JIM Taylor’s long letter (Oct 22) really misses the wider point in his understandable frustration at the lack of independence progress. Yes, we are all frustrated, but the other half of the argument, the Unionists, have a part to play as well. As with any negotiation there are two sides to the debate and if the other holds all the constitutional and legal controls then demands will be ignored if they so wish.
Far from the SNP withholding indy, even with the existing mandate it is in fact the Westminster establishment that are doing the withholding. In the main their strategy is to “divide and rule”, with whatever means possible so all those supporting the contention of SNP inactivity are doing the Unionists’ job for them. The fundamental and really only role of indy activists is to get across the message to the “No change” half of our voting population of the benefits and opportunities to be gained through independence. Undermining the SNP, and indeed all the other indy parties, does not help get the message across.
READ MORE: Jamie Hepburn responds to Cabinet Office independence information block
At the core of the problem is that we need to persuade a majority to support independence, and all the while we don’t do that Westminster will continue to ignore demands for change. Sadly, leaving it to a referendum or whatever campaign to make that effort falls into their trap and allows for vows and lies to proliferate and become the main thinking.
Without majority background support we cannot force Westminster to negotiate, so all the complaints about inaction achieve nothing but division on our side. That inevitable frustration should be levelled at the Unionists not those seeking Independence. With any competition, political argument, or indeed war there is always the other side to contend with – a point invariably forgotten by enthusiastic supporters. The question on everyone’s minds should be how do we persuade Westminster to engage, instead of complaining about our lack of progress. If Independence were that simple we would have achieved it by now.
Nick Cole
Meigle, Perthshire
THE conference season is over and there was one glaring fact to be taken from it. If you look at the four keynote speeches, the Labour, LibDem and the Tory leaders were going through the motions while at the SNP conference the FM was going through the gears.
I did not vote for Humza, and time will tell whether I was right or wrong. I have to give him his dues as he delivered a speech full of hope and aspiration. His inexperience showed when he announced the council tax freeze without telling anyone but at least his heart was in the right place.
READ MORE: Go behind the scenes at the SNP's 2023 conference with Holyrood Weekly
I was never a fan of a de facto referendum in the General Election as I consider it to be a non-event in the grand scheme of things so I am glad that is no longer the plan per se. I was for a quick Scottish vote, but on reflection my views have changed and here is why.
After Sir Keir gets in it will not take long for the electorate to discover he is a Tory wearing a red rosette. The voters will see an ongoing cost-of-living crisis fuelled by high energy and petrol prices with no help at all coming from Downing Street as every penny will be a prisoner in broken Britain. That will leave the voters in England, Wales and Northern Ireland trapped in another five years of hell.
We in Scotland, however, will have the luxury of the next Holyrood election to get us out of this toxic Union. The time between the General Election and the Scottish election will be when the people will see that Sir Keir is out of his depth and the so-called Labour revival, which may result in extra seats in the General Election, will mean nothing as the independence movement will be on the front foot and the people of Scotland will take us to where we want to be.
It might just be that the long game is the way ahead here, so I am falling into line with the plan in the hope that the indy movement will benefit from a Prime Minister who has no class, no compassion and no charisma. Bring it on.
Old John
Ayrshire
I CAN’T have been the only person irritated by David Mitchell referring (twice) to Edinburgh’s Charlotte Square as George Square in his article (In the name of the Union) on Monday drawing attention to the embedding of the Union in our consciousness by the naming of streets, squares etc when the New Town was conceived and built.
Edinburgh’s George Square is on the south side and while the original plan was to name Charlotte Square St George’s Square, this was changed to avoid confusion with the existing one, though choosing Queen Charlotte as a substitute still supports his thesis. Better proofreading needed methinks.
Iain Black
Edinburgh
HAVING been born and brought up in the Edinburgh New Town I completely agree about the Union bias. Hanover Street led into first Dundas Street then Pitt Street with Cumberland Street, Great King Street and Queen Street all leading off. But I’m at a loss to know when George Square moved from beside the University in the Old Town. St Andrew’s Square then George Street leads to Charlotte Square (named for a royal consort).
Morag O’Dea
Edinburgh
I WAS delighted to read Ruth Wishart’s column in Sunday National (Building a new Scotland should not require the permission of Westminster, Oct 22). She confirmed what I wrote last week in this paper that “the ba’ is well and truly burst” thinking that Westminster is going to give us a referendum. We’ll see you in the Wimbledon (over-60s) finals, Ruth.
Ken McCartney
Hawick
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