I REMEMBER being so annoyed when I heard Alex Salmond say that independence was to be established by holding a referendum rather than the traditional SNP policy, which was even accepted at the time by Margaret Thatcher, that they only needed to win a majority of Westminster Scottish seats.
I remember being annoyed when I heard Alex Salmond use the “once in a generation” comment as it would clearly be picked up by the Unionists. It was, and gets thrown back at us repeatedly.
READ MORE: Michael Russell: Unionists fear debating the issues so contest the process
Now, I am dumbfounded that the Option C being mentioned, which is the winning of a Westminster election in 2024, is stated to amount to winning a MAJORITY OF VOTES FOR THE SNP on that occasion. NOT SEATS.
What on earth are they thinking? Achieving a majority of votes is nigh impossible at any election. Not including those votes for the Greens in such a scenario is absolutely suicidal, and will cause conflict between the two parties. Since that policy was verbalised by the SNP, the Unionist media cannot believe their luck and are repeating it at every opportunity.
Every time we seem to be in a winning position, some ridiculous change of tactics ruins our hopes. Please SNP, make the Option C conditional on winning a majority of SEATS for pro-independence parties, not VOTES.
Alasdair Forbes
Farr, Inverness-shire
I’M old enough (75) to remember going round doors telling people all we needed to secure indy was a MAJORITY of Scottish MPs to be pro-indy and that was it. This was party policy for MANY years.
I can’t remember when the “referendum” idea was adopted. The English government seems quite happy to assume complete authority based on the first-past-the-post method.
READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: 'De facto' vote may be only way to ask Scots about independence
I’m sure most readers will remember Labour/Tory governments being elected on a MINORITY vote, but a MAJORITY of seats. They moved the goalposts when PR was brought in and also when it had to be not only a majority of the ELECTORATE, but a minimum figure (remember the 40% rule?). I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if someone says: “It’s such an important decision, it should require two-thirds of voters to carry it.”
Believe me, they’ll try ANYTHING to scupper indy. I hope by now Nicola et al have realised they’re dealing with crooks and liars. Fair play, morals, honesty, sincerity have all gone out the window, so there’s no point in them trying to be the good guys playing by the rules. The ENGLISH government have torn up the rules. Time to tell the truth to Scots, a large number of whom are UNAWARE of just how corrupt Westminster has become.
Barry Stewart
Blantyre
WHILE I fully support using an election as a substitute for an independence referendum, there is one issue which concerns me: if we turn a UK General Election into a referendum, our 16- and 17-year-olds will be excluded from voting. For this reason alone it would perhaps be better to wait until the next Holyrood election.
Neil Caple
Braemar
I CAN’T be the only one sick of Conservatives implying that the Yes movement all said that the first referendum was a once-in-a-generation opportunity! Only Alex Salmond said this and it was just in conversation, a throwaway remark. How desperate that every single Conservative MP clutches at this straw and tries to say it was a condition of that vote. How utterly disgusting that no interviewer ever pulls them up on this!
Surely the Supreme Court will pick up on the fact that in this unequal Union, Northern Ireland are entitled to a referendum every seven years if they want it! Could this be why the scruffy Tory nutjob is trying to undermine the Belfast agreement?
Steve Cunningham
Aberdeen
BORIS Johnson and the UK Government have no right to refuse the Scottish people the right to choose their own future. He talks all the time about democracy and every country having the right to chose, but clearly this doesn’t apply to Scotland when he won’t even allow us a referendum to decide our future.
It must be something to do with Westminster not being able to survive without all the resources and revenue they get from Scotland including whisky, oil, wind power and water, and only giving Scotland a fraction of their own money back and calling it a block grant.
READ MORE: Yes AHEAD in new poll on support for Scottish independence
If the 2014 referendum hadn’t been fixed, Scotland would now be a rich independent country instead of people having to rely on food banks and struggling to pay their fuel bills. All the Unionist MPs and MSPs say now is not the time but Boris went ahead with Brexit (even when the EU offered him an extension) and that was in the middle of a pandemic and definitely WASN’T the time. For Scotland NOW IS THE TIME. Roll on October 19 2023.
Mary Lindsay
via email
THE 2014 referendum campaign was initially structured as centralised and formal. It became successful when diversity and local and sectional initiatives took over and made it creative and dynamic.
This time we must have an organic, not bureaucratic, campaign from the start. The most effective way to convince and enthuse is from teacher to teacher, neighbour to neighbour, grandparent to grandparent, student to student, transport worker to transport worker, environmentalist to environmentalist, farmer to farmer.
We need people to self-organise in their own groups and co-ordinate and pass around ideas. We were good at that and we can now be even better. The opposition cannot rival this and word of mouth can overcome a hostile media. So minimise the hierarchies and trust the grassroots.
Isobel Lindsay
via email
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