IN response to the letter in Thursday’s National Conversation by Ewan Ritchie, Haddington, let me take his points in turn.
All General Elections are about a single issue: who the electors wish to govern them. All electors make that decision according to their own reasons and experiences. Starmer and Sunak would like nothing better than the General Election to only be about them. The last thing they would want would be to allow other party’s manifestos to take the limelight from them, particularly the SNP and independence.
The strategy is now irrelevant. The Supreme Court’s ruling leaves a direct route of a “de facto” referendum through a General Election as the only choice for the SNP and the wider Yes movement.
The voting age at a General Election is the responsibility of the GB Parliament, also the voting system used in that election, which is first-past-the-post (FPTP). The Scottish Government do not have the authority to change these for GB General Elections.
If an elector believes independence supersedes his/her wishes for other issues then that voter has clearly indicated his/her wish for independence. The original concept of the SNP was exactly that. In the early years of the SNP’s existence, their manifesto was for supporters of other parties to loan their vote to achieve independence.
In that case, why should Scottish electors bother to vote at all, if a majority of constituencies elect pro-independence candidates only to be dismissed as irrelevant by Westminster? The purpose of the election is for the people to choose who they wish to govern them. If, after it is stated to the electors that the General Election will be a de facto referendum on “independence”, the Scottish people vote for a majority of pro-independence MPs, Scotland will have clearly chosen to be represented by an independent Scottish Parliament elected by the Scottish electorate. How many GB General Election majorities in Scotland do the SNP need to win? 2015, 2017, 2019, 2024 or more, how many?
As already stated, each election is conducted by the rules set out for that particular election. GB General Elections are contested by FPTP, where electors elect a particular MP to represent that particular constituency with the most votes, not necessarily the majority of votes.
A government is chosen when a party has a majority of MPs from constituencies or can command a majority in the House of Commons.
Scottish electors would vote not to be represented by Westminster GB Parliament.
The SNP can declare in their manifesto that a majority vote for the SNP is a de facto declaration of independence.
There is no need for a “Section 30” order, as the election would have been called for the specific purpose of who should govern.
Alex Kerr
Paisley
I SUPPOSE we should cautiously welcome the latest poll in the National showing 54% support for independence. I am always a bit suspicious of those who when questioned say they “don’t know” and are then simply excluded from a poll. On election or referendum day, some of them will not bother to vote but I suspect if it came to actually putting their cross on a ballot paper tomorrow, many, very possibly most, of them would sadly support the status quo and vote No.
In any case, it matters little the percentage of Yes support at this particular moment in time. There currently is no obvious means for that support to be translated into real votes on real ballot papers in a real election or referendum.
Westminster is in no hurry to grant a referendum anytime soon or even in the foreseeable future, and the SNP and Greens are apparently unwilling to change the standing orders of the Scottish Parliament to allow a simple majority to force a Holyrood election. So we have in effect a political stalemate. I wonder what level of potential support for a Yes vote would be required before the SNP and Greens feel comfortable enough to break the deadlock and force a Holyrood election. 60%, 65%, 70%?
In the current situation, it looks like we will be waiting until the next UK General Election to see polls translated into votes. An election at which it will be very difficult to win even 50% + 1 of the vote. By the time of the Scottish Parliament elections in 2026, who knows what the opinion polls will show? There is no guarantee they will have improved beyond today’s 54%.
Brian Lawson
Paisley
SO a 54% for indy opinion poll... What to make of it. Was there not a very similar poll over eight years ago, just a day or sobefore the referendum which resulted in a 45% for indyactual result? It’s fairly clear the past eight years of assorted andalmost unlimited Tory madness in Westminster has made little impact on the voters of Scotland.
Almost half of them still believe in the old motto “better the devil you know”. The Yes movement in general – and the SNP government in particular –have failed to convince the further 10-15% of voters required that a better future lies in independence.
The Scottish Parliament Holyrood has served to be the halfway house that many of our fellow citizens, and some of our politicians, see as the limits of their ambitions. It has mitigated some of the worst Westminster policies of Westminster, and received little thanks for it. It has borne the brunt of policy and practical failures including the ferries currently still languishing in a Port Glasgow shipyard. It’s has beenseen as unable to deal with the increases in the cost of life’s basics like food and fuel.
Maybe it’s is itbest to postpone any further talk of referendums until 2026 and the next set of elections to Holyrood. Perhaps that will give us the time required to convince more of our family, friends and neighbours that they should take that leap of faith to a better long-term future.
Maybe that will also give the SNP time to get their act togetherand launch a real independence campaign.
Glenda Burns
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