AS we await the decision of the Supreme Court on whether the Scottish Parliament has the ability to legislate to hold a referendum on Scottish independence, the nature of the UK itself is under scrutiny.
It has been acknowledged that the UK is a multinational state, with nations free to leave if they want to. However, apart from Northern Ireland and in the absence of a written constitution, there are no legally or politically agreed ways of allowing this to happen.
If it is decided by the Supreme Court that the Scottish Parliament does not have the ability to determine Scotland’s future, it is then in the hands of the British state to agree to this. Even if the Supreme Court decides that it does, the UK Government does not have to abide by the result of any such referendum, although one would hope it would. Given the current mood in Westminster, it would not be unexpected for it to legislate to reverse this judicial defeat.
READ MORE: Analysis: The economic case for independence shows the debate has grown up
This clearly changes the nature of the Union, from what it was believed to be – one based on consent – to one based on law. So, we have the obvious contradiction of a UK Government that accepts that Scotland can become independent, as was illustrated by the vote in 2014, but none of the leading UK parties is willing to outline how such a political goal can be achieved.
The Supreme Court will not provide the answer to how Scotland can determine its own future, this will be a decision for politicians. If continued SNP victories in elections are simply to be disregarded, the onus is on the UK political parties to outline in what circumstances such a vote can take place.
Alex Orr
Edinburgh
ALEX Salmond proposes that there should be an independence united force come the next General Election. This would mean that some parties would not contest in favour of other independence-supporting ones. I am all for unity of purpose, but I think this strategy is wrong.
In Scotland all of the electorate recognise that the party most capable of winning a Yes vote is the SNP with Green support. Such an act of one party standing aside in favour of a smaller one that has no political representation on any civic body, IN Westminster, Holyrood or council (let’s put aside the two Alba MPs elected on an SNP ticket) would not be favoured by SNP or Green voters or members of their parties (I am not a member of any).
READ MORE: Commentators give their verdicts on the latest Scottish independence paper
The only consideration the Westminster government will take into account is the vote of the SNP, and even then there is no guarantee they will change their position.
For the independence movement itself, it is the total number of votes received by indy-supporting candidates that is the indicator of just how strong the movement is.
The theory behind the proposal is to consolidate the independence vote and while I do not wish to inject a divisive note, my instinct is that there is another element to it.
It seems likely Alba will lose both of their MPs, and in order to progress themselves on to the large stage of Scottish politics the proposal may perhaps take them from being a small fish in a big pond to a big fish in a big pond.
Bobby Brennan
Glasgow
ROSS Hunter’s report in Monday’s National on the Alba Conference, where Alex Salmond called for obstructionism in Westminster and the party decided to become semi-abstentionist, left me wondering whether Alba’s two MPs are going to obstruct parliament by being there or not being there.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry
ARE we in a democracy or not? If this bunch they call the Conservative party had the least respect for the population of the UK, they’d put an end to their self-imposed chaos and immediately call a General Election. Their purpose as government of the day is to act according to what they think best for those they represent, rather than to conserve the interests of their own party and the ambitions of egocentric, often hapless individuals within it.
Tom Gray
Braco
STEVE Cunningham from Aberdeen (Letters, Oct 17) said Margaret Thatcher said a majority of MPs for independence would be enough for a vote. He was wrong – she said it would be enough to start talks on separation – but I agree with his reasoning.
Tam Barbour
Dunfermline
WHENEVER I read a letter criticising the Scottish NHS I get queasy, and the one from Brian Lawson in Saturday’s National had that effect on me again. The NHS was one of the great reforms created by the 1945 Labour government and is the envy of the world. There are very few people living now who remember how unaffordable medical attention was for most people before the NHS.
We have a UK Government with a programme of privatising the NHS by stealth and starving it of adequate funding. They want to introduce an insurance-based system as exists in the USA, but it should be a sober warning to every critic that more than 500,000 families go bankrupt every year due to unpayable medical bills. That has not happened to anyone in the UK for 74 years – yet.
Yes, our NHS is not perfect and yes, it is desperately short of staff. But it was not the SNP which caused thousands of doctors and nurses to return to their home countries after 2016. For that there is only one cause; the madness of the Tories’ Brexit and all the catastrophes following in its wake.
Mr Lawson obviously wishes to see a vastly improved Scottish NHS so I encourage him to campaign for independence with commitment and perseverance until it is achieved. Because a stronger NHS will only come from within Scotland, never from any Westminster government.
Richard Walthew
Duns
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