“WILL the SNP respond to readers’ proposals?” – or are they too busy to notice – was the question posed before Catriona de Voil’s letter in last Monday’s National. Well, in recent months I have personally presented John Swinney, Keith Brown, Angus Robertson and Deirdre Brock, the SNP’s policy development convener (pictured), written material – an A4 page for Swinney and Project Arbroath booklets for others – outlining the initial steps involved in restoring full powers to a Scottish Parliament, as advocated for in my letters to The National and summarised below. The promised response is still awaited.
Declaring the 2026 Scottish Parliament election a plebiscite on extending Holyrood’s powers into constitutional matters reserved by Westminster is vital for Scotland’s cause.
1. Principle and Purpose
This approach affirms that constitutional powers rightly belong to the Scottish people and their elected parliament. It recognises that asking permission from Westminster undermines Scotland’s right to decide. It prioritises building majority support within Scotland over seeking international recognition – aligning with John Swinney’s stated electoral goal for 2026.
2. Westminster Cannot Ignore It
The 2014 referendum set a political precedent, but not a legal one. Unlike calls for permission to hold referendums, this strategy cannot be ignored or dismissed with “now is not the time”. A bill asserting Holyrood’s competence on constitutional matters, backed by an electoral mandate, forces Westminster to respond.
3. Testing Devolution’s Limits
Giving Scots a say on expanding Holyrood’s powers reveals whether devolution can meet their aspirations. If Westminster resists, it exposes devolution as a closed process. Future UK promises will lack credibility in any democratic decision on Scotland’s future.
READ MORE: Jeremy Corbyn: Your Party could be best route for Scottish independence
4. Complementary to International Efforts
Liberation Scotland’s UN case for recognition as a non-self-governing territory still requires clear domestic support for self-determination to achieve meaningful results. Similarly, Holyrood’s refusal to enact the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights due to perceived encroachment on “reserved powers” becomes moot if constitutional authority is democratically claimed.
5. Legal and Political Legitimacy
Though some favour the English legal principle of Westminster’s supremacy over all else, Scots law and constitutional tradition support the approach proposed here. Courts may initially decide, but the sovereignty question –Scottish people or Westminster – ultimately remains political. What may really be tested in court – as it needs to be – is whether Scotland has a legal framework that is fit to uphold the democratic rights to self-determination of the Scottish people in the 21st century.
6. Political Will and Public Confidence
Rhetoric alone won’t secure a mandate. Politicians must commit to action on sovereignty to earn decisive public support. If they hesitate, civic Scotland – Yes groupings and activists, councils, trade unions, and citizens – can press them to act.
READ MORE: Pat Kane: What can Picts teach us about a route to Scottish independence?
7. Clarifying SNP Policy
Some might argue this clashes with the SNP’s “Winning Independence” resolution that is now policy. Nowhere does the resolution explicitly state that permission will be requested from the UK Government for what it describes correctly as our right to self-determination. That, however, is an interpretation that can be taken from it. That same resolution – in stating that an SNP majority ensures the UK state will put no barriers in the way of Holyrood having the power to call a referendum – implies Westminster would not contest the Scottish Parliament asserting these powers when notified we will do so under that electoral mandate. This interpretation must be clarified to reinforce the public’s confidence sufficiently to win its support.
Scots believe in their right to decide. That belief must be matched by political commitment to act on it. Even if that action at some stage may entail legal proceedings, the public perception that they have a right to decide and that Westminster is attempting to undermine that right will strengthen the support for any future action wherever that may lead.
Mike Wallace
Edinburgh
I READ Andy Anderson’s comments with great interest on Saturday. Can this be the loophole we’ve been looking for? Let’s hope so, or on the other hand how long will it be before someone questions the legality of what Andy wrote? Fingers crossed that someone sends a copy to our FM.
Ken McCartney
via email
IN response to Catriona Clark’s query about the early ending of Debate Night (Letters, Nov 14), I suggest the answer is that, if any episode is screened after we know the details of the Budget, it might be impossible to control both audience and panel responses in line with the BBC agenda for such programmes.
P Davidson
Falkirk
Share