Dugdale’s notion that Labour and SNP would do Indyref2 deal is pie in the sky
Is the prospect of a minority Labour government doing a deal with th es np over an independence referendum a realistic one? A number off laws in outgoing MSP Kezia Dugdale’s view that UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn would want such an arrangement can easily be identified (your report, 28 June).
The most obvious one to me is that it makes no reference to whether the election that might bring about such a scenario would be before or after the United Kingdom has left the European Union.
It doesn’t take into account the fact that that even if the matter was settled this autumn there is still the thorny problem of the transition phase to be sorted out – a period when the viability of the devolved settlements will be seriously tested. Even leaving that aside, I’m sure the SNP hierarchy would be wary about entering into either coalition or a “confidence and supply” arrangement.
It will no doubt remember being dragged along by Jim Callaghan’s minority government in the 1970s towards a devolution referendum in which not enough people were persuaded of the case. The aftermath relegated the party to political isolation for the following 15 years; the Liberal Democrats are only now recovering from their period of coalition with the Conservatives in the first half of this decade. Ms Dugdale’s idea that the SNP could support a series of Labour budgets in return for an independence referendum is just too simplistic. Does she seriously believe that over a period of three years, say, their MPS would be prepared to loyally troop into the Labour lobbies in return for a referendum promise that might easily be voted down by a sceptical opposition?
The most obvious flaw of all is that a Corbyn government will only come about if Labour revives in Scotland. Such a revival would inevitably mean reduced SNP numbers in Westminster. If that happened it is unlikely to be taken seriously by either the Labour hierarchy or whoever becomes Conservative leader in the next decade.
BOB TAYLOR Shiel Court, Glenrothes
If there’s a political commentator’s equivalent of being 3-0 up with 15 minutes to play, yet still failing to progress to the next round of the World Cup, it was Bill Jamieson’s latest article (Perspective, 27 June).
The first half of the article sets out, with great enthusiasm, breadth and clarity, some of the huge benefits of independence. Mr Jamieson foresees Scotland as a “tall, proud, independent member of the EU”, revelling in internationalism. There would be, he says, “a powerful sense of a Scotland enhanced on the world stage... a new era of opportunity and ambition released”.
Jamieson goes on to argue that our leading institutions – spanning government, business, agriculture, energy and academia – would be “charged with new purpose and challenge”.
As he asks: “What’s not to like?”
At this point we are 3-0 up. Yet the remainder of the article is a baffling, convoluted attempt to find counterbalancing negatives; to contrive, if at all possible, to squander that lead.
Mr Jamieson’s main concern seems to be a shift to Qualified Majority Voting on certain issues within the EU. Quite why that might put us off all the benefits he outlines so articulately in the preceding paragraphs is not in any way clear.
Mr Jamieson finally decides to make it 3-3 in the last minute by booting the ball into the back of his own net; falling back on tired and discredited arguments about joining the euro, before appearing to conclude that independence might not be worth it after all.
Maybe it’s just me but I prefer to focus on those enormous benefits of being a normal, self-governing country, rather than contrive to find negatives that are either easily surmountable or simply don’t exist.
C HEGARTY Glenorchy Road, North Berwick