UN case will determine who is entitled to call an indy referendum

The National

4 hours ago

However, Campbell seems to be under the illusion that either Westminster or the United Nations (UN) will grant us independence when in reality neither will for different reasons. In the case of Westminster, they lose territory, people, revenue and power, so they will never grant us the right to hold another referendum or grant us independence even if the polls were at 100% in favour. As such, we need a way forward to hold a legal referendum that Westminster can't do anything about.
READ MORE: Every plan to achieve indy must be subject to the test of practicality
With the UN, they act as a final court in international matters of decolonisation. As with any court, it is up to the petitioner to prove the case and by the same standard, for others to disprove the case. That can take a few years to reach a final decision. If we win, it doesn't mean that we automatically get independence, it means that the legal position of who can call an independence referendum changes from Westminster to Holyrood and it also means that the majority of UN members will back our claim if we become independent. It also means that whomever is in power in Holyrood at any time can call an independence referendum at a time of their choosing. In other words, Westminster can't veto a future referendum or tell us how many years we have to wait before the next one, and we can hold as many as we need to get the majority we need. I would say that's to our benefit.
Yes, Campbell is correct in that we need to do a lot more to shift figures towards a large majority, but is it wasting the time of the UN to appeal to them for help when we have been at stalemate for the last 11 years and can't find a way forward, and the Westminster position is that we are subservient to them? After all, independence is the ultimate goal and that's a long-term solution and not a chant during a march with some flag-waving thrown in as well, no matter how enjoyable the marches are.
READ MORE: Octopus Energy steps in as SNP members call to pause Scottish renewable projects
One problem we have at present is the laws around electioneering outwith an official referendum/election. That effectively prevents open debate of all the issues from both sides, and we know that the Unionists don't want to debate the matter anyway. If you can't openly debate the issue, then you can't persuade the electorate to come over to the side of independence, and you can't persuade them that your points are valid. As it stands, if certain facts and figures have not been published in the red-top newspapers or by the BBC, then Unionists don't want to know them and claim that we are making them up. It was that open debate in 2014 that made a lot of people move from No to Yes.
We need to be careful how we take the independence movement forward. Campbell isn't the first to advocate a more forceful protest and I've done so in the past myself so I'm not totally against the idea. However, I'm 70 years old with just a basic pension. The poll tax and bridge tolls were a long time ago now, it's time for us older ones to hand over the baton to the more active and just as willing Scots who want independence.
Alexander Potts
Kilmarnock
IN his letter 'One election outcome in 2026 could open up multiple routes to indy' (Aug 18), Alistair Potter writes: 'The first-past-the-post plural voting system awards the majority of seats to the largest minority. Scotland uses the identical voting system in the constituencies, and then uses a list system to allocate seats on a proportional basis, which also serves the dual purpose of preventing a party that has done well in the constituencies from winning an even bigger disproportionate share of seats.'
The plurality formula (known as FPTP or relative majority method) requires that to be elected a candidate only has to achieve a simple majority of votes (the largest amount of votes).
READ MORE: SNP must not act as bystanders in run-up to next year's election
List seats for the Scottish Parliament elections are allocated to the party or individual which has the highest regional figure at an allocation, after any recalculation has been made as a result of the previous allocation, NOT on a proportional basis.
The effect of voting on the list for 'any indy party that is NOT the SNP' would be that the democratic legitimacy ends with the allocation of the first list seat because of the d'Hondt method being used in CONJUNCTION with FPTP. The sum of successful list allocation quotients for that party would be more than 400% greater than the actual votes received. The combination of the numbers of constituency seats won and list seats allocated (62 + 35) would be extremely disproportionate to the share of the vote (for the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections that would have meant 75% of the seats with only very slightly more than 50% of the vote).
Scottish saying: Facts are chiels that winna ding – facts cannot lie.
Michael Follon
Glenrothes
IT is refreshing to have a candidate for the Scottish Greens leadership stressing an environmental issue, in this case climate change ('I may be electoral risk but Greens need to focus on climate leadership', Aug 19). It makes a change from gender and other distractions.
Remember, the Greens evolved from the Ecology Party, whose very name stressed environmental priority. Recognising the imminence of global population overshoot, they had a policy commitment to a birth rate well below the replacement rate (2.1 kids per woman). Some 25 years ago, however, that was airbrushed out of the 'Policy Reference Document' at a time when the gender brigade were taking over the party.
READ MORE: Scottish Greens need to 'broaden appeal' outside middle class voters
Sir David Attenborough has said there is no environmental problem which would not be eased through a lower population. Will the Greens take his message on board, especially now that even Scotland is in population overshoot as measured by our bio-capacity?
George Morton
Rosyth