SNP Westminster Leader Ian Blackford rightly stated in The National recently that “we need to exit the UK as soon as possible”, and never a truer phrase was said. However, a headline around the same period offered a quote from Mr Blackford that “we must not break the law”. This apparently was a reference to those both within the SNP and wider Yes movement who advocate the use of a parliamentary mandate as a mechanism for achieving independence rather than via a referendum triggered through a Section 30.
While I totally concur with Mr Blackford that we need to be united on the aim of independence, it seems to me there is a dangerous revisionism at work within elements of the current SNP leadership which prescribes a referendum, and only a referendum, as the pathway to this noble end.
READ MORE: Pro-Yes majority is clear mandate for indyref2, former Westminster chief says
Leaving aside that the SNP fought national elections on a parliamentary mandate platform for 50 years, and that this same policy allowed for a post-negotiation referendum on the independence terms agreed, surely the democratic expression of the Scottish people through a manifesto commitment to independence is profoundly legal? Indeed, to argue otherwise is almost to allow the Yes movement to be boxed into a tactical dead-end where all Westminster governments need to do is to continually refuse a Section 30. This is exactly the dilemma we find ourselves in now.
Mr Blackford may also reflect that the advocates of the Act of Union Bill are seeking to emasculate the referenda route to independence, and this may lead to a situation where a parliamentary mandate is the only available democratic route. If Mr Blackford sees this as breaking the law then I prefer the youthful Ian Blackford that I knew, as a friend and colleague in the leadership of the Young Scottish Nationalists, who correctly and proudly advocated the SNP’s civil disobedience campaign in defence of jobs in the early 1980s.
Cllr Andy Doig (Independent)
Renfrewshire Council
IT was of assistance to have The National print the blog that was taken down by the LSE (The pro-indy blog UK Govt didn’t want you to read, April 12). Sadly, it seems likely that it will only reach The National community. What other newspaper or other form of media will bother? The contents of the blog do not fit the Unionist narrative. Will the BBC highlight its disappearance and investigate?
READ MORE: The National publishes censored blog which made the case for independence
I shrink from contemplating the further steps the Westminster government might pursue to end the prospect of independence and curtail devolution. I would not be surprised about how far they would go and who they have on standby to enthusiastically deliver any brick in the wall that prevents Scotland escaping from their clutches.
Melvyn Gibson
Fenwick
A VOTE for SNP, Greens and Alba will be assumed to be a vote for independence. We therefore need to take this further and delve into policy in the event of independence.
My specific interest is defence policy. I wrote to Kenny MacAskill before he switched to Alba and asked him what the SNP policy was, including Nato membership and removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland. The answer came back: “The same as Norway. Non-nuclear except in the event of crisis to be decided upon.”
I followed this up a week ago with the same query to the SNP candidate for Edinburgh West in response to a flyer being delivered through my letter box offering me the opportunity to get in touch on any queries I may have. To date I have had no reply. Is this an area that the SNP prefer not to discuss?
Callum Towns
Edinburgh
REGARDING Gerry Hassan’s estimation, profile, characterisation and analysis of today’s Alex Salmond, he puts into words my own thoughts now about the man and places him in the populist category (How Salmond and Galloway fit into politics of populism, April 11).
READ MORE: How Alex Salmond and George Galloway fit into politics of populism
The fact is that despite the Alba name, it is in reality the Alex Salmond party. It has no democratic structures or procedures of any form. I read one new member (an ex-Glasgow councillor) claim that he was leaving the SNP because it was run by two people. Presumably he prefers a party run by one person.
Bobby Brennan
Glasgow
WHAT to do about David Cameron? Oh – I know, let’s put him in front of a committee of inquiry of, say, nine MPs, the majority of whom are members of HM Opposition. Then interrogate him for eight hours. That should do the trick.
Keith Halley
Dalkeith
I SUBSCRIBE to The National’s digital edition. I read other papers also. I have noticed a peculiar trend in the offerings from your writers. They slip in words not commonly used every day. Can we revert to plain speaking please and drop “polemic” and “hagiographic” etc?
It is “axiomatic”( no, not a type of front-loading washing machine) that we do not use such words in common parlance, so perhaps your writers could stop trying to impress us all with these obscure words. I want an easy and informative read and not to be constantly reaching for a dictionary. You do not even find such in the Unionist media, which makes an art out of “polemics”.
Peter Macari
Aberdeen
ISSUE after issue of your otherwise excellent publication we are faced with photographs of the same political alleged personalities, which quite honestly we are getting rather tired of. Can I therefore compliment you on the inclusion on Monday of the excellent image of a highly intelligent resident of our planet. I refer of course to the sheep on page 25. More of the same please!
George M Mitchell
Dunblane
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