IN her piece in this paper on May 3 (I wanted a contest but I’ll back John Swinney – here’s why), Joanna Cherry slips into untypical folly when she writes that “10 years on from the last independence referendum, there is no way people can have another say because of the democracy-denying determination of the Unionist parties to frustrate a second vote”.
Her statement is false, but it does chime with the sullen and defeatist line that our party the SNP, and no-one else, has been pushing for the last decade.
Like all who come out with it, Ms Cherry provides no evidence or authority, but simply pronounces it like an article of faith.
READ MORE: John Swinney: I know what it takes to lead a minority government
But what is the reality? The only thing Westminster will not allow is a fresh indy referendum. Well, so what? The notion that this is a block on Scotland’s voice is a pure invention. Was Scotland quite unable to choose independence for the hundreds of years of Union before referenda were even thought of? And was the SNP simply deluded during the major part of its existence, trying to attain the unattainable?
The way for the people of Scotland to choose is by voting in a General Election under the appropriate manifesto, which says: if the majority vote for us, Scotland will leave the Union. A vote exceeding 50% in such an election will virtually fill the Scottish seats with indy MPs, sent to Westminster with the clear mandate to take Scotland out. Scotland has no higher representatives, and its MPs are the only body with the right, the power, and the democratic authority. Scotland and England are joined in a Union of Parliaments. If Scotland is to leave the Union at its own hand, that is now the only way open.
READ MORE: Patrick Harvie speaks out after end of Bute House Agreement
And London has no part to play. The decision is Scotland’s alone. London will not help, but will relent only if and when Scotland has made the decision, so that independence will finally come about after negotiation. But until the decision is actually made, London has no part in it.
There is no legal or constitutional prohibition whatsoever to that course. Anyone who claims that there is has the onus of explaining exactly what the barrier is, and to take into consideration matters like the following, which are inconsistent with the existence of any such obstacle:
a) In the Edinburgh Agreement of 2012, the UK Government was able to commit to respecting the referendum result, by mere signature of the Prime Minister.
b) UK ordinary law has a standing provision for Northern Ireland to leave if its people so wish.
c) No-one would seriously claim that England could not leave the Union without Scotland’s consent.
READ MORE: SNP activist seeking to challenge John Swinney for party leadership
First Minister Sturgeon, who herself had been chiefly responsible for putting about the “referendum is the only way” heresy, reverted to the correct course when she stood up in the Scottish Parliament to deliver a ministerial statement on June 28 2022 and stated simply, clearly and unequivocally that “if the law says that [an independence referendum] is not possible, the General Election will be a de facto referendum.”
Sitting at her right hand was her then deputy first minister, John Swinney, in full support. Mr Swinney now appears to have resiled from that straightforward and entirely proper plan, which is actually the only route open to Scottish independence. Could he please explain to us when he dropped it, and why?
Brian Boyce
Motherwell
THERE is no newspaper anywhere as brilliantly balanced between the production of high-quality articles by excellent journalists and letters from highly intelligent readers. Everyone involved with working for The National’s production deserves the highest praise and an extra reward prize when independence is achieved – as it sure will!
David Ashford
via thenational.scot
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