ANAS Sarwar said at the UK Labour Party conference, referring to the recent Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election, that “Labour can (now) beat the SNP all across Scotland.”
Well, not so long ago, in the west of Scotland, that was true. The Labour Party would have been weighing their votes, rather than counting them. But times have changed.
READ MORE: Voters have 'no choice at all' between Labour and Tories, say SNP
When the next election comes, the electorate will presumably have moved on from their anger with the previous SNP MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West and will consider their electoral options on their merits. And the Labour incumbent won’t have the support of all the Tory voters who held their noses and voted Labour this time, for the sake of the Union.
Nor will they have the support of the large numbers of English Labour supporters bussed up to back their campaign.
And, despite the alleged chaos in the SNP, this doesn’t seem to have affected support for independence, which still hovers around 50%, and can only rise as the elderly Unionist votes declines, and predominantly independence-supporting young people get the vote.
So … we shall see!
Les Mackay
Dundee
THE way to independence is to show Westminster that we don’t need a Section 30-driven referendum to achieve that glorious end.
When I hear reference to Scotland’s people being sovereign, I will say “Aye right. Well then, prove it!” Sure, there are several historic references to draw on, from the time of Robert the Bruce until the Acts of Union and since. In those cases, the expression of Scotland’s sovereignty has been demonstrated through a Constitutional Convention (CC) of civic bodies and it’s no surprise that both Common Weal and Believe in Scotland have a CC feature in their independence strategies. However, they both have that horse tethered to the wrong end of the cart.
READ MORE: Chain of Freedom: What representatives have said about the event
When the desired outcome of those strategies is seen to depend on a CC, one can only imagine how difficult it will become to have that CC constituted in an internationally acceptable way when interference from Westminster would be overwhelming.
So, I believe that a CC needs to be arranged ahead of time, to establish its credentials and for it to agree its course of action in the event of a 50% +1 share of the vote at either a Westminster or Holyrood election being ignored. Westminster interference could be better managed ahead of a vote, and the very existence of a CC would have a hugely positive influence on voting intentions.
The membership of the CC would understand, and therefore willingly agree to participate, that it would be convened only in the event of Westminster remaining intransigent.
READ MORE: Labour 'already watering down major green spending commitments'
Upon its convening, it would initiate its previously agreed course of action and delegate representatives to the UN to get international acceptance of Scotland’s independence.
Before the next General Election, when a CC is arranged and demonstrably ready to be convened when necessary, Scotland’s people will feel the sovereignty return to their veins and be ready to vote in a massive turnout. Imagine the effect on opinion polling (wi nae mair shilly-shallying) – 60% could well be a disappointment!
By or before then, Westminster will see themselves losing control and may well seek to impose a Section 30 referendum.
Power tae Scotland’s people!
Alan Adair
Blairgowrie
“BRITAIN is broken” and has lost respect around the world. At last a leader of one of the major pro-Union political parties has been open with the electorate, and Keir Starmer reckons it is going to take at least ten years to repair (presuming, even without looking at the books, that the UK is repairable).
His speech to the faithful at the Labour Party conference was big on soundbites and short on policies, but he got something else right when he said Britain needs “change”. “The public finances are wrecked.” “Public services need to be rebuilt.” “Home ownership is a luxury for the few.” “Reform” is required with transformation necessary “to get the NHS off its knees”.
READ MORE: Labour's naked nationalism shown by more than UK flags
In order to reform Britain, Mr Starmer declared that economic growth was Labour’s “most important mission” and that jobs would be created “from Bridgend to Burnley” (which is where he apparently sees future UK investment should be focused). We were told nearly ten years ago “Scotland can lead the way”, and Mr Starmer trumpeted a new publicly owned company, GB Energy, which will be based in Scotland. This at least sounds like a positive step, but, assuming it goes ahead (and many of his previously stated commitments have already been abandoned), in practice few new jobs may be delivered in Scotland itself while more of Scotland’s resources would be exploited for the benefit of the UK Treasury and favoured areas for substantial investment, primarily in “middle England”.
Fortunately in Scotland we have the opportunity for fundamental “change” through self-determination which can deliver prosperity accompanied by real progress in our public services, including the NHS, in less than a decade. Scotland’s vast energy resources, the flexibility of the Scottish economy allied with a skilled workforce and world-leading research, plus improved trading relationships with our European neighbours (achieved initially through joining EFTA should there be any delay in re-joining the EU), will enable this deliverable ambition.
Scotland can definitely “lead the way”, but as an independent country seizing the opportunities of constitutional change necessary to truly transform “Britain’s Future”.
Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian
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