IN my view, the current plan to hold a de facto referendum at the next election risks everything for little gain. Here are six reasons why, and an alternative solution:
1. Making a General Election about a single issue is extremely difficult. The Yes movement will struggle to get the message out and the election will instead be framed as Starmer vs Sunak with the de facto referendum a second order issue, leaving voters confused and unclear about the question.
2. A large proportion of both the SNP and wider Yes movement do not agree on this strategy or even on what the result of any de facto referendum would mean. The result is that it will be nearly impossible to motivate the Yes movement, let alone the wider public, to treat the next General Election as a de facto referendum.
READ MORE: Clear majority blames Westminster for crisis in Scottish NHS, poll finds
3. A General Election would reduce the franchise by preventing EU nationals or 16- and 17-year-olds – two parts of the electorate that favour independence – from voting. Turnout is also generally low in General Elections, with only 67% of those eligible voting in 2019, compared to 84.6% turning out for the independence referendum.
4. Many people who support independence don’t support the SNP. By making the “referendum” an election between political parties – where voting for independence means voting for the SNP – we would be alienating voters and most likely losing Yes votes.
5. Even if all these obstacles were overcome, it would still be extremely likely that the UK Government would ignore the result.
6. On the contrary, if we fail to hit 50% it would be presented as another failed referendum and we would likely not see another in our lifetimes.
READ MORE: SNP MP's perfect response as Ann Widdecombe says Scotland should be 'put aside'
What if, instead of taking this route, we use the next election to secure a mandate to proceed with a referendum without UK Government consent. What if, to paraphrase Kenyon Wright, we see their “state says no” and raise them a “people say yes”. This option would replace legal challenges with a democratic mandate that I believe would trump the ruling of the Supreme Court in the eyes of both the national and international public.
It also throws down the gauntlet to the incoming Labour government to either agree to a Section 30 or face a full-blown constitutional crisis. It puts the ball in our court and we can then proceed on our terms, knowing we have the people behind us.
With SNP conference fast approaching in March, this option is surely at least worth considering.
Ewan Ritchie
Haddington
THERE is considerable public debate concerning incomes and the tax that some people may or may not pay. This is especially important when governments plead they are too poor to pay proper wages to public-sector workers such as those in health and education. As is often the case, it is worth noting the Scandinavian examples.
Every October, the annual tax returns of Norwegian citizens are posted online on the Norwegian Tax Administration’s official website, and anyone can go and have a look.
READ MORE: Tories scorched with Burns' Night 'parcel of rogues' burn over Zahawi tax row
While individual incomes may not be published, the tax paid is publicly recorded on government websites so everyone can see that everyone else is contributing to public welfare.
This has been the case for more than a hundred years, so long before Norway had North Sea oil.
Tax offices in Sweden and Finland have variations along similar lines.
Norman Lockhart
Innerleithen
THE penny has yet to drop that the collapse of the NHS, our rail service, our post office, our public services and our pensions are not the fallout from being dragged out of Europe against our wishes: they are the deliberate design of the Tories and Brexit was merely the enabler.
The Tories want to dismantle every aspect of the welfare state and privatise every vestige of service run for public good to rake in private profit. They could not do so while European legislation was in place to protect workers’ rights. This is the mountain of legislation they set out to abandon. As for Northern Ireland, I doubt if many hedge fund managers have ever been there – they are more interested in the Cayman Islands.
Ian Richmond
Springfield
WOULD you believe it! Nadhim Zahawi accidentally forgot to pay the piddling amount of £5 million of tax. Every MP, especially those in government, should have a lie detector attached which lights up the forehead every time they tell a porky. Just think of the saving on Westminster’s electricity bill.
My recollection of past MPs who were accused of committing some misdeed is that they immediately resigned to save the party and the PM embarrassment. Today, the response is likely to be “I’m going to tough this out” and the PM’s response is an “independent” inquiry to kick the problem into the long grass until it’s forgotten.
Mike Underwood
Linlithgow
ACCORDING to Richard Sharp, he had nothing to do with arranging a loan for the Prime Minister (MPs to quiz Sharp, Jan 25). When requested he simply introduced a long-term business friend to one of the most senior government officials in the UK, apparently without even asking details about what was expected of his friend.
Surely natural curiosity is the one of the key attributes of the head of the largest news-gathering agency in the country.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry
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