It’s false to claim that Scots cannot have another say on indy
repeat it”. I believe the origin of this quote is from The Life of Reason (1905) by the philosopher George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.
Alternatively, the German philosopher Georg Hegel wrote around 1837: “The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history”.
Or, going further back in time, Confucius wrote: “Study the past if you would define the future”.
Essays to the editor by the end of the week, please!
Alan Bell
Edinburgh
GREAT to read the output from Hamish MacPherson and the piece on April 28 on King David I of Scotland. The young Earl David spent some of his formative years in the Ettrick Forest area much loved by Scots kings and the nobility. When in the area he was, even as a young man, especially fond of
The young earl David referred to Selkirk as ‘mein auld toun’
Selkirk, which he referred to even in the early years of the century as “mein auld toun”. He wrote these words in 1113 or 1114, when he was an earl and never expected to be the King of Scots.
At this time he granted land to the burgh of Selkirk to be used to build an abbey and brought monks from France to be in charge of the great building when it was opened for worship. He, presumably with his father’s permission and with his help, declared Selkirk a royal burgh in 1113, around the same time that Roxburgh was also listed as one.
I, of course, am grateful that Hamish mentioned Roxburgh and Berwick but a bit disappointed as a Souter o’ Selkirk that our “auld toun” – which is still standing as a reminder of King David and also still standing despite the horror and needless slaughter of Flodden in 1513, 400 years after the young king – was not mentioned.
Kenneth Gunn
Selkirk
IN her column in this paper on May 3 (I wanted a contest but I’ll back John Swinney – here’s why), Joanna Cherry slips into untypical folly when she writes that: “Ten years on from the last independence referendum, there is no way people can have another say because of the democracy denying determination of the Unionist parties to frustrate a second vote”.
Her statement is false but it does chime with the sullen and defeatist line the SNP have been pushing for the last decade. Like all who come out with it, Ms Cherry provides no evidence or authority but simply pronounces it like an article of faith.
But what is the reality? Westminster will not allow is a fresh indy referendum. Well, so what? The notion that this is a block on Scotland’s voice is pure invention.
Was Scotland quite unable to choose independence for the hundreds of years of Union before referendums were even thought of? And were the SNP deluded during the major part of their existence, trying to attain the unattainable?
The way for the people of Scotland to choose is by voting in a General Election under the appropriate manifesto, which says: if the majority vote for us, Scotland will leave the Union. A vote exceeding 50% in such an election will virtually fill the Scottish seats with indy MPs, sent to Westminster with the clear mandate to take Scotland out
Scotland has no higher representatives and its MPs are the only body with the right, the power and the democratic authority. Scotland and England are joined in a Union of Parliaments. If Scotland is to leave the Union at its own hand, that is now the only way open.
And London has no part to play. The decision is Scotland’s alone. London will not help but will relent only if and when Scotland has made the decision, so that independence will finally come about after negotiation. But until the decision is actually made, London has no part in it.
There is no legal or constitutional prohibition whatsoever to that course. Anyone who claims there is has the onus of explaining exactly what the barrier is, and to take into consideration matters like the following, which are inconsistent with the existence of any such obstacle:
a) In the Edinburgh Agreement of 2012, the UK Government was able to commit to respecting the referendum result by mere signature of the Prime Minister.
b) UK ordinary law has a standing provision for Northern Ireland to leave if its people wish.
c) No-one would seriously claim that England could not leave the Union without Scotland’s consent.
First minister Sturgeon, who was chiefly responsible for putting about the “referendum is the only way” heresy, reverted to the correct course when she stood up in the Scottish Parliament on June 28, 202,2 and stated that “if the law says that [an independence referendum] is not possible, the General Election will be a de facto referendum.”
Sitting at her right hand was her then deputy first minister, John Swinney, in full support.
Mr Swinney now appears to have resiled from that straightforward and entirely proper plan, which is actually the only route open to Scottish independence. Could he please explain to us when he dropped it, and why?
Brian Boyce Motherwell
THERE is no newspaper anywhere as brilliantly balanced between the production of high-quality articles by excellent journalists and letters from highly intelligent readers. Everyone involved with working for The National’s production deserves the highest praise and an extra reward prize when independence is achieved – as it will!
David Ashford via thenational.scot