THERE’S an old saying that goes “all gloss and no undercoat!” I’m beginning to think that’s the case now with some of the people putting the case for the way forward for independence.
I voted for the proposed assembly/parliament in 1979 and 1997, as that was the only option then available at the time. Those wanting full independence said at the time that they would accept the parliament as that would give us a stepping stone to full independence. Well, we’ve had the Scottish Parliament now for just over 20 years and we’ve raised the number of supporters for independence from about the 20% mark to about 50% (average over the last couple of years) and the fight is now about gaining – or as some like to point out, regaining – our full independence.
READ MORE: Response to hustings question about 'suppressing' the FM was telling
Yes, there are other points for debate – and I use the word debate and not argument carefully – as we all need to look at the way forward and what kind of Scotland we all want, and not one or two people who have held positions to push the case for independence forward in the past or those with a different agenda.
It’s people like Cameron Greer of the Young Liberal Democrats we need to get on board and like-minded people from the Scottish Labour and Scottish Conservative parties if we are to have a independent country. I certainly don’t want to label those from past campaigns as has-beens, but the question is why didn’t they push in the past for what they advocate today, because in my opinion they are trying to gloss over the work that still has to be done by advocating some kind of super parliament but not full independence – all gloss solutions but nothing underneath. Okay, go for it, but I’ll tell you what will happen: the (London) Conservatives will start to tear away all the powers of that parliament until we are back at square one as in pre-1979.
READ MORE: SNP 'anticipating early General Election' as candidacy applications open
As for the Supreme Court, I have to ask why does everyone I talk to think that the case will be rejected by them? The judges are meant to be independent of the government and not part of it, so that explodes one of the myths for saying that they will (automatically) reject the case.
Secondly, you do not take a case like this to court if you think you are going to lose, you only bring a case, as the Scottish Government has done, if you think you can win. And here I think Professor Adam Tomkins (ex-Tory MSP) is correct in thinking that the Scottish Government will win. When those directly opposite your cause think you have a case and can win, then we should be taking that as a compliment.
Even if we do lose the case in court, the Westminster case is exposed and they will have to say how we can hold a referendum on Scottish independence and they will have to make it the law in a similar way as that for Northern Ireland. Then there are always the international courts to appeal to, including the United Nations, and remember there already is a petition from the Scottish public on their desk and I’ve seen a lot of people sign it at independence events. If we want to be independent, we need to stop being defeatist and have the courage of our conviction to be independent.
If there are other legal ways forward, then I have to ask why have these not been exercised in the last 315 years. After all, the there have been several occasions when the Act and Treaty of Union nearly came to an abrupt end. By all means test these theories in court if you want, but I doubt if they will get anywhere as after 315 years, even if they are still on the statue books, they have became redundant.
It’s past time we stopped putting more gloss down and started working towards a new independent Scotland.
Alexander Potts
Kilmarnock
IS its resentment of the electoral success of the SNP now so intense that the Labour party in Scotland was prepared to effectively go into coalition with the Tories and deliberately ferment an early “bin workers” strike in Edinburgh in a misguided attempt to discredit the Scottish Government?
Most Edinburgh citizens are neither naive nor stupid. It did not take an Einstein to work out that the initial offer by Edinburgh City Council, led by trade unionist Cammy Murray, would not be accepted and the reluctance of the trade unions and Cosla to seriously engage in negotiations until last week will have confirmed logical assessments of where the blame actually lies for the current regrettable predicament and the predictable damage to Edinburgh’s international reputation.
READ MORE: Unionist politicians in Edinburgh 'crossing picket line', says Scottish Green councillor
Of course the Scottish Government could have managed to come up with even more funding, but because the UK Government has yet to appropriately respond to the cost-of-living crisis (for which it is primarily responsible) with an increase in overall funding for local councils – assigned funding that has been relatively in decline for more than a decade – this would necessitate even further cut-backs of spending in other important areas.
While Anas Sarwar seeks to politically emulate his boyhood idol, Tony Blair, and the profound legacy of an illegal war in Iraq and failed PFI schemes continue to exact a high price, it is not surprising that the once mighty Labour party in Scotland has been rejected by the voting public, and further furtive coalitions with Tory councillors will not prevent its final fall.
Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian
MORE than 100,000 people have signed a petition to protect the terminally ill from dying due to freezing or malnutrition this winter. Yet still Westminster refuses to take any clear and effective action on the cost of living crisis. It seems the UK Government is more anxious to reward billionaires than anyone who genuinely deserves help.
Stephen McCarthy
Glasgow
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