I WISH to respond to Professor Boyter’s further letter (Nov 14), where he objects to the straightforwardness of Scotland’s secession by asking “If it were that simple then why have we not already done this?”. Well the answer is even simpler – it’s because we’ve never voted for it. Remember, we lost in 2014.
Scotland can have its democratic say on independence at any General Election, whether for Westminster or for Holyrood, if a party puts up the appropriate manifesto. According to the Scottish Government, having now restored its mojo on the point, that is what’s going to happen if the Supreme Court rules out a Holyrood referendum.
READ MORE: Date for indyref2 Supreme Court judgement revealed
If the result is Yes, how on earth could the UK Government refuse to acknowledge a legitimate and democratic vote, when the UK has no legal or constitutional barrier whatsoever to Scottish secession? A Yes result would signify that independence is the democratic wish of the people, and mandate their supreme representatives to bring that about. Those representatives are the Scottish MPs. They may take Scotland out of the UK by vacating Westminster and declaring independence.
But that stark declarative power would only be required as a last resort, if London refused to cooperate. Would London refuse to cooperate, and then refuse to recognise an independent Scotland, whose elected supreme representatives, in taking their country out of the UK:
- had broken no legal or constitutional rule,
- had implemented the peaceful and democratic mandate of their people,
- had put into effect what London itself had assented to if it lost in 2014,
- had implemented something akin to the UK’s own standing legislative provision for Northern Ireland, and
- had taken seriously London’s repeated declarations that the Union would end if consent was withdrawn?
READ MORE: Eight rallies organised across Scotland in response to Supreme Court
In those circumstances it would be unconscionable for London not to recognise Scotland, and somehow (goodness knows how – perhaps Prof Boyter can explain) to keep Scotland within its domain. It would be an act of pure and open oppression, and can be dismissed as a bizarre concoction. Recognition of countries is not withheld out of pique.
On the only democratic vote yet taken, the people of Scotland chose by majority to remain in the UK. For us supporters of independence, that is the one and only real problem. Everything else is subsidiary to a Yes vote.
We need not fret about the details, so don’t lose the plot. Just get the vote set (as the Scottish Government have now promised to do), and win it for Yes.
Alan Crocket
Motherwell
WHEN Professor Alan Boyter uses the term “legal” to provide a frame of reference to any Scottish action towards reclaiming control over its own affairs, he implicitly refers to “English” law.
In this, of course, he is quite wrong to casually conflate theirs and ours, and misdirect our thinking.
The Unionists suggest that failing to comply with their strictures and laws places Scotland beyond the pale regarding other nations’ acceptance of our rightful status. The professor echoes this.
READ MORE: Tory shouts down SNP MSP for mentioning independence in Holyrood
In our land, Scots law is paramount, outwith Scotland, international law rules the day.
When the professor and many others refer to Scotland “breaking the law”, it is imperative that it be understood that those colonialists that benefit directly by their own laws will continue to add to those laws, in the same way a spider tumbles its prey in the stickiness of the web.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, the professor states that countries would be contemptuous of us for breaking the (English) law, but in reality no such contempt exists, only bewilderment at Scotland’s continued lack of action in standing up for itself in the face of this abuse.
Christopher Bruce
Taynuilt
I HAVE written twice to The National inviting someone from the leadership of the SNP to enter into an open debate about the vital currency issue, on which we should have a clear and confident position before any future vote on independence. But no, the SNP leadership will not respond, they are in hiding it appears.
However we might get some idea of their position if we take note of what Ross Greer, finance spokesperson for the Greens, is quoted as saying on this issue in The National. He states that those of us who are pressing for an early implementation of our own Scottish currency “are hardly likely to vote No” so presumably, in politician terms, can safely be ignored. “Having the Yes movement constantly put pressure on the government is really useful.” The implication here seems to be that politically they do not want to address this important issue, because there is a political advantage in keeping it as an open sore.
READ MORE: Not rushing Scottish currency 'vital to winning independence voters'
It would appear that to some politicians, this deliberate failure to address this important issue is a political game being played on the electorate.
I hope that this thinking is not what is guiding the SNP leadership. We do not need clever political games, what we do desperately need is for the SNP to treat us with respect as fellow independence supporters who have important questions to raise about the timing of being able to issue our own currency after independence.
The suggestion that some of us are pressing for an early date is because we are impatient is insulting.
READ MORE: I'm not buying Ross Greer's proposition about a Scottish currency
I have made it clear, in two previous letters, that there are vital matters relating to the Scottish economy which will be affected by the timing of when we are ready to establish our own currency. Ross does not appear to understand this yet claims to agree with the idea that we should move quickly on this.
If the politicians in the SNP and the Greens were prepared to treat the electorate with respect, they would have an open discussion with us on this issue and this would help to win the case for independence.
Andy Anderson
Ardrossan
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