MIGHT I respectfully suggest that any proposed deal between the SNP and Labour, in order to be hopefully “granted” indyref2 powers, would be profoundly ill-considered?
Labour are dyed-in-the-wool Unionists who cannot be trusted to deliver on any deal which might lead to Scottish independence. It may be argued that the SNP leadership is cleverly trying to play strictly to Westminster rules so that the eventual referendum will be regarded as legally binding. However, even though Ian Blackford himself managed to get Westminster to accept Scotland’s Claim of Right, the harsh reality is that no London government is ever going to countenance another independence referendum, even if we have meticulously ticked all of their boxes.
Fundamentally, we should not approach independence with a mentality which implies dependence on Westminster for permission to hold indyref2. This would be a logical and moral contradiction. Independence, by definition, cannot be dependent – on deals with the Labour party or any other.
Billy Scobie
Alexandria
I WAS appalled at yesterday morning’s National headline (Give us indyref powers, October 7). This is a splendid example of the Scottish cringe. Why in the name of God should we have to appeal to an English old Etonian toff to give us the right to decide our future? Surely, Scotland should revoke the so-called Treaty of Union.
Neil M Shaw
Edinburgh
OH, what a tangled web we weave. The Tory hardliners have succeeded after all these years in opening Pandora’s Box and Brexit has emerged from it in all its fury. Chaos reigns with no end in sight. Sad but fitting to see the mother of parliaments writhing in agony in its death throes, thanks to English nationalism. Who would have thought this could ever happen? The truth is we cannot build democracy on a bed of lies, not if we want it to last.
Maureen Patton
Clydebank
PETER Bell (Letters, October 6) says he doesn’t understand why we need to find a route to independence that is legal within the current constitutional framework. One reason is that we are up against the British state which, when challenged, always resorts to violence (remember Kenya, Diego Garcia, Northern Ireland, the miners’ strike … all within living memory).
But the more potent reason is that independence must be supported by the majority of the Scottish people – and the bigger the majority, the better. There can be no short cuts to independence. Peter Bell proposes no credible alternative plan – and neither do other critics urging Nicola Sturgeon to be “bolder”.
With the polls at 50-50, we are still very far from reaching the level of support that is needed, though the ground is gradually shifting. The current impasse in Catalonia and the failure of the Quebec independence movement show what can happen when hubris takes over: we should not repeat these mistakes.
And actually, it’s perfectly clear what our priority must be: to win over those as yet unconvinced of the case for independence with relentless positivity, rather than to give in to self-indulgent musings.
Paddy Farrington
Edinburgh
IN his open letter to Nicola Sturgeon, Peter A Bell quotes Eleanor Roosevelt’s saying: “What one has to do can usually be done”. The Scottish Government is proceeding with legislation that would allow it to hold referendums in Scotland. He adds: “What you don’t do can be a destructive force”. The Scottish Parliament exists only as a parliament devolved by the Westminster Parliament. Breaking Westminster Parliament’s law is a “don’t do” that would result in the immediate destruction of the Scottish Parliament.
However, the Unionists in Westminster must rue the day that they gave Scotland its devolved parliament – the legislature capable of leading Scotland legally to independence with the consent of the people, provided that cool heads pay attention to the much older saying “Softly, softly, catchee monkey”.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry
IT was a delighted to read George Kerevan’s article looking 50 years in the future (It’s 2069 ... here’s what our marches 50 years ago REALLY achieved, October 7). It brought a tear to my eye thinking this could be the Scotland my grandchildren will be living in.
Will they remember me participating in AUOB marches? Will they know how much passion and work across the whole of Scotland went into gaining independence?
I do hope George’s vision is more than a dream, and our future will be bright. What a difference that would be in comparison to future we are facing now, thinking what the future holds for us as we are dragged out of the EU.
A Harrison
Biggar
IN yesterday’s paper Ruth Wishart made some unsubstantiated claims about the nature of the impatience of the supporters of independence who marched on Saturday (We must not let Johnson stand in way of indyref2, October 7). There’s an awareness of the need to engage with doubters in order to build the unassailable majority we need.
Pete Wishart, on the other hand, blogs about the need for hard work and patient debate – this is an argument which strikes home to this activist.
Those who expect our leaders to do all the heavy lifting and magic tricks to independence seem to ignore that as a nation achieving self-determination we need to take responsibility ourselves as well. There’s no shortcut to this, but doing this will enrich us all.
Cathie Lloyd
Letters, Lochbroom
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