SNP need two distinct arms in order to achieve their twin objectives
What the activists have lost sight of is that in 2014 we had a parliamentary majority for the agreed democratic mandate for holding a referendum. Since then we have not. That majority didn't exist before 2014 and Westminster has not consented to one since on the basis that in Holyrood we didn't gain another single-party majority.
READ MORE: Scottish Government responds to claims of 'Iranian pro-independence accounts'
Holding a constitutionally unlawful referendum is not as easy as it appears. The practicalities of doing so are immense. Who would pay for it, who would validate the result, who would accept the result?
Who would actually participate? If nothing else, how can it claim any authority, as the arch-Unionists will almost certainly not take part, and being 'unlawful' it cannot be implemented?
The only real way of demonstrating our demands is to keep returning a majority of MPs to Westminster and regain a single-party majority at Holyrood. The voted-on mandate must have a commitment to hold a single-question referendum, not just a statement of intent about independence.
The other problem would be if a Section 35 order is issued preventing us from running that. The question is of course how would that be enforced, and the most likely way is for the Scotland Act to be suspended, thereby removing all powers from Holyrood and probably preventing it from sitting.
READ MORE: Seamus Logan: Using an election as plebiscite referendum is just not going to fly
That leaves a huge conundrum, as clearly Westminster would have to appoint commissioners to run our affairs, back to the old days of the Scottish Office!
In effect, trying to hold an unconstitutional referendum would be the cessation of devolution, forcing us back to square one. So, we have to demonstrate and continue to demonstrate a majority, preferably rising, in favour of independence. No arguing amongst ourselves, or undermining each other.
The grassroots have already started the process at the UN, and we have friends in other countries. The grassroots can do the door-knocking and one-to-one persuasion and dissemination in the absence of a friendly media, but they are currently more or less on their own.
This does introduce another difficulty as the SNP do need to meet two different challenges, – on a day-to-day basis running the country within the confines of the UK constitution, important as it is, but at the same time taking a lead in the strategic goal.
Our current political leaders, while impassioned and competent, do not have the spare time to take on another important role. So for political credibility we need two arms within the SNP: the first is ongoing political administration, and the second is that of galvanising indy supporters, but not using elected politicians to front it.
The principal role of this arm will be to give the non-aligned majority of voters something for them to understand, and achieve buy-in. Not just the ideal and fuzzy concept of independence, but the pragmatic understanding of how that would work and how our economy would be placed To this end we need to offer those voters a (draft) constitution that spells out limits and powers of whoever forms our government along with a draft budget using all of our GDP, to sit in comparison with the one limited by our current constitutional arrangement. Produce something that ordinary voters get their teeth into and forms a prospectus for a new and independent Scotland.
Nick Cole
Meigle, Perthshire
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
2 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Shona Robison urges Prime Minister to follow Scotland on taxation
Ms Robison said that if Labour had followed the Scottish model, where higher earners pay more tax, Labour would not be in the 'complete fiscal mess that they are in now.' Her comments come after Sir Keir Starmer's Government was forced into a last-minute climbdown in order for welfare legislation to pass its first parliamentary hurdle earlier this week. In a late concession on Tuesday evening, ministers shelved plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), with any changes now only coming after a review of the benefit. These changes are expected to put pressure on other parts of the Government's finances. Ms Robison said: 'People voted for a Labour government last year because they wanted change from the Tories – but after a year of attacks on the incomes of pensioners, the poor and the disabled, they are rightly wondering exactly what, if anything, is different. 'When Keir Starmer took office, he could have chosen to ask people on higher incomes to pay a little more in tax in order to protect public spending. 'Choosing instead to target the vulnerable is not leadership – frankly, it is political cowardice. 'If Keir Starmer had done in England what the SNP have done in Scotland with taxation, Labour would not be in the complete fiscal mess that they are in now. Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to rethink taxation (Lucy North/PA) 'After a year of mistakes, Labour needs a new direction – and they should look to Scotland. By asking people on higher incomes to pay a bit more in tax, we have ensured a majority of taxpayers pay less than they would elsewhere in the UK, and are able to unlock more spending for services like the NHS, as well as cut poverty by introducing a Scottish Child Payment, and ensure that everybody can benefit from important services like free tuition and free prescriptions.' She added: 'Labour used to tell Scotland that we didn't need independence and we just needed to get rid of the Tory government – but the last year has completely demolished that argument. 'No Westminster government will ever deliver the truly fair society which I believe the vast majority of people in Scotland want to live in – and that is why independence is the best future for Scotland.' Scottish Labour's economy, business and fair work spokesperson Daniel Johnson MSP said: 'SNP ministers have a brass neck to think they can lecture anyone after their atrocious financial mismanagement. 'The SNP use higher taxes on Scottish nurses and firefighters as a substitute for economic growth, waste billions on out-of-control prison and ferry projects, and have created multibillion-pound black holes in the public finances. 'Labour is delivering the largest funding settlement in the history of devolution, with £50 billion for Scotland's NHS, schools and public services this year alone. Despite that, the SNP are now gearing up to make cuts to fill their fiscal black hole. 'The SNP government has the money, they have the powers, but they are out of ideas, out of excuses and out of time. 'Next year, we have the chance to kick out this SNP Government that cannot be trusted with taxpayers' money.'
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Just think what we could done with the cash wasted on the CalMac model
While avoiding the big picture of catamarans' superior cost-effectiveness, Mr Turbet tries to make a case for large live-aboard crews on a number of frankly tenuous grounds: shift working and stewards helping disabled passengers on to lifeboats. In an emergency, surely any crew member or fellow passenger would have a duty to help in such a circumstance. Such issues, however, are nothing to do with the monohull versus catamaran comparison, but with management and operational practices, CalMac's being singularly costly while providing a less than optimum service. In comparison, council-owned monohull ferries operating on Shetland's frequent inter-island services have minimal shore-based, shift-working crews and operate efficiently for significantly longer hours daily than CalMac; likewise, privately owned Western Ferries, with one route, four ships and exemplary reliability and which incidentally also pays tax to support public services. Mr Turbet finishes by extolling the virtues of 'the public model's ability to divert resources where they are needed', as compared with an operator serving just one route. Well, if CalMac's record of network capacity constraints and chaos is his desired model, I fear for the future of our island communities. There is, however, a better way – catamarans, minimal shore-based crewing, multi-ship frequent crossings and gradually-introduced debundled route tendering, preferably to community-owned entities. Roy Pedersen, Inverness. Read more letters What's the value of human life? It is quite remarkable that an amendment to decriminalise self-abortions until birth in England and Wales was considered in the same week as new legislation seeking to decriminalise assisted suicide in the Westminster Parliament. Similar initiatives are also being examined in Scotland, as mentioned by Hannah Brown ("Labour MP calls for Scotland to decriminalise abortion", June 29). It is, therefore, appropriate to ask what is happening in our modern society; why have many members of the general public, and their representatives in Parliament, given up on the concept of the value of human life? A societal paradox seems obvious. UK and Scottish government funding has been quite rightly provided to support extremely premature infants, while initiatives are considered to enable abortions until birth. Similarly, financial support is rightly being provided to prevent suicides, including amongst young persons, while new assisted suicide legislation is being considered. In all this confusion, it is worth asking why human life should be valued. Certainly, from a purely scientific perspective, human beings have no value whatsoever since they are just made up of about 70 per cent water and a few other biochemical compounds. Do human beings then have value because they have autonomy? But this would mean that some lives, such as the unborn and those with very serious mental disorders, are worthless. Moreover, how can the autonomy of persons, logically, give them any worth? Maybe the value of a human life comes from the amount of pleasure or suffering it experiences. But why should the activation of certain sensory cells in the brains of individuals give them any greater worth? Moreover, if pleasure is all that mattered, it would mean that all persons in society would have lives of unequal value. So where does the value of human life come from, including that of politicians who adjudicate (after a few hours of discussion) whether some of those around them have lives unworthy of life, which can be ended? But perhaps politicians in Parliament only exist to support the concept of a social contract where everyone should equally respect each other. But why then should the strong and powerful respect such a contract? And why should anyone care if no one has any value? The only possible answer to the question of why human persons have worth, lies in the belief that every human person has immeasurable value. A belief that everyone should share in a secular society if it is to remain civilised and not descend into a jungle of barbarity. In this regard, it was distressing to see so many MSPs disparage personal beliefs in the debates on assisted suicide in the Scottish Parliament. They ought to have realised that it is only because they, themselves, share the belief in the value and the equality of all human life, that democracy and the Scottish Parliament actually exist. Dr Antony Latham (Chair); Dr Anne Williams (Vice-Chair); Prof Dr Robert Minns (Honorary Chair); Dr Calum MacKellar (Director of Research); Dr. Danielle de Zeeuw (Senior Researcher), Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, Edinburgh. Why the EU is struggling Ian McConnell's article rehashing tired Brexit regrets ("We're all still paying price for hard Brexit", June 29) does so in defiance of mounting evidence that the EU's internal contradictions are being brutally exposed. Donald Trump's proposed high tariffs on EU exports are not reckless bluster – they are a response to long-standing covert trade barriers and regulatory protectionism that have helped the EU run persistently high surpluses. The irony? Britain experienced the same treatment, yet was told to accept a £121 billion goods trade deficit with the EU (2023) while paying £10bn net annually into the EU coffers. And this wasn't a global pattern. The UK's goods trade with the rest of the world was broadly in balance, underscoring how structurally skewed our trade relationship with the EU had become. The bloc's protectionist barriers – and rigid regulatory alignment – consistently undermined British competitiveness. Unlike Britain's previous passivity, the US has now acted decisively. And with Fortress Europe under pressure, countries like Italy, facing economic malaise and rising populism, may well look to strike their own deals with the US, bypassing Brussels entirely. Germany, meanwhile, long enjoyed the advantages of an artificially weak euro, supercharging its export dominance. But that model is now unravelling: a struggling car industry, falling Chinese demand, and crippling energy policy are exposing deep vulnerabilities. A weaker Germany means a less cohesive EU. Outside the bloc, Britain is free to strike deals. Like, for example, trade deals with the US, India and the CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership), which may be modest today, but they align us with the fastest-growing economies of this and the next generation. They represent flexibility and global engagement – exactly what Brexit was meant to enable. The EU is now discovering how 'difficult to negotiate with' it has become – only this time, it's not Britain acquiescing but America swinging a hammer. Ian Lakin, Aberdeen. Debt worry for Scotland The latest figures on Scotland's debt makes grim reading: average household unsecured debt is running at over £16,000 and more than 475,000 people are on benefits, while 810,000 16-64-year-olds are economically inactive. There needs to be radical change to stimulate employment and a return to work in order to get us out of the financial rut that the SNP has allowed Scotland to sink into. Dennis Forbes Grattan, Aberdeen. Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump (Image: PA) Please support these rabbis It is tragic for humanity that two men have appeared on the world stage at the worst possible time and place. One whom I am referring to is Benjamin Netanyahu. The government of which he is Prime Minister is responsible for murdering and injuring some 50,000 children (Unicef). That would keep most people awake at night. But no: he and his fanatical supporters press on, planning more suffering, more cruelty, more murdering of children, more clearing Palestinians off their land, destroying their infrastructure. The other is Donald Trump. I do not need to list the ways in which he is singularly unfit to be 'leader of the free world'. I was however going to suggest he is unfit to be President of the United States, but that is a decision for the American electorate to make, once those who voted for him come to their senses. I mentioned in my letter published on June 29 that one of the positive elements in this unfolding tragedy is the many Jewish Israelis 'who defy courageously their government by working for peace and justice'. There are many such groups and I suggest that we can respond to their courage by providing them with financial assistance. I give one example only, that being Rabbis for Human Rights, who, driven by 'the profound Jewish values of responsibility for the safety and welfare of the stranger, the different and the weak, the widow and the orphan' provide aid for Palestinian communities facing state-backed settler violence and ethnic cleansing. There is a website for British Friends of Rabbis for Human Rights. John Milne, Uddingston.
Scotsman
3 hours ago
- Scotsman
UK Government reset of devolved relations has 'failed', as SNP insiders accuse Labour of 'bad, old habits'
Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The promised reset between the UK and Scottish governments has failed, SNP officials have claimed, as Labour ministers were accused of consistently 'undermining devolved relations'. A senior Scottish Government source has hit out at the Labour UK government, saying they had seen no improvement in intergovernmental relations since last summer's general election. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad They said the failures to make changes include 'repeatedly cancelling meetings, not providing documents, not sharing information and presenting things as a fait accompli'. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and First Minister John Swinney. | Scott Heppell/Press Association Other examples include the UK government agreeing a new fisheries deal with the EU without consulting with Scottish ministers in advance, despite fisheries being a devolved matter. It is understood SNP ministers are now seeking assurances this is a 'one-off' after claims there have been further instances of Westminster trying to legislate in devolved areas. The Scotsman was also told Scottish officials were only told about a meeting on a Monday morning with the UK Telecoms Minister Chris Bryant 'late on Friday', meaning they did not have sufficient time to prepare. The meeting was on the creative industries strategy, but the documents were then published online half an hour before the meeting with Mr Bryant. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The source told The Scotsman: 'We were told there would be a reset and we have worked hard to make that a reality, but we have now run out of road because there has been no reset. 'It is comparable to the bad, old habits of the last UK Conservative government, which we had an appalling relationship with. 'It is simply not working.' The source said this was now a 'Cabinet-level issue', claiming the Scottish Government was 'the grown-ups in the room' when it comes to dealing with the UK government. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In response, a UK Government source said: 'Whoever this senior Scottish Government source is, they appear to be contradicting the comments of John Swinney himself, who hailed relations as 'incomparably better' compared to the Tory government. 'The UK government has indeed legislated in devolved areas with the Scottish Government's express consent - on better rights in the private rented sector, ensuring ScotRail is kept in public hands, keeping young people safe online, as well as tougher rules on knife sales. 'Both governments are working together on issues like Grangemouth, Alexander Dennis and the clean energy mission. 'This government has reset the relationship between the UK government and the Scottish Government. That doesn't mean we will agree on everything, but where we do agree we should work together. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'The vast majority of Scots just want to see their two governments work together to get things done, and will take a dim view of people complaining they don't have enough time to prepare for a meeting rather than get on with it.' Mr Swinney said in May the relationship between the UK and Scottish governments was "deteriorating", with his comment coming in the wake of Sir Keir Starmer announcing a fresh trade deal with the EU. The First Minister said at the time: "It does appear that the Scottish fishing industry has once again been negotiated away by the UK government, demonstrating that Scotland is an afterthought for the UK government.'
