I RETURN Nick Cole’s thanks (Letters, Dec 14), and am grateful to The National for allowing this crucial, but neglected, matter to be ventilated.
Regrettably, Mr Cole’s letter of Tuesday (“Romantic ideals and viable independence strategies are two different things”) is all over the place. He brings up Catalonia, but its difficulties are not ours and it has no lesson for Scotland whatsoever; for one thing, there is no Spanish-style constitutional bind on Scotland.
He also confuses the rationale for independence with the right to vote on it, and with how that vote may be held. And he imagines non-existent difficulties. But the realities of Scotland’s situation are comparatively simple and straightforward.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon runs out of Christmas cheer – and patience with Douglas Ross
Scotland has the right and the power to leave the Union if its people so choose. This is not even questioned by London, which has affirmed in government and in parliament that the Union is voluntary and consensual. Indeed, the only body of which I am aware that comes close to believing that London has a lock on Scottish independence is the SNP, an embarrassing case of our notorious Scottish antisyzygical disjunction.
There are only two methods of expressing the choice of whether to go independent. The Scottish Government has opted for a referendum, which they may be able to bring about through their intended Holyrood legislation. But London could refer that to the Supreme Court, and might win a decision that Holyrood lacks the legislative power. If so, that would prevent the referendum from taking place.
READ MORE: Would a Unionist electoral pact defeat the SNP as Adam Tomkins suggests?
The other method is by a General Election, which could be turned into an independence plebiscite by means of the appropriate manifesto. This would state that if a majority of indy-supporting Scottish MPs were elected by a majority of the Scottish votes cast, they would bring independence about at a time of their choosing during the parliament by agreement with London, or failing that by seceding from Westminster and re-establishing a sovereign Scottish parliament. London has no means to prevent that. Before the last referendum, it was always envisaged by the SNP and by UK governments that any popular vote on independence would be by means of an election.
Whichever method is used is only the vote; a Yes vote would subsequently have to be implemented. The Edinburgh Agreement of 2012 provided that both governments would “respect” the outcome of the 2014 referendum. I imagine that London would “respect” any lawful and democratic Yes vote, however exercised, but that is my personal judgement. Negotiated terms could well suit both London and Edinburgh. If London declined to cooperate in negotiating the details of independence following a Yes vote, whether in a referendum or in an election, Scotland would have to carry out the actual step of independence on its own. While that might be inconvenient, it is perfectly feasible.
READ MORE: Stephen Kerr talking 'nonsense' on First Minister's Covid briefings
Of course, London does not want Scotland to go, and would fight for a No vote, but that would be part of the campaigning by the respective sides. It is quite separate from Scotland’s inalienable right to make the choice, or the mechanics of how that choice is to be exercised.
The real and serious problem with the Scottish Government’s current position on the exercising of the choice is that they offer us only a referendum. If that comes to nothing and we don’t get a referendum despite their effort, Scotland is stuck. Such risk is needless, which is why I refer to their wish for a referendum to the exclusion of an electoral plebiscite as a “fixation”. A less demented policy would lay out the electoral route as a perfectly respectable, indeed venerable, alternative. Not only would it save us from a disaster which might unfold, but it would also encourage London to now consent to a referendum.
Finally, if the next General Election arrives with the Scottish Government having failed to set up a referendum, and if the SNP manifesto does not turn that election into an independence plebiscite, their chance of success will surely dim, and the entire prospect of independence with it, for years.
Alan Crocket
Motherwell
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