If our SNP politicians do not inspire hope, what use are they?
READ MORE: Promises broken by SNP are clearly not forgotten by Scotland's voters
The wilderness years of the 1980s and early 1990s were almost biblical, as many of us drifted from active politics but still felt that spark of hope whenever the SNP won a council seat or campaigned with others against the grotesque injustice of the poll tax or the decimation of our industrial heritage.
It was hope that empowered us into supporting a devolved parliament, and despite the disappointment of the early years of the Scottish Parliament, it was hope and the inspiring leadership of Alex Salmond that propelled us into government in 2007. I recall driving over the Erskine Bridge in 2011 when the radio announced that the SNP had achieved the impossible, a majority in the Scottish Parliament. I was 57 years old, and I wept tears of hope. How I wept.
Many tears have been wept since, but hope has never failed me, until last Thursday.
I'd always believed that whatever foibles our SNP politicians might have, that the one common steadfast factor they would have was hope. In one self-indulgent article, Seamus Logan MP killed hope (Using an election as plebiscite referendum is just not going to fly, Jun 25).
READ MORE: The simple Ipsos poll change that could be significant for independence
How dare anyone who is paid handsomely by the British state, and entrusted with the hopes of thousands of Scots to proclaim the legitimacy of the sovereignty of the Scottish people, demean that right to the convenience of any British prime minister?
The independence movement, both within the SNP and wider society, is way ahead of so many of the SNP politicians that one wonders what criteria was used by the SNP to approve potential candidates for Westminster and Holyrood, especially when poll after poll shows that support for independence is way above support for the SNP.
If we have reached a stage in our journey to statehood that one man or woman in an alien country can just say no, and our princes of the independence movement don't have the imagination, intellectual vigour and smeddum to overcome that, then the SNP must sweep these individuals aside.
READ MORE: Scots back independence as Keir Starmer's popularity at record low
Independence is not an Oxbridge debate. It's a necessity to address the poverty visited on our people; the plundering of our assets; the relentless degradation of our living standards and values; the subjugation of global humanity and nature; and above all the destruction of hope.
We elect politicians to deliver independence, not to wait on some Damascene conversion by a foreign government. The big worry is that these politicians pontificate to us when they have made little or no effort to explore and educate themselves on the opportunities international law and unused devolved powers provide to lead us out of this blasted union.
For almost 300 years our unique legal system not just survived but thrived without a dedicated legislature to serve it save for the occasional piece of Westminster legislation. Scots law survived because of the sophistication of our pre-Union common law and the ability and willingness of our judges to apply the principles of our law to society's changing norms and expectations. In this regard, the absence of a British constitution and codified legal system is a positive pathway to independence. The hurdles are of the mind and not the law.
Graeme McCormick
Arden
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
2 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Swinney independence referendum plan 'born of expediency'
Mr Swinney set out his approach in a newspaper article on Monday returning to the approach of former [[SNP]] First Minister Alex Salmond 14 years ago. Mr Salmond secured an outright majority for the [[SNP]] at the 2011 [[Holyrood]] election, a result that led to a joint agreement with the UK Government on a referendum. He was the only party leader to have done so since 1999 with the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament designed to make it more difficult for parties to have an overall majority and to encourage parties working together in coalition governments. READ MORE: In a letter to Mr Swinney, Mr MacAskill says the First Minister must know there is little chance of the SNP winning a majority in the 2026 Holyrood elections. "I note your comments in Monday's press in which you claim that an SNP majority at next year's election is needed to deliver a second independence referendum," he writes. "You must know in your heart of hearts that the chances of you achieving a second overall majority for the SNP is extremely unlikely, in a system that is designed to prevent that from happening. The SNP's success in 2011, in which it achieved an overall majority, was achieved against a very different set of circumstances." Mr MacAskill lists three reasons why the chances are against Mr Swinney's SNP winning a majority next year. Kenny MacAskill with the late Alex Salmond (Image: Colin Mearns) "The SNP [in 2011] were led by a statesman without rival in the Scottish Parliament at the head of a government which had demonstrated a level of competence and delivery in the NHS, education, local government, crime and policing, infrastructure investment and much else," he writes. "Frankly your record and that of your predecessors does not stand comparison with that delivered in the first five years of the SNP's term in office. "A significant gap has opened up between support for the SNP which is running at around 30% and support for independence which runs at around 50%." He accuses Mr Swinney of using the strategy as a way of attempting to get more support for the SNP rather than a way of achieving independence. "People in the country will therefore conclude that you are taking SNP voters for fools, that you are paying lip service to independence and that you are squandering the opportunity of the 2026 election to achieve it," he writes. "Independence supporters will see this for what it is a tactic born of electoral expediency rather than political conviction. It is designed to bolster the SNP vote not to achieve independence." Mr MacAskill goes on to add that "to achieve independence you must first seek the mandate for it" and "to do that you must achieve maximum unity" among all of the independence supporters and pro-independence parties in the country. On Tuesday the [[SNP]] told The National that Mr Swinney is set to call for the 'immediate establishment' of a constitutional convention to 'marshal support' for Scottish independence. The [[SNP]] leader will ask members to support the move in a motion put forward at the party conference in Aberdeen in October. The motion intends to set up a 'Scottish constitutional convention' to 'marshal support for Scotland's right to decide through gathering support from the people of Scotland, civic bodies and international opinion'. The full conference motion, seen by The National and titled 'Winning independence', states: 'Conference believes that the Scottish election in 2026 offers the people of Scotland a fresh start for our nation; that an SNP majority in that election, repeating the precedent of 2011, is the only uncontested route to delivering a new referendum. 'It is essential that, as before, the pro-independence campaign in that referendum should be broad-based and inclusive of the wide range of pro-independence campaigning bodies, representing a cross-section of Scottish society.' In his letter to Mr Swinney, Mr MacAskill adds that he wants all of the parties which support independence to contain a commitment in their manifestos that a majority of votes for pro independence parties at the Holyrood elections, would be a mandate for independence itself - not a second referendum. "That is why I am calling on each of the pro-independence parties to contain a clear and unambiguous commitment in their manifestos that if a majority of votes are cast on the list vote for pro-independence parties that will constitute the mandate for independence, not a second independence referendum," he tells Mr Swinney. "The urgent need to achieve independence and the unity of the independence movement requires you to re-consider your position. I urge you to do so, to put country before party and to call a summit of all of the pro-independence parties, to prepare for a plebiscite election, as a matter of urgency." In a separate press statement, Mr MacAskill welcomed the convention but said it should take place right away rather than waiting until after the SNP's conference in October. 'A Constitutional Convention is to be welcomed. But it must be now as the need is urgent. It must also be the launch pad for a plebiscite election and include all pro-independence parties as the referendum route is doomed to fail. Otherwise it will be a blind alley leading to a political cul de sac," he said. 'Holyrood 2026 must be Scotland's Independence Election where the pro independence parties seek a mandate for independence and agree that a majority of votes cast for pro-independence parties, on the regional list, will constitute that mandate. 'Alba have consistently called for action on independence. The SNP have an opportunity to make this Convention more than symbolic, and instead ensure that it leads directly to a clear, democratic mandate for independence at the next election.' Last month Constitution Secretary Angus Robertson explicitly ruled out holding a convention of independence-supporting parties this summer. SNP depute leader Keith Brown told the party's conference last year that he would support an independence convention that included other Yes-party representatives. A spokesperson for the First Minister said: "Independence is the fresh start that Scotland needs for a better future - and the First Minister is determined to unlock a route that makes it possible. "It is clear from recent electoral history that only an outright SNP majority in an election has delivered a legally-recognised referendum process which would lead to independence. "Compared to 2011, support for independence is much higher, the SNP is a much larger party - with a more formidable campaigning machine - and the case for Westminster control has never been weaker. Over the next few months, the SNP will set out a bold and ambitious vision for an independent Scotland - and we will seek to unite people in Scotland around that SNP vision in the election next May."
BBC News
3 minutes ago
- BBC News
Bowen: UK move to recognise Palestinian state is a diplomatic crowbar to revive peace process
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's announcement that Britain will recognise Palestinian statehood is a major change in UK foreign offered to postpone recognition if Israel took "substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution."Israel's immediate rejection of his statement meant that Starmer's speech writers can start work now on what he will say at the UN General Assembly in September. UK recognition of Palestine looks "irreversible," according to a senior British won't be expecting Britain's change of policy to produce an independent Palestinian state any time soon – from the perspective of many Israelis, the best time for it would be never – but the intention, diplomatic sources say, is to empower moderates on both sides, Israelis and Palestinians. The British hope they can jolt them into believing that peace might be won't be easy, not just because of the way Hamas killed around 1,200 people, including hundreds of Israeli civilians, and took hostages on 7 October 2023, followed by Israel's vengeful response that has killed tens of thousands civilians and left Gaza in is also because every attempt to make peace has failed. Years of peace talks in the 1990s ended in bloodshed. Every attempt to revive them since then has collapsed. Israel's rejection came minutes after Keir Starmer finished speaking in Downing Street. Later in the evening, Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu posted a fiercely worded denunciation on social media."Starmer rewards Hamas's monstrous terrorism and punishes its victims. A jihadist state on Israel's border TODAY will threaten Britain TOMORROW.""Appeasement towards jihadist terrorists always fails. It will fail you too. It will not happen."Netanyahu denies Israel has caused starvation and catastrophe in Gaza. Had he accepted Britain's conditions for a postponement, his government would have disintegrated. He depends on the support of ultra nationalist extremists who want to annex the occupied territories and force Palestinians out, not grant them Netanyahu is not their prisoner. He built a career opposing the two-state solution, the idea that peace can be built by creating an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. Earlier this month he said a Palestinian state would be a 'launchpad' for more 7 October style attempts to destroy will be hoping for the strong backing of the US government. Its position is that recognising a Palestinian state now rewards Hamas Trump told reporters as he flew back to the US after his golfing interlude in Scotland that he didn't support Britain's issue of Palestinian sovereignty could become another factor cracking apart transatlantic the last few weeks Keir Starmer was not convinced the time was right to recognise Palestine. But pictures of Palestinian children in Gaza starving to death were the last straw after so much killing and hardened in Downing Street and the Foreign Office, as well as in the Labour party and more widely in the decision to join France in recognising Palestine is another sign of Israel's increasing diplomatic isolation. Two of its major western allies, the UK and France, both permanent members of the UN Security Council, have dismissed Israel's attempt to block their recognition of Palestine when the General Assembly meets in New York in September. In New York just after Starmer's statement, David Lammy, the UK foreign secretary, was given a big round of applause when he announced Britain's decision at the UN's conference on a two-state solution and recognition of a Palestinian dismissed the accusation that Palestinian independence could be lethal for Israel."There is no contradiction between support for Israel's security and support for Palestinian statehood. Indeed, the opposite is true.""Let me be clear: the Netanyahu government's rejection of a two-state solution is wrong – it's wrong morally and it's wrong strategically."A British official said the atmosphere was electric as Lammy told the delegates that the UK's announcement was being made "with the hand of history on our shoulders." Lammy went on to delve into Britain's imperial past in Palestine which is deeply intertwined with the roots of the conflict between Jews and Arabs for control of the land Britain once captured Jerusalem from the Ottoman Empire in 1917 and controlled Palestine until in 1948, exhausted and out of ideas to deal with what was then a full-scale war between Arabs and Jews, it handed over responsibility to the UN and left Palestine. Immediately, Israel's first prime minister David Ben Gurion declared independence, and Israel defeated an invasion by Arab the UN David Lammy recalled how Arthur Balfour, his predecessor as foreign secretary had in 1917 signed a typewritten letter promising to 'view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.'But the document, known as the Balfour Declaration, also stated "that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine." It did not use the word Arab, but that is what was said Britain can be proud of the way it helped lay Israel's foundations, But the promise to Palestinians, Lammy said, was not kept, and that "is a historical injustice which continues to unfold."Britain's conflicting promises fuelled and shaped the conflict. A time traveller going back a century to Palestine in the 1920s would find the tension and violence depressingly way the UK hopes to end the misery in Gaza, create peace in the Middle East and remedy the historical injustice Lammy described is to revive the two-state conference in New York at which he was speaking was chaired by France and Saudi Arabia. It has produced a seven-page document aimed at creating a way ahead to revive the two-state solution, which includes condemnation by Arab states of Hamas and its 7 October attacks on window for peace through the two-state solution appeared to be locked shut after the collapse of the peace process that started with real hope in the decision to recognise Palestine is a diplomatic crowbar to try to reopen it.
Reuters
3 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump administration asks judges to release Epstein, Maxwell grand jury transcripts
NEW YORK, July 30 (Reuters) - Donald Trump's administration urged two judges on Tuesday night to release testimony heard by the grand juries that indicted the late financier Jeffrey Epstein and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell on sex trafficking charges as the president seeks to calm an uproar over his administration's handling of the matter. The Justice Department first sought court permission on July 18 to make public transcripts of the confidential testimony given by witnesses years ago in the two cases, but Manhattan-based U.S. District Judges Richard Berman and Paul Engelmayer asked the government to flesh out the legal bases for the requests. In a pair of court filings just before midnight, prosecutors said unsealing the materials would be appropriate given the "abundant public interest" in the Epstein case and persistent scrutiny of how it was handled by federal law enforcement. The Epstein case has been at the center of conspiracy theories for years. Trump has faced pressure in recent months to make public documents from the federal investigations into Epstein and Maxwell. Epstein hanged himself in jail in 2019, an autopsy concluded, while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges brought by federal prosecutors. He had pleaded not guilty. Maxwell, Epstein's longtime girlfriend, was convicted in 2021 on sex trafficking charges and is serving a 20-year prison sentence in Florida. Maxwell had pleaded not guilty and is now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn her conviction. Trump said this month he had asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek the release of grand jury transcripts in the two cases. The president did so after the Justice Department said it concluded that Epstein died by suicide and that there was no incriminating list of his clients. The Justice Department's announcement angered some of Trump's conservative supporters who believe the government is covering up Epstein's ties to the rich and powerful and that the financier was murdered in jail. Grand juries are convened by prosecutors and meet in secret to hear witness testimony and decide whether to indict people suspected of crimes. Records of their proceedings usually remain sealed. There are only limited circumstances under which such transcripts can be disclosed. Even if one or both of the judges allow the transcripts to be made public, it is not clear whether the public would learn anything new or noteworthy. Maxwell's four-week trial in 2021 included public testimony from alleged sex trafficking victims, associates of Epstein and Maxwell, and law enforcement officers. The transcripts also would not represent all the previously unreleased material in the government's possession. Investigators and prosecutors may pursue leads that they cannot substantiate or interview potential witnesses whom they do not ultimately call to testify before a grand jury. U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg in Florida on July 23 denied the administration's request to unseal records from grand jury investigations in 2005 and 2007 in that state into Epstein. The judge found that the request did not fall into any of the limited exceptions that may allow for the release of such material. Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to a prostitution charge brought under Florida law and was given a 13-month sentence in a deal with prosecutors now widely regarded as too lenient. Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump's former personal lawyer, last week met with Maxwell for two days to see if she had any information about others who had committed crimes. Maxwell's lawyer David Markus and Blanche have not provided detailed accounts of their discussions.
