IT was interesting to read Pete Wishart’s recent comments on the UK Government’s continuing refusal to grant a Section 30 Order (SNP MP says Holyrood can ‘grind down’ Westminster until indyref2 is granted, thenational.scot, November 24).
As we all know – we have certainly been told often enough – Westminster’s position is unsustainable and undemocratic. That doesn’t mean they won’t keep doing it over and over again. Pete and others in the SNP seem to be fairly unshakeable in their faith (faith is all it is, as it does not seem to be backed up by actual evidence) that Boris Johnson will finally cave in and grant a Section 30 Order after a fourth mandate from the voters and a third official request from the Scottish Government.
READ MORE: Scottish independence: SNP can 'grind down' Tories until they agree to indyref2
I’m afraid I can only go on the evidence of the UK Government’s past actions, so I don’t share the same faith. In my view we need to have a Plan B that we will be prepared to use when the inevitable happens and the next Section 30 order request is refused or ignored. Perhaps the knowledge that there is a serious intent of using a Plan B would be enough to bring Boris to the negotiating table, and it might never have to be used.
Pete Wishart talks about the importance of getting recognition from other countries of Scotland’s independence, which I am sure everyone on both sides of this debate will agree on. But then he also says other countries will simply refuse to recognise our independence unless we get Boris’s permission. Given that the UK have managed to alienate just about every other country in Europe in the past few years, how can he be so sure? Has he spoken to any of them yet? Has anyone in the SNP asked them?
Maybe those conversations are already taking place, but if they aren’t they definitely should be. I’m sure many in the independence movement will be wondering why Pete can have so much faith in Boris Johnson and the Tories recognising the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland, but so little faith in our friends and neighbours across Europe and the rest of the world doing the same.
Paul Donaldson
Coatbridge
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel