Latest news with #TommySheppard
The National
a day ago
- Politics
- The National
The Yes movement itself has dreamed up barriers to independence
His perceived problem with the direct route to independence (briefly, making a UK General Election a plebiscite by a simple manifesto seeking a majority of Scottish votes for Scotland to become independent, and undertaking to implement it on such a majority, if necessary by declaration of the Scottish MPs) is that 'Westminster doesn't have to accept our legal argument in that vote, as the election is for a UK Parliament and Scotland would not be able to generate a majority of votes in Scotland alone ... Westminster can in theory prevent us from leaving ... the majority of English MPs have a veto on what Scotland does or doesn't do.' He simply fails to grasp what the direct route is all about, in viewing it as a procedure of the Union parliament and attributing to England a role and a power which it does not have. READ MORE: The lesson for the SNP as new poll puts independence support at 54% Given that a referendum is prohibited, the one and only way which actually exists for the people of Scotland to vote for the country to become independent is by plebiscitary election. If the Scottish MPs, the highest representatives of the people, are elected as indy members by the majority of votes of the people of Scotland, they will occupy virtually all the Scottish seats, mandated by those votes to take Scotland out of the Union. Legal argument does not come into it. It is an election. The purpose and result of an election is the filling of seats. English votes and English seats do not come into it, since their make-up is neither here nor there for Scottish independence, and they have no part to play. The Scottish members would have the legal, constitutional and democratic right and authority (and indeed the duty?) to fulfil the democratic imperative and carry out their mandate irrespective of other parts of the UK (reversing, this time democratically, the step into union taken three centuries ago by their predecessors). There is no prohibition of such a course. If Mr Potts or anyone else can find one, I would be interested to know. In those circumstances, the declaration of Scottish independence by its MPs cannot properly be viewed as occurring either while Scotland is part of the Union or while it is independent. It is rather the deed of an instant marking the transition from one status to the other, a normal operation in steps of great legal effect. READ MORE: Tommy Sheppard: Why I stand by my claim after fierce debate that followed it I imagine that London will actually negotiate the mechanism and details of independence with Edinburgh, but only after Scotland has voted for it and our representatives plainly demonstrate their resolve to carry it through at their own hand if necessary. Mr Potts' position is far from unique in the independence movement, most of which may indeed be with him. Heaven help us, but the fixation with English omnipotence and the barriers it can place in Scotland's way is a concoction of the movement itself, as if we were determined not to succeed. No such claim has ever emerged from London, where any rare UK Government statement on the issue has been to the effect that Scotland may go if it no longer consents to the Union. Alan Crocket Motherwell AMIDST the ongoing chaos, let it be known that Scotland's hydro, wind and other renewable energy sources are helping to keep this broken UK afloat. Yet in return, energy-rich Scotland, pays among the highest bills in the UK and indeed Europe. The SNP and all independence campaigners cannot remain silent about this grossly unfair situation. It's time for the people of Scotland to take back control, believe, stand up and deliver independence. Grant Frazer Newtonmore
The National
20-05-2025
- Health
- The National
Statistics from Canada do not back up assisted dying concerns
To keep it simple: unless you have stage-four cancer or a neurological disease or condition which will lead to your permanent incapacity, you do not qualify for Maid. READ MORE: Referendum should be used to ask the people's views on assisted dying In most cases the applicants are already in the palliative care sector in their own home, hospice or have to have sound reasons why they do not wish a palliative care approach. 64% of all applicants had stage-four cancer. The analysis of users of the scheme showed no bias in terms of wealth or lack thereof or whether they were rural, remote or urban dwellers. 70% of all applicants were over 65 years of age; the mean for this group was 77 years of age. There was no significant difference in applications from men or women. The disabled who accessed Maid account for under 2% of the total for the year 2023/24, which the report covers, and all of them suffered from the same main qualifying groups as the general population. In simple terms, they applied for MAID because they had had enough of suffering from cancer or were hurtling down the dark tunnel to dementia and not because of their prior disability. Health Canada closely monitors the use of Maid by disabled people to reassure the Canadian general public there is no coercion going on in this section of the population or at large. READ MORE: Tommy Sheppard: There is no slippery slope for Assisted Dying Bill to fall down Health Canada states in their 2023/24 report that no-one in the course of the legislative process thought to record those refused Maid and they have very incomplete figures as some provinces require Maid practitioners to record refusals and others do not. The figures they have indicate that known refusals lie at around 10% of all applications for Maid, but Health Canada suggests the actual figures may be much higher. The total number of those who took advantage of Maid in 2023/24 is around 18,000 Canadians in a population of 40 million, so claims that assisted dying in Scotland would lead to a lemming-like rush to shove 'yer granny aff a cliff' are far from the mark. The Health Canada report on Maid is is put together by independent health care professionals from universities across all the provinces, based on local and national peer-reviewed studies into the use of assisted dying. Then again, when has the Scots love of 'qhuit iffery!' ever allowed reality a look-in? For those who like to stress the problems and worries with Maid in Canada, especially around the disabled or age-related coercive practices, there is no basis in fact. Peter Thomson Kirkcudbright THANK you for the article on the arrival of the new pope by Professor Richard Murphy (May 12). Also for reporting that before the hundreds of journalists present in Rome had left, Pope Leo XIV summoned them to a conference. Smart thinking! I am sorry Professor Murphy thinks that the position of women in the Catholic Church 'remains unacceptable'. I have yet to meet a woman in the Catholic Church who would agree with him, and I have known literally hundreds. I have also known dozens of nuns, but never met one who had the slightest desire to be a priest! READ MORE: Richard Murphy: Pope Leo can yield power stronger than political force Perhaps the Catholic Church's respect for the saints, so many of them women, and its habit of holding them up as examples to the rest of us – all the way from our own St Margaret (1045-1093) through to St Mother Teresa of Calcutta (1910-1997) – has made us women feel assured. Or, more likely, it is because of the honour given to Mary the mother of Jesus, whom all Catholics, whether men or women or trans, constantly ask to 'pray for us now and at the hour of our death'. Perhaps this is what has inspired so many orders of nuns to be founded to look after the old, the sick, and the dying. Florence Nightingale spent two years living with and learning from a convent of Catholic nursing nuns in Germany before she returned and set about reforming the nursing practices in Britain. At present the cause of Blessed Hanna Chrzanowska (1902-1973) is being considered for canonisation. She did much for nursing in Poland, in spite of living under the communist regime, and she encouraged what we now call palliative care for the dying. May this good new tradition in our hospices be continued, but without the complication of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. Incidentally, if we in Scotland pass this bill, and Westminster does not pass its own bill, many of our more conscientious doctors and nursing staff will simply move south to England. Lesley Findlay Fort Augustus THE thing that really, really annoys me on the assisted dying bill is to see a bunch of mostly middle-aged and well-heeled MSPs decide what I am going to want when the time comes for me! They worry that perhaps I might feel pressurised etc. Just now I am pressurised to live for as long as the doctors can make it possible with their drugs and other tricks. Given that no doctor should be asked to participate if it goes against his/her conscience, the rest ought to be up to me; not up to the preference of my MSPs! Clare Darlaston Glasgow
The National
16-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
False analysis on independence from the SNP is sowing confusion
It seems he can hardly put pen to paper without doing so, in blithe unawareness of the danger that the more often this irrational analysis is put about, the more enfeebled becomes the self-confidence of many in the independence movement – or the more bitter become many others at the disingenuous approach of the SNP. This is shown by the party's declining membership and the shortfall in their votes while half the country steadfastly supports independence. The false analysis is far from his alone. It has acquired the status of a creed of the party. READ MORE: Don't Tommy Sheppard's proposals risk drifting into political fantasy? So what is it that is wrong with Mr Sheppard's message? In his article, in discussing 'a mandate for independence', he states: 'The main problem, though, is not that we don't have a mandate, but that we have no means of executing it.' Then he immediately slides straight into discussion of the right to hold a referendum, with no indication whatsoever that he is changing the subject, demonstrating that as far as he is concerned these are one and the same thing. He therefore assumes, without giving any authority whatsoever, that what goes for the referendum right also goes for the independence right itself. He simply conflates the two, and the article ambles ahead on that basis. So in his mind, since the law prohibits Holyrood from legislating to hold an independence referendum, ipso facto it also prohibits the people of Scotland from deciding on independence. So don't blame us (the SNP). Blame the UK Government and the Supreme Court. READ MORE: Scottish independence is a moral obligation, not a mere preference It is a completely bogus stance, but it has been swallowed by the party and is constantly regurgitated, not only by almost every speaker of authority from the SNP, but by many, perhaps most, pro-indy commentators and correspondents. Anathema to independence as it actually is, it is taken to be the self-evident truth of the matter, which need only be spoken and need never be evidenced. The real truth of the matter is that there is no prohibition on Scotland making its own decision on whether the country should go independent. UK law and constitution, for what they are worth, do not prohibit it. The Supreme Court decision said nothing about it, being only about the referendum question (any other remarks being entirely incidental and non-binding). In signing the Edinburgh Agreement ahead of the 2014 referendum, the UK Government already accepted that the decision was Scotland's alone and that there was nothing to prevent it, which was perfectly in line with all of the rare UK statements on the issue. And the way of making our decision is equally simple. Any General Election to the Union parliament can be made into an independence plebiscite by the appropriate manifesto, a head-count win on which would swamp the Scottish seats with indy MPs with the power and authority to declare Scottish independence by fiat. (Though the likelihood is that then, but only then, London will come to the table and independence will actually come about by a negotiated arrangement.) So long as the SNP of Mr Sheppard and his ilk blind themselves to the straightforward reality of the issue, and keep wittering on about the useless diversion of a never-never referendum, independence will elude us. Brian Boyce Motherwell
The National
14-05-2025
- The National
I visited Scotland's drugs consumption room. Here's how it went
These were dark days – a shadow hung over the city and public fear was palpable. During one of these inquiries, I was sent to follow up with a potential witness, an asylum seeker living in the high-rise flats of Knightswood. I had no idea the visit would challenge everything I thought I knew. As the lift creaked its way up, I grumbled to my colleague. I voiced the frustrations I'd heard – and sometimes echoed – about the 'burden' of asylum seekers in our city. I spoke of homelessness, crumbling infrastructure, and the stranglehold of poverty – real issues that felt neglected. Why, I asked, were we taking in strangers when we had so much to fix at home? READ MORE: I'm an ex-drugs officer. Here's why we need safe consumption spaces But when the door opened, the scene that greeted me disarmed me completely. A very modest flat. A warm welcome. A young family. Two daughters, five or six years old and wide-eyed with innocence and joy, offered me tea with shy smiles. There was little English between us but kindness translated easily. There was no resentment, awkwardness or suspicion. Only a warm welcome, simple hospitality and brotherhood. In that small living room, I not only secured the statement that would help break our case, I found something more profound –humanity, resilience, and grace. As the interview concluded, I learned something that stopped me in my tracks. The father of that family, the one I had almost dismissed in my ignorance, had risked his life to intervene in a brutal armed sexual assault on a stranger. His bravery led directly to the identification and arrest of a dangerous predator. He was not just a man surviving a system – he was a man who had saved someone's life. I descended in the lift that night a different man. The prejudices I carried up with me didn't come back down. They were replaced by humility, by admiration and by a sense of shame at how easily I had fallen for a narrative of blame and suspicion. I had bought into the rhetoric that asylum seekers were freeloaders, scamming our systems, stealing our precious jobs and using up our resources. But no-one uproots their life, leaves everything and everyone they know, to move thousands of miles to a cold, unfamiliar country, where they don't speak the language – unless they have no choice. They flee war, persecution and threats to life itself. Sometimes, simply because of their faith or the tribe they happened to be born into. They don't seek comfort and a free ride – they seek survival. That experience never left me. But years later, another encounter would stir the same uncomfortable, necessary shift in perspective, this time at the Thistle Centre, the UK's first officially sanctioned Safe Consumption Facility, right here in Glasgow. READ MORE: Tommy Sheppard: Decriminalisation of all drug use could eradicate the underworld Alongside my old colleague, retired inspector Ian Andrew, I visited with more questions than answers. Could this place really make a difference? Could it address the root of addiction, or was it just political posturing? Was it destined to become part of the problem rather than the solution? How could facilitating the consumption or injection of dangerous substances help the tragic drug death toll on our streets? What I witnessed was once again profound. My preconceptions, shaped by 54 years of political rhetoric and societal bias, fell away when confronted with reality and facts. The Thistle Centre is not just a facility, it's a lifeline. A beacon in the darkness for people who have been written off. The truth is, no-one chooses to become dependent on drugs. You don't choose to inject on the streets. These are people born into trauma – victims of poverty, abuse, neglect, institutional failure, disability, and unrelenting mental anguish. Drug use for them is not a vice – it's an escape from a life that was broken long before they reached for the needle. While they are still forced to source corrupt products from criminal gangs and pushers, at least now we are providing an oasis, where no judgement is made, where mutual trust can be nurtured and where the inherent risks of dangerous drug use, such as adverse reaction, overdosing or infection, can be minimalised. READ MORE: How did MSPs vote in the landmark assisted dying vote? See the full list It's a safe haven where, without the terrible pressures of street life, addiction can be relieved for a short respite. Perhaps time enough to see other options and opportunities to change their futures. Decades of prohibition have failed. Stigma has killed more than any substance ever has. And yet here, in Glasgow, we are finally seeing a different path, one that prioritises compassion over condemnation, care over criminalisation. A place where being unwell doesn't mean being unwanted. In that moment, I saw Glasgow differently. Not as a city marred by hardship, but as one defined by courage, solidarity, and the radical act of caring for our most vulnerable. My experiences with that family in Knightswood and the staff at the Thistle Centre have stayed with me. They shook me awake. They reminded me of the kind of Scotland I want to be part of – a nation that doesn't flinch in the face of discomfort, that doesn't shy away from complexity but leans in with empathy, intelligence, and heart. I am proud to be Glaswegian. Not just because of where we've been, but because of where we are brave enough to go and to lead. Simon McLean is a retired crime squad and drug squad detective who now campaigns with LEAP Scotland for meaningful drug law reform. He co-hosts the successful true crime podcast Crime Time Inc alongside former deputy chief constable Tom Wood. Both are bestselling authors This piece was written following a private visit to Glasgow's new Thistle Centre – the UK's first official safe consumption facility
The National
12-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
Keir Starmer branded 'pound shop Farage' in immigration crackdown
In a Downing Street speech, the Prime Minister said that the UK risks becoming an 'island of strangers' without controls on immigration. He added Labour Government would 'take back control of our borders' and close the book on a 'squalid chapter' for politics and the economy. Ministers are looking to bring down net migration figures, which stood at 728,000 in the year to mid-2024. Starmer said on Monday he wanted levels to have fallen significantly by the end of the Parliament, without setting a numerical target. READ MORE: Tommy Sheppard: We need a believable strategy on route to independence Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice said Starmer has been 'listening and learning' from his party as he announced white paper proposals including migrants having to spend 10 years in the UK before being able to apply for citizenship. Maggie Chapman, the Scottish Greens justice spokesperson, accused Starmer of 'throwing migrant workers under the bus' as she called for Scotland to have powers over immigration. 'It is staggering to think that Keir Starmer was once a human rights lawyer, because this whole speech has been ripped right out of Nigel Farage's playbook,' she said. 'The UK Government has the power to improve wages and conditions in workplaces across our country any time that it wants to, but Labour is refusing to do this, instead choosing to scapegoat and blame migrant communities, outdoing the Tories. 'It is a cynical, cruel and authoritarian response to Reform. It will only serve to damage public services while throwing migrant workers under the bus with racist, restrictive and totally self-defeating policies. 'You don't beat the far right by pandering to them, but Labour seems determined to test this to destruction. 'It is time for Scotland to have powers over immigration so that we can build a system that welcomes and respects migrants and supports our services rather than undermining them.' Veteran SNP MP Pete Wishart (below) said Starmer's announcement was not in Scotland's interest, adding such plans show he 'does not care' about the nation. (Image: Jane Barlow) He said on Twitter/X: 'By the 2030s Scotland will be in population decline with a smaller working age cohort unable to support an increasingly elderly society. Starmer has just announced an immigration policy that is counter to the Scottish interest. And he just does not care.' Wishart added Starmer is using 'the language of Reform/leavers'. Under the proposals, language requirements will be increased for all immigration routes to ensure a higher level of English. Rules will also be laid out for adult dependants, meaning that they will have to demonstrate a basic understanding of the language. READ MORE: Over 100 Orange Walks to take place in Scotland in one day Elsewhere, skilled worker visas will require a university degree, and there will be tighter restrictions on recruitment for jobs with skills shortages. Echoing the slogan used by Brexit campaigners during the 2016 EU referendum, Starmer said: 'We will deliver what you've asked for time and again, and we will take back control of our borders.' The announcement comes less than a fortnight after Reform UK surged to victory in local council elections across England. The problems in our society are not caused by migrants or refugees. They are caused by an economic system rigged in favour of corporations and billionaires. If the government wanted to improve people's lives, it would tax the rich and build an economy that works for us all. — Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) May 12, 2025 Laura Mitchell, the SNP's candidate for Moray at the Holyrood elections, said Starmer's language in his speech was 'appalling'. 'To try to evoke fear of the 'stranger' makes him nothing more than a pound shop Farage. Shameful, spineless, and short-sighted,' she said on social media. Ex-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn added: 'The problems in our society are not caused by migrants or refugees. 'They are caused by an economic system rigged in favour of corporations and billionaires. 'If the Government wanted to improve people's lives, it would tax the rich and build an economy that works for us all.'
