Truly ‘unsustainable’ pressure for indy can only come from voting

For the “hold” strategy to work, three things must happen. One, opinion polls continue to show a steady increase in support for independence until it rises beyond 60%. Two, once there have been a large number of opinion polls showing 60%+ support, the UK Government will yield to this democratic pressure and give “permission” for Scotland to hold a referendum. Three, other than the small matter of us being removed from Europe against our will, there will not be significant constitutional change post-Brexit.

READ MORE: Pete Wishart: Indy Plan B could see Scotland in 'hellish limbo' like Catalonia

Let’s for the sake of argument accept that the first of these may happen in the not-too-distant future. When the second proposition is considered only in relation to the first, it has an air of credibility. When considered in relation to the third, it becomes more problematic.

Faced with the imperative need to negotiate a favourable trade agreement with the United States, a trade agreement where, as Mr Trump has told us, “everything will be on the table”, including the NHS, will the most right-wing UK Government since the days of Margaret Thatcher become more willing to accommodate Scotland than they currently seem disposed to do?

If the current powers of the Scottish Government get in the way of a favourable trade deal, how is the UK Government likely to act? Which pressure are they more likely to feel? This is where the “hold” strategy falls down.

READ MORE: SNP Plan B rebel backs call for debate on alternative route to independence

The UK will not roll out the Section 30 red carpet for us to vote on our future on the basis of opinion polls. Truly “unsustainable” pressure, recognised by Europe and the international community, will only be exerted at the ballot box. A consensual referendum can be withheld by the UK Government ad infinitum, but the democratic will of the Scottish people must not be denied. If the SNP do not use Holyrood 2021 to give Scotland the right to decide its future, they will share the blame with the UK Government for the damage done by Brexit.

Jim Daly
Edinburgh

I’M a bit tired of MP Wishart and his ilk constant talking down anyone proposing alternatives to a Section 30 route to independence.

It has been shown to fail on several attempts, and an alternative must be given practical consideration. Depending on Westminster “goodwill” means that in 100 years we’ll be in the same place as we are now. Westminster has no intention of granting a Section 30 unless it is certain independence will be rejected. It hopes that constant refusal will demoralise the independence movement and Scotland will become submissive once again.

MPs like Mr Wishart should be acting like a fly in the eye to Westminster, getting up its nose at every opportunity, and stop playing along with the system.

However distasteful, they might consider the alternatives and they must give them a try. The SNP must also consider how many terms an MP can stay there so that they don’t become institutionalised by the place.

The SNP and its MPs must act soon or be bypassed on the road to independence. The tide is flowing amongst the general population, and they can either take advantage of it or be swept aside.

Drew Reid
Falkirk

I CAN only imagine that Pete Wishart is trolling the Yes movement when he gave his “little bit of advice” to those who are extolling some kind of Plan B ~route to independence in the event of the SNP failing to gain permission from Westminster to hold a new independence referendum, as there has been no shortage of discussion of how a Plan B would operate, and I’ll type this slowly so that Pete can understand it.

There is nothing to stop the SNP including in their manifesto that should they win a majority in the Holyrood election (or indeed any forthcoming Westminster election) then that would taken as permission from the Scottish people for the SNP to commence independence negotiations with London.

This was (pre-devolution) the commonly accepted route to independence and is the exact same tactic that the LibDems used when they said they would cancel Brexit if elected.

By using every election as a de facto referendum, this bypasses the hurdle of having Westminster veto every request the SNP make.

The downside to this approach is of course that the SNP may lose the support of some voters who choose their party for competent governance within the Union, something I’m sure is not lost on the likes of Mr Wishart, who barely clung on to his seat in 2017.

There is gradualism and glacialism, and at the present time the SNP appears to have adopted the latter, and the internal infighting over seats, candidacies and list positions suggests to me a party happy to govern North Britain, not one which is kicking down the barriers to creating an independent Scotland.

James Cassidy
Airdrie

SO Mr Wishart thinks that Plan B could lead to a “hellish limbo”. What sort of limbo does he think we are currently in – good, bad or indifferent?

Mr Wishart doesn’t support seeking a majority for independence at the next Scottish Parliamentary election because, according to him, it would be just a one-issue election. He’s clutching at straws here. What did he think the the last General Election was about, if not Brexit?

I don’t understand the apparent lack of interest in the People’s Action Section 30 case, which is in its early stages. The opinion of senior counsel about the constitutionality of a referendum legislated for by the Scottish Parliament is available online. It’s worth a read Clearly the case can be argued. Will be Scottish Government join in to support the case? They are surely going to have to take a position.

Roddie Macpherson
Avoch