I WRITE in response to the letter from P Davidson, published on Sunday October 13. I am assuming that I am one half of “ the Anderson correspondents” referred to for proposing a legal route for the Scottish Government to be free to call an independence referendum at their time of choosing.
I must make clear that the credit for this suggestion lies 100% with the other Anderson, Andy. I have no expertise with constitutional or international law issues so I supported Andy’s proposal by suggesting that independence-supporting parties should either adopt the proposal or explain to us why it is not possible. Having the ability to follow this proposal, or the similar one proposed by P Davidson, at an appropriate time would be a great benefit.
READ MORE: Richard Walker: How Alex Salmond helped The National in its early days
Because of my inability to judge the legitimacy of the proposal, I turned to two sources for guidance. Firstly I wrote to my MSP Angus Robertson, seeking his opinion. He has informed me that Andy’s proposal has been referred within the Scottish Government to a “suitable area for consideration”. I hope this implies that in due course a definitive answer will emerge. I’m not holding my breath though.
Secondly I took the opportunity at the recent international conference within Greyfriars Church in Edinburgh to put the proposal to Robin McAlpine of Common Weal. He was clear
that the devolution settlement, reinforced by the judgement by the UK Supreme Court, was that the Scottish Government could adopt as many UN Resolutions as they liked, but they would still not be competent to enact any reserved matters.
Robin added, however, that the only way Scotland could achieve independence where we were recognised by other independent nations and the UN was if the UK had agreed. He added that this agreement must be our prime aim and focus, rather than just holding a second referendum.
READ MORE: Are the SNP about independence, or social engineering?
I think a second referendum will be required when the time is right to demonstrate the will of our people, to ourselves as much as anyone else. However, such a referendum is not a legal prerequisite to independence and could be ignored by the UK Government even if Yes were to win. You know how they would respond to an unsanctioned poll they boycotted. Even if an agreed poll produced a 55% to 45% Yes victory, because its status is “advisory” they could claim “one each, let’s have the decider in another generation”.
The UK Government will not let go of their gravy train and their current passport to the UN Security Council lightly. We must force them (by non-violent means – by democracy and perhaps civil disobedience) to accept that the game is up and agree to negotiate.
The key to achieving this is to build a large enough mandate which a democracy cannot deny. Sadly we are not there at the moment with about 50% (or slightly less). We need to persuade soft No voters that independence is far superior to what Westminster offers. We need to poll consistently at least 60% Yes to achieve this. The higher, the stronger our case.
To aim for this level of backing we need a united cross-party and cross-groups approach as others are urging in these letters pages. The mechanics of this approach are for another day.
Campbell Anderson
Edinburgh
I LOVE reading Gerry Hassan’s pieces on all matters political, but in particular those on the way to progress our drive for a referendum and the winning of self-determination. They are always so positive, honest, logical and clear.
READ MORE: Gerry Hassan: 10 lessons Yes needs to learn 10 years on
As an activist in politics and trade unionism I was never of any great shakes as a deep thinker or analyst. My main focus was to put into practice the thinking, ideas or analysis of others which I thought positive and valuable to the issues being fought for at any particular time, transmit them into strategy or tactics and convince those who elected me to represent their interests.
I hope Gerry’s latest analysis is seriously considered by those in leadership positions at all levels within our movement and among law members who can impress it upon those leaders.
Bobby Brennan
Glasgow
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