Arguing over past strategy won’t help shift any voters to Yes
about the various problems arising from Brexit, which certainly do not amount an “unmitigated disaster” as Mr Orr and some others claim.
Dr D R Cooper Maidenhead, Berkshire
I HAVE just returned from Norway. My friend lives in Eidsvoll, which is also home of the creation of the Norwegian constitution. We visited the building where it was created. The tour highlighted its historic significance and the timeframe in which the constitution was created. The back story to this historical event is in itself somewhat special.
In 1813, Norway was to be “gifted” as the spoils of war to Sweden, ending a 400-year union with Denmark. Whilst the “gifting” did proceed, Norway gained its global independence in 1912. What was significant for me was that this was the action of the Norwegian
Norway was ‘gifted’ as the spoils of war to Sweden
READER Alex Orr took this great shot of the sun rising over Edinburgh’s Royal Mile as the city dried out after days of spring showers. The statute of David Hume sits in the foreground, with St Giles’ Cathedral in the background people who had jobs and businesses and were respected within the local communities. They were for sure not politicians.
My point is that if Scotland is to rely on politicians, and given that the UK has no constitution,
I conclude that I will go to my grave saddened that Scotland will never be independent and take its rightful place on the world stage.
Andrew Currie
Renfrew
AS Boris Johnson joins that other spectacularly failed Tory PM Liz Truss coining it, making half-arsed “speeches” around the globe and even further embarrassing Britain, his mates in the press are again seeding speculation about his return to politics.
“Is Johnson coming back?” they flap. To which the only sensible reply is “If so – break out the superstrength disinfectant”.
Amanda Baker Edinburgh
FURTHER to Ian Lawson’s thoughtful comments of April 13 (in his letter beginning “I used to enjoy reading The National but that enjoyment is now tempered by a stream of letters telling us that the SNP approach to independence is wrong”), if one wished to read subjective perspectives denigrating the SNP, or its policies in government, there are more than a dozen newspapers one could buy other than The National.
Of course within the independence movement there are many different opinions as to how best to quickly achieve our common aim. But if we cannot include a single positive argument in favour of independence, or an argument exposing one of the many fundamental weaknesses of the Union, to offset any perhaps perfectly valid criticism of the SNP, then we are simply serving the aims of those who would deny the people of Scotland the right to express a common desire for self-determination.
Rehashing speculation of what might have been had different decisions been made by the SNP leadership during the last tumultuous decade is not going to convince a single undecided voter to now support independence.
There is a new and relatively young team at the helm of the SNP, who may not at this time be popular with Alba supporters, but to presume that collectively they lack intelligence or political wisdom is perhaps betraying personal shortcomings. Certainly Humza Yousaf has not had a straightforward time in taking over the leadership of his party and his country, but everything he has done to date appears to reflect the basic egalitarian and progressive principles that most independence supporters share.
Stephen Flynn as leader of the SNP at Westminster has done an excellent job (within the highly limited constraints of that establishment) in succinctly expressing concerns about the current non-constitutional governance of the UK and the UK Government’s questionable foreign policies, including, despicably, its continuing military support of the genocidal slaughter in Gaza. With a General
Election fast approaching (which essentially has little to do with the SNP’s governance at Holyrood and everything to do with how Westminster can be changed to democratically reflect the rights and views of the people of Scotland), it is time to focus our individual efforts on building consistent support for independence to a level (preferably 60% or greater).
That will provide a solid foundation for action in the international courts if Westminster were to attempt to ignore the SNP winning not only most Scottish seats, but, perhaps, more than 50% of the vote.
Stan Grodynski Longniddry, East Lothian
WELL said “Old John” in your letter “It’s 2026 votes that’ll determine our future” (Apr 13). Well said, because Scotland with 59 constituencies out of 650 in total at Westminster will have little impact on who ultimately gets the keys to Number 10.
Yes, the SNP have made their presence felt at Westminster over the last decade plus, but with the administration at Holyrood the SNP has been able to focus on Scottish issues, devolved matters, tackling child poverty, providing every child with the same start with the introduction of the “baby boxes”, giving carers in Scotland a twice-yearly supplement available nowhere else in the UK, and much more.
We do need a strong voice in Westminster but we must not take our focus off the goal of independence and retaining control at Holyrood – 2026 is closer than we think, especially if the UK election is not called till the last quarter of this year. Catriona C Clark
Falkirk