The path towards indy is an easy-to-grasp multi-strand approach

I think back a few weeks to The National’s 10th-anniversary gig and the showing of Jane McAllister’s film To See Ourselves and reflect on the various comments on the way forward.

There were a number of contributions from both the panel and the audience – some very similar to the variety of comments and suggestions in the pages of The National – nearly all have suggested that the adoption of ONE policy will effectively “do the trick”.

However, I – and I’m sure many others – consider that a multi-strand approach is needed. I certainly warm to highlighting the declared sovereign will of the Scottish people. But how is this determined, or demonstrated?

READ MORE: The mainstream media ‘underestimated the impact of Gaza’ on US election result

One strand not in doubt is a Constitutional Convention – certainly NOT one for and driven by only politicians. I don’t think they can be excluded as suggested by some. But we would need to keep the hems on them. Severely limit when and for how long they could speak. We need to embrace ALL of civic Scotland – people from communities of interests as well as geographical communities and national bodies such as the STUC, individual trade unions, local authorities as well as faith groups. Maybe we have to create the organisation and seek out someone to do what Canon Kenyon Wright did all those years ago.

But that is just one strand. We need to engage with punters, our citizens. Remember the wide variety of groups that seemed to spontaneously form 10 years ago? So getting people to sign up for a modern Claim of Right in shopping centres, community centres and on the doorstep can achieve this. (And make sure they are all registered to vote.) Surely engagement with our communities and individual citizens is vital? Have a look at Charlie Stuart’s film STILL YES (now on YouTube) and see the level of enthusiasm and commitment displayed and still there.

And what part could direct action play? Even concerted civil disobedience? Particularly in regard to events that highlight Westminster’s “Embassy” in Edinburgh, Elizabeth House, and its malevolent purpose. Are there not elements of the “status quo” that need to be severely challenged?

I have still to digest the comments on the Currency Conference in Dunfermline. However, I recall the Scottish Currency Group’s regular pieces in the summer of 2021. All excellent and could be the basis for a manifesto themselves. One thing was a proposal to engage the public sector pension funds in both investment in public infrastructure and the productive economy. However, as I understand, the current trust laws require pension trustees to consider their fiduciary duty to effectively “maximise” returns. The best outcome for society is not acceptable. That was what probably helped cause the demise of Tom Johnston’s municipal bank 100 years ago.

Is all of the above enough? Well, no. Our Scottish Government has to embrace and demonstrate that it has the capacity, pre-independence, to finance our public services with funds raised in Scotland.

The proposed cruise ship levy, while welcome, is just tinkering at the edges. Our putative National Care Service has reportedly cost the best part of £30 million and for what? How much of that has gone to fat-cat consultants? It’s the corporatism – enthralled to those in sharp suits while ignoring those on the ground. JS says he’s listening – aye, wi cloth ears. If not, why have both the STUC and Cosla said: “Start again”?

A third strand, is a massive vote in 2026 for self-determination. How do we do this? Have ALL independence-promoting bodies and political parties campaign as “The Scotland Alliance”. And sorting out what actual candidate(s) stand can be done locally.

Difficult, yes. Impossible, no. Remember how effective the practice of submerging difference was in limiting the advances of the far-right in France a few short months ago. People need to grow up and be responsible. There is no room for prima donnas.

The fiasco of July with up to THREE (was there even more?) pro-independence candidates coupled with punters NOT engaging with the lacklustre campaign of the supposed lead organisation needs to be avoided. Despite the protestations from a range of the “high-heid yins” of the SNP, the vast majority of punters cannae see there is a strategy, never mind progress toward our goal of independence. That strategy should generate a significant vote for a Scotland free from Westminster. And a majority in Holyrood many more than in 2011. Set a date for the negotiations to begin!

I am a 2014 convert to self-determination. So when I read recently that the delayed census of 2022 recorded that 65.5% of citizens who responded deemed themselves to be solely Scottish, I was amazed! Is the difference between those numbers and the current polls the target size of those we need to convince? Do we need to ensure there is a cultural dimension to our campaigning to achieve our desire, our destiny? That surely could be considered an extremely fertile launch pad for campaigning? Especially as only 8.2% felt both Scottish and British and 13.9% declaimed to be British (thank you Ivor Telfer, Seven Days, Oct 6 for these figures). Could that be a way to convince those in the labour movement that their interests are NOT and have NEVER been a priority of those in power in Westminster? Especially when coupled with the recent serial denigration of Scotland, the Scottish people, the Scottish economy and our Scottish Government by Starmer and his crew?

I have a message for the SNP. As well as listening much more closely to your members, particularly your trade union group, you also have to commit to make it clear that you will include civic Scotland in the negotiating teams when we get there. Further, that there will be free Scottish elections within six or eight months of independence.

Willie Oswald

Blanefield