AS much as I admire Angus MacNeil, I am beginning to find the ever increasing ranks of those who seem to think they want independence “more” than others in the SNP, or wider independence movement, somewhat irritating (Dirty tricks show we need a Plan B more than ever, October 21).
Lest Angus forget, the current referendum route is in fact “Plan D” or “Plan E”.
We all remember that Margaret Thatcher said a majority of SNP seats at Westminster was a mandate. Well we’ve done that three times now and are not independent.
READ MORE: Scottish independence: Tory war game to stop referendum makes Plan B ‘vital’
Then Nicol Stephen of the LibDems said a referendum wasn’t even necessary, all the SNP had to do was win a majority in Holyrood. Well that was achieved also and we are not yet independent.
The bottom line is that in all and any circumstances Unionism will say “No”, whether in a referendum or via an election result.
Unionism sets impossible goals until they look like being met, then they simply move on to setting the next hurdle. Indeed British nationalists are already looking to move the goalposts on franchise for any future referendum.
That is precisely why we must remain constant in our belief in the “gold standard” set in 2014.
READ MORE: Scottish independence: Dirty tricks show we need a Plan B more than ever
The standalone referendum allows voters to concentrate on that one defining issue alone.
Unless Angus has forgotten, the SNP in Edinburgh also has to govern, and win Holyrood elections to do so.
If people are put off from that because it could automatically lead to independence then your government could fall, and with it any prospect of the referendum; or a Plan B, C or D.
A loss of a handful of seats allows for the possibility of a Better Together alliance taking Holyrood.
That would make any “Boris Veto” a moot point and set Scotland back a generation.
Henry Malcolm
Dundee
I NOTED Cameron Crawford’s observation about answering a constitutional question with a calculator (Letters, October 17).
Of course not; we answer a constitutional question with a constitution, which is why we all need to engage with the work done by Constitution for Scotland, which you can find on the interactive website www.constitutionforscotland.scot.
There is an opportunity to comment on the draft, to propose changes and the like. Importantly, you can register a quick vote as well as make comments.
A constitution defines the vision for a country, then the people become the custodians of that vision and the politicians follow. Then the constitution helps answer the doorstep questions.
We will be writing further in The National, but need your active involvement now.
John C Hutchison
Secretary, Constitution for Scotland
WE in the Trade Justice Scotland Coalition, and many others in our country, are concerned about the US-UK trade deal being negotiated in secret.
This is a high-risk deal which could undermine many things which we value and will affect us in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK.
1. It could weaken public services like the NHS and drive up medicine prices.
2. It could lower food, animal welfare and environmental standards.
3. It could block UK and Scottish Government actions to tackle the climate crisis and encourage the use of dirty fossil fuels.
4. It could allow chemicals currently banned in the UK to be used in cosmetics or sprayed on crops.
5. It could increase the power of Silicon Valley online giants like Facebook, Google and Amazon, and make it even harder to get them to pay taxes.
We believe these dangerous trade talks should be stopped. Instead we need trade that works for people and planet.
Bob Gillespie
(on behalf of the Trade Justice Scotland Coalition)
IT was disappointing that in her column “All-male panels limited in what they can achieve” (October 21), Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh could not find it in herself to name Nicola Sturgeon along with Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand as an “outstanding example of effective leadership around the world” during the current pandemic.
READ MORE: Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: Why all-male panels are limited in what they can achieve
Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership has been praised by many more commentators than only those who support the SNP, and it seemed petty that Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh could not acknowledge this.
This is another example of the ever-widening rift in the SNP between the Salmond and Sturgeon factions which will be welcomed with relish by those who wish to stymie any hope of an SNP victory at Holyrood in next May’s election.
Sheila Allan
Peterhead
PAUL Scully – a Westminster government minister, no less – has defended the Tory stance over denying needy children free school meals on the basis that children “have been going hungry for years”, on recorded TV.
The assertion epitomises the kind of politician, and party, who hold sway over how we in Scotland should continue to live.
READ MORE: Tory minister rejects free school meals as kids have gone hungry 'for years'
That is yet another reason, besides many many others, why it is more than ever a necessity for Scotland to disengage completely and ASAP from Westminster.
No level of Tory-inspired assurances of goodwill from the latter will divert the drive for Scottish independence from the people of Scotland. We have in fact no need of any of the above opinions.
John Hamilton
Bearsden
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 here