Disgruntled SNP activists lack a workable alternative to the FM’s plan

At the convention I and our branch representatives were sat behind three people who were angry and frustrated at what they saw as a less radical and mealy-mouthed continuation of what they perceived as a softly-softly strategy. Early in the afternoon, after muttering between them, they left in a fit of pique, which was great as we could finally stretch our cramped legs, but what they failed to pick up was the need to maintain a legal approach to our cause.

READ MORE: SNP win at next election will spark preparation for ending the Union

Calls for another route or alternate options don’t appreciate the limits of legality. They don’t understand what would happen if we, and particularly the SNP, were to condone or encourage anything that was not within the current legal and constitutional framework that we have to work within. They fail to understand that UDI would not work, they don’t appreciate that our administrative systems are still largely embedded in a UK-wide system, and need to be unpicked or recreated. They fail to understand that all the funds we get to service the needs and structures of society come through HM Treasury at Westminster.

These activists with their simplistic ideological thinking haven’t thought through the consequences of what in effect would be an insurgency. They fail to realise that the couple of hundred thousand core independence supporters cannot win an election or referendum alone, and that we still have to bring the couple of million ordinary voters with us. At the very least, how would we collect taxes without a functioning revenue service, still less fend off the police and military from south of the Border, and force what would be the opposition from some of our fellow citizens to comply?

While there are understandable legitimate calls for other options, please explain what they are and how they would work. There is no magic wand in this, and if they can’t think of a workable solution they should please get behind the strategies that have been thought through.

Nick Cole
Meigle, Perthshire

THIS weekend the SNP reinforced their “vote SNP” policy, spurning the “Yes Scotland” solution. There is one get-out clause though, in my humble opinion.

Our MPs can call a Yes symposium in Scotland NOW, which would be open to all Scots elected to the two governmental bodies, ie Westminster and Holyrood.

We could have done this before we were dragged out of the EU.

We should have done this in 2015 when we thrashed the three English parties, leaving them with just one MP each.

READ MORE: Humza Yousaf sets out SNP independence strategy for General Election

Even if Westminster suspended Holyrood, the validity of the invitation to the MSPs could not be questioned.

The Yes symposium would have a single issue to debate: “Revocation of the treaties linking Scotland with England, with immediate effect.”

The international press would be invited, and leaders from both the EU and the UN would be requested to attend, so as to monitor proceedings.

Should that symposium conclude that revocation of the treaties was in order, the world would also know.

There would be absolutely nothing Westminster could do about it except proceed as slowly as possible.

That would not concern us.

There would be a lot to do, lots of jobs to create, there would no longer be a reason to rush anything.

READ MORE: Public invited to memorial service for Winnie Ewing

This could actually be, and SHOULD be, done now.

We don’t have to wait for Westminster any longer, this power lies in our MPs’ hands, as did that power to sign up to the treaties in the first place.

This is PERFECTLY LEGAL IN SCOTLAND AND THE WORLD.

The SNP have chosen the same old path: “Vote SNP and we’ll open negotiations.”

The Yes symposium I propose here would debate the question for Scotland, not for a party in Scotland.

This relies on the SNP demonstrating that it understands that its role is bigger than just self-interest.

If this symposium returned Yes, then negotiations would be initiated with, and conducted through, the international courts.

I move that the question be put.

Christopher Bruce
Taynuilt

MEETING Winnie Ewing is one those memories that survives, however long ago. For me, it was in the fifties at the Edinburgh equivalent of Hyde Park’s Speakers Corner, beside the Royal Scottish Academy in the centre of Princes Street. I was among the audience captivated by what she said, and the positivity and conviction of her delivery.

Many began to realise for the first time how important to us all was the reality of Scotland’s need for independence, which Winnie expounded which such clarity and without the anger and unhappiness expressed by so many of the other nearby speakers on political and religious beliefs.

READ MORE: Digging into the foundations for Winnie Ewing’s famous by-election win

Her captivating personality and sense humour ensured we would follow her when she announced that she would be leading us on a flag-waving tour around the Royal Scottish Academy and back.

Of course we couldn’t resist, and I was among others rewarded with a chance to chat with her on our return.

What Winnie went on to achieve has been well recorded by The National and other media. For me, our meeting will never fall into one of the many gaps in my ageing memory. However, I have to say that, despite her amazing endurance, the fact that we never truly rewarded her in her lifetime is a matter for true regret.

If anyone deserves to rest in peace, it’s our Winnie.

Bill Sinclair
Edinburgh