THE false “mandates” argument again, Jim Taylor (Jul 3)?
A mandate is an instruction to act on another’s behalf. Everyone agree with that. But if the desired outcome from a mandate requires a significant additional requirement to make it possible, is there really any blame if that requirement is not there and the mandate cannot be fulfilled?
As simply as possible:
Bob “mandates” Bill to drive him to the pub.
Bob hands Bill the keys to his car and says: “You’ve agreed to drive me to the pub, Bill, so get on with it.”
Bill looks at Bob’s car and finds it is missing a wheel.
Outcome: Bill can’t drive Bob to the pub.
Ignoring the lack of a wheel (on his own car), Bob blames Bill for not fulfilling the mandate.
I’ll translate: ignoring the fact that the indy movement has not provided the SNP with credible evidence of majority support for independence, Jim blames the SNP for not achieving independence.
READ MORE: Keir Starmer: 'No return to the EU single market in my lifetime'
This is just one of the many skewed-logic, false-equivalency and disinformation claims currently circulating about the SNP.
Not yet achieving independence is the “lifetime” experience of all independence movements, right up until the day independence is achieved. Not achieving independence yet is NOT proof that those at the forefront of the campaign have been doing nothing, or worse, plotting failure.
Can we move past this nonsense and concentrate on creating the “leverage” needed by ANY part of the indy movement (including the SNP) to progress our claim for independence?
Again, for maximum clarity – that LEVERAGE is credible evidence of majority support for independence.
Here are a few questions. Since this “mandate” thing really is so obvious, why would anyone be using this flawed argument? What is their motive? Are they trying to get the best indy result from this election vote, or do they have other ambitions that they prioritise over indy?
Roll on independence, with or without help from Bob!
Alistair Potter
via email
I SEE that Unionists and the BBC (for example, Martin Geissler’s interview with John Swinney on The Sunday Show, June 30) are increasingly fond of using the narrative that the SNP and others who support Scottish independence are keen to blame others for problems and refuse to accept responsibility themselves.
Behind this criticism lies a deep ignorance of or cynical disregard for the realities of the present allocation of devolved and reserved powers under the Scotland Act 1998. As John Swinney attempted to explain, the fact that “health” is devolved to the Scottish Parliament does not mean that the Scottish Government has unconstrained powers in this area when the UK Government is in charge of fiscal and monetary policy and can largely determine the size of the Scottish Government’s budget.
READ MORE: John Swinney: Douglas Ross more responsible than anyone for toxicity at Holyrood
But surely the best riposte to this alluring but facile charge of “grievance-mongering” is that it is the SNP and others in the Yes movement actually want the people of Scotland to take on full responsibility for all decisions which affect Scotland – rather than sheltering behind the supposed “broad shoulders” of the Union.
No-one can take responsibility for the exercise of powers which they do not have.
John Randall
South Lochs, Isle of Lewis
JOANNA Cherry points out in her article “If you care about independence, the SNP are your only option on July 4” (Jun 28) that Labour’s campaign manager, Pat McFadden, in an interview at the start of the campaign, could not name a single Scotland-specific policy. Even more worrying, despite the current large SNP majority of Scottish MPs, is the UK Government stopping Scottish Government policies, for example the Deposit Return Scheme, and forcing changes because they consider them too different from what is in place in England.
If there becomes a majority of Unionist MPs in Scotland, the UK Government will use this as proof we are not interested in independence, and to justify targeting current policies in Scotland because they consider them to be too different from policies in the rest of the UK.
READ MORE: Only SNP votes will be taken as a sign of the Yes movement’s strength
How could an English Labour MP justify there being free prescriptions in Scotland while their constituents are charged the current £9.90 per item? How could they justify free tuition fees for further education in Scotland while fees currently up to £9250 per year apply in England and Wales? Just two examples. With Labour effectively continuing austerity economics, they are not going to make these free in the rest of the UK. If there is a majority of Unionist MPs in Scotland, why should people who apparently want to stay in the Union be treated differently?
While many of you are frustrated by the lack of movement to independence by the SNP, it is critical, particularly in marginal seats, that you vote for the SNP, the only pro-indy party with a realistic chance of winning seats, and ensure it has the majority of seats in Scotland.
Jim Stamper
Bearsden
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