Latest news with #Citizen'sConvention
The National
7 days ago
- Politics
- The National
The Scottish Government has a moral obligation to break the law
It depends upon the Scottish National Party, and, it depends upon the Scottish National Party. On the one hand, the SNP are the only viable political party likely to gain independence, and on the other hand, the leadership of the [[SNP]] has decided that independence depends upon their ability to govern and their record. This is essentially what John Swinney has said multiple times. This is not a good strategy for gaining independence. Few political parties in power in a democratic state continue to gain increasing popularity over time; the opposite is usually the case, since any party in government is liable to be blamed for all the faults in the country. This is particularly true in the case of the [[SNP]] where the mainstream media is more than willing to pile on when the government makes the least misstep. Relying upon the record of the party has already proved to be a failed strategy as the recent Hamilton by-election proved. A party that can do little more than point its finger at the failings of other political parties is hardly in a robust position. We have also seen in polls that while support for independence is just over 50%, support for the [[SNP]] hovers around 30%. Is there another way forward to independence? Yes. If support for independence remains robust, it is quite obvious that all groups and parties supporting it should get together and work together. The SNP were never meant to be a party of right or left; their only goal is independence and to veer from that goal is undermining the party. Trying to prove competence in governance in a divided electorate is a recipe for failure; doubly so, when the party becomes embroiled in identity/gender politics and veers to the right on economic policy. Believe in Scotland introduced a plan for a Citizen's Convention which would pull all Yes groups together and create an inspirational plan for an independent Scotland. Then, with the combined support of pro-independence groups, including the [[SNP]], would use the next election as a de facto referendum on independence. Why the [[SNP]] are reluctant – in fact, resistant – to this idea is worrisome. Another option that is worth a shot is for the Scottish Government to adopt the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which is being pushed by Respect Scottish Sovereignty (RSS). If adopted, this provides an international legal right to self-determination and the right to launch a referendum. Why the [[SNP]] are reluctant – in fact, resistant – to this idea is also worrisome. The [[SNP]] have missed major opportunities to make a break with Westminster with the backing of the Scottish people. The most obvious case was over Brexit. But more recently, the genocide in Gaza, which the UK Government has been complicit in and supportive of in providing weapons and intelligence to Israel, is another opportunity to break with London; break while having the support of the majority of Scots and by taking the moral high ground. This would require breaking the law – the terms of the Scotland Act. However, in the face of British complicity in genocide, the [[Scottish Government]] has a moral obligation to do so. Passing a resolution in Holyrood condemning the Prime Minister for his involvement in genocide would be a start. Then, more recently, we have the case of the [[UK Government]] proscribing a pro-Palestine group as a terrorist organisation despite the fact that its members haven't harmed a fly. The [[Scottish Government]] once again has a moral obligation to denounce this authoritarian abuse of power and protect the people of Scotland from the regime in London. This could be accomplished by passing a resolution in [[Holyrood]] condemning the proscription and the law threatening Scots with imprisonment. There is no guarantee that a constitutional crisis and rift with London would be successful. It doesn't have to be. It has only to be the spark that will set a fire under the people of Scotland and shed the SNP of their establishment image. However, none of the above actions are likely to occur. It appears certain that the current SNP leadership is fixed on a failed course; one lacking imagination and courage. One where they appear to be afraid of using the power of nationalism – not by releasing the full and dangerous powers of nationalism based on hatred and resentment, but rather releasing a small dose – a nationalist spark based upon pride, respect, inspiration and love of one's country and goals for Scotland we all want to aspire to. These are the emotions that will never be instilled in the population with the SNP's current policies of being good managers. Without the backing of the SNP, the only viable independence political party, is there a way to proceed? One answer is for the SNP rank and file to rebel and depose the current leadership. That doesn't appear likely currently. Another plan may be to force the SNP into taking a more assertive stance. This could be accomplished if all other Yes groups proceeded with the Citizen's Convention as previously mentioned and outline all the inspirational policies that are currently impossible due to the Scotland Act. Then proceed with a referendum presumably without the involvement of the SNP. The referendum need not be 100% perfect and it would not be legally binding, but the point is to shift the needle and force the SNP into either supporting the Yes movement or declining to do so, in which case the only answer would be decapitating the SNP leadership through a grassroots backlash. None of these plans discussed above need to be immediately successful. That's not how history works. The goal is to ignite a spark that will lead to a conflagration across the country. We must create a wedge between Westminster and the Scottish people – with or without the SNP. If the SNP are persuaded to become the guardian of Scotland, willing to fight for her honour, all the better. But we can't wait for them. Malcolm Smith via email
The National
23-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
He's a three-point plan that can actually bring about independence
Having read your plan, I have to say, you could do a lot better. I know you're busy running the country and so on, so I've drafted it for you: 1. Make Holyrood 26 an independence election. Put country before party for [[Holyrood]] '26. SNP step forward and the rest walk alongside. Use the list vote as the count of votes for independence (where every pro-indy party declares a vote for them is a vote for independence). Use the constituency vote to deliver the pro-indy majority needed in parliament (with only the [[SNP]] standing, by agreement with the movement). READ MORE: John Swinney: Why I'm launching a renewed strategy for independence In this way, we demonstrate a democratic vote for independence to be the will of the majority of the people. 2. Upon winning that vote, Holyrood, led by an SNP majority pro-independence government, declares that the sovereign people of Scotland have instructed the Scottish Parliament to deliver our independence. [[Holyrood]] declares Westminster no longer has power over Scotland, from the day of the result until our 'official' independence day, some 12-18 months later – a period to allow for discussion of practical matters (fixed date). This period will also include discussion with international bodies, initiating an associate agreement with the EU, reinstating our own currency/using the euro, starting a Citizen's Convention to shape the future of Scotland, working with a wellbeing economy as our foundation, and the introduction of a draft interim constitution for iScotland. Act like an independent country and pave the way for a better future. READ MORE: Mike Small: I pored over John Swinney's strategy – here's what we must do now 3. No wavering, no ceding, no backpedaling. The sovereign people have spoken and Scotland will leave the Union within 12-18 months. The only permission needed is from the people of Scotland. We will seek a friendly and cooperative future across the British Isles, and across the world. We will not cede our rights, our resources, our land or international sea territories, nor will we pay our neighbour's debts. Evicting the abomination at Faslane will be non-negotiable. Our country, our future, our choices. I could go on, of course, but as I said, you're a busy man. But if you want to chat about it further John, I know a wee cafe that makes a pleasant pot of Earl Grey tea and a lovely slice of lemon meringue pie … but be aware, the tea won't stay hot for long and it is much, much later than you think. Ruth Ritchie Lockerbie THERE has been much informed, passionate debate in The National in recent weeks on how we might achieve Scottish independence. Several elements – the broken Treaty of Union, the sovereignty of the Scottish people and the connection of these to the United Nations – offer real prospects of leverage against [[Westminster]]. I was disappointed then, especially as an SNP member and activist, to read Friday's 'Three-point plan for independence' from John Swinney. The criticisms by Robin McAlpine, Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp and especially Lesley Riddoch are correct. This is essentially the same pitch used by the SNP in the last several elections with diminishing success. READ MORE: Independence campaigners react to new John Swinney referendum plan I believe John Swinney is doing an excellent job as First Minister – within the constraints of devolution. I do not believe he has adequately contested those constraints. Where was his press conference when the UK Labour government decided to save an English oil refinery after Grangemouth was allowed to close? 'Our' media may be biased against independence, but that does not mean we cannot use it. John Swinney wants to make the case for 'why independence', and we must never stop doing that. However, leaving the 'how?' to the usual 'we will build pressure that Westminster cannot ignore' is seriously inadequate. The 'how' is inextricably linked to the 'why'. Recent [[SNP]] election strategy has been poor, barely mentioning independence and losing seats with a widening gap between Yes and [[SNP]] public support. I call for [[John Swinney]] to re-establish the position of Minister for Independence (MP or MSP) with specific responsibility to engage the wider independence movement, to join, and lead, that debate, to build the 'why' and the 'how'. In 2012, Alex Salmond recognised he could not govern Scotland and lead an independence campaign. It is time [[John Swinney]] should do the same. Make no mistake. The United Kingdom will be seriously diminished by Scottish independence – economically, militarily and politically. Its place in the G7 and its permanent seat on the UN Security Council would be open to challenge. Its defence policy with reliance on nuclear weapons of mass destruction would be jeopardised. Westminster and Whitehall will never concede to a second independence referendum without external leverage. Building that leverage will increase support for independence, help unite the movement and ... deliver more SNP seats in 2026! Dr Ron Dickinson Glasgow I FEEL that I have to reiterate my point from a previous letter to The National. I wrote then that the UK Government will work towards raising the retiral age to 75. Those without a full insurance contribution will not qualify until they have this. Thus reducing average life expectancy, ergo the pension bill. READ MORE: Labour launch review into raising retirement age I would like to suggest that The National starts a campaign to have all Unionist newspapers printed on a much softer paper, so that they may be put to a more appropriate use. Special soaps are available for removing newsprint from sensitive nether regions. M Ross Aviemore
