DESPITE following the tragic loss of the referendum, when The National was launched in November 2014 it provided a beacon of hope for those who believed in Scotland’s right to self-determination, and independence itself. Now, disappointingly, some days on reading the letters published it is not obvious whether it is The National or The Herald which is backing independence.
Of course criticisms of the SNP and its current policies, as well as the actions of its politicians, should not be omitted, but letters devoid of objective context or constructive suggestions are happily given plenty of prominence in the many newspapers opposed to independence.
READ MORE: 'Deeply humbled': Believe in Scotland smashes initial target as more than £60k raised
Not being an SNP member, I would offer the personal comment that at the moment the party does not appear to have the inspiring leadership necessary to soon take us to independence, which would perhaps require the roles of First Minister and leader of the party to be separated.
Apart from helping to ferment fundamental change within the SNP, there are many acts that could be taken to progress our common ambition for Scotland which The National could enthusiastically foster.
What needs to be done to establish a legitimate “Citizens’ Convention” as proposed by Believe in Scotland as early as possible to make recommendations on a path to a better Scotland, perhaps including support for a “de facto referendum”?
Could an interview with Gordon Brown on his proposals for reforming the UK via federalism be constructed to help encourage him and representatives of other political parties to participate in a broadly constituted convention that would have wide public interest?
What data needs to be gathered on the performance of the Labour government in Wales for the First Minister at FMQs to assertively counter arguments by the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland within the context of an irreparably Broken Brexit Britain (the same tactic used by the Tories with some media “success” in countering SNP arguments at Westminster)? This data could also be used in leaflets and on billboards to support a “de facto referendum”.
What would an alternative to the GERS report look like in he view of Richard Murphy or other respected economist consulted to provide a guiding draft, with relevant assumptions stated, so that at an early opportunity informed discussions and debate can begin and revisions made as appropriate?
READ MORE: What size of majority for independence would be sufficient?
Perhaps this might need to be constructed to cover different time periods, but it should be borne in mind that Labour are effectively telling the public that it is going to take ten years or more before most of the public see possible benefits of their attempts to repair Broken Brexit Britain.
These are just some of the questions The National could take a leading or supportive role in helping to answer. The answers, which along with the promotion of broader independence aims (such as those expressed by Professor Alan Boyter on September 24), as well as perhaps legal advice (possibly provided by Andrew Tickell) on suggestions around alternative routes to independence (some of which have been proposed by various contributors in previous letters), will help to foster more positivity in these pages.
However, it still has to be borne in mind that there is no “short cut to independence”, so all supporters of Scotland’s right to self-determination must continue to work positively to gain the clear backing of the majority of those who will become the future citizens of an independent Scotland.
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 here