WE have no need to help the Unionists make their case. This applies to everyone, but especially SNP members of Holyrood and Westminster.
Angus MacNeil’s article on the Supreme Court ruling (The ruling is a reality check for indyref2’s hopes, warns SNP MP, Oct 7) is a perfect example of how to undermine the independence movement.
Angus then spends considerable column space highlighting the negative implications to indyref2 as he sees it. He does go on at the end to suggest that using an election is the way forward, but this comes too late. The damage has been done.
I will not be surprised if the first part of the article is used on the floor of Westminster or in one of Ross’s rambling monologues in Holyrood.
The judgement was also commented on by the BBC in a similar negative spin. The Real Scottish Politics wrote, in the same edition as Angus, a very positive article which repudiated BBC’s analysis (Why the BBC got it wrong on the Supreme Court ruling).
Others, in the leadership of the SNP, focused on other implications of the ruling, which clearly supports the need for independence. The latter articles do not cause damage. If anything they help build the case.
Anyone wanting to go public with a viewpoint first needs to consider if it helps the Unionists to swing undecided voters against independence (a group whose vote is critical for success).
I strongly recommend anyone intending to give an opinion on independence to read Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp’s article – Frustration within the Yes movement is costing us.
He clearly articulates the importance of the undecided.
Having a vote is clearly the number one priority. There are several possible routes already identified to get us there, but any one of them is pointless if 2014 is repeated.
Douglas Skoyles
Elgin
ANGUS McNeil’s concern about the Supreme Court’s decision, which effectively stated that the Scottish people’s elected parliament is incompetent to enhance the rights of children to United Nation standards, is indeed worrying. And with reference to our ability to hold a referendum as to our own governance it is doubly worrying.
He then appears to suggest that elections may be the way to establish our freedom from Wastemonster, something I – and I am sure many others – felt that should have been in the manifesto of SNP, Greens and Alba for the May 21 elections.
I am of a mind that the “ The Boris” will look to the first Thursday of May 2023 for the next UK General Election. Then whoever is leader of the Scottish Government at that time can dissolve the Holyrood Parliament prior to that date and set us on a Scottish Government vote course for the last Thursday in April 2023, with freedom being in the manifesto of pro-independence parties.
Further, if the UK Government is so concerned about any infraction of their hegemony to the point of taking Scottish Government to the Supreme Court, then why did they not alleviate any issue by raising all of the UK to the UN standard?
M Ross
Aviemore
GIVEN the result of the recent Supreme Court case it now seems increasingly unlikely that we will be free by 2023. In the few days since the verdict we have heard little from the First Minister, the Scottish Government or indeed the SNP on this subject.
The Deputy First Minister restricted his comments to stating the Scottish Government “fully respects the court’s judgement”, but was “bitterly disappointed”. He said the ruling would require “careful consideration” and “one thing is already crystal clear – the devolution settlement does not give Scotland the powers it needs”.
No nationalist could dispute this. The devolution settlement never did give Scotland the powers it needs. That should come as no surprise to Mr Swinney. It’s been like that since 1999. The real problem for the Scottish Government is – where do we go from here? It is fairly clear that any legislation to enable a referendum will suffer the same fate as these two recent bills. If we are to “respect” the Supreme Court’s judgement in future, there is now no prospect of a referendum in late 2023.
Are we simply to wait for the eventual demise, at some point in the distant future, of the Tory government? Hope for a new occupant of 10 Downing Street who will allow us to hold a referendum? Perhaps we should hope against hope that the result of the next UK General Election will be a hung parliament and that in return for the support of the SNP MPs we will be granted a referendum by the then leader of a miraculously revived Labour Party.
First Minister, we need some answers. We need some leadership but mostly we need a Plan B or C or D or E.
Glenda Burns
Glasgow
ON the Good Morning Britain programme, former footballer Gary Neville clashed with former Conservative MP Edwina Currie.
Currie postulated that “we need to get people into better jobs and we need to push employers to pay their workforce better”. However when Neville replied that it takes time to train a chef, Curry said to get a job as a porter. No offence to porters, but is that Edwina Currie’s idea of a better job? Currie went on to say: “There are thousands and thousands of jobs associated with Christmas.” It does beg the question, just how many of those Christmas jobs are seasonal?
Meanwhile, at a Tory conference karaoke event in Manchester, Therese Coffey was criticised for singing “I’ve had the time of my life” just hours before cutting Universal Credit for millions of people. Such callous indifference and lack of judgement is disgusting.
With their cavalier behaviour and heartless lack of humanity, both Edwina Currie and Therese Coffey have ensured that the Conservative party will remain the nasty party.
Sandy Gordon
Edinburgh
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