The Scottish Government should strike while the iron is hot

READ MORE: Why it’s time to seize the moment and push for independence

Brexit is the justification for Scotland seeking a second independence referendum and now is the time to inform Westminster that we expect the necessary legislation to facilitate it. Indeed, if that is not forthcoming it is the intention to proceed with a consultative referendum – as Wishart points out, no former colony of the empire ever requested the equivalent of a Section 30 order.

Many might say that Scotland is a “partner” in the Union and therefore the situation is much different. Historically that might have been true but of recent times – as demonstrated daily by the Westminster Parliament, the Tory government and the British media – Scotland is treated as a colony under Westminster rule. Indeed, we should, as Phillip Hammond suggested, be grateful for our handouts from our colonial masters.

I welcome the recent mood music from the party embracing an early move to a Scottish currency, central bank and own reserves, separate from any dependency on Westminster. Beyond this I hope that the spring conference will mark a turning point. It is likely that by that date all hope of a People’s Vote will be lost but we, as a party, need to articulate the need to continue, and to continue in a much more assertive way to demand a second Scottish independence referendum.

However, there is little mileage left in the case that being taken out of the EU against our will will lead to an upsurge in support for Yes. There is therefore no merit in continuing with this “grievance” position. Scotland will be out of the EU by the summer at the latest.

Suffice to say to the electorate that an independent Scotland will thereafter hold its own referendum on EU or EFTA membership or indeed the status quo.

It is time for the leadership to move the debate forward. That debate must be based, as Lesley Riddoch made the point (Amid the disaster of Brexit, we need a strategy to paint an alternative future, March 14), “on a vision and a destination”.

READ MORE: In the disaster of Brexit, we need a strategy for an alternative future

A vision based on increased prosperity – not waiting on handouts from Hammond, but based on us taking control and using our resources to build a fairer and more equal society. And what’s wrong with emphasizing our oil assets as transformational on that journey?

I was active in the party throughout the 70s when oil was first discovered and it was a turning point in the campaign for independence. I have never understood why the party leadership has shrunk from promoting this asset. Governments make revenue from the tax take from oil, irrespective of the price. These revenues build our infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals, rail networks all things we have long lost out on thanks to the UK investing Scottish-sourced revenues in London and the south east.

I hope the party leadership, at the spring conference, create that positive vision, that long awaited destination. Let’s move to it with energy, imagination and optimism.

There is an old Highland clan maxim, “strike hard when the axe is in your hand”, Brexit provides that opportunity.

Ian Stewart
Uig

RUTH Wishart observes in her excellent article, that she and Michael Fry “are observing the political night sky from different vantage points”. I think she is right. However, I think that they are both asking questions which, though cognate, are different.

Wishart makes an excellent case for an independence referendum if not right now then in the very short term. As she says, “a weak Prime Minister, hapless Secretary of State, and onrushing economic disaster” are likely to favour a Yes vote this time. Brexit has been a gift that keeps on giving – Scotland’s representatives are ignored, our interests disregarded, the consequences of Brexit seem to be beginning to be reflected in the polls. All of these things can only be favourable for another independence vote succeeding this time.

Yet, the gap in Ruth Wishart’s argument is this: “I understand the desirability of getting Section 30 permission for a new referendum, but not why it should be a deal-breaker.” At this point the disjunction with Fry becomes particularly well-defined.

Fry conjectures that what he calls a “wildcat” referendum – one called without the agreement of Westminster – is not the route the FM is minded to follow, on the grounds, he asserts, that “if we keep the whole business legal, there is no excuse for Unionists to sabotage it” (First Minister’s caution over indyref2 is wise, March 12). This strikes me at least as more than a little optimistic. However, Fry makes clear that in his view, neither May, nor anyone likely to replace her – whether Boris Johnson, Sajid Javid, Dominic Raab, or even Jeremy Corbyn – would be likely to grant a Section 30 Order.

READ MORE: Michael Fry: First Minister’s caution over indyref2 is wise

Between them, Wishart and Fry make clear the difference of opinion with which we must grapple. Wishart makes a good point when she asks: “How many of those nations who de-coupled from the Empire waited for the nod from on high?”. Well there were Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Or would we prefer being the next Kenya, Cyprus or Malaya? Or even Ireland?

On the other hand, what Fry is offering is independence in 2024. Perhaps! It might be, for instance, that while I doubt May will still be in office come the next election, we could be facing someone who is no less persuadable than that “bloody difficult woman” (as Ken Clarke would have it). Or we could be like Kosovo and kept out of the EU by, for instance, Spain.

Thus, it seems to me that we have to find a way between a rock and a hard place. To find a means of achieving our independence democratically that will be recognised internationally but does not require the permission of a jurisdiction and legislature that will never allow a democratic expression of opinion, following the Spanish strategy with regard to Catalonia. Just waiting and hoping as Fry opines will not achieve our aim, but the legal realities cannot wisely be ignored either.

Alasdair Galloway
Via email