WHY is it not possible in Scotland to hold an independence referendum until the Covid pandemic is under control when it was possible to hold an election on May 6 with apparently no ill effects?
If there is no health reason, why do we not have the referendum now, given that while the Westminster parliament considers that it is superior to that of Edinburgh, the House of Commons contains on overwhelming majority of independence-supporting Scottish MPs? It thus has within its own walls a democratic mandate that requires a referendum to answer it. As English law (under which Westminster operates) is based on precedent, are there not sufficient precedents in the previous referendum on Scottish independence of 2014 and the referendum on Brexit, which was advisory yet was put into force during the pandemic?
READ MORE: Wee Ginger Dug: What the Dyson report tells us about the BBC and anti-Yes bias
If such a referendum is to proceed immediately to decide on the independence of Scotland, is it necessary for the Scottish Government to waste much energy on matters which will be completely changed by independence?
During the process of the referendum it is the convention that other countries do not intervene (Russian in the USA). Would it not be right that we insist that English media do not interfere in the Scottish referendum?
As 62% of Scotland voted in the Brexit referendum to remain, would it not be correct to start discussions with the EU for our accession now, or at least establish the principle that we would aim to be compliant with EU standards as much as possible? Would it not be wise to aim at joining the euro, given that the pound would be vulnerable to manipulation by commercial and political forces, while the euro is more stable?
If the result of the referendum is against independence, this does not obviate the possibility of future referendums but creates a precedent to have further examples if the democratic deficiency is not corrected immediately. To correct it would require Westminster to remove inequalities root and branch. Obeying international law by getting rid of Trident would do for a start.
Iain WD Forde
Scotlandwell
I’M wondering if readers noticed the parliamentary motion tabled by Patrick Harvie dated May 24 (S6M-00099) calling for recognition of the anniversaries of Section 28 and the founding of Stonewall. I’m sure no reasonable person could fail to support these two components of the motion.
However, Mr Harvie tacked a third component onto the motion, asking the parliament to endorse the work of Stonewall and support its Diversity Champions programme.
It is understandable that Mr Harvie – a member and supporter of Stonewall – would stick up for the organisation despite the growing evidence that: it no longer represents the views of a significant proportion of the LGBT constituency; the Equality and Human Rights Commission recently withdrew from the Diversity Champions scheme; and an independent report commissioned by the University of Essex urged academic institutions to consider whether the Diversity Champions programme assists them in their quest for fairness.
One final, and to me gob-smacking, thing to remember is that a huge list of governmental, charitable, publicly funded civic bodies and private-sector companies are paying Stonewall to lobby them. This beggars belief, and hopefully will be reported on by Audit Scotland – although I’m pretty sure I saw them listed as Stonewall Diversity Champions.
Laura Robertson
West Linton
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