Alliance of Scottish independence groups required – not more from SNP

There can be no doubt, that the SNP has done well as a party of government, but unfortunately it has lost all signs of a movement for independence. It has become “smothered” by the “British blanket”.

What we now need is a reconfiguration of the independence movement to encompass all sections and groups of Scottish society, so that no one feels excluded or unable to participate as clearly outlined in Charlie Kerr’s long letter of Friday July 29. This means the SNP must accept that there are limits to their capacity to represent ALL SIDES of the independence argument (my emphasis).

Like Ruth Wishart I am not a member of any political party (though I was a very active SNP member for 21 years until 1995) but I was impressed by a long standing friend (a Labour supporter) who told me in August 2014 that he intended voting for independence as “it was the only way to get a genuinely Scottish Labour Party back”!

There must be many like him but nothing has changed since then, we need to give such as he the opportunity to support a politically unaligned independence group.

READ MORE: SNP are limiting paths to Scottish independence by ignoring alternative routes

The SNP, originally the only party of independence, appears to have now settled into the “British” political system and is happy to abide by the “rules” that the unwritten “constitution” (and the Speaker) can invent.

Yet there are many who support independence and who can’t accept SNP policies or prefer to support other political ideologies (and I include among those the traditional Scottish Tories who support independence).

So it would appear that the time is ripe for an all embracing independence movement which the SNP should actively support.

But time is short and we cannot rely on a new PM in Westminster making any difference whoever he or she might be. They may call an immediate general election to “ambush” the SNP and destroy the SNP’s stated tactic before the SNP has time to implement it. (Implementation of a general election plan seems optimistic in the extreme). Time is short.

Any resultant Unionist PM whether Tory or Labour is the same, for they will continue to use Scotland to support the crumbling economy of rUK.

Paul Gillon

Leven

ANOTHER letter from Brian Lawson was published on Friday July 29 on the subject of the procedure leading to independence where Brian makes some good points, but spoils it all by his exaggerated claim that my approach to democracy is worse than Donald Trump’s.

Brian accuses me of wanting to “drag a nation to independence against the will of the majority of its voters.”

What Brian does not do is address the issue I have raised.

It was not my plan on the road to independence I had raised, it was the plan put forward by Nicola Sturgeon. To be fair to Nicola, it was not her preferred option but one being forced on her by the Westminster government.

Nicola laid out her strategy and her efforts to get a get a referendum. She also made it clear that our campaign should be entirely legal. I pointed out that if you follow the logic of that plan you have to start as Nicola has done to seek, from the Westminster government a section 30 agreement. Which Nicola has done.

If you then follow the logic of the case Nicola put, we need to continue to comply with Westminster law, until we are able to get a legal decision from the Scottish people to establish a democratic State.

Now, under Westminster law, which is quite different from what was agreed at the Treaty of Union, we can’t ever get Scottish independence until Westminster agrees. Because Sovereignty, as defined by every English Court, including the Supreme Court is defined by the “Queen in Parliament”. So if we intend to secure independence and comply with the law, we need at some stage to decide to adopt international law, and a separate Scottish law which acknowledges Scottish sovereignty.

Now the only way left open to Nicola if the Supreme Court says that she has no authority to conduct an independence referendum is to use the UK General Election as a means of demonstrating the Scottish people’s support for independence, and starting negotiation with Westminster for the separation.

I expressed the view that the only way this could work, while sticking firmly to correct legal procedures, was for the Scottish Government to adhere strictly to English law right up to the point where the Scottish people vote for independence, and then to apply international law in terms of our international rights and Scottish law as existed and agreed in the treaty of Union, that is not subject to the out of date English conception of sovereignty.

Now, if we are to do this, we must stay strictly in line with English law until after we get a clear majority at the General Election, and that means applying the statutes and regulation which apply to Westminster elections.

Now I repeat once again to Brian, who does not want to answer this question. Can we apply some of the rules applicable to a UK General Election, but not all? Can we introduce new rules to suit ourselves?

I think Brian the answer to that is, no we can’t. Particularly because by that time the Supreme Court will have told us we have no right to get involved in constitutional matters which are reserved matters for the Westminster Government.

If Scotland is to escape from this constitutional and “legal” trap, then it needs to use English law to get a legally defined Scottish majority, then use that Scottish majority to establish independence under international law.

Now if you are concerned about the democratic rights of the Scottish people, you need not. Indeed as an independent state Scotland could hold a referendum whenever it liked and it would not be a bad idea to hold one a couple of years later once we had negotiated a deal with Westminster, had secured stable energy prices for Scottish people, secured their much better State pension, refunded our NHS and had a draft constitution to put before the people. It seems to me that would be a good time to hold a referendum asking the Scottish people to endorse the independence settlement.

Andy Anderson

Ardrossan

I WAS hoping that by the time I reach the milestone of 50 years of SNP membership in October 2024 we might have achieved independence. The last chance of that happening would now seem to revolve around a UK General Election fought on independence as a single issue.

If that is the case maybe now is the time to abandon over optimistic thoughts of a UK Supreme Court victory leaving the lawyers, on both sides, to enjoy the debate and the massive fees they will earn. It is surely time to start our next election campaign in earnest.

I realise that many nationalists are becoming increasingly impatient, as am I, but I despair at the naive campaign suggestions which now regularly appear in social media and occasionally even in the letters page of The National.

For example, (Colin Beattie Letters July 30) “I think the plan should be to achieve independence now by repealing the Act of Union 1707 as a second referendum will take far too long to achieve actual independence”.

I am sure the First Minister, as well as myself, is just waiting in anticipation of the full details of this potentially huge legal loophole we have both missed which will short circuit the democratic process of both elections and a referendum. Who exactly will repeal the Act of Union 1707, the Scottish Parliament, the UK Parliament, maybe even the descendents of those lords and lairds who signed up to it? If the power is with the Scottish Parliament why has it not done so a long time ago?

I know it might be hard for some to accept, but the sad fact is that roughly half of the voters in Scotland currently don’t believe an independent Scotland is politically or economically viable. It is up to those of us who do to convince them they might actually be wrong. We need to convince them by offering a credible alternative vision so that at the next election.

Those who think there is a shortcut to this process by magically repealing 300 year old legislation, declaring UDI or asserting claims of rights from 1689 should knock on the doors of a random dozen of their neighbours and see if anyone is at all interested in this line of political fantasy. I strongly suspect their neighbours will instead want to discuss the problems of today, inflation, jobs, food and fuel costs and even the NHS, not the perceived grievances of the 18th century.

If the next step on the road to independence is to be a single issue General Election then let’s put that on page one, paragraph one of a manifesto right now and try to get over 50% of the voters to support it.

If the concept of an independent Scotland is attractive we should have no real problem in achieving that.

Brian Lawson

Paisley

“INVESTINGin nuclear energy is like fighting world hunger with caviar.” This quote from Benjamin Sovacool of the University of Sussex Business School seems to me to be absolutely on the money.

The Johnson government has promised to build nuclear power plants to help escape the energy crisis. It takes well over 10 years to build and commission such a hopelessly optimistic white elephant.

In the meantime Sunak is proposing to prevent the building of land-based wind turbines and to encourage fracking. Truss doesn’t know A from a bull’s foot in terms of climate emergency solutions.

It is absolutely imperative that Scotland abandons these grotesquely desperate Westminster children to witter on to their sycophants. They really have no idea how to rescue the UK – let alone Scotland – from the ravages of this self-inflicted human tragedy called climate change.

Neither do they seem to have an inkling of how to solve the energy crisis.

Tony Kime

Kelso

A FEW days ago we had a prominent member of the Tory Party in the Scottish Parliament complaining bitterly about the Scottish Government “spending most of its budget on preparing for independence” – a ridiculous and untrue assertion anyway – and you report (August 6) that one of the contenders for the position of Prime Minister in London plans to bring back the Union Unit to “beat indy”.

READ MORE: Sturgeon labels Sunak a ‘wannabe’ in scathing tweet

This would take up quite a large slice of the Westminster Government’s budget.

Do these people, north and south of the border, ever talk to each other and compare notes, or are they quite happy to go on making themselves look silly and inconsistent ?

Why is it perfectly acceptable for Westminster to spend public money on opposing Scottish independence, but quite wrong for the SNP Scottish Government to spend public money on preparing for it – especially when it has been the policy – indeed the reason for its existence - of the SNP for many years?

Peter Swain

Dunbar