Latest news with #pre-Union
The National
04-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
Naysayers and wimps have taken over SNP
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
The Herald Scotland
14-06-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Do the Scottish Conservatives have any reason to exist?
Before dismissing this prospect out of hand, consider the point that political parties are manufactured, not innate. They are coalitions of the more or less willing, designed to provide a vaguely coherent offer to the electorate in order to secure power and effect change. Consequently, they have no guaranteed right to exist. Anyone remember the squadrone volante? In the old, pre-Union Scots Parliament, they steered a cautious middle way between the Court and Country parties, before eventually sinking into oblivion. OK, so that is an obscure recollection. Consider this instead. In the 19th century, the Liberals were utterly dominant in Scottish politics. Their role was largely usurped by the Labour Party. The Tories battled on. They secured, in 1955, the only popular majority ever achieved by any party in Scotland since universal suffrage. But that was a Unionist vote. As times changed, and the SNP rose, the Tories struggled again, eventually losing every Scottish Westminster seat in 1997. They were only rescued as a party by the advent of devolution and by proportional representation. Two developments they had steadfastly opposed. And more recently? They flourished to a degree under Ruth Davidson's leadership. She contrived to corral pro-Union votes to her side by depicting her party as the most reliable bulwark for that Union. And now? Two points. Indyref2 seems relatively distant, meaning that the political focus is elsewhere. The Davidson bulwark has less clout. Read more from Brian Taylor: Secondly, there is an alternative on the Right, in the shape of Reform, explicitly promising to supplant the Tories before going for the other parties. The Tories have endured defections. To Reform. And MSP Jamie Greene who switched to the Liberal Democrats. His verdict on his erstwhile party? He reckons folk are 'completely scunnered' with the Scots Tories. Nodding towards the Tories' Westminster leader, he summons up a vision of 'Kemi-geddon.' Not, I would suggest, the most felicitous phrase. But you take his point. Ms Badenoch has scarcely inspired confidence since taking over. Her own view, delivered this week during exchanges with the Prime Minister, was that she gets better every week, while Keir Starmer gets worse. Again, less than uplifting. Trying hard. Getting better. It is all a bit like a school report delivered to a struggling pupil by a kind and supportive teacher. However, is it entirely her fault? I would suggest not. She might well get better. Except she is burdened by voter memories of her predecessors. Rishi Sunak might be exculpated somewhat. But not Boris Johnson and certainly not Liz Truss. Lest there is any danger of the voters forgetting, Labour constantly summons up the spectre of the unfunded Truss budget which so spooked the markets that she had to quit. Only this week, the Chancellor referred repeatedly to Ms Truss, as she set out her own spending plans. The Prime Minister taunted Kemi Badenoch, saying reflections of Liz Truss would continue to haunt the Tories. Yes, Kemi Badenoch has had a troubled start to her leadership. But, as one close observer noted to me, Winston Churchill would struggle to lead the Conservatives right now, given the degree of entrenched voter anger at governance past. While noting that, I would add that Tory problems are exacerbated by the presence of an alternative offer on the Right. The Tories previously dismissed UKIP. Reform appears more challenging. Is Russell Findlay happy in his role as Scottish Conservative leader? (Image: PA) And what of Holyrood? I noted recently that Russell Findlay does not seem entirely content in his role. Perhaps, one suggested to me, he was happier in his previous job as an inquisitive, investigative journalist. However, a senior insider dismisses that prospect. I was told that Mr Findlay is determined to set out a clear direction for the Scottish Tories – by differentiating them sharply from their main rivals. He will not, I was told, be 'knocked off course' by Reform. He believes that the SNP, in particular, talked up the challenge of Reform in the recent Hamilton by-election, only to witness a set-back for their own party as Labour won. The big Scottish Tory offer? Lower taxes in Scotland, including the removal of lower bands. Amounting, they say, to a substantial saving for every worker. In the past, the Scots Tories have been somewhat reluctant to pursue this route. They feared it would not be seen as credible, that they would be challenged on spending cuts. Ideologically, they fretted over departing from a UK fiscal pattern. No longer. They say they will fund tax cuts by civil service efficiency savings, an approach also backed by the Chancellor. And by cuts to Scotland's benefits bill. Read more: In response to which, John Swinney sharpens the knife he has already honed for UK Labour – and turns it upon the Scottish Conservatives, accusing both of seeking to gain electorally from enhancing poverty. Both his rivals demur. But there is more from Mr Findlay. In conference this weekend, he is projecting what he calls 'common sense' policies. Reflecting, as one insider noted to me, the 'real priorities of the Scottish people, stopping the nonsense of the political bubble.' So potholes, rather than gender reform. An end to the North Sea windfall tax. An understandable move, in keeping with Tory instincts. Except that John Swinney has already shifted ground to focus on fundamentals. And Labour's Anas Sarwar talks without ceasing about popular concerns such as the NHS. And Reform? Both UK and Scottish Tory leaders will hope to sideline them. That might prove difficult, especially given the options offered by list voting. Other factors. Reform themselves may be subject to closer scrutiny. As the Holyrood election approaches, people may turn their attention to big choices. Who forms the new devolved government which will set their taxes and control their public services? The Tories hope they can bring a distinctive perspective to that choice. They know they are down. They can only hope – and believe – they are not yet out. Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre - and Dundee United FC
