IT is evident that the usual Unionist scribes, having stopped salivating over Mr Salmond’s troubles, and by association over those alleged as the effects on the SNP, have retreated into the familiar and deserved ground of internecine war within the Conservative and Labour parties, where they ought to have comfortably remained. The unity of the supporters of Scottish independence, a source of real distress to those opposed, has yet again been realised.
Mr Rees-Mogg has exposed irrefutably the features of those of anti-Scottish persuasion, who profess to be the champions of the “precious Union” and of what they regard as Britishness. A careful analysis will establish that in reality they are not “British”, if that alludes to a united community, but rather that they are “English”, a fact which more and more is being recognised. That attribute is glaringly obvious to any dispassionate examiner of Westminster proceedings, especially since 1945. The cherished unity disregards not only the established wishes of our people but any real opportunity to advance those aspirations.
What right, constitutional or moral or just, has Mr Rees-Mogg or indeed any opponent of Scottish sovereignty, to refute arrogantly our right of self-determination “for at least a generation”? Before such opponents look for the definition of xenophobia, they should recall and acknowledge the contribution Scotland has made to our wellbeing and security. Scots since the re-birth of the Scottish Government have been systematically and quite cynically distanced by Westminster from any opportunity to improve our condition by persuasion, and by reasoned argument.
A future plebiscite and the recovery of our sovereignty must be the outcome for which succeeding generations will be eternally grateful.
J Hamilton
Bearsden
READ MORE: Jacob Rees-Mogg says no to indyref2 for at least 20 years
MR Rees-Mogg, the future Tory/Ukip Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has reaffirmed that all those Leave voters, knew that what they were voting for, ie a Brexit with no Scottish independence.
Furthermore, he is clear that the earlier No vote in Scotland demonstrated that the people of Scotland wanted to leave EU membership issues predominantly in the hands of English voters. As a result, Scotland faces 20 years before the Tory Brexit mast, before it would be permitted a vote to leave.
To rub salt into the wound, future Prime Minister Mogg makes it clear that Scotland cannot be allowed to interfere with trade deals or migration policies that he considers benefit England, acknowledging the democratic reduction in Scottish devolution, for which he considers No and Leave voters clearly campaigned for. Hard Brexit and the end of Scottish devolution as we know it is now clearly in sight and nearly upon us, with the “not SNP” mantra only slightly faltering, when the end of Scottish devolution initially became a definite possibility.
The central control of the Scottish Parliament by the UK Government in the past by Gordon Brown was via the control of the Scottish block grant. Such a similar assault by a Tory/Ukip UK Government must be expected, but in spades.
The response must be different, and so local taxation now needs to have its upper limits further relaxed in its upper bands. This would facilitate public services from greater local financial provision, as Scottish Government national finances are further reduced by further Tory/Ukip austerity, courtesy of Prime Minister Mogg. It would also shift councillors’ energies back onto the needs of their electorate and off the national “not SNP” UK agenda, which would only assist a Tory/ Ukip Mogg government.
Stephen Tingle
Greater Glasgow
WHILE I must agree with Janet Cunningham (Letters, August 30) that “the indy movement is a broad church”, I cannot further agree when she goes on to say “the SNP, for example, will be defunct once independence is achieved”.
Does anyone really believe that some popular electable alternative to the SNP is going to magically emerge from nowhere following independence? There will initially be a dearth of competition as the current branch offices of the dysfunctional English Unionist parties are the ones that will become defunct as illegal foreign-funded entities.
It may take some time for a valid electable opposition to emerge, but if there is to be independence it will take effect under the auspices of a strong SNP government.
Bruce Moglia
Bridge of Weir
READ MORE: Letters, August 30
I SHOULD like to thank Alisdair Forbes (Letters, September 1) for attracting my attention to the Emily Maitlis interview concerning Alex Salmond. I am utterly disgusted by the antics of this woman, who has blatantly ignored the BBC’s guidelines on impartiality and in so doing has demeaned her profession and the integrity of thousands of journalists whose integrity is above reproach, an integrity to which she can never aspire.
In an ideal world she would be censured for this appalling behaviour. There’s the rub.
It has become increasingly obvious that the BBC has adopted an anti-Scottish attitude which brings itself into disrepute. In the days of John Reith Ms Maitlis’s feet would not have touched the ground.
I have a good friend who refuses to watch the BBC because of its squalid attitude to Scotland, and although I still watch non-political programmes I now avoid political and news coverage on the BBC.
Although I would never condone online abuse of any kind, I can and do understand why the malevolent attitude of Maitlis and her like would provoke a furious and immoderate response.
Shame on you Ms Maitlis.
Joe Cowan
Balmedie
READ MORE: Letters, August 31
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