I FOUND myself in some agreement with Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh’s article “SNP’s call to voters could have big consequences for indyref2” (Apr 13). Even putting aside her arguments for voting for the Alba Party, she makes the rather valid point that holding a second referendum without the full co-operation of Scotland’s 32 local authorities would be, to say the very least, difficult.
Given this fact, I find it equally difficult to understand why, for example, the SNP are not putting forward enough candidates (only 25 when 32 are needed) to gain control of City of Edinburgh Council. The reasoning behind that decision is well beyond my comprehension.
Even with political control of all 32 local authorities, I suspect there would be a degree of reluctance on the part of the chief executives and senior directors of these local authorities to co-operate in any referendum process that is not viewed as 100% legal in their minds and in the opinion of their legal advisors.
READ MORE: Westminster has 'short-changed Scotland by £10bn', SNP say
Having spent 25 years as a councillor, including a year as a council leader, I have known a good number of senior officers both in my own local authority and, via Cosla, in several others. They were in the main decent, honest, hard-working folk who had the best interests of their area at heart. In conversations I tended not to engage with them directly on party politics, but given opinion polling over recent years, many will be independence supporters. However, many will not.
What will be the issue which dictates their engagement with a referendum is the strict legal position. If there is even a minuscule doubt about the legality of organising a referendum, you can bet that all 32 local authorities will find papers on their agenda pointing this out and recommending that they do not participate. Councillors will be faced with warnings of dire consequences and the prospect of legal sanctions.
READ MORE: UK establishment is contemplating life after indy – Scotland must do the same
Some years ago I remember viewing with great deal of admiration the efforts of the voters and local government of Catalonia for organising a referendum in the face of total opposition from the Spanish state and its brutal national police force. Does anyone seriously believe that all Scotland’s 32 local authorities, many possibly still under Unionist control, will be keen to emulate Catalonia?
For any referendum to have any shred of credibility outside of the leadership of the SNP, and especially outside Scotland, it needs to have the backing of the Scottish Parliament and to have some basis in law. If eventually the Scottish Parliament passes the necessary legislation it will no doubt be the subject of a legal challenge. If that challenge is lost, I sincerely hope we have a backup plan ready to implement.
Brian Lawson
Paisley
IN her article in Wednesday’s issue of Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh writes: “If (…) the Scottish Government is serious about holding an independence referendum, one tactic to avoid a Westminster veto over the right of people to choose would be to hold, or threaten to hold, our own home-grown plebiscite in the absence of Section 30 go-head from London.”
This is a blatant example of two different words being used incorrectly to suggest that they have similar meanings – in this instance the words “referendum” and “plebiscite”. A referendum is democratic; a plebiscite is not.
What she seems to be suggesting, even if she doesn’t think so, is that an undemocratic method should be used. As well as looking up the dictionary definition of these two words, I suggest she reads, very carefully, the post “Referendum or plebiscite: what’s the difference?” on the website UK In A Changing Europe.
Michael Follon
Glenrothes
THE only conclusion to be reached on the debate over the SNP’s ill-judged “No Other Party” instruction is that Scotland is doomed to an eternity of rule by Westminster’s lying, corrupt, self-entitled psychopaths.
The independence movement is ripping itself apart over council elections. We can only imagine the carnage when it comes to the real thing.
READ MORE: Douglas Ross has Tory leaflet thrown back at him by furious voter during campaign stunt
Or is there the slightest possibility that we’ll pull the knives out of each other’s backs and use them, metaphorically, on the real enemy, the Unionists?
CE Ayr, France
and Jenne Gray, Ayr
IF Keir Starmer really thinks that nuclear power must form part of the UK’s future energy mix, I must ask him what he thinks that has to do with Scotland. Does he not know that for some time now, renewable energy production in Scotland has been sufficient to meet all our domestic needs as well as a significant amount of our business needs? He should do his homework before coming from his country to mine to lecture the Scottish Government on “dealing with the energy crisis”.
Mr Starmer, Scotland does not need a new nuclear power plant, we do not need your new new Labour Party and we certainly do not need you!
Ni Holmes
St Andrews
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