LIKE Michael Maclennan (Letters, Jan 21) and others, I feel the decision of the SNP to only have two questions at their forthcoming conference on independence is wrong. Such a conference is effectively an extraordinary general meeting to discuss one topic – in this case, how to hold a legal route to independence – it isn’t about how many votes or seats you can get at a General Election.
After all, how many times now have the SNP won the most seats in Scotland at a General Election? I have lost count, but estimate that they have won at least 10 or 11 consecutive elections in Scotland. We are no further forward, and until such times as we resolve the Supreme Court decision, Westminster retains supremacy under some ancient and long-dead king’s authority from before the Union of Parliaments 1707. That being the case, Westminster will not sanction any moves by Scotland to become independent until the courts remove that power in respect of Scottish independence.
READ MORE: Scottish independence poll gives Yes a HUGE lead amid gender bill row
The SNP decided at their formation to go down the democratic route, as have other political parties in Scotland. This naturally limits your options to focusing primarily on the ballot box. However, the ballot box is the final destination and not primarily the first thing that needs to be taken care of. The first point is to have it legal and beyond reproach from Westminster so that the electorate can have their say – either by a referendum, or in a General Election. As such, what we should be discussing and voting on is how to wrest control from Westminster so that we can leave the Union of Parliaments 1707 and the resultant treaty.
Last year, the SNP took the step to challenge Westminster via the Supreme Court and a lot of people said that this was the wrong step to take, but it did give a definitive answer to some questions. So I think it was the correct step to take if you want to go down the legal route, and what we should now do is to build on that and take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
That doesn’t mean that we need to take the same case to the ECHR to make an effective appeal, and ultimately we could take the case to the United Nations. I wouldn’t be surprised if at some stage in the future a case is presented to the UN from Scotland before Westminster sticks its tail between its legs and lets us hold a referendum or become independent. However, as we have now started down the route of going through the courts, we should continue to pursue this avenue until we have a definitive answer to Scottish rights and we have the power to hold an independence referendum.
READ MORE: Four key things we learned from our major new independence poll
If the Scottish Government isn’t prepared to fight for us through the courts, then there is only one option left, and that is to mount our own challenge and prepare a modern case for asserting nationhood. Or to be more accurate, returning our nationhood to its rightful owners. We certainly have plenty of historical evidence to prove the case such as our legal system, traditions, languages, and produce marked “Made in Scotland” to assert a case. It just needs compiled and the right legal brains and advocates to present it to the ECHR or the United Nations. Yes, I know that it will also take a considerable amount of money as well.
As a matter of interest, there was a petition begun two or three years ago that was sent to the UN. I wonder how many responded and what updates we can get on it?
Alexander Potts
Kilmarnock
THANKS to Lesley Riddoch and The National for the lovely obituary of the late, great Derek Bateman in Saturday’s National.
Grace Chilles
via email
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