ON November 23, following the announcement of the Supreme Court decision, I went to the parliamentary petitions site and posted a petition. Having obtained five signatures, it went through a petitions standards process then went live on November 29.
Headed “Grant a Section 30 Order to enable a Scottish Independence Referendum,” it reads:
“The UK Government should grant without delay a Section 30 Order under the Scotland Act to enable an independence referendum to take place in Scotland, to allow the Scottish people, who elected a Scottish Parliament with a clear majority on holding such, to express their democratic will.
“Following the Supreme Court’s decision of 23 November 2022, it has been confirmed that there is no legal mechanism for the Scottish people to have an independence referendum without Westminster’s agreement. The matter requires the UK Government to act and it is not within the competency of the Scottish Parliament.
“In the 2021 Scottish Parliamentary elections the Scottish electorate elected a Parliament with a clear majority supporting a referendum.”
I regard this as a win-win. We either get what we need to legally hold a referendum on independence, or it is refused, in which case parliament has put another nail in its coffin by ignoring the people of Scotland, as well as its politicians and their mandate obtained in 2021.
There is therefore no good reason to not sign, if you want independence. I’m not interested in apathy, defeatism or “do this instead” responses. You can do this NOW and do other things as well.
At the time of writing it has gathered more than 4200 signatures. It needs 10,000 to get a response and 100,000 to get a debate in parliament.
To do this, it needs to be regularly repeat shared across all social media, preferably with #S30Petition included so that people tracking it can like, boost, share or re-tweet.
Please sign/share. The #S30Petition is at: petition.parliament.uk/petitions/628746
Andrew J Moran
via email
REPLYING to Brian Lawson’s letter (Dec 9), there is no reason we could not have not just a referendum next year, but also a de facto election.
With the current overwhelming popularity of not only support for independence, but also for the SNP and the government, all it would take is for Nicola Sturgeon to, as it were, grow a pair.
The First Minister just needs to throw the towel in and close down the parliament, thus creating an election in Scotland. The SNP would have no problem in regaining its majority, and probably outright, with herself being re-elected as First Minister again. Job done!
A new SNP government with a de facto independence majority, helped along by 69% of the young people aged 16-plus who have the vote in Scotland and support independence.
Let’s not forget that independence is not just for those who have been fighting for years but more importantly for their children and the future descendants of Scottish families.
Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife
GIVEN the recent statements from SNP Deputy Leader Keith Brown MSP, it is beginning to look like the only option the Yes movement will be presented with from next year’s SNP conference will be the very dubious idea of holding a referendum wrapped up in the guise of a UK General Election despite all the many obvious drawbacks that come with that less-than-cunning plan.
The main drawback will be that 16- and 17-year-olds will not get to vote in this version of an independence referendum, but they will soon be able to change their gender, without even having to consult their parents. This does not seem like a very good trade-off to me.
Iain Wilson
Stirling
WHAT right has the Westminster government to tell banks they can use people’s savings to play roulette on the financial markets? The ring-fencing of retail customers’ savings introduced at the 2008 world financial collapse was to protect savers’ deposits. If Gordon Brown had not bailed out the banking community at that time, people would have found nothing coming out of cash machines. Bonus greed could well lead to investment in sub-prime mortgages (even the name should have frightened investors) or the current “safe” investments being touted by brokers. Removing the ring-fencing should be challenged now.
Mike Underwood
Linlithgow
WHEN he looks at the wide range of sectors of the population who are striking, or are balloting on striking, does Rishi Sunak not realise that they are a huge proportion of the ordinary people whom he claims he is working to protect?
Divide and rule again, by divisive rhetoric.
P Davidson
Falkirk
THE Prime Minister was apparently “absolutely shocked” to hear of the allegations regarding Baroness Mone. This makes me feel terribly guilty because, even although I am not a member of the Westminster elite, I do read the daily papers, and have known about the allegations for several months now.
I could have written him a “dear Rishi” note expressing my own absolute shock, and this may have given them some time, not to do something serious about the matter (God forbid we should actually ask him to address an allegation of corruption) but perhaps think of the various evasive responses that he might have to use over the next few weeks!
Such an approach may have had a better chance of success than simply asking him to tell the truth!
Alex Leggatt
Edinburgh
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