GERRY Hassan’s excellent article on how to win the referendum is very pertinent (Winning ways: the route to indy, February 7). Everyone should take to heart the final lines, where he quotes political strategist Ian Dommett: “Very clearly, logically and with confidence, underline the benefits of independence, putting aside vested interests to present what is the greater good – for all of Scotland. ‘Not what’s in it for me, but what’s in it for you.’”
So much has been written about how the SNP got itself into the current fix. Where news media that normally ignore Scotland are rejoicing already in the downfall of our ambitions. Like many people who wish for and have campaigned for independence I am appalled that now, when we have got to the point where this ambition is closer to being realised than at any time in recent history, support falls apart and fractures in a quarrelsome mess.
READ MORE: Gerry Hassan: How to win the argument, case and a referendum for Scotland’s independence
An independent Scotland may be a dream for many, but it is clear that the form and detail of that dream is also different for many, and nobody wants to give up their version or their path to it. This is unrealistic. It is also unrealistic for supporters of independence to believe that the Scottish Government should simply march in and seize it. There is impatience that the slow and reliable steps taken to safeguard health in the pandemic are a betrayal of those who wish that efforts should be turned instead to independence. But it’s the undecided voters who will make this happen, and they will be swayed hugely by a careful and sensible approach.
But it’s also important for the SNP representatives themselves to show their once-famed discipline. Public bickering and mud-slinging never helps. This is about the main goal, not the background issues, the vested interests or indeed the egos. It is about a need to understand and accept that compromise is essential. I am reminded of a condition labelled as The Caledonian Antisyzygy – the notion that a clash of extremes lies at the heart of the national mind.
The view should be that it takes a strong and disciplined – and discreet – team to see that through.
Lorraine Fannin
Edinburgh
I’M frustrated about the lack of retort from independence supporters following the professor from LSE and his report (Government rejects LSE indyref report, February 3).
It’s a reflection of where we are that the report about Scotland from London gets so much publicity. It can be no surprise that it was negative towards Scotland. If you were to listen to English rugby commentators you would believe that Scotland beat England at rugby on Saturday because England let them. Total nonsense.
READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: Where is the rebuttal of doom and gloom anti-independence reports?
How about getting reports from Ireland, Denmark, Netherlands etc etc and asking them how they are surviving as small independent countries, without the help of England? Clearly the author of the report is suggesting that Scots are somehow inferior to the Irish, Danes and Dutch.
We should remember that it was the Scots who went out and created and then ran much of the British Empire (for good and bad). Scotland is still full of Scots like them, and if they could run an empire then why not their own country?
We should remember that up till recently almost everything that was invented was invented by Scots. If Scots could be inventive then they can be inventive now. Some of the greatest minds on the planet have been Scottish and that potential is among us today.
We should not allow London-based nonsense like the LSE report to so easily knock us off balance and hush us up. Are we still suffering from the Scottish cringe?
Things like that report are deliberate propaganda intended to undermine our confidence and enthusiasm. We need to question the organisations who circulate the nonsense. It’s no surprise that I first heard of the report on the BBC (sorry, I still listen in the mornings sometimes).
Chris Sagan
Glasgow
CONGRATULATIONS to both Lesley Riddoch and David Pratt for their continuing excellent articles and insights for Scotland’s future.
In particular both hit the nail full square on Thursday. From Lesley, we all need to recognise the Project Fear mark 2 currently being rolled out, as shown with the LSE economics report. From my contacts, the main No voter reason I come across is that Scotland couldn’t make it economically on its own.
READ MORE: Online political bloodletting is killing our case for Scottish independence
This really needs addressed, as George Kerevan does so well in his articles. The many contributors to the letters in The National need to write more to other newspapers eg the Aberdeen Press and Journal, Daily Record and any other staunch No papers, as they are generally preaching to the converted in The National.
David Pratt also brings great wisdom and experience to all he says, and his condemnation of the party infighting should really make all have a big thought – can they really afford to let disagreements be so severe as to lose the undoubted talents of Joanna Cherry?
Addressing these issues would make a big contribution to the success of the independence movement.
Bill Liebnitz
via email
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