SNP are erring far too much on the side of caution in indy fight
Of course, it is also informative to read the different arguments around independence and to read the views of various columnists on this core topic of the newspaper, especially when columnists such as Tommy Sheppard are prepared to engage with critics.
Most without a personal gripe against the SNP sensibly realise that there are often good reasons why the SNP and the Scottish Government cannot reveal every step that is undertaken to further Scotland's self-determination, but while I personally accept much of Tommy's reasoning, it still appears that overall the SNP are erring on the side of caution rather than seeking to exploit every opportunity, no matter how seemingly tenuous.
Moving ahead on all possible fronts, from progressing the ICCPR petition to advancing a Scottish constitution, the SNP have much to gain in mobilising support for the party and independence while those who do not see that real reform of the UK is necessary to address the many problems of broken Brexit Britain will simply vote in a mistaken attempt to delay the inevitable anyway.
It seems a no-brainer that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to represent the people of Scotland 'on how they should be governed', including on UK constitutional matters, but the question remains that even if the SNP succeed in winning a majority of the seats in the next Holyrood election, or better still a majority of the votes are gained by pro-independence parties, what actions will follow to ensure that this time such a mandate is exercised?
My personal view is that a timescale must be set from day one that makes it clear to the UK Government that refusal to respect the views of the people of Scotland will have significant consequences. If within the set period – perhaps a maximum of one year – the UK Government has not enacted legislation to effectively enable the Scottish Parliament to exercise its mandate, including the legal right to conduct a constitutional referendum, then MPs should be withdrawn from Westminster.
And it should be made crystal clear to all that the next General Election will be a de facto referendum on the basis that the views of the people of Scotland will only be truly respected and represented when Scotland regains its independence.
In the meantime, the common cause of independence would be aided if frustrated individuals could resist falling into the trap of repeating the slanted partial framing of BBC Scotland and the grossly misleading soundbites of scurrilous commentators in newspapers such as the Daily Mail.
Kenny MacAskill's crude attempt to use John Swinney's condemnation of alleged calls to kill MPs in order to justify his criticism of John not doing more to end the slaughter in Gaza reeks of political opportunism that does not reflect well on a politician seeking to replace Scotland's First Minister.
Iain Wilson's misguided attempt (Letters, June 2) to imply that the SNP Scottish Government is more concerned with the parliament's toilet arrangements than with those struggling to obtain NHS appointments is straight out of the Daily Mail and Nigel Farage playbooks.
We can and must do better to achieve our common goal.
Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
22 minutes ago
- The National
50,000 letters sent to minister over controversial Flamingo Land plans
More than 50,000 people have written to the Public Finance Minister, Ivan McKee, in just two weeks, demanding that the Scottish Government withdraw its approval for Flamingo Land's Loch Lomond mega-resort planning application. In September 2024, the Yorkshire-based theme park operator, Flamingo Land Ltd, had their planning permission in principle rejected after all 14 board members of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs Planning Authority. However, the decision to reject the £40 million resort plans was overturned by a Scottish Government official last month, when the developers appealed the decision. READ MORE: More than £1m in funding announced for restoration projects for Scottish coastline The proposal for the resort includes plans for more than 100 holiday lodges, two hotels, a waterpark, a monorail, 372 car parking spaces, shops, and more on the site called Lomond Banks. According to the Scottish Greens, more than 50,000 people have used a portal on their website to call on the Scottish Government to overturn the decision and scrap the development. Greens MSP Ross Greer (below) said the public's opinion on the proposal, which is the most opposed in Scottish planning history with more than 155,000 individuals lodging objections, 'couldn't be clearer'. (Image: PA) He said: 'The Scottish Government has got this badly wrong. They are about to allow a greedy developer to trash the gateway to our National Park. It is not too late for a u-turn though. They can still save Loch Lomond. 'In just two weeks the Planning Minister has heard directly from over 50,000 people calling on him to block these proposals. Public opinion couldn't be clearer and it is backed up by experts including the Government's own environment watchdog. 'I have campaigned side by side with local residents in Balloch for nearly ten years now to stop Flamingo Land. At every stage we have won on the basis of the overwhelming evidence against their plans, but that has all now been overturned by the Scottish Government.' Organisations such as the National Trust for Scotland, the Woodland Trust, the Ramblers, and the Scottish Government environment watchdog, SEPA, also raised objections against the plans. Greer added: 'I do not understand why the Scottish Government are determined to cosy up to greedy theme park operators rather than protect Scotland's world famous natural heritage. 'It's time for Government Ministers to actually listen to the people of Scotland and save Loch Lomond.' The news comes after Scottish ministers refused planning permission for a trotting track for harness racing on the historic Bannockburn battlefield site. The Scottish Government ruled that the proposals would 'introduce new development and urbanisation in one of the few remaining undeveloped parts of the battlefield'. As such, it ruled the development 'would have a significant adverse effect on the character of the battlefield, its setting and sense of place'. The site is where in June 1314 Robert the Bruce and his Scottish army famously defeated English troops led by King Edward II. The Scottish Government has been approached for comment.
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer will pay a heavy price for his efforts to fight off Reform
Next week's spending review should go better for the Chancellor than widely expected – at least, in the short term. The Treasury communications plan would normally build up to the big day by focussing on things that might get lost in the moment. So if they can pre-announce an extra £1bn for free school meals and £16bn for transport projects, that suggests there is even more good news up Rachel Reeves's sleeve. I suspect there will be reasons enough for Labour MPs to cheer on Wednesday. Together with the about-turn on the winter fuel allowance, however messy that may be, I'm sure this will get the Chancellor through the week. The reasoning for the winter fuel change is on display in Scotland. Labour won a surprise by-election victory in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, snatching the Scottish Parliament seat from the SNP. Not only that, but it managed to see off the threat of Reform, which surged into third place in the constituency. The real challenge will come in the autumn. Not least because the bill for this good news will have to be paid. Voters may not then be as grateful as they might be next week when they see their taxes go up thanks to the Government's botched attempt to reform the welfare system. So these short-term wins will quickly evaporate and simply store up more political trouble for the future. With other headwinds going against the Government, Reeves may need to find anywhere between an extra £10bn and £30bn in the next Budget. The Chancellor refused four times to rule out more tax rises this year when questioned at the CBI annual dinner this week, suggesting this is exactly what she is contemplating. Aside from the economic damage this will do, tax rises of this magnitude will have serious political implications. First of all, it will further exacerbate Reform's overall appeal. With a general election so far away, it doesn't really matter that Reform's numbers don't add up. People like what they are saying about tax cuts funded by spending less on net zero and diversity initiatives. With Labour poised to announce more money for net zero, Reform will argue it gives them even more cash with which to fund tax cuts. Any tax rise will therefore make this dividing line even starker. Given the scale of revenue needed, it looks increasingly likely that the Chancellor may have to break her manifesto pledge not to raise income tax, National Insurance or value added tax (VAT), as well as keeping corporation tax at or below 25pc. Some rises are politically more damaging than others. Faced with a choice of which promise to break, which is the most Reform-friendly option? Given that many of Reform's voters are on the economic Left, measures that hit lower-income, working people seem unlikely. So I think we can rule out income tax or National Insurance rises. Likewise, VAT. This was one of the many tax rises that seemed to always appear on Treasury scorecards ahead of each fiscal event I was involved in. It is straightforward and raises serious revenue, with each additional percentage point resulting in around £8bn of extra tax income. George Osborne increased the standard rate of VAT to 20pc, which didn't stop the Conservatives from winning a majority at the next general election. He hadn't promised not to do so, though – and I cannot see how this Government could target people's pockets when its main measure for economic growth is supposed to be real household disposable income. With inflation also expected to stay around 3pc for the rest of this year, anything that pushes prices up in the short term makes little sense. Which leaves one major tax that Labour promised to leave untouched, but that no one is really talking about: corporation tax. For the avoidance of doubt I think it would be a terrible mistake to increase it. It would be the final nail in the coffin of the Government's relationship with 'big business', send a dreadful signal to international investors and represent the end of Reeves's already-crumbling growth narrative. But if you compare it to the alternatives, I can see why Sir Keir Starmer and his Chancellor may go for it. For a start, it would be popular, even populist. Every Treasury commissioned opinion poll and focus group that I saw found overwhelming support for increasing tax on big business. It also passes the PM's payslip test and wouldn't directly hit working people in the pocket. It is lucrative too. Every percentage point increase would raise around £4bn a year. You could therefore get most, if not all the revenue you need, from one measure, avoiding the need to fight on many fronts. Whichever tax rise they do pick, expect the Chancellor to blame 'international events'. They will no doubt be helped somewhat by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which will (rightly) take into account the impact of increased global tariffs on GDP. Whether this negative hit is sufficient to mask the impact of the actions the Government itself has taken, we will see. By the autumn, the Government will be in damage-limitation territory. With Reform continuing to ride high in the polls, they may be tempted to find the money they need from big business rather than working people, regardless of the economic consequences. But the general election is a long way off and Starmer risks paying a heavy price if decisions he takes now to boost Labour's standing fail to sustain momentum by the time it comes around.
The National
26 minutes ago
- The National
'Landmark' reached in Waspi campaign for legal challenge to Government
WASPI campaigners say they have cleared a hurdle in their battle for a High Court challenge. The Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) group is seeking a judicial review to force the Government to reconsider its decision to rule out a compensation package for women affected by the way changes to the state pension age were communicated. The campaigners said they have received an update to say that their case is arguable, setting them on course for a court hearing. READ MORE: SNP activists reveal HQ silenced Reform strategy warnings A previous report by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PSHO) suggested compensation ranging between £1,000 and £2,950 could be appropriate for each of those affected. But in December 2024, the Government said that, while it accepted the ombudsman's finding of maladministration and apologised for there being a delay in writing to 1950s-born women, a blanket compensation scheme, which could cost taxpayers up to £10.5 billion, cannot be justified. Waspi campaigners submitted arguments back in February for a legal case challenging the decision not to compensate women. (Image: PA) Lawyers for the campaigners argue that the Government's reasons for concluding that people should not receive any remedy are a breach of legal principles. Waspi said it also expects a hearing to consider its application for a costs capping order, so that campaigners would not be forced to pay unknown costs to cover the legal fees should they lose. READ MORE: John Swinney defends 'two-horse race' comments after by-election loss to Labour The group said that it may be forced to withdraw its challenge without this financial safeguard. It is also calling on supporters to help raise further funds for the legal challenge. Waspi chairwoman Angela Madden described the green light in its legal challenge as a 'landmark moment in our campaign'. She said: 'We are grateful for the funds raised so far and understand the country's purse strings are tight, but the Government cannot be allowed to brush this injustice aside.'
