Latest news with #Section30Order
The National
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
Here's why John Swinney should ask Keir Starmer for a Section 30 now
The SNP continuing to call this out as anti-democratic or just plain unfair is not going to bother them one jot. The Scottish electorate will look upon this as a circular argument going absolutely nowhere, then get bored hearing it and turn off entirely. The [[SNP]] need to have a plan to break this logjam! READ MORE: John Swinney needs to understand socialism and independence are inseparable They should ask the Prime Minister for a Section 30 Order to hold a referendum on the same day as the Holyrood 2026 election to fulfil the mandate won at the previous [[Holyrood]] election that produced a majority pro-independence parliament. It is not clear if the current SNP First Minister has even asked for this. Now is the time. If Keir Starmer turns this down, as he no doubt will, the First Minister should inform him that he will fight the [[Holyrood]] 2026 election as an election for independence. Every independence-supporting party will be encouraged to put 'for Scottish independence' under their party logo to maximise the vote for [[Scottish independence]]. READ MORE: Jonathan Shafi: No referendum is coming. Let's drop the 'Yes' and refocus A majority of votes cast for independence-supporting parties would then constitute a win for Scottish independence. The Scottish electorate will fully know what they are getting into, and can back this route for the dissolution of the Union. What happens next will be crucial. The winning independence side should then (if they have not already done so) encourage leaders of sympathetic nations to openly congratulate Scotland on winning its independence to build pressure on the Westminster government to concede. The First Minister should then call for a government of national unity at [[Holyrood]] to prepare Scotland for the transition to independence and negotiate the withdrawal from the UK. If Westminster wants to avoid any constitutional crisis, it should agree to the mandated independence referendum. Otherwise any perceived constitutional crisis will be entirely of their own making. Patrick Johnstone Rhu IN his 'renewed strategy for independence' launched in The National on July 18, John Swinney talks of turning the heat up on [[Westminster]] over Scotland's right to choose. That right to choose should be the basis of our manifesto offer in 2026, as has been proposed by myself and others. What is missing from John's 'renewed strategy' is any commitment to taking any definite action in pursuit of his stated aim of letting the Scottish people exercise their right to choose. A campaign built around Scotland's right to choose requires what Peter A Bell recently described as 'a solid commitment to specific action within a defined timeframe.' Without such a commitment, John's 'renewed strategy', rather than turning the heat up on Westminster, would, as many have said, be regarded as nothing but more hot air. READ MORE: Can we return to the ambition and drive that took us so close in 2014? My recent letters to The National are aimed at promoting the action that should be the first step in either exercising that right to choose in any referendum or gaining the decisive level of support that would be required for a future election to be the democratic event that can lead to independence. Getting a mandate from the 2026 election on a manifesto pledge to bring forward in the first year a bill at Holyrood 'to assume the responsibility for constitutional affairs as directed by the people of Scotland' will be just such an action. The Newington branch of the [[SNP]] has submitted, for annual conference in October, a resolution titled Manifesto for Scotland's Right to Decide. This motion asks conference to agree: firstly, that seeking a Section 30 order from the UK Government to hold a referendum on Scotland's constitutional future undermines Scotland's sovereign right to decide; and secondly, that sovereignty lies with the Scottish people, not [[Westminster]]. The final paragraph reads: 'Therefore, conference agrees that the [[SNP]] shall put in their manifesto for the 2026 Scottish Parliament election, that if a majority of [[SNP]] and other pro-independence MSPs are returned to [[Holyrood]] in 2026, they will bring forward a bill to assume responsibility for constitutional affairs as directed by the people of Scotland. This will include the right to hold referendums on increased powers and independence – driven by the will of the people.' Considerable pressure, applied both from within the SNP and from the wider independence movement, may well be required to see this commitment get on the agenda for conference and then, hopefully, adopted as our principal manifesto offer for 2026. Mike Wallace Edinburgh INTERNATIONAL relations is as multifaceted as any other human activity one cares to mention. The outcomes and the consequences can shatter and reshape and involve everyone, even those who think they wear their political disengagement on their sleeves. Political theatre, like all performative activities, can entertain, can elicit applause, indifference or even derision. However, when the stage is international it is always consequential. Like it or not, Donald Trump heads up what is – for now at least – the planet's only military hegemon. He is also, thanks to the inactivity of Scottish and UK governments of every stripe, a landowner. READ MORE: 'Epstein Island' sign put up at Donald Trump's Scottish golf course The diplomatic snub is as much part of the political tool box as war and dialogue, and I can think of some instances, particularly in recent years, when it has been underused by Scottish and most certainly UK governments. A decision in the summer of 2025 to diplomatically snub the head of the world's military hegemon would almost certainly be consequential, and not in a good way. Bill Ramsay via email
STV News
14-05-2025
- Politics
- STV News
Assisted dying in Scotland is not a done deal
Despite a much bigger parliamentary vote than anyone had expected, legalised assisted dying in Scotland is still far from a done deal. MSPs voted by 70 to 56 to support the general principles of Liam McArthur's Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill. There are currently 128 MSPs following the death of Christina McKelvie, that leaves two votes unaccounted for. Health secretary Neil Gray abstained to maintain his neutrality as the minister who will have to deal with the Bill as it now starts to progress through the Parliamentary system. And the other is Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone, who did not vote, although if it had been a tied vote of 63 each, she would have voted for the Bill at Stage 1 to allow it to continue. So that gives the Bill a majority of 14. That was much bigger than either side in this debate had predicted, but it could easily be overturned in the final vote at Stage 3 if just seven MSPs change their minds. Just off the top of my head I can come up with seven MSPs who said they were voting for the Bill at Stage 1 but could reconsider when it gets to the final decision. It's the position Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay took. Others said yesterday they would do the same including Miles Briggs, Ross Greer, Emma Harper, Daniel Johnson, Colin Smyth and Brian Whittle. That's seven potential switchers already. And if the final Stage 3 vote is tied the Presiding Officer would vote against, sticking with the convention of preserving the status quo. None of that takes anything away from the historic vote in the Scottish Parliament yesterday. It came after one of the best debates Holyrood has hosted where speaker after speaker from all parties gave of their best, and gave much more of themselves than usual. It was a respectful and emotional debate. Every speech was applauded. It was a debate befitting the life and death nature of the subject. What it does is show that this debate is far from over. What comes next is Stage 2 where the Health Committee will consider amendments. There will be a lot of amendments – Liam McArthur has already said he will change the qualifying age from 16 to 18. There will be many more on things like defining the word 'terminal', whether doctors should opt in or out of it. The Royal College of Pharmacists want their members to have to an opt in to fulfilling prescriptions for the life ending drugs. The Scottish Parliament doesn't actually have power over those drugs so would have to seek a Section 30 Order from Westminster, just like it did for the 2014 Independence Referendum, so that is not guaranteed. Then there is the timing of the next stages. The Health Committee is not likely to start Stage 2 scrutiny until after the summer break. That could take a couple of months, which means the final vote at Stage 3 is unlikely until the New Year. Then it will be just a few months from the Scottish Parliament election which means this could be an issue in that campaign. Even though Stage 1 was a free vote, based on each MSP's conscience with no party direction, every single one of them were inundated by messages from constituents on both sides of the debate. That could take on even more significance in the run-up to an election, and they could face questions at public hustings and meetings. So this is far from a done deal, assisted dying is closer than it has ever been, but it is still a long way from law. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
