ALISTER Jack’s claim that a second independence referendum can’t be held for 25 years and requiring consistent polling for Yes at 60% for a year is “absolutely ridiculous”, the Scottish Greens have said.
Co-leader Lorna Slater said it showed Unionists were “running scared” while Patrick Harvie slammed the “silly set of criteria”.
Earlier this week, Scottish Secretary Jack claimed that indyref2 shouldn’t go ahead because Nicola Sturgeon has “gamed” the electoral system through the co-operation deal with the Greens.
He seemingly set new conditions on holding a second constitutional vote – once in a generation, which he defines as 25 years, and 60% support for both a referendum and for independence over 12 months.
WATCH: Alister Jack comes up with bogus excuse to deny indyref2 mandate
Reacting to the comments, Slater said: “It’s absolutely ridiculous. The Unionists are running scared, they know they can’t win a referendum so they’re trying to stop us from having one.
“It’s not a consistent position and it isn’t consistent with Scottish democracy.”
Harvie added: “It’s a silly set of criteria, but it does demonstrate that even they recognise that just saying no forever is not sustainable.
“I think they’ll find that saying no even in the next few years is not sustainable.”
It came days after Harvie’s first day on the frontbench in Holyrood last week where he gave a statement on the strategy to decarbonise homes across Scotland.
In an exchange with Tory MSP Dean Lockhart, who was talking about the Barnett formula in 2045, when Scotland’s net-zero target is set for, Harvie responded by joking that Scotland will be independent well before then.
He said: “Well, Dean Lockhart and the other conservatives were being a bit cheeky in the chamber, trying to get us to be oh-so grateful for the Barnett formula while at the same time looking with scorn whenever we asked the UK Government to do anything.
“They delayed their work on heating buildings, they’ve delayed the action on the gas network, if they want Scotland to still be in the UK, they need to be willing to challenge the UK Government to actually do stuff when they’ve been dragging their feet.”
The National asked when he thought this would be, and if he had hopes for indyref2 in 2023.
READ MORE: 'Scotland needs us' Patrick Harvie tells Scottish Green Party conference
He said: “Both political parties – Greens and SNP – went into the election saying that there should be a referendum at this session of the Scottish Parliament. The SNP said it should be in the first half, if it can be achieved on that timescale I’d be very happy about it.
“I’m actually much more interested though in how we get into the substance of the debate, how do we again present to the people of Scotland a compelling vision about Scotland’s future as an independent country, as a progressive voice on the world stage.
“It’s the substance of the debate that I think is going to be inspiring to people, more so than the slightly processy question about precisely which month it will be in.”
We previously told how Slater said the energy crisis is an “excellent example” of why Scotland needs independence It comes as 14 million households in the UK are set to see a “significant rise” in their energy bills when the price cap review is held in February Both co-leaders said the UK Government’s efforts to tackle the climate crisis are not going far enough.
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