HOW disappointing to find myself disagreeing with Joanna Cherry’s latest column on so many levels (Devo-max has no place on indyref ballot but we do need fresh ideas. January 7).
Among the many concerns I have with her arguments therein, here are just three.
First, citizens assemblies are not a good idea; rather they are an undemocratic transfer of political leadership and initiative to an arbitrarily selected few (wide open to abuse and corruption) and a “marketing”-led abrogation of politicians’ function to lead by setting policies and gaining approval for them through the ballot box; the very job they’re handsomely paid to do.
Second, we understand that the First Minister’s preference is for a Section 30 order for a referendum, but we also know full well this is not forthcoming. So, what is the very necessary Plan B?
READ MORE: SNP MP rubbishes claim Labour may allow pro-independence candidates
Clearly, such an order was granted for the 2014 vote because the British establishment believed they would win the day given the poll predictions at the time and, as with Brexit, defeating the opposition through referendum failure would put the matter to bed forever. Well, we know what happened with both referendums. Does anyone now really believe another will ever be conceded, especially given red Tory Starmer’s recent interventions to promote the Union?
If independence is to be regained, doesn’t it look unlikely to be through a Section 30 agreement? So what are Ms Cherry and the SNP going to do about it? Isn’t placing one’s strategy on such a flawed premise just failure waiting to be confirmed? They’ve had enough time to work it out; why haven’t they?
READ MORE: Blackford hits out after Starmer admits he 'can't defend status quo' on Scotland
Thirdly, devo-max is not thinking outside the box, it’s a blatant insult to all Scots. In all of the 60 territories that gained independence from Britain, how many of them even considered such a preposterous proposition? So why should sovereign Scotland, supposedly in a “partnership” in the UK, even consider it? Why are we Scots not deemed fit and capable, now seemingly even also by our own “independence” party, of managing our own affairs, and why should we be forced to adopt defence and foreign policies and strategies that we consider have no place and serve no useful purpose in the modern and future global world we would wish to regain our rightful place in?
Our decisions, and ours alone. That’s our fundamental rights.
Joanna, if it’s right to think outside the box, then let’s recognise that the box is the UK Union, and what’s outside it is Scotland’s independence.
Jim Taylor
Edinburgh
LET’S not waste any more energy on devo anything. As Michael Russell has already written, devo-max does not require a referendum. Westminster could give tomorrow and take back the day after. No guarantee will bind a successor Westminster government. Only INDEPENDENCE will do.
Jim Addison
Findochty
WE hear that the UK Government’s Attorney General, Suella Braverman, is “considering” referring the Colston case verdict to the Court of Appeal (despite lawyers saying there are no grounds for doing so). Just over four years ago, the Conservative government were happy to enjoy headlines from their Brexit supporters in the media that called judges “Enemies of the People.” Now in the Colston case, the people, in the form of the jury, have given a verdict the Conservative government do not like. So they are considering asking judges to look again at it. Among all their many other collective shortcomings, this Conservative government have no sense of irony or self-awareness.
Gavin Brown
Linlithgow
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