SNP must ensure we have strong negotiating position on indyref2

Very simple, very clear. But it is a modern myth, whose creation is a complete mystery because it obliterates what has always been regarded as a sovereign right of the Scottish people to choose their own method of government. That right is acknowledged in law, by national convention, and indeed by Westminster.

The actual position in constitutional terms is that a majority of Scottish MPs can bring independence about by seceding from Westminster, and for modern purposes that could be made entirely democratic by a manifesto which stated that such a step would be taken if the majority of Scottish seats was obtained with a majority of Scottish votes (or in a Holyrood election, a majority of the aggregate of votes). It would be unimpeachable constitutionally, legally and democratically, and would not be impugned by London or the rest of the world.

Crucially, London would have no power of veto. This is completely in line with the consistent position of London that the UK persists by consent, and that independence will follow if that consent is withdrawn. The UK Government neither holds nor even claims any right to prevent independence if chosen by the Scottish people.

It has no obligation to further the process of independence, however, and so has absolute discretion on whether to grant permission under section 30 of the Scotland Act for a referendum, no matter how loudly we clamour. By insisting on a referendum and nothing else, we place a veto in London’s hand, a veto which it does not otherwise hold. Could anything be more perverse? And how consistent is it with the very purpose of the SNP’s existence?

The referendum route has some attraction, because what we’re trying to do is overturn an earlier one (although it is in fact an extremely uncommon route to independence, internationally). If the leadership prefers that route, what the Scottish Government should do when asking for permission is to explain that if consent is not given within a certain time, the option of taking the electoral route would be open.

Such a course would be much more likely to bring consent than a mere begging letter, and would honour the sovereign right of Scotland.
Alan Crocket
Motherwell

I AM again annoyed that other readers see fit to criticise those who question the present SNP stance on independence and on radical policies. We are required to stand four-square behind the SNP leadership even though we think they are making a huge mistake and letting great chances for independence slip by.

It does not make me a Unionist plant, and I do not believe it undermines the movement either. The SNP is a diverse party with diverse opinions, and always has been until now. But I despair of Nicola Sturgeon saying we need a “legal” way to independence. Of course we do, but given that she has always talked of a section 30 order being the only way, it then conflates “legal” with “section 30” in the minds of the electorate. As far as I can see, a section 30 order is essentially a form of contract making it enforceable by both sides.

I fear we are trying to appease our opponents by being like Oliver Twist with the begging bowl: “Please can we have independence?” If there was a plan B for when the UK inevitably says “no”, fine, but there is not. Nicola Sturgeon should have been screaming from the rooftops about asserting the Claim of Right, dissolving the Treaty of Union or even of getting a majority of MPs (which Thatcher acknowledged would be enough). These ideas are alien to many of the electorate, as we simply don’t talk enough about them to those outside the independence movement, but any one of them is not unreasonable if a section 30 fails, and all of these would be legal routes.

It does not make me a fifth-columnist to be despairing of the present state of affairs, despite me being from rUK. What would the SNP giants of the past have made of our refusal to go forward given everything that has happened? They could only dream of the ascendancy the SNP has at Westminster and Holyrood and Scotland would probably have been independent by now. And what of future generations? They will scorn our inaction. If we succeed by this circuitous route, fine, but at the moment it feels like the Grand Old Duke of York marching the troops up the hill and down.

What is Plan B for when the begging bowl fails?
Julia Pannell
Arbroath

AS a dedicated supporter of Scottish independence I would very dearly like Scotland to be able to say to the English Government, “we are now independent, end of story”. Having been brought up in embassies and consulates I have

some understanding of the problems with this approach. In order to gain independence we have to be squeaky clean, we have to demonstrate to the world at large that we have the backing of our population and that we have covered all legally required options.

This is the route essential to international recognition. Nicola Sturgeon is quite correct in her approach. It is only after all reasonable options have been tried and rejected that we must move to a plan B.
R Mill Irving
Gifford, East Lothian

I APPRECIATE the desire of some folks to hold a referendum without section 30. However, my understanding is that we seek section 30 to gain independence but also membership of EU; without section 30, the EU would be unwilling to grant entry. We should therefore be patient for a little longer and allow Nicola to go down the legal route.
R Clark
Midlothian

I TAKE issue with the following paragraph in “A declaration for independence” (October 10): “Freedom of speech and action, and the freedom to work, create, buy, sell and do business should adhere to principles of environmental and communal sustainability and responsibility. Profit and economic growth should not be pursued at the expense of the wellbeing of the people or their habitat or that of other people or nations.”

While the references to “growth” and “business” are apparently aimed at neoliberalism, the reference to “freedom of speech” in this context identifies that principle, in itself, as a potential threat to the very elastic criteria of “sustainability and responsibility”, with no statement anywhere in the whole declaration that freedom of speech is desirable as a default policy (subject only to prevention of violence or intimidation) to be protected under the constitution of an independent Scotland.

This dismissal reflects the current tendency on the left to look askance at what is sometimes referred to as “so-called freedom of speech”: “real” freedom of speech, presumably, consisting of statements that the person using the expression agrees with.

It’s a dangerous trend, because free speech isn’t just an abstraction. Without it, tyranny can’t be constrained, no social wrongs can be righted, no progress can be made, and we live as nervous, self-censoring conformists to the received opinions of the day – by contrast with the independence we seek as a nation.

I hope that when independence is gained and a Scottish constitution is agreed on democratically, we won’t throw away this most fundamental right as cavalierly as this document seems to.
Katherine Perlo
Forfar

IT is almost unbelievable that the elusive Boris Johnson and the swaggering Donald Trump, cheats and liars on every level, continue to grossly demean the high offices of prime minister and president. True to form, the Johnson/Cummings circus is blaming those shady foreigners for their failure to deliver on Brexit.

This follows an appalling tweet from the Leave.EU organisation, including a graphic of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, with the words: “We didn’t win two world wars to be pushed around by a kraut”.

This racist British arrogance is shocking and shows through the frustration of Tony Blair speaking recently in Scotland: “Boris Johnson is putting the Union at risk by Brexit.”

The recent massive and hugely exhilarating AUOB march and rally only corroborates the necessity on delivering a fully independent Scotland. Yes, Madam Ecosse is right: “Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on.”
Grant Frazer
Newtonmore

DURING the 2014 referendum, depending on who you believed, people in the UK paid either 46% or 64% of their earnings in direct and indirect taxes. Both these figures are proof of the failure of governments to live within their means. To add insult to injury, here in Scotland we find it necessary to compound this madness with drink tax, tourist tax, parking tax, etc.

I will vote for independence until the day we are free, but the day after, I will vote for anyone who promises to bring in a fairer system.

Also passed in the Transport Bill was parking on pavements. Utter stupidity! There cannot be a town or village in the whole of Scotland where it would be totally impossible to park on the road and still leave enough room for other vehicles and emergency vehicles to pass.

For goodness’ sake, appoint a common-sense minister whose job it would be to take stupid legislation and bin it, and put the proposer in a corner until they apologise.
Jim McGregor
Kirkintilloch

WHAT an inspiration to read Thursday’s front page of The National: “A declaration for independence”. It embodied the universal principles of an open, progressive and democratic society and decorated it with the cultural standards of this ancient land.

The next indyref will be won when two elements combine. People must have a sense of economic security. They must also see that our non-material values of “care, kindness, neighbourliness and generosity of spirit” will only be nurtured through independence.

It must have taken a huge amount of effort to gather this many culture icons under such a detailed statement, so congratulations to all involved, especially those who took a risk. Could some folk with heavy pulling power do it again for other areas of Scottish life, e.g. sport, business, trade unions, medicine, farming, media etc?

And imagine how impressive it would look if the National printed a map pin-pointing every local Yes/Aye group which endorsed this constitutional statement. One, it would prove just how comprehensively diverse our movement has become. wo, it would embarrass places like Portobello and Achiltibuie into getting a move on. Another job for Mr Hannah?
Fraser McAllister
Musselburgh