Constitutional convention is key for Scottish independence

It is often said – and here Andy repeats that maxim – that “sovereignty in Scotland rests with the people”. That actually is enshrined in law.

However, it needs a Constitutional Convention (CC) to establish that sovereignty by ruling on whichever piece of legislation it is convened to pontificate upon.

Sadly, for any CC to then seek to grant constitutional power to Holyrood under its existing “devolved” structure would be futile, simply because that so-called Scottish Government is clearly (reinforced by the Supreme Court ruling) subservient to Westminster and an extension of it. We do not even have true devolution – Alister Jack has made that very clear.

READ MORE: We must be patient – energy transitions takes time

I am convinced that the SNP, upon becoming our “devolved” government, would have had legal advice (then and since) to explain that they owe allegiance to Westminster; and that, with regards to promoting independence, beyond their legal competence, they are ultimately impotent.

This realisation amongst those in the SNP who are privy to the legal advice may well be a reason for their robust, clique-like management style. After all, think of the impact on their membership fees if the SNP were to admit to having no power to enact independence. As more of their activists over time accept reality, the SNP must bear the relatively slow, inexorable loss of revenue, while at least delaying the truth from opening a membership sink-hole.

So, although the exciting way forward – as Andy puts it – is in front of the SNP leadership’s eyes, they don’t have the power to take that way forward while they are the party of government at Holyrood.

The SNP and Believe in Scotland have both espoused referring to a CC in the event of Westminster not entering into negotiations where the election result would apparently require them so to do.

It’s hare-brained to imagine that a bare majority of Scotland’s MPs – representing less than 10% of the total being elected to Westminster – could ever provide a mandate for anything constitutional.

The SNP reference to a CC being involved after the election is just blatant posturing unless, of course, the election is treated as a de facto referendum.

I have suggested before that a CC should be convened prior to the election, in order to establish the course of action that will be taken in the face of Westminster’s refusal to recognise Scotland’s democratic choice. That CC, having authoritatively decreed, would give immense confidence to the electorate that their vote would be truly meaningful. Think how impactful that would be.

Rather than just launch straight into constitutional matters, it may be wise to have the CC consider something less weighty by way of a trial run, such as land reform or council tax.

With regard to its formation, local councils, education authorities, religious bodies and Scottish legal entities should all be considered. Political parties would present a problem where their loyalties are centred outside Scotland.

Who should initiate the CC? Clearly not the SNP, at present.

My choice would be Believe in Scotland. They have the presence, broadly based across Scotland, to chair the proceedings of a CC and ultimately to promote its decisions as Scotland’s sovereign choice.

Alan Adair Blairgowrie THE United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has shown up the ever-widening gulf between the Holyrood and Westminster parliaments.

It is almost unbelievable that the opposition parties who were trashing our children’s educational achievements at lunchtime were united in their support for these same children’s rights a matter of hours later (Scottish Parliament unanimously passes children’s rights bill after legal challenge, thenational.scot, Dec 7).

Imagine what our parliament could do if all MSPs belonged to Scottish-based parties putting our children first on every occasion, and how much more it could do with independence.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry