ONE of the key basic public governance office rules – whether local, regional, national, or supranational – is that to direct others, or finance others to a specific aim, there must first be a statute in place, no matter how well-intentioned any action may be (excludes rendition).
This UK Government has certainly and definitively already ignored such basic principles and acted unlawfully, even at an international level, and both the EU and USA have subsequently raised concerns about these renegade actions by Her Majesty’s UK Government.
It is perhaps becoming more likely that there will be an indyref2/EU referendum, returning a Yes2, and that it will likely be awaiting a retrospective Section 30, for which all those voting Yes2 will expect to be delivered, albeit grudgingly and with bad grace.
READ MORE: Joanna Cherry: We have to bring Westminster to the table for talks on independence
Those who may vote No because of a lack of Section 30 and the ominous potential of a UDI need some encouragement that it is Scotland’s right of choice, and that there are other ways than UDI to get around such anti-democratic UK Government obduracy.
It is also probable that to begin the reversing of austerity etc, Scotland will need to be using a new currency and using a central bank in tandem as soon as possible.
Such a central bank might initially not be able to legally operate fully from within Scotland, but could perhaps within constraints operate from within the EU, possibly even still utilising voluntary contributions from savings, and pension funds. It might even print a “not legal tender” bartering currency for use in Scotland. Such forays potentially into “in name only” entities will have to be addressed shortly, if only to lay the ground for maximum international acceptance of Yes2, and for a retrospective Section 30 in response to international pressure.
The message that Scotland will have an indyref2 – with the Scottish Government recommending a reversal of austerity, and new Scottish currency, and a new central bank, facilitated by being an independent Scotland (EU) – needs therefore to be shouted from the rooftops at COP26, especially on November 6.
READ MORE: Greenpeace loses legal bid to revoke North Sea oil permit weeks before COP26
The call of “What do we want? Independence!” “When do we want it? Now!” remains valid and certainly catchier than “What do we want?” “A Scottish Central Bank!” “A Scottish currency!” and “reversal of four decades of austerity in Scotland!”. But the answer for “when?” is the same – “now!”
There must also be loud calls for action on climate change, but with the UK Government currently in full incontinent and compulsive lying mode for just about everything, Scottish independence needs to be at least moving into place as a precursor to the levels of action required, being implemented in anything but in name only, across Scotland.
Stephen Tingle
Greater Glasgow
THE Supreme Court ruling haes noo shawn aabiddie juist fit ae toothless gummie moo devolution really is. It’s like thay puir souls taein roun the supermairket on ae Thursday morn fan it is thocht tae be guid an quaet. Thay can chuse thair ain biccies, mibbie chuse thair ain jeelie, but thair carer wull pick the coffee an as fur chusin thair fuel supplier, nae chaunce. Yon is devolution in action, bein treated like ae people faw are seriously chaullenged. It is fell short o proper responsibility, it is allowing anither tae haud control ower ye. Wastminster is determined tae bring Scots tae heel, o that I’m certain, an thay hae the chynes tae dae it, we must nae gae thaim time, we maun get oot o this ae-sided Union as suin as possible.
George T Watt
Arbroath
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 here