IF the Internal Market Bill is passed by Westminster, it will amount to a unilateral revision of Article 19 of the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England by an English Parliament.
Should the majority of Scottish MPs remain seated at Westminster it will, in my opinion, amount to Scotland acquiescing to the new Treaty of Union, which has been substantially and unilaterally changed to England’s advantage. It will also imply acceptance of the substantive erosion of devolution, and expose the impotence of Scottish representation at Westminster.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson refuses to rule out riding roughshod over devolved parliaments
If the majority of Scottish MPs to were fully withdraw from Westminster, however, it would remove any doubt about Scotland’s intent and about Scotland’s rejection of a unilaterally revised “Treaty of Union” and all the detrimental implications of the Internal Market Bill.
It has long been trumpeted that sovereignty in Scotland is with the people of Scotland. It is therefore entirely proper that the withdrawal of Scottish MPs from Westminster be followed by a referendum offered to the people of Scotland, asking whether to accept a new Treaty of Union with England on the terms offered by the Internal Market Bill, or to reject the offer and progress a dissolution of the political Union with England.
The route of seeking a Section 30 accord with this Westminster administration now looks as viable as requesting the playground bully to give you your pennies back whilst his foot is on your throat!
The time for Scotland and Scotland’s politicians to reclaim the initiative is here and now. Don’t ask, don’t wait ... do!
Gordon Hepburn
via email
ALYN Smith’s comment piece in yesterday’s paper (Announcements may come at an SNP conference like no other, September 30) sounds like a step in the right direction but a step is not enough. Policy development needs some flesh on the bones of a resolution before it comes to conference.
As a mover and seconder of a few successful conference resolutions and amendments plus a brief stint as a member of the SNP’s Standing Orders and Agenda Committee some years ago, I think I can contribute something to the policy development debate.
1. As the policy development committee is co-chaired by the depute leader and the convener for policy development, one of these two positions should be filled by a non-parliamentarian. That should explore and strengthen the link of policy between the voluntary and parliamentary wings of the party.
READ MORE: Alyn Smith: Announcements may come at an SNP conference like no other
2. The policy development committee should create 11 groups to mirror each Cabinet Secretary’s remit and expect the Cabinet Secretary to participate in the policy formation. The draft should be the subject of an online National Assembly to specifically discuss the draft. There will be 11 online National Assemblies each year, one for each group.
3. Each group should include experts within the party, half from the voluntary wing and half from the parliamentary wing. Group members need not be members of the policy development committee. Individuals can be co-opted as each group thinks fit.
4. Following the National Assembly the policy in whole and in part will be the subject of debate at conference. Amending resolutions can be submitted.
5. While the policy approved by conference will be the party’s policy, the party leader will have the power to choose the content of the party’s manifesto for a Scottish election.
READ MORE: Kevin McKenna: SNP infighting the biggest threat to party in face of weak opposition
6. Every party member is entitled to submit a policy proposal to the policy development committee directly or with the support of one or more branches, constituency associations or affiliated organisations.
7. Each year the policy development convener must update the party on the implementation of the policy or any proposed changes to it at least one month before annual conference.
8. The party will employ a clerk to serve the groups to ensure that the administration of each group’s policy development progresses efficiently.
The SNP is blessed with an array of experts in all fields who for thousands of reasons do not become career politicians. In the main, politicians of all parties are gifted amateurs. That is not a phrase inviting derision. It’s just a matter of fact. But when a movement like the SNP has so much talent willing and able to contribute, it should be embraced.
Graeme McCormick
Arden
I’M writing today in praise of the Tories; difficult to do but there, I’ve said it!
The explanation is simply that their party discipline is such that they don’t do their dirty washing in public: they know by doing so is a golden gift to their enemies.
Tory “rebellions” exist but are carefully controlled. Such as in the recent vote on farming conditions where a number of them voted against the government. It’s likely those “rebels” were in marginal, rural constituencies and as such could go back there and report that they had supported the farmers by not voting for the motion. The important point is that the number of “rebel” Tories was less than the Tory majority so the motion was still carried for the government.
SNP members targeting Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP government in the media on a daily basis are presently providing a better opposition than Ross, Leonard and Rennie combined (not a big achievement in itself). Dissatisfied members should find other ways of registering their ire, preferably through the party’s own rules and procedures.
Robert G Clark
via email
MICHAEL Gove said about the UK Government using a power grab as a Trojan horse to privatise the NHS, “that’s one of the most absurd, ludicrous and irrational fantasies I’ve heard in my political lifetime.” I thought the same of Boris Johnson ever becoming Prime Minister, and look where that ended!
Andrew Smith
Kirkliston
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