I SO agree with Andrew Wilson that “it is not sufficient to be against what is happening to the UK [Brexit, Boris etc]. Confidence is also needed in what can happen for Scotland.”
He is absolutely right too that “our case must be honest”, recognising the challenges but being ambitious about the opportunities, “candid about the risks of not choosing independence”, recognising that people find change difficult. I hope – and believe – he is right that at the next referendum “we will win going on for 60% of the vote”, and that moving forward into independence will be “hard work … challenging” – something else we need to be candid about.
However, Wilson misses two points. First, who has been doing the work to develop ideas that will develop confidence “in what can happen for Scotland”? This is tough criticism of Andrew Wilson, whose “Sustainable Growth Commission” report runs to 354 pages. It alone will not be an adequate foundation for an independent Scotland.
In 2014 there was for me, too often, a sense of uneasiness that too many propositions, while usually on the right track, were not completely thought through. Or that too many were developed “on the hoof” during the referendum debate. It is almost impossible to know when the next referendum will be held, but I regret the failure to use the time since September 2014 to further develop not just the case for independence, but of the possibilities for what Scotland could achieve, what it might be if it were outside of the UK. Let’s not allow any more time to be lost!
However, Wilson’s report illustrates a second point. It has not been universally welcomed in its entirety, particularly with regard to currency. In particular, Robin McAlpine and Craig Dalzell of Common Weal have been prominent critics. No doubt during a referendum this would be portrayed as “split in Yes”, “independence in chaos”, when the reality is that it’s a debate in the independence movement.
I often regret Yes Scotland being so precipitately shut down after September 2014. In a much reduced form, with minimal costs, it could have acted as a forum for such debates, reaching across political divides even to those of us of no party. Perhaps there is still time for something such as this to be created, maybe through Voices for Scotland or the Independence Convention? As they say, “it’s good to talk”.
It is not even that these debates necessarily need to come to a conclusion, for much that is to be debated will be matters for the first independent Scottish Parliament, and so matters for the electorate, not the author of “Scotland’s Future Mark 2”, something I earnestly hope can be avoided, as the case has been made otherwise.
Wilson’s sentiments and direction are fine, but we need an open, wider and more detailed debate about the case for independence and the future of our country once this is achieved.
Alasdair Galloway
Dumbarton
NICOLA calls for a national effort to respond to global warming, while Andrew Wilson tells us we need to build a positive alternative to “Johnson’s Britain”. Well what is glaringly obvious to me is that any real attempt to effectively address global warming will require a major shift in the economic structure in Scotland.
Such a major change would require substantial government investment and direction in the Scottish economy of the size and significance that could not be done (a) without the Scottish Government having full economic powers in a politically independent Scotland and (b) the Scottish Government having control of monetary policy, and money supply with its own domestic currency.
Andrew says our work in building a new independent Scotland will not be easy and that we must be “honest, and clear, recognising the challenges, but ambitious and positive”. I agree with him that this is essential. Well what is crystal clear is that a neoliberal UK, whether led by Johnson or by a more honest, intelligent politician, will not be able to address the huge public investment commitment which such a policy requires.
Scotland’s young people are much more aware of this issue than the media are. The wee 15-year-old lassie from Glasgow who told the panel of Tory would be leaders that she was not impressed by their comments on this issue, because as she correctly pointed out “this is not a question for tomorrow it is a question for now” and is she not absolutely right?
If we are not taking this issue into our forward planning today when developing our political strategies, then we are missing the point. The UK leadership and potential leadership are missing the point, we need to be much better than them.
If we in the Scottish independence movement, behave and act like them, not facing this issue head on, and pretending that the neoliberal market system can deal with this in the UK, or in a new Scotland run on the same outdated economic failings, then we are not addressing the issue properly, and we are less than honest if we pretend that we are.
Andy Anderson
Saltcoats
ONCE again we see the narrow, blinkered minds, of the “Little Englanders” intent upon their war against Europe in ensuring that “Battering-ram” Boris remains at the head of the ruling Tory party. One has to admire the outright contempt for truth for all the world to see because there is nowhere to hide from now on. The bold Mr Johnson looks like a bewildered man in a dream state being led by the nose to goodness knows where – he is the willing scapegoat for the calamity awaiting the UK. Only he can use language to offend and inflame. Those pulling his leash will fade into obscurity eventually.
Thankfully, Scotland has made its stance known in good time to disassociate itself from these heinous activities. Can anyone in Westminster dare to attempt deny us our independence now?
Janet Cunningham
Stirling
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