ALTHOUGH I am on the opposite side of the debate from Kirsty Hughes, Toni Gugliano and Michael Russell when it comes to whether an independent Scotland should be part of the EU or not, I welcomed the pragmatic and principled approach outlined by those three in Friday’s paper (Independent Scotland may hold EU referendum under new SNP plans for indyref2).
Since 2016 I have argued and campaigned for the simple democratic position that independence is about the sovereignty of the Scottish people and that, after independence is achieved, there should be a referendum on our European options (join EU; EFTA; status quo). Independence is about choice, this should be our mantra, and where there are big constitutional issues that go beyond party politics, then a Scottish peoples’ referendum would be the best way to resolve those issues democratically, once our country has secured its freedom.
READ MORE: Sue Gray report into Boris Johnson parties is PUBLISHED: Here's what it says
I argue this from two points of view. Firstly, principle: two separate questions should not be conflated in a single referendum. Secondly, strategy: given that one in three Yes voters voted Leave in 2016, to alienate potential Yes votes by tying indyref2 into rejoining the EU would be counter-productive and could lose us the second indyref again narrowly.
The failure of indy to break through and sustain more than 50% in the polls regularly shows that “banging on about Brexit” hasn’t worked. Far better to get indy first and then deal with the EU question in a democratic and principled manner.
I was therefore appalled at the anti-democratic and completely unprincipled position taken in Saturday’s issue by Gordon McIntyre-Kemp’s Believe in Scotland (Call for indyref2 to be vote on rejoining the EU).
How dare one component part of the Yes movement try to purloin my Yes vote for a purpose for which it is not intended! My vote for an independent Scotland means precisely that and nothing more. It does not mean and cannot be taken to mean my approval for rejoining the EU, which I see as a neoliberal, free-market institution whose rules and regulations would inhibit our new independent Scotland from taking the kind of radical action we need to build the kind of Scotland that many of us want.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson 'parrots far-right attacks' on Keir Starmer with Jimmy Savile line
Believe in Scotland claims its polling shows that 88% of Yes voters support rejoining the EU (frankly, I hae ma doobts), but polls do not constitute a properly given mandate, and neither can the 2016 vote, which was about whether or not the UK stayed in or left the EU, be taken as mandate for an independent Scotland rejoining the EU in 2026, or whenever that would be.
Of course, the question must be resolved. But it must be resolved in line with democratic principle, and the only way to do that is to have our own EU referendum once we have achieved independence. I’ll argue my case then, and be happy to accept the democratic will of the Scottish people whatever that may be.
Until then, arguing that voting indy means either in or out of the EU is a distraction, a strategic folly, and a wholly unprincipled attempt to shoehorn two separate issues into one.
Independence means giving ourselves the right to choose. Nothing less ... and nothing more.
Steve Arnott
Inverness
I WANT to think the Wee Ginger Dug (Jan 25) for teaching me a new and very useful word. will be using the word “Kunlangeta” henceforth, with all its connotations concerning mendacity, but slightly modified to become a collective noun for the total membership of of the Unionist parties at both Holyrood and Westminster.
Hugh Noble
Appin
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