IN saying the age of referendum is over, has Stephen Noon completely lost all sense of reason (Former top Yes Scotland figures says ‘age of the referendum in over’, Oct 9)?
If the age of the referendum is truly over then that means consensus has evaporated. Does this mean we have to seize our independence, take it back unilaterally? Do we have to fight all the old battles of every colony that ever broke away from Westminster dictatorship, with all the destruction they brought?
Do we have to undergo the mass civil disobedience of the Indians, even tread the dreary road of bloody war for independence like America did? Do we really have to venture into the hideous struggle the Irish were forced into?
READ MORE: Stephen Gethins: 'We need to reframe the case for voting SNP'
Have we learned nothing from history? Are these Westminster dictators so thick and foolish to fail to understand that they have no political or moral right to subjugate and control we Scottish people who they’ve even told us are partners in the Union, while their actions show we are just a conquered territory tricked into this Union and kept here by unjust, undemocratic law?
Noon is fundamentally wrong. England has no intention of ever giving up Scotland’s resources. Independence will never be gained by bolting on additional powers. The Westminster blue and red Tory establishment will never allow it – and we have no powers within this Union to make them – and must be laughing their socks off that Noon has come up with this scenario they’re surely very comfortable with.
READ MORE: Local by-election or international recognition is no-brainer for Scots
Isn’t giving any credence to Unionist cuckoos in our independence-campaign nest the very last thing we should be doing? Shouldn’t Westminster heed the certain truth that the only democratic solution to the independence question is to afford Scots the legitimacy of decision by referendum? Thereby they have the opportunity to put their case to persuade us we truly are better together. How can Britain claim to be a democracy while denying this fundamental pillar of democratic expression?
Won’t failure to embrace the democratic will of Scots open us up to a lingering, festering sore of dissent at best, notwithstanding giving credence to more horrendous possibilities at a disastrous worst?
Rather than advocating acquiescence within this failed UK Union, shouldn’t Noon and his ilk be pressing the urgency with which we need a democratic resolution to assure the cleanest break, and the best opportunity for continued mutually beneficial, friendly and sound working relations after independence?
Jim Taylor
Edinburgh
I LISTENED to Stephen Noon on The Sunday Show telling us that the way forward is a Labour government because they will strengthen devolution and give the Scottish Parliament more powers. What planet is he on? Does he know about the Internal Market Act, which strips Scotland of powers so that Westminster can veto any plan? There is no talk of Labour changing this. There is no talk of Labour rejoining the EU. Surely the Scottish people have more aspirations than this.
Susan Grant
Tain
MUCH has been written about the importance of Scotland in delivering a Labour victory in the forthcoming Westminster General Election, whenever that may be. It should, however, be noted that there have been very, very few occasions post-1945 when Scottish seats have had an impact on Labour winning a General Election. This is understandable in that there are only currently 59 constituencies in Scotland out of a total of 650 in the UK as a whole.
READ MORE: How Labour and Tory conferences showed both parties' delusion
Out of the 21 General Elections since 1945, there have only ever been two elections, Harold Wilson’s victories in 1964 and February 1974, when the return of Labour MPs in Scotland has had an impact when it came to delivering a Labour government. When it comes to the General Election, the impact of Scottish voters on the outcome should not be over-exaggerated.
Alex Orr
Edinburgh
A CONSEQUENCE of the Rutherglen result is a number of voices seeking to shunt the movement away from a consistent projection of the case for independence, and towards what Stephen Noon describes as seeking “more independence” with additional devolved powers coming to the Scottish Parliament. He seems to think such will be delivered by a Labour government, although gives no evidence for that view.
Much better for the movement if we take in what George Kerevan wrote, and use that and other economic and geopolitical factors to explain the case for escaping from the Union: that we are handcuffed to a state that is poor while pretending to be rich, living on increasing debt, and heading for more economic trouble no matter which government enters Downing Street next year.
READ MORE: Ian Murray: Labour can't rule out further use of Section 35
Once that inescapable reality descends upon our people over the next two years, we can explain to those who voted No in 2014 that the big, strong UK whose economic umbrella they then believed in actually never existed, and that if they want to live in a country that can succeed, then it has to be an independent Scotland. That, of course, means producing the policies required to inspire a belief in what we can do, something missing at present.
One thing I do agree on with Stephen Noon is that the “age of the referendum is over”. Almost eight years was wasted on that ploy, with an SNP leadership seemingly oblivious to the fact that until we build a substantial majority for independence we are in no position to demand or dictate what is on the constitutional agenda. It would be folly to swerve from independence towards “maybe” more devolution, when the circumstances associated with further UK economic decline will strengthen our case for independence.
Jim Sillars
Edinburgh
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