A WILSON (Letters, May 28) seems to be at a tangent with what the majority of the Scottish independence movement wants. He continuously refers to “Home Rule” in his letter, and that is not what we are campaigning for. Independence is what we want.
Home Rule is what the Labour Party said we would get from the time of Keir Hardie forming the party until Tony Blair. Instead they gave us a watered-down version of devolution and tried to tell us it was the most powerful devolved government in the world. We are left at the mercy of an extreme right-wing Conservative government as a result, or a Labour Party telling the Scottish branch office what policies to adopt and how to vote.
The last time the Conservatives had a mandate in Scotland was 1955 (68 years ago) and the last time Labour had a mandate was nearly 20 years ago. There comes a time when you need to stop trying to flog a dead horse, which Home Rule is.
READ MORE: SNP meet Westminster accounts deadline after new auditors appointed
If you are interested in Home Rule, look at the mess Ireland was lumbered with and what became of the then Liberal Party. A hundred years of bloodshed and civil war is not a legacy to be proud of. We don’t want that in Scotland, we want a peaceful solution via the ballot box, and that takes both sides to sit down and discuss matters without dictating terms. By all means put the idea of Home Rule at a properly convened convention and see where you get. However, there isn’t a convention set up to discuss something like that yet.
Yes, the SNP are part of the establishment, they became that as soon as they put forward members for election as councillors, MPs, MSPs and MEPs, let alone being elected. However, you can’t say that they have grown too quickly as A Wilson states. After all, it has taken the party roughly 80 years to get where they are today. The Labour Party were in power long before they hit their 80th anniversary.
Why should the SNP disband, as A Wilson wants? Let alone merge with the Greens and Alba. After all Alba was formed very recently and a lot of their members are dissatisfied SNP members. The three parties have different agendas and approach, as do the other independence-seeking Scottish political parties. You need a variety of political parties that want independence, or else you could end up losing the very thing you have fought hard for. We certainly don’t want to gain independence then have a Unionist grouping winning the majority of seats in parliament and taking us back into a Union with England with less autonomy than we have now.
READ MORE: BBC Scottish independence article LEAVES OUT Unionists' political history
Unfortunately, we haven’t yet voted to “dissolve the Union” as A Wilson claims, albeit we have voted in a majority of independence MPs and MSPs. The SNP plan is that the next election will be a de-facto referendum, but you can’t put it in a past context if you haven’t asked the electorate. Politics is about finding a consensus, not confrontation, and what would happen if all the independence MPs were banned from Westminster for demanding that the Union be dissolved? Westminster make up their own rules to suit themselves!
I’m all for a convention to discuss options for gaining independence, but don’t for one minute think that politics moves quickly. It can only move at a pace the electorate allows it to move. In that respect, since 2014, both Yes and No have been teetering around the 50% mark. Nobody is actually winning, but then again nobody is losing the argument. In that respect I have to agree with the SNP that a sustained 60%-plus is the sort of benchmark that will take us over the winning line.
There are two ways of getting independence: a legally sought route via the ballot box and negotiations; or trouble and insurrection. We have chosen to go down the route of the ballot box, which is the more difficult road. For that we need to persuade people to vote for independence parties. Even if we don’t win at an election, it can prove a very painful thorn in the side of the Westminster government when we are asking questions and demanding answers from them.
Alexander Potts
Kilmarnock
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