CORRESPONDENTS such as Stephen Tingle (Letters, May 28) have every right to argue for a non-binding or unofficial independence referendum, but to my mind there are two great tactical errors which the wider Yes movement must avoid at all costs. The first is the seductive allure of the non-binding unofficial referendum advocated by elements of the Yes movement, and the second is a kind of insipid constitutionalism orchestrated by the current SNP leadership, which ties our hands into a Section 30 route as the only valid route to independence.
The great difficulty with the first error can be observed by looking at the obstacles which we can see Madrid putting in the pathway of the Catalonian referendum being validated: an illegal referendum will be dismissed out of hand by international opinion, and recourse to a legal challenge only takes power out of the hands of the people and gives it to unelected judges who may or may not decide in our favour.
READ MORE: Letters: Non-binding indyref2 is required, before or after Holyrood 2021
The second error has arisen because I believe the EU establishment has made it known to the SNP leadership that to them only a Section 30 would be acceptable. Notwithstanding that the pro-austerity and undemocratic EU has no more right to place limits on Scottish sovereignty than Westminster has, this overlooks the key weapon which the SNP has in its democratic armoury, the fact that it has enough independence mandates to paper the walls of Holyrood.
It is high time every single Yes supporter who is an SNP member lobbies their branch, constituency association, affiliated organisation, or members interest group, to restore the historic link between voting SNP and an independence mandate. Circumstances were far different in 1995, when that policy was rightfully changed. A quarter of a century later circumstances are far different again and a new twin-track approach must be pursued by SNP parliamentarians, one which does not abandon the Section 30 route but indeed complements it by stating that under specified conditions such a parliamentary mandate will be activated in defence of Scottish interests.
Cllr Andy Doig (Independent)
Renfrewshire Council
YOUR correspondent Stephen Tingle resurrects the argument for a non-binding referendum and writes as though the result were a foregone conclusion. As I have said before, at the risk of equally boring folk: there would be three possible outcomes.
Firstly we could lose. It would be harder to win a non-binding referendum than a binding one. Turnout would be lower, particularly among the uncommitted yet persuadable. In which case you could forget about a democratic road to independence for a great number of years.
Secondly we could win and the British response could be to ignore it. Thirdly we could expend our resources, financially and personal, to win and then have to fight a binding referendum in straitened circumstances which we would risk losing, in which case see point one.
Scotland has lost more battles through impatience than it has ever won by tactical judgement. Let not this, our greatest battle, be one of them.
Ian Richmond
Dumfries and Galloway
EVENTS this week suggest a rapid acceleration of the hollowing out of democracy. Normally these things are a bit like a fuel gauge in the sense that decline is only noticeable over time. Yet this week we can actually see the debasement of elected positions before our very eyes.
The Prime Minister looks weaker than Theresa May while this so-called advisor strolls around in his casual clothes with the air of someone who genuinely believes he cannot be touched.
The job of Prime Minister seems to be becoming more of a ceremonial position a bit like the Queen. Once a powerful position, these days its occupant is merely wheeled out to address the nation occasionally with a speech written by someone else. Few folk expect them to genuinely mean what they say or know if they even care about it. If democracy is a good thing, why are we getting further away from being one?
Simon McLean
Campbeltown
IS anyone else fuming about the charade that was Johnson’s first appearance before the Commons Liaison Committee? I couldn’t manage more than 15 minutes.
We needed answers, not bluster; honesty, not snide remarks about care homes in Scotland and separatists (as if those in England have been without a problem).
READ MORE: Liaison Committee: Boris Johnson takes jab at Nicola Sturgeon
He had the temerity to pin the outcry about Cummings’s behaviour and story on the media; casually ignoring the amount of fury MPs and MSPs have been receiving from constituents.
He referred to a mass of false allegations, but did not wish to discuss those that were true.
All this is bad enough, without the unnecessary and nauseating false bonhomie. The latter is all Johnson has, why join in?
Scotland has to get out of this hopeless union.
Roddie Macpherson
Avoch
ARE you a politician or high-profile public servant experiencing importunate questioning from nosy interviewers?
Have you been caught out recently in flagrante delicto – or merely a blatant lie – and left with nowhere to hide?
We recommend “Time To Move On” – the ultimate solution for those plagued by reporters who should mind their own business.
Used by 99% of Conservative Cabinet ministers, “Time To Move On” solution is guaranteed to clean up those messy, awkward interrogation-situations.
Wave them away with “Time To Move On”!
James Stevenson
Auchterarder
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