I THANK Alan Crocket (Letters, Dec 13) for entering into the sensible debate about publicising Plan B. This is the sort of dialogue we need, though the details still need to be kept private.
The issue is rather more complicated. Yes, we as a sovereign nation have the right to express ourselves, though the only effective way of doing that in our current constitutional position with any certainty is to hold some form of plebiscite, deliberately not using the R word!
Yes, a majority in parliament indicates some form of approval but we should not lose sight of the fact that parliamentary elections are invariably about many things and not just one.
READ MORE: SNP should set a date and publicly endorse Plan B of an electoral route
The biggest issue with those arguing about public Plan B in the event of not being allowed a referendum, which still has to convince a majority here, is that they need to look at the practicalities of actually achieving what they intend in the face of what would be considerable opposition from elsewhere in UK.
Catalonia is a recent example, what do the Plan B proponents propose to do in the event of a similar situation here? A referendum is not a fixation, we need to have a clear mandate from our citizens, and the only certain way of doing that is to ask everyone. Yes, we have a slim cross-party parliamentary majority, but to start going on our own we have to put in place the structures of society including finance and administration and be able to expel or take over those run from Westminster. When arguing strategic proposals it is absolutely essential that all relevant factors and practicalities are taken into account and not dismissed or ignored because they inconveniently get in the way of the grand dream.
READ MORE: Why should Nicola Sturgeon declare the independence Plan B in advance?
Fundamentally, for us to declare independence we need a substantial obvious and clear majority in favour of that. It is the only way of demonstrating clear support. 54% on a small poll is not a reliable figure on which to base such action. Plans B either revolve around legally persuading Westminster to deign to allow us to test the mood again, or some form of civil disobedience or insurrection, with all that entails (romantic as it may be to some), and which if it fails we will end up worse off than before.
We all know which way those in favour will vote, but what about those who are less than unequivocal, who we will need to carry with us if we were to do something as drastic as UDI? In reality there is only one peaceful way of achieving that goal, and that is by persuading a substantial majority on a specific question, and if that is wrapped up in a General Election then fine, but that is in effect the only viable Plan B. And we know how difficult that is or would be. Romantic ideals don’t equate to sensible or necessarily achievable strategies. Ultimately it is up to us to persuade, not force, sufficient of the unconvinced that independence is the only solution.
READ MORE: Questions over indyref2 timetable amid signs pandemic could go on until 2025
Those arguing for public Plan B need to think very carefully about what is practical and what is involved. Yes, we need Plan B, C, D, etc but they must still have a valid strategic basis in order to achieve success. When planning it is essential to understand the “enemy” (or “opposition”, to remove the military connotation). This applies equally to any negotiation in business, and politics, as well as the Art of War (Sun Tzu). We need to understand their position which we can plan around, and the first thing to get to grips with is what they think they stand to lose, bearing in mind that is why they are opposed to what we want. If we can present a win-win argument then we all benefit and are more likely to achieve a satisfactory outcome. If it isn’t a win-win then either or both sides lose which helps no-one.
While the debate can and should be public, the actual plan and details thereof must and can only remain private, while at the same time trying not give away too much detail during that debate. Those demanding someone else must come up with Plans B should think about the realities of implementing them. They should recognise that there are people in our movement actually doing that strategic planning, which by its nature has to be kept relatively private, and instead of putting their efforts into public navel-gazing and arguments should instead spend that time persuading the un-persuaded – a much better use of their and our energies and talent.
Nick Cole
Meigle, Perthshire
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