Policy plans are needed to sell indy to voters on the fence

I completely agree with his main point that no matter what the SNP do or whatever majority they win in the 2021 election, Westminster will continue to say “no” as long as the Tories are in power; and that is probably for the next five years. And during that time they will be working towards, and achieving, the reduction of Holyrood’s powers.

The current policy of the SNP to concentrate on reducing the effect of Covid is admirable and effective, but I regret that we cannot let that stop us working on an independence plan.

Come the end of 2020 and the beginning of 2021 there will be a similar level of effort needed to counteract the Brexit mess and in next to no time the 2021 election will be upon us, leaving little time to prepare properly for it.

READ MORE: George Kerevan: Why a pro-independence Holyrood majority won't get indyref2

So somehow, by whatever means possible, we need to be preparing for it NOW. In my humble opinion the SNP will need the help of activist groups including think-tanks like Common Weal to put together the necessary documents to “sell” independence to current members and “don’t-knows”.

“Necessary documents” should include a series of policy papers which would include what a future SNP government plan to do in devolved areas, identifying limitations due to lack of independence, and also defining what will be done with independence.

Back in the 1980s I remember the SNP produced such a document that outlined what they proposed per major policy area, around one or two pages for each policy.

In addition a separate legal taskforce must start working on a plan to achieve independence other than through a Section 30. If the UK Parliament can produce legislation based on something from Henry VIII’s time, early 1500s, then tackling the legality of the Act of Union 1707 should be a doddle! This approach should not be called Plan B – it is more important than that.

I must be honest (as a member from 1972) that I’m becoming more and more concerned about the lack of aggressive thinking from the SNP, both in developing the above, taking action in responding to UK Government attacks, and coming up with major changes to life in an independent Scotland. Some of Common Weal’s policies are thinking well ahead and are well though-out, but might be considered too dramatic and frighten away “soft” voters. However, surely after discussion and negotiation an agreed approach could be achieved.

Currently the SNP’s approach is far too cautious, and the results from the resilience group and the Growth Commission have not produced effective policies, targets and implementation plans. Admittedly the Growth Commission did produce some plans, but the policies on which they were based no longer apply.

Our approach to Scottish Government finances after independence must be more aggressive, and accept that there will be no or limited cooperation from Westminster. A Scottish central bank and Scottish currency should be “live” on day one, at or before the end of the transition phase.

James Macintyre
via email

I AM well aware of the reasons put forward recently for having another independence-supporting party on the list at the next Holyrood election, and some are very logical

if you think that “gaming” the system to keep Unionists out and increase independence seats will help our cause.

I am also, however, very impressed by the arguments in George Kerevan’s article, as I am personally fairly convinced that extra list seats as well as a sweep of the constituencies by the SNP will not alter a thing at Westminster.

I believe that in such a successful scenario the Westminster reply would be that the SNP did not get more than 50% of the total votes in both cases, and so the result is only due to unfair manipulation of the system, and does not reflect the will of the majority of voters, let alone of the population. Square one again.

I believe that the focus for voting should be on ensuring that the SNP vote IN BOTH CASES is over 50%, and that means voting SNP 1&2 for all those who support independence, regardless of whether they actually support that party overall. Folk will find their natural party of choice after we have won our independence, when a full range of parties will establish themselves, but only a majority vote in each area now will incontrovertibly represent a wish for independence. Even the machinations currently under way to set up new parties or alliances can simply give credence to the view that the result is somehow dodgy.

Let us rather acknowledge that our differences are secondary and show our determined support for independence by an irrefutable percentage of both votes. After all, the SNP is our political vehicle, the grassroots are the sovereign people. With this strength of mandate, the SNP would then have the big stick necessary to threaten to obey the sovereign people without consent from Westminster, and so probably force them to the negotiating table.

P Davidson
Falkirk