THERE are all kinds of areas upon which we can debate independence. We are all entitled to our opinions. That is what democracy is all about.
When it comes to arguing there is no mandate for a new vote on independence, even after Scotland elected a majority of pro-independence MSPs … that’s pretty much the opposite of what democracy is all about.
So far we’ve heard all the usual soundbites from the usual suspects – the 2014 vote was once in a generation (despite the Smith Commission saying nothing prevents Scotland going independent in the future), now is not the time, focus on recovery, etc etc.
READ MORE: Labour journalist urges party to accept 'exciting' idea of independent Scotland
But last night we heard an argument which we hadn’t had the pleasure of being exposed to before during the BBC’s Question Time.
The virtual audience is now made up of a big pool of contributors, so you may see the same people popping up more than once.
Chris, one of those pool members, joined in the debate over whether there’s a mandate for indyref2 (which there very obviously is).
“It’s interesting that there is so much talk about what is democratic,” she told the panel. “The number of people who actually voted in the Scottish election, who voted for SNP, comes to something like 2.5% of the total population of the UK. That is not a democratic figure for saying that they should have the right to break up the Union.”
Okay Chris. Want to remind us if every single European Union citizen had a say on the UK leaving? Didn’t think so.
It is such a bizarre comment that it’s hard to know where to start. But we'll try.
First of all the SNP broke records with the number of votes, and vote share, they received last Thursday.
Secondly … is Chris suggesting that the whole of the UK should vote in Scottish elections? Maybe we should have had a vote in the Hartlepool by-election if that’s the case. (The Jouker would have voted for the Northern Independence Party btw.)
But Chris had more to say. “49% is not a total majority and even if we were assuming that every single person who voted for the SNP is in favour of independence you still don’t have a majority,” she told the panel.
“If you want to have a referendum, an indicative referendum to suggest that there should be a real referendum on Scottish independence, shouldn’t we actually be looking at whether Scottish independence is actually viable? I could decide that our village ought to go independent and put a man on the moon. Doesn’t mean I can do it.”
READ MORE: Question Time: Kate Forbes tears apart Lisa Nandy's indyref2 mandate claim
There you have it. Scottish independence equivalent to putting a man on the moon (which is something that was achieved successfully, IIRC).
PS: Just a quick reminder that 65 countries have successfully claimed their independent from Britain. And none are clamouring to return.
Thankfully Labour member and journalist Paul Mason was quick to point out the fundamentals of self-determination.
“To the people who are intensely interested in whether the Scots can go independent or not – it’s not your business. Under international law nations have the right to self-determination,” he said during his answer.
That’s it. That’s how simple it is. No need to fish out random figures that mean nothing – nations have the right to self-determination. And that’s that.
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