THE Yes movement, as well as campaigning for independence, also needs to work with other groups to put together a shopping list of demands for devo max.
It looks increasingly likely that the next Westminster government will not require the support of the SNP to gain a majority. The Labour Party have set their face firmly against independence. So a legal route via Section 30 and a referendum is not going to happen in the next five years. I see no stomach for a major campaign of civil disobedience which would be the only alternative pathway.
READ MORE: What are your suggestions for welcoming new independence activists?
Yet a Scottish Government with more powers could make a major difference in Scotland. Full borrowing powers and greater control over fiscal and monetary policy would give Holyrood the power to implement an effective industrial strategy. Greater flexibility on immigration would help the labour market.
The National Grid in Scotland could be brought into public ownership. The Sewell convention could be written into statute law. The legislation on the internal market which was used to torpedo the deposit return scheme could be drastically amended. Employment legislation, including collective bargaining, could be devolved.
READ MORE: Focus must be on achieving independence, not producing pipe dreams
A broader coalition which included the STUC and civil society would be able to put together a worked-out shopping list of areas for further devolution, to publicise this during the election campaign and be in a position strongly to influence an incoming (Labour) government at Westminster.
David Mumford
Innerwick, Dunbar
I WAS interested in the article “Unionist call for General Election to be used to push abolition of Holyrood” in the Sunday National. Scotland Matters appear to have (conveniently?) forgotten that a key step in the creation of the Scottish Parliament was the outcome of the referendum held in 1997. In it, 74.3% voted in favour of the new parliament. In view of this, a referendum would surely have to be held to bring about its demise.
READ MORE: Media expert reacts to Question Time audience rule change
If that is not the case then Scotland Matters appear to be on similar ground to those of us who argue that the result of Scottish Parliamentary elections or General Elections in Scotland should be sufficient to begin negotiations on independence when an independence majority has been elected. Or that a General Election result can overturn the Brexit referendum.
I suspect, of course, that neither position (on independence negotiations or Brexit) is one that Scotland Matters would agree with. I think that is called trying to have your cake and eat it.
Michael Docherty
Glasgow
MALCOLM Cordell (Letters, Jan 10) suggests that my criticism of the SNP and commitment to voting for a party that is unequivocal in its commitment to Scottish independence will “pave the way for the possible election of a blue or red Tory in my constituency” which will kill the independence cause “for a generation or more”.
I’m afraid at age 70 I have already concluded that I will not see independence in my lifetime – a matter of unutterable sadness to me. My commitment now is to do what I can for future generations.
READ MORE: Brexit has cost UK 1.8 million jobs, analysis for Labour finds
He correctly states that the British state has been working relentlessly to bring about this state of affairs “aided by plants and fifth columnists”. No doubt about it.
His argument that the logic of this situation is to continue to vote for the SNP flies in the face of all the evidence that, as presently constituted, the SNP is incapable of achieving independence – and unwilling to do so.
His argument is credible only if you believe that: a) the SNP is genuinely committed to independence – and not doing its repeated trick of dangling that carrot at election times only to dump it once elected; and b) that the “plants and fifth columnists” lie exclusively outwith the ranks of senior cadres of the SNP.
He conveniently omits my final point – which I suggest is crucial to his point on “plants and fifth columnists”: “The SNP requires a period of cleansing”.
Dr John O’Dowd
Bothwell
FOR 50 years I supported the SNP until I realised the aim of obtaining independence was not its main priority. This was confirmed when I read that Tommy Sheppard has called for a “serious debate at Westminster on the monarchy”. Does Mr Sheppard not realise that gaining independence should be the priority? Getting rid of the archaic monarchy would be more likely after we regained our independence.
Neil M Shaw
Edinburgh
I THINK that the Tories are hinting at an autumn election while planning a late spring/early summer one so that they can catch out unprepared other parties. As such could have a profound effect on independence aspirations, is it not time to set preparations in motion? Might I suggest that all parties which advocate independence come together to stand as The Scottish Coalition.
READ MORE: General Election could happen on November 14 reveals George Osborne
As to which candidate/party stands in each constituency, this is the sticky bit requiring some head-bashing and consulting. While each party will want their own, their willingness to compromise will be an indicator of their commitment to the Valhalla of freedom from Westminster. The wider Yes movement, since it has members of all and no party, could be an arbiter.
We seek a country governed by humanity and decency, not the greed of our government’s members and their backers. Fancy that? I do!
M Ross
Aviemore
WHAT would Burns make of Michael Shanks’s £50 Burns Supper? For aw that an aw that, no’ in ma name for aw that!
Ann Leitch
via email
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