Neale Hanvey’s approach would let Scotland put away the begging bowl

Mr Hanvey based his argument on various aspects including Scotland’s Claim of Right, which is protected within the Treaty of Union; plus the fact that in Scotland, the people are sovereign over parliament – unlike in England where the monarch is sovereign over parliament, and parliament is sovereign over the people; plus statements made by prominent past politicians including Maggie Thatcher, John Major and William Ewart Gladstone, who have all voiced their support for Scotland’s right to self-determination.

READ MORE: Alba bid to let Scotland hold new indyref every seven years

In 1889 Mr Gladstone stated that if Scotland were to make a claim on the United Kingdom Parliament to be treated both on the same principle and in the same manner as Ireland, he would not deny that claim. Ireland, then, was still a “complete entity”. Today it is divided. But there is merit in Mr Hanvey’s argument because the Good Friday Agreement allows Northern Ireland to hold a referendum on uniting with Eire, every seven years, subject to the desire of the people.

Scotland is deprived of that democratic possibility and must instead pick up its “begging bowl” and ask Westminster, “Please sir, may we have another referendum?” with little chance of it ever being granted. This bill, without supporting either outcome of any referendum, would insert into Scottish democracy the same right as Northern Ireland.

Is it not a failing in Westminster democracy that one part of the United Kingdom is allowed that procedure while another larger part is denied it, even though the Smith Commission – which followed the last referendum and was signed and agreed by all political parties – stated that there was nothing in that agreement that prevented Scotland from holding another referendum in future.

READ MORE: Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh​: Time to fight for the golden thread of Scottish sovereignty

Alas! Questions now arise. The bill had cross-party support from one independent MP and three SNP MPs, one of whom was Joanna Cherry – and suddenly we have Alyn Smith asking for her to be expelled from the party. What’s wrong Mr Smith? Doesn’t the SNP want to explore every possible opportunity of achieving independence? Or are they, as many are suggesting, fast becoming the devolution party instead of the independence party?

They have dallied over independence for the past eight years, giving priority instead to a bill that benefits a tiny minority of the population, while opening the way for abuse of the 50% of the population that is genuinely female. I agree that these unfortunate persons covered by the Gender Recognition Reform Bill need protection, but would point out that the ECHR affords that protection.

If the SNP had put as much effort into getting independence as they have put into this bill, we could have been independent by now. Instead, they seem intent on adopting a course that will delay it for another 25 years, with a “de facto General Election referendum” that they are likely to lose. They must be aware that no party has achieved 50% of the vote in any General Election in the last 100 years.

Charlie Kerr
Glenrothes

A VERY short note in Saturday’s National from Ni Holmes, St Andrews, missed the point completely. In the article it says “A referendum every seven years. Does Neale Hanvey understand that if we do it right we only need one more?”

The bill being proposed tries to do several things. Specifically the bill, if passed, would get us a Westminster-supported referendum as it is more than seven years since 2014. If our next referendum fails then we need to wait seven years until the next one. This means that independence will not drift away as it did for Quebec after their second attempt. It would break the apparent SNP’s unassailable mountain to get us a vote.

The bill also uses the Claim of Right and confirms that we are in a political and economic union not a territorial one. It sets historical presidents and refers to international law.

Did Ni Holmes actually read what Neale Hanvey said on February 1? You can find it on the Alba website and as a blog article on the Salvo site.

Robert Anderson
Dunning

CAN anyone in the SNP explain to me why only a few of the SNP MPs voted to support Neale Hanvey’s private member’s bill in the Commons?

What exactly was wrong with the Scotland (Self-Determination) Bill? Is it not important for the SNP in Westminster to take every opportunity to fight for Scottish independence and defend Scottish sovereignty? Or am I missing something?

Surely it was not for cheap party-political reasons that they refused to vote for it, ie” the bill was fine, but we don’t work with the party which is presenting it”? Please tell me it was not that, but some genuine political reason of substance which was motivating the SNP MPs. If it was not just petty party politics they had better make that clear to us, otherwise it looks like they have put petty party politics before Scotland’s need to project the independence cause.

Andy Anderson
Ardrossan

WHEN my wife and two boys were walking in the lights on procession towards parliament on a very windy Tuesday evening, my flag touched my lit torch for a brief second and burned a small hole.

When I got home and checked the damage it seemed somewhat poignant that one star had been forcefully removed from the flag as was Scotland forcefully removed from the EU. Hopefully the damage can be repaired as soon as possible.

David Greenhill
via email