WHY would I want to make Scotland a Tory-free zone, again?
I voted for that in 1997 along with others who voted Labour in with 56 MPs, followed by the SNP with six and LibDems with 10. I’ve listed the SNP second since they got 22.06% of the popular vote, putting them ahead of both the Tories and the LibDems in vote share. The LibDems got their 10 MPs with just 12.9% of the votes. Go and check it if you don’t believe me.
OK, we don’t have 72 seats up for grabs any more, but as can be demonstrated, first past the post is a real bummer (that’s a technical voting term, I believe). And then when you start the election campaigns in 2024 splitting the vote between two and possible three pro-indy candidates standing in the same seat, just whom and what am I voting for?
READ MORE: Jackie Baillie given 'Dame of British Empire' award at Edinburgh ceremony
“What do the results mean for Scotland” (The National, Jan 16) provides an indicator of what could happen in the forthcoming General Election. With or without 24 or 28 (projected) seats in Scotland, the inference is that Labour will sweep to power, with a majority in the region of 120-plus seats. It is so obvious they don’t need Scotland, except to crow that with their gains and SNP losses, independence is no longer an issue.
And the Tories? I refuse to believe there will be a complete Tory wipe-out. It’s not mathematically beyond me to see a surviving rump of the Tory party and the LibDems, up from their current paltry 15 MPs, being first and second opposition parties. SNP losses to any political party mean more than the loss of being second up at PMQs. But what has that so-called coveted position – along with places on committees and occasional TV slots – given Scotland all these years, even with 56 seats? Certainly not a referendum.
READ MORE: See every Scottish seat predicted by YouGov poll at General Election
The Unionists have used tactical voting for years with unwritten understandings. They’ve used unwinnable seats as proving grounds for candidates, marking their cards for a second try next time round. They’ve catapulted a favoured person in, complete with party HQ heft to boost chances in a marginal seat. They don’t play the game, they play to win or play to keep someone out. Look at Labour and their long game: the detour that was Corbyn, their current very public pro-Israel shift. But the past masters at the long game are the Tories. Five years in the wilderness, even ten, will hurt, but the ruthlessness with which they will hone themselves will see many old faces gone and new ones in. Currently, influences of far-right outriders have already seen both Labour and Tories pander more and more to “authoritarianism” with less difference between them becoming more evident. But that’s what they do to secure power. And are voters so fickle that change, any change, even just a name change, will suffice?
What have we got in Scotland in case of losing that majority? Emerging talents supporting leaders, or leaders in the wings? And what are they armed with: what strategy, what tactics, what plan? Those giants whose shoulders we are standing on wanted and believed in independence, but in the end they had to hand on the flame. So who am I to believe it’s my generation that will see independence?
What do we need to do to ensure a majority of pro-independence MPs coming out of Scotland? And if we don’t, will it be the next generation that succeeds and not mine?
Selma Rahman
Edinburgh
LIZ Smith implies that Scottish civil servants are living in England so that they do not have to pay “higher Scottish tax rates”. One therefore imagines that she now lives in England to prove her point, otherwise it is just a lot of hot air – hoping, of course, that it is her mouth from which the hot air is emitting.
M Ross
Aviemore
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