, answering some questions, even on an informed basis, is a poor substitute for laying down the mechanisms of state. Because, let’s face it, nobody has a crystal ball, so what do we do in the event that circumstances change and we have to come up with a new answer? Or in light of Westminster’s ongoing power abuse, how do we ensure safeguards should we need to alter the mechanisms of state if they are found wanting?

Because it answers so many questions we read or hear on a daily basis, Dr Bulmer’s paper may also be just the tonic the indy movement needs right now. Perhaps The National could consider giving it some further exposure in future editions?

Well done Mike Russell for unselfishly acknowledging Dr Bulmer’s work.

Iain Jack
Blairgowrie

I AM writing in response to Mike Russell’s article about a constitution for independence in Saturday's National.

I find it astonishing that, at this time, the president of the Scottish National Party with responsibility for the planning for the independence campaign can adopt a tone of such complacency.

I do not know Mr Russell and I have no doubt that he is an amiable and decent politician, but the patronising tone of his article about the efforts of many activists does him little credit.

We are daily hearing of examples of Westminster’s efforts to diminish, belittle and refuse the Scottish Government’s efforts to come out of lockdown and to deal with the dreadful impact of Brexit.

READ MORE: Pandemic is no excuse for forelock-tugging attitude of the SNP leadership

While First Minister Sturgeon has spoken of working towards a referendum when Covid is over, the Westminster government have been tireless in their efforts to promote “the Union”. They have also been behind the scenes in supermarket chains manoeuvring to undermine the Scottish economy.

It is very clear that Holyrood is going to be starved of cash in various ways. Any promises of pre-Brexit help to fishermen and farmers is unlikely to come their way. The current Chancellor comes to Scotland and waffles without any clear offer of assistance.

Sir Christopher Chope’s Bill to get rid of the Barnett formula is another strand of this exercise. Right-wing Tories at this moment feel emboldened by the helplessness of the SNP MPs.

I am puzzled by the SNP supporters who write angrily about those who argue for some urgency. Are they so confident of the Scottish Government’s management that they believe they can withstand the onslaught?

I absolutely support the SNP government’s efforts to manage the hazards of Covid . But I am also very worried that they will come out of this in six or nine months’ time and there will be little revenue and few powers left to enable us to advance to independence.

Maggie Chetty
Glasgow

“INDEPENDENCE is about allowing choices, not closing them down.” I agree wholeheartedly with the point above from Mike Russell. And I would also agree with many of his general points when he observes that some things will have to wait until after independence.

Unfortunately, he does not make it clear that that should include – among its most prime examples – the matter of the EU. I have always argued the democratic and principled case that any decision on rejoining the EU or EFTA should be put to a referendum of the Scottish people once our independence is achieved, with our national debate being informed on the arguments and circumstances of that time.

Getting indy first, and promising Scots their say on the EU post-indy, is a way of uniting all potential Yes voters round a Yes vote when indyref2 comes.

If the SNP “tie” the indyref offer to EU membership too closely, we are likely to lose at least some of the one in three Yes voters who are EU-sceptic, making it harder to win.

There are some choices Scotland should make only AFTER we get independence, so they do not DIVIDE us before the indyref vote. Being in or out of the EU is a prime example of a potentially divisive issue for indyref2 that can only be resolved by promising Scots their own choice, in their own referendum, on the EU, EFTA or status quo options ONCE independence is achieved.

There would be a big boost in the opinion polls for independence if Mike Russell and Nicola Sturgeon came out and made that position abundantly clear.

Steve Arnott
Inverness