Naysayers and wimps have taken over SNP

The National

6 hours ago

Before I launch in, this will not be a usual Old John letter where I try to see everyone's point of view. I have had enough of wimps and naysayers.
Let me start by saying I am truly peed off by the number of MPs and MSPs who are telling us, the sovereign people of Scotland, why we can't forward the cause of independence. The latest by Seamus Logan was a truly awful piece (Using an election as plebiscite referendum is just not going to fly, Jun 25). He and his ilk are trying to poison us with rubbish like this, and I am not listening to them any more!
Let us get straight to the point. The ONLY reason we can't move forward with independence is that the FM will not put any plan forward to tell, not ask, Westminster we will leave the Union after the 2026 election if there is a majority vote for it.
READ MORE: Protesters stage demonstration inside Reform UK's headquarters
There is no use beating about the bush here. We all know that is the problem and we all know what has to happen sooner rather than later. Wimps and naysayers have taken over the SNP. We have the most useless Westminster Government in history and have missed umpteen open goals presented to us.
Oh, for a leader who is going to say what we are going to do about independence, when we are going to do it and why we are going to do it! Oh, for a leader who will inform Westminster that we are going to leave the voluntary union after the 2026 election if we have a majority.
We can tell them they will be asked to negotiate in good faith and, if not, we will be leaving anyway. Our time is now, but we need a leader with the bottle to do it.
Old John
Ayrshire
IT makes no difference if Westminster says it would ignore a plebiscite election result. It probably will but that's not the point. We have to vote for independence so the world can see our democracy being denied.
We must force Westminster to explain its denial of democracy. We should be exposing its farcical, dangerous stance at every opportunity and making them block us if they want to. 'Political pressure', John Swinney called it.
A good move for the party would be to demand broadcasting is devolved. I'll not be holding my breath though.
Bill Robertson
via email
ONCE again an excellent letter from Graeme McCormick (July 2). Graeme gives us a history of the independence struggle from 1707, but also some important observations on Scots law.
He tells us that Scots law's unique legal system not only survived, but thrived, in spite of the absence of a written British constitution, because 'of the sophistication of our pre-Union common law, and the ability, and willingness of our judges to apply the principles of our laws to society's changing norms and expectations'.
Graeme tells us about politicians who 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'. He ends with the thought that 'the hurdles are of the mind and not the law'.
A brilliant analysis by Graeme, and so accurate also. Right now, SNP politicians are unable to identify a way forward to self-government while the answer is right in front of them if they would just pay attention and give a little consideration to those who are showing them the way forward.
There is a petition on the Scottish Parliament website right now which the SNP leadership is trying to kick into the long grass, yet that petition, combined with Scots and international law, offers a direct route to self-government. That is petition number PE2135 on UN Human Rights.
If the Scottish Parliament accepts this petition and implements it into Scots law, it will give the Scottish people the right to hold referendums on any civil or political matter at local, regional or national level in Scotland under Scots law and international law, whether the UK establishment like it or not.
So if the SNP want to get off their knees and attempt to put the interests of the Scottish people first, they will do this and they might just find that this will save the SNP by making them popular with the electorate again, even if the media don't like it and attack them.
Andy Anderson
Ardrossan
MUCH has been written in these pages about how independence supporters should campaign and vote in next year's Scottish parliamentary elections. Let's skip to afterwards and assume there is a majority of pro-independence MSPs, whose manifestos all state such a result is a mandate for a new referendum. What I want to know from the SNP, Greens and Alba leadership is, should the above result happen, what specific actions will they take to ensure that the will of the electorate is enacted?
There is no point in just asking Westminster's permission. Both Labour and the Tories are on record as saying they will not 'allow' another referendum. So, in the words of a famous 20th-century revolutionary: 'What is to be done?'
Do we enact legislation in the Scottish Parliament and let the UK Government challenge it in the courts? Do we give the UK Government 90 days to agree to a referendum, after which we declare independence and demand negotiations to that end (would have to be in the manifestos)? Or what?
(Image: PA)
If Scotland's independence parties want to enthuse support, as well as convincing the electorate of the case for independence, they must provide concrete proposals to achieve it that don't start and end by asking Westminster's permission.
David Howie
Dunblane
BRENDAN O'Hara MP was given the space in yesterday's National to explain why the SNP abstained on proscribing Palestine Action. Despite the length of the article his reason is succinct – fear of being labelled as neo-Nazi because the order also included two far-right groups.
Even taking his reasoning at face value, he must surely recognise that if his opponents want to call him and his
SNP Westminster colleagues neo-Nazis they will do so since they did not support the order and so did not vote to ban the two groups named.
Fence sitting will not help their reputation. The SNP's abstention was concerned only with what people would think of them. It had nothing to do with supporting Palestine Action or the Palestinians.
Brendan O'Hara acknowledges that the purpose of Palestine Action is 'to prevent the genocide being committed in Gaza'. Despite this, name-calling is too high a price to protect Palestine Action from being named as a terrorist organisation. I will not call Brendan O'Hara or his colleagues neo-Nazis. Other names are more appropriate.
David Logan
Milngavie