INCREASINGLY I find the correspondence in the National Conversation sections of the National gives me some concern due to writers such as Charlie Kerr of Glenrothes pointing out in his letter on Saturday August 21st indicating that we are all expected to have patience and wait for the Covid crisis to pass.
Independence only when the crisis is past as mentioned by your correspondent Charlie Kerr of Glenrothes quoting Kate Forbes is not positive action. Who decides or on what criteria is determined for this to be accepted and ruled on. Perhaps by our renowned lackadaisical PM and his followers at that great Westminster institution with his massive following? Heaven forbid. Typical bluster, morbid fascination with renowned porkies along with further propaganda from that quarter will ensure that the independence flame will be extinguished entirely.
Westminster involvement will kill it off completely. Scotland needs to wake up and surely a start can be made, if not now, soon whilst the initiative is in our hands.
With the talent we have in our elected MSPs, surely some bodies can be useful in determining and looking into what can or cannot be looked at even during a Covid crisis that hopefully may or may not end soon. I’m sure some elected MSPs and the voters would welcome that.
Some action is required. Procrastination is not the way. That condition is often linked to emotional stress. As an octogenarian, I would look forward to avoiding that physical condition.
As in my previous correspondence that the editor kindly printed for me, again, I say (twice) – wake up Scotland!
I don’t want to see independence fall away like snow melting off a dyke.
W D Mill Irving
Kilbirnie
THANK you for publishing my letter on Tuesday 17th August (proposing that the SNP MPs abandon Westminster). Mr David McDonald responded on Friday August 20th with his reasons why this would be unproductive for the SNP. His arguments, I find, are unconvincing and often don’t apply to the SNP situation or what I proposed. Firstly his use of the word “abstentionism” is inaccurate as this means a complete boycott of the assembly to which you have been elected, as in the case of Sinn Fein. This is not what I proposed. If Mr McDonald cares to read my letter again he will see that I suggested SNP only attend when Scottish matters are being dealt with. I much prefer the word “abstain” which is a well used tactic.
His attempt to link abstentionism to facism or monarchial governments is just too farcical for consideration given that we’re talking about the SNP.
One of his paragraphs begins “all the available evidence suggests...(that abstaining from Westminster would only damage the SNP etc). It would have been helpful if he had expanded on the “evidence” or allowed us to know where the evidence is.
Using Sinn Fein to make his points halfway through his letter Mr McDonald says that “there is little evidence that the policy (Sinn Fein’s abandoning Westminster) has done the cause for Irish Unification any good whatsoever”. A few paragraphs later his position is reversed and he praises their performance in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Which position is he advocating? From my own prospective Boris Johnston has been the prominent player in bringing the cause of Irish Unification closer than ever with his abandonment of its people and his scandalous incompetence in handling the Brexit withdrawal. It probably wasn’t by chance that Walt Disney chose a Southern English voice for the snake. There’s lessons to be learned for Scotland. We need to be out of Westminster as soon as possible and the MPs allowed to put in more work here.
Robert G Clark Gorebridge
ROBBIE Mochrie’s comment article (‘The path to independence is not over after a Yes vote in a referendum’, August 21) is a welcome reminder that negotiating fully-operating Scottish independence will take years following any successful Yes vote. England went through a culture shock negotiating with 27 other nations to get Brexit done over a five-year period. Adjustments are still on-going. The losers in the 2016 EU referendum remain bitter. In Scotland, many of them have turned to the SNP, giving the party million-vote-plus election landslides.
READ MORE: The path to independence is not over after a Yes vote in a referendum
Ireland has an entirely different political history from Scotland. The men of 1916 ended up having to swear an oath of allegiance to the British Crown in 1921 and accepting two British naval bases. An Irish Republic had to wait 28 years, until 1949. Yet there was maturity in the negotiations: the British simply gave up the naval bases in 1938 and happily paid for the upkeep of the Irish lighthouses for 90 years, until 2012 (on the grounds that they were overwhelmingly of benefit to UK shipping). There was a common currency,a Common Travel Area and Irish citizens in the UK could vote in UK elections.
Robbie Mochrie rightly mentions the “rediscovery of identity and exploration of Scotland’s place in the world “ as we commence post-Yes negotiations with England. A gradual process as our new nation emerges. The No voters will have to be accommodated in the new Scottish State – probably 40% of the population at the beginning. This could mean years of accepting the Monarchy, thereby keeping relations with England and Commonwealth countries. Relations with the NATO alliance, with their implications for Scotland’s economic relations with the USA, the EU – including solidarity with the small, exposed Baltic states - are all issues in the real world.
I joined the SNP in 1964. It has taken 57 years to get devolution and an established, experienced SNP governing system.
Tom Johnston
Cumbernauld
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