THE arrogance and condescension of the Tory Party truly knows no bounds. First we have Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, recently informing the obsequious hacks from BBC Scotland that Westminster will consider an independence referendum for Scotland if there is evidence of a “settled will” from its people. Now we are treated to the dubious wisdom and asinine authority of Alister Jack, Secretary of State for Scotland, regaling the press that an independence referendum will be allowed by his masters if successive polls show 60% support for it.
Aside from the pontifical impertinence shown by the insipid and cripplingly unimaginative Mr Jack, his statement is a direct affront to a democratic process in Scotland that has successively returned pro-independence governments to Holyrood. The unmitigated Brexit disaster that has been foisted upon our country scraped over the line by 1.5% and will leave the Scottish economy shell-shocked for an entire generation if left unchecked. The Unionist tactic of setting conditions to suit their narrative is reminiscent of the 1979 referendum on devolution when a 51.6% majority was not enough to pass due to an amendment that made the percentage of voter turnout a vital factor in the final outcome.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon gives withering response to Alister Jack
It’s time for the Scottish Government and the First Minister to call Westminster’s bluff and set a date for an indyref2 as soon as is possible. Those who have long desired an independent Scotland need time to galvanise their resources and prepare for a difficult campaign that will be infested by Unionist skulduggery and deception, aided and abetted by their allies in the UK press and the BBC. To use a common vernacular, the charmless Alister Jack and his party are now “taking the piss”. We need more than faux outrage from the SNP and its MPs and MSPs. To steal a catchphrase from the blond buffoon in Downing Street, let’s get independence done.
Owen Kelly
Stirling
“SLAISTER” Jack, Secretary of State for Scotland, makes his predecessor David “mundane” Mundell seem like an indefatigable champion of Scotland’s interests. The truth was that Mundell was a craven, ineffectual Westminster glove puppet.
Jack seems intent on travelling down the same obsequious road to ignominy, but even further. He has said that Westminster would only agree to a second referendum if support is at 60% for a “reasonably long time”. What the hell is that supposed to mean? It’s clear to me that Jack is giving himself wriggle room for future prevarication.
READ MORE: The Jouker: Michael Gove shocks Scots after turning up at Aberdeen nightclub
Michael Gove has said that the UK Government would not prevent a second referendum if it was the “settled will” of the people of Scotland.
Messrs Jack and Gove should reflect on some facts: the Scottish Government already has a mandate for a second referendum. The Tories haven’t won an election since the mid 1950s. The SNP have won a record fourth term in office.
That’s the “settled will” of the people of Scotland.
Sandy Gordon
Edinburgh
IN 2015, a few weeks after the SNP’s General Election landslide, I attended a Spectator event in Edinburgh. The panel included Andrew Neil, Adam Tomkins, Alex Massie, Iain McWhirter and Jim Sillars.
My biggest “takeaway” from this predictable but lively debate was Jim Sillars’s certain view that Nicola Sturgeon wouldn’t dare call for another referendum until polls regularly showed 60% for independence.
Alister Jack’s proposal that a referendum would be logical if 60% of voters want one would be an easier target, but still a big test of just how far Nicola Sturgeon would go to appease her core supporters, without any evidence that 60% would actually vote “leave” on the day.
Based on the 2014 turnout of 3.6 million voters, a 60% score would require 2.1 million “leave” votes, almost 800,000 more than the 1.36 million the SNP won in the recent May elections.
For many, an indy “supermajority” bar should actually be set at 66%, and if that was achieved I can honestly say I would unequivocally accept a result that got such wide support, strengthened Scotland’s hand in negotiations and avoided the inevitable bitterness and civil strife of a low-margin win for “leave”.
Whether I then stayed or left would depend on my view of the final Scexit agreement and the likelihood that Scotland would prosper.
Allan Sutherland
Stonehaven
WHAT a miserable letter from Iain Wilson (August 28) griping about our government not prioritising the NHS, and complaining about people waiting to be seen, etc, etc.
No allowance for the pandemic causing beds to be occupied by seriously ill patients requiring constant attention. No allowance for Boris’s Barmy Brexit forcing worried NHS staff from the EU to leave, leading to yet more stress for remaining staff. No allowance for the greatest cause of ill health, poverty, and the SNP’s efforts to mitigate that and child hunger – conditions which end up at hospital doors.
There is always room for improvement in the NHS, and always will be. But my god, give me our health service rather than that existing in America, where families are literally bankrupted by eye-watering medical charges. And this is the system the Tories want to adopt here.
If Iain is so dissatisfied with our world-renowned NHS, why doesn’t he go private and pay the accompanying charges?
Anyway, I think we may hear more from Iain, as I’m sure BBC Scotland will already have booked a spot for him!
Richard Walthew
Address supplied
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