SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford rightly stated in The National recently that “We need to exit the UK as soon as possible”, and never a truer phrase was said. However, a headline around the same period offered a quote from Mr Blackford that “We must not break the law”. This apparently was a reference to those both within the SNP and wider Yes movement who advocate the use of a parliamentary mandate as a mechanism for achieving independence rather than via a referendum triggered through a Section 30.
While I totally concur with Mr Blackford that we need to be united on the aim of independence, it seems to me there is a dangerous revisionism at work within elements of the current SNP leadership which prescribes a referendum, and only a referendum, as the pathway to this noble end.
Leaving aside that the SNP fought national elections on a parliamentary mandate platform for 50 years, and that this same policy allowed for a post negotiation referendum on the independence terms agreed, surely the democratic expression of the Scottish people through a manifesto commitment to independence is profoundly legal. Indeed, to argue otherwise is almost to allow the Yes movement to be boxed into a tactical dead end where all Westminster governments need to do is to continually refuse a Section 30. This is exactly the dilemma we find ourselves in now.
Mr Blackford may also reflect that the advocates of the Act of Union Bill are seeking to emasculate the referenda route to independence, and this may lead to a situation where a parliamentary mandate is the only available democratic route. If Mr Blackford sees this as breaking the law then I prefer the youthful Ian Blackford that I knew, as a friend and colleague in the leadership of the Young Scottish Nationalists, who correctly and proudly advocated the SNP’s civil disobedience campaign in defence of jobs in the early 1980s.
Cllr Andy Doig (Independent)
Renfrewshire Council
THE letter from Neil Morison (March 13) explains his thinking a bit more, which is helpful. It is correct that less than 50% voted for independence parties at the 2016 election but we need to employ different tactics at each voting opportunity, whether for Holyrood or Westminster.
For Westminster we try to get over 50% for independence parties. For the Scottish Parliament we should maximise the SNP with our first vote but use our second vote tactically for other independence-seeking parties, whether Green or the proposed Yes Alliance.
In most of the country placing a second vote with the SNP actually achieves nothing. Colleagues in the south of Scotland and elsewhere may explain that not to be true in their region – but we need to do the calculations.
A critical, potential stumbling block here will be the approach of the SNP. Although not a member I am told that they will not move from their policy of “second vote SNP” While I understand the SNP might regard the Greens as a pain at Holyrood when they vote against or soften certain policies, avoiding an increase in the number of Green MSPs simply lets in Unionist MSPs, which would be far worse. As Jim Manclark writes (Letters, March 13), think of the damage caused by the gloomy words of Unionist list MSPs and how it could be so different.
I may be wrong in suggesting that the SNP will be firm in not moving from their policy, but that is what I am hearing from members. There is an opportunity here to maximise the number of independence-supporting MSPs, but any such intransigence could be very damaging for the cause of independence. We do need to hear from the SNP on this.
John C Hutchison
Fort William
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