MICHAEL Fry as always presents a robust case for his view, but Tuesday’s piece (This is why a ‘DIY’ indyref2 won’t be able to deliver our independence, January 21) errs in a number of regards.
First of all, we all know that a “do-it-yourself referendum” is not the policy of the Scottish Government. However, I am certain Mr Fry knows perfectly well that “things change”. I have considered for some time that the policy of our First Minister has been that, when the time comes to face the electorate in another independence referendum, she can say that she tried every possibility and argument with regard to staying in the EU in some form and also with securing an agreed route with Westminster to hold another referendum. Westminster closed off both these routes, so this is where we are. In short, a do-it-yourself referendum is not their policy just now, but perhaps in the future?
READ MORE: Michael Fry: Here's why ‘DIY’ indyref2 won’t deliver independence
Secondly, political control of our local councils is a matter of public record, but it is no less true that should the Scottish Government secure a majority at Holyrood for a bill instructing local councils to support a “do-it-yourself referendum” which would not offend the control Westminster claims over the constitution (which Aidan O’Neill QC considers possible), then no matter the political control it would be unlawful for the chief executive/returning officer to do other than follow the instruction of the Scottish Government.
Thirdly, he is, I think, right that the Westminster government would advise its supporters in Scotland to boycott any such referendum. The disadvantage for the Yes side is that anyone else who doesn’t vote, owing to such impediments as having passed away or being seriously ill in hospital, or just not that well motivated, would count as a No vote. With that said though, the aim of the Yes side must be to secure 50% +1 of the electorate or as close to this as necessary for victory to still be claimed. The outcome would carry no legal weight, but considerable political significance.
However, the most serious weakness in Fry’s article is his argument that “If we stick to [a referendum agreed with London], nobody will be able to argue in future that the achievement of Scottish independence is somehow illegitimate.” Fry cites Ireland a century ago as a warning of the dangers of straying from this path. Yet a referendum is not the only path, as the division of Czechoslovakia to its present Czechia and Slovakia illustrates. Here there was no referendum – indeed opinion polling suggested support for division was down at about 39%. The ultimate cause was the view of their politicians – both nationalist – that they simply could not work together. What sort of colleagues does Mr Fry consider Boris and Nicola might make?
Lastly, does Mr Fry ever see any eventuality where Boris would grant a S30 Order? Would he not rather “die in a ditch”?
Alasdair Galloway
Dumbarton
MICHAEL Fry states as a “fact” that “there is not an actual majority of Scottish voters in favour of independence, but only 45% of them.” That percentage would appear to be taken directly from the 2014 vote, and more recent polling gives higher numbers, but with some doubt over survey inclusion and methodology the truth is we currently do not really know. It was gratifying therefore to see last week’s crowdfunder quickly fill to enable Scotland Goes Pop to hold a proper poll, the results of which I’m sure we all look forward to seeing.
The other significant crowdfunder filled last week is to test in court whether the Scottish Government can legally hold an advisory independence referendum without a S30. A successful outcome for this would surely eliminate Michael’s fears of returning officers refusing to cooperate.
David Simpson
Falkirk
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