SNP hold the cards on independence – they just need to play them

From the fierce opposition to the Acts of Union in 1707 to the SNP’s inception in 1934, and right up to this present day, there has been steady but ever-rising support for a return to independence. The SNP have made a significant impact in growing this support. By their nature, the SNP are a broad church – they need to be in order to accommodate the diverse political opinions of those whose only true common ground is a passion for independence. In recent years, however, they seem to have lost their way.

The SNP’s pragmatic positioning as a left-of-centre political party that, to some degree, can gain the support of the majority of the Scottish voting public has sadly been derailed. Disrupted by misguided strategies like the Bute House Agreement – actually almost entirely due to the Bute House Agreement. The mainstream media frenzy surrounding campervans and tents, that shamefully undermines democracy, hasn’t helped and continues to inform opinions.

We cannot forget that the Union between Scotland and England was not a voluntary union by the people of Scotland, but an act of desperation born out of envy and greed by a few reckless and desperate gamblers, who, having emptied their own trough through stupidity, desperately sought an alternative trough to accommodate their deprived snouts.

Scotland is a proud nation that has never been short of courage, vision or, undeniably, invention. Unfortunately, it would appear that the SNP in their current state are demonstrating neither courage, nor vision, or indeed invention.

So, what can the SNP do? What are the options? What cards do they hold? What’s blindingly obvious to many, but apparently not blindingly obvious to others, is that the SNP hold an abundance of cards. Unfortunately, the way the polls are looking at the moment, the number of cards they hold could be significantly reduced following the next General Election.

READ MORE: David Cameron was right and what it means for Scottish independence

The first thing that’s needed is to jettison the Bute House Agreement. Why? Because while some of the policies of the Green Party are commendable and, in most cases, sensible, some of their ideas border on the ridiculous and go down badly with the Scottish voting public. For now, the referendum idea has gone, and the need for the Greens in coalition, budgets aside, has gone with it. The Bute House Agreement in combination with the aforementioned police tents in gardens, and media and opposition fixation on the completion dates and cost overruns of relatively small capital expenditure items such as the ferries, have also contributed to open season for the cynical and factually incorrect undermining of real SNP achievements, even more remarkable in that they were achieved during an extended period of Westminster austerity.

However, unless you happen to attend the party conference, or be one of the 60 or so viewing the live feed, or follow politics, you are unlikely to have heard much of the SNP’s successes and achievements – though the energies of the much-heralded “rebuttal group” may help. And for the record, there are many successes and achievements, and the SNP are performing better in Holyrood than any shackled Labour majority would be allowed to do by their Westminster masters. So, the second thing the SNP need to do is stop cowering under undeserved criticism and stand tall, constantly and determinedly broadcasting their achievements at every opportunity. Boris Johnson successfully managed it despite having achieved very little, so it should be super easy for the SNP who have achieved so much.

The third and arguably the most urgent thing they need to do is to take advantage of the position they are in electorally. Holyrood and Westminster must be treated as two separate entities, two discrete strategies, one common goal. Having such a large number of MSPs and MPs is a position of power that has never been wisely exploited to advance the cause of independence.

The SNP must approach independence using all the tools at their disposal, and start now. Perhaps the biggest advantage at the moment – and, to reiterate, perhaps not for much longer – is the number of MPs they have in Westminster. So how, for example, can Westminster be used to gain support for independence?

Well, asking for a referendum at PMQs is pointless – indeed, asking anything at PMQs is pointless. The SNP questions are never answered and rarely appear in the media. It doesn’t have to be that way. Representing the views of the people who sent you to Westminster should be a given. MPs need to be bold and courageous. I shall soon outline a strategy that will get results. Of course, I am assuming the SNP MPs are capable of being bold and courageous and not just comfortable and indifferent, or possibly even a bit timid and shy.
Robert Mackay-Burns
via email

ANDY Wightman is rightly praised for his tireless work in pursuing land reform. However, the article “Wightman: How I would do Scottish land reform properly” (Dec 10), which gives an indication of his alternative bill currently being prepared, is really unsatisfactory.

At the heart of any legislation must be our victory over poverty. That applies to land reform as to any other enactment, and it is significant that the terms of reference of the Scottish Land Commission include how land reform addresses poverty. It’s just a pity that the current commission has failed to focus its attention on poverty. It is to be hoped that if Michael Russell becomes the commission’s new chair, it will concentrate its efforts more generously in the pursuit of wellbeing.

Sadly, the features of Andy Wightman’s draft bill also fail the “poverty” test.

He is correct to say that the Scottish Government’s bill is tinkering round the edges and playing to the commission’s tune. This is to be expected by any student of the tortuous journey which land reform has taken over the past two centuries. The subject seems to have infected every land reformer charged with delivering the legislation with a timidity and wholly unjustified deference to the vested interests in the status quo – ie, landowners.

If all of the reported proposals by Mr Wightman, the Scottish Government and the Labour MSP Mercedes Villalba are enacted, no-one living in Scotland will see the day when half of Scotland’s land is owned by half its people. As a means to democratise land ownership, they all fail. They indulge the very bureaucracy which protects the bees who live off the land honeypot. Until some government has the smeddum to work outside that bubble, land reform efforts will be cocooned in the warm embrace of studied mañana. A real feudal system still exists despite the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Act 2000.

I’ve thought long and hard over restricting land ownership to those who satisfy some residential qualification as Mr Wightman proposes. Informed commentators of such requirements in countries like Denmark suggest ways in which these impediments can be overcome legally. Such practical advice fortifies my belief that the more government creates artificial strategies to address perceived advantage, the more they open the door to further loopholes available to those who have the funds to be guided through the holes.

Simple legislation is invariably the fairest, most democratic and most practical means to solve a problem. Land ownership is no different. Simplicity means treating everyone the same.

If we are really serious about tackling poverty and giving everyone an opportunity to experience personal and community ownership, our society needs to use land as the principal source of public funding and be charged at a rate per square metre according to land types – urban, rural, commercial and variations of them all. If all are charged the same rate per square metre within a certain land type, there is no denial of human rights as all are treated equally. If landowners cannot pay the rent or charge, then they will dispose of what they own to avoid liability. Following the introduction of the charge, there will be such a flurry of activity among landowners to divest themselves of the land that many will simply offer it to the Scottish Government gratis.

I make this prediction having spoken to the representatives of two large private landowners. They privately admit that the land is not part of their business plans, and they hold on to it as it costs them nothing, and there is always the remote possibility that sometime in the future the Scottish Government might want to buy a chunk of it for a realigned road or whatever.

Having been professionally involved in winding up many deceased’s estates, I fail to see how extending legal rights to spouses and children to the deceased’s heritable property will significantly increase the diversification of the ownership of land. Given the significant change and layering in lifestyles and households since the Succession Act was introduced in the early 1960s, what constitutes a “family” has become so diverse that simply extending legal rights of heritable property to blood relatives seems of a previous time.

I agree with Andy Wightman that community ownership is not the panacea to end the grotesquely small cohort of owners in much of Scotland. I have no problem with community groups purchasing and developing a property or island with the help of public funds, but I do baulk at the idea of large tracts of land being purchased from landowners with public money.

Mr Wightman’s insistence that all land be valued demonstrates that he is content to play within the bubble which controls land. Over 48 years working in property purchase and sales, I’ve seen countless examples of the manipulation of the valuation system on behalf of owners, purchasers and lenders. It encourages disputes. An in-depth assessment of valuers would rank them along with second-hand car dealers. To avoid dispute, introduce the set rate I alluded to earlier. There may be large variations with the sale price of similar-sized properties in Scotland, but the price of the asset is immaterial to an annual charge while it is not for sale.

Where I depart significantly with Mr Wightman is in his trust in local government to control the effect and operation of the land reform. The public sector is woefully incapable of maintaining what it owns. The Land Commission estimates that 60% of all dilapidated and vacant property and land in urban Scotland is owned by the public sector. That is a huge waste – not just in providing the homes and workspaces and environments which allow us all to live fulfilling and nourishing lives, but as a betrayal of what “public interest” should be. That is why it is of the utmost importance that public land should be liable for the property tax too.

Finally, we cannot continue to ignore the fact that history tells us that a successful independence campaign has land reform as its essence. It’s the land that we strive to set free, Those of us who inhabit it are but here a short time; but the land is enduring. True land reform does not differentiate between urban and rural land in its capacity to deliver social, economic, democratic and environmental prosperity.

Make land the source and centre of our independence, and we shall succeed.
Graeme McCormick
Arden, by Loch Lomond