The problem is clear – but so is the route to achieving independence
The halfway he has come is his acknowledgement of what is a blindingly obvious political fact, namely that London will not consent to another Holyrood indyref. Perhaps that acknowledgement has been pressed on him by the definitive judgment of the Supreme Court that Holyrood's founding act (the Scotland Act 1998) – in reserving to Westminster all power to legislate on matters 'relating' to the Union – does indeed prohibit the Scottish Parliament from legislating to set up an indyref without special permission from London.
READ MORE: John Swinney launches report showing Scotland 'must be in charge of destiny'
It can be no surprise to any thinking person that London has no intention whatsoever of granting permission, and barring a near miracle, will keep to that intention, whatever party is in power at Westminster. Mr Walker now seems to accept the position: 'Successive Westminster governments have been steadfast in their refusal to countenance a second independence referendum. There is no hope of that changing.'
The half not yet traversed by Mr Walker covers what to do about it. He seems to regard it as a bottomless chasm with no way across: 'We have exhausted every avenue available to us to find a way of allowing our democratic will to be expressed.' But, he wonders, could there be a small gleam of hope in the recent plan of James Dornan MSP, who suggests in his article of June 10 (Tell voters we will hold new indyref no matter what Westminster says) that the Scottish Government should run an indyref even without London's permission.
Dismissing the complete legal impossibility of that plan, and its incompatibility with his already stated position, Mr Walker falls for it: 'Dornan's plan may not be perfect but it's the best I've heard yet.' Are we then just to step out onto Mr Dornan's imaginary bridge? Not an inspiring prospect.
Here's what the real bridge is:
1. Run the next Westminster General Election on a simple manifesto making it a true popular plebiscite on independence. The country will treat it as their real and effective vote on the issue and, as with the 2014 indyref, turnout will rocket. The current steady support is an excellent starting point. Any national majority for Yes will fill all, or almost all, of the Scottish seats with indy MPs. Scotland has no higher representatives in constitutional or legislative matters than these.
READ MORE: Independence campaigners react to John Swinney speech on independence
2. Thus elected, those supreme representatives of Scotland will have a fully democratic mandate to take Scotland out of the Union. Such a step is consistent with UK law and constitution, which hold no prohibition on it.
3. If London still declines to cooperate (though at that juncture it almost certainly will come to the table), the body of Scottish MPs, by their own majority (in the circumstance, virtually unanimously) carry out the step for which they were elected, declaring Scotland to be a sovereign and independent country.
(The Holyrood election might be used, but only as a dry run, since we currently have a mere nine indy MPs in place thanks to the SNP completely mishandling last year's election.)
And that, in a nutshell, is it. Fully legal, constitutional, democratic, peaceful and proper. Indyref last-gaspers inside and outside the SNP might be dumbstruck, but no-one else will. And Scotland rejoins the world.
Alan Crocket
Motherwell
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
31 minutes ago
- The National
Presiding Officer to step down at Holyrood 2026 election
Alison Johnstone has been in the role since 2021 and was the sixth person – and only the second woman – to hold the position. She entered politics in 2007 when she was elected as a Scottish Greens councillor in Edinburgh. READ MORE: Kate Forbes: Numbers prove that the world is ignoring those who talk Scotland down She was then elected as an MSP in 2011, and 10 years later became the first Scottish Greens party member to take up the role of Presiding Officer. Alison Johnstone (Image: PA) Announcing her decision to step down, Johnstone told The Times that "it was always my intention that this would be my last term in Holyrood". 'I came from a wholly non-political background and got involved in a campaign to save a school playing field," she said. 'I was not in a political party but campaigned for the creation of a Scottish parliament and I then worked as an assistant for Robin Harper, the first-ever Green parliamentarian in the UK elected to the first-ever Scottish parliament.' Most recently, Johnstone made headlines after she expelled former Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross from the debating chamber after he refused to follow rules. Ross tried to bring the matter up a week later, and was slapped down again after he inferred Johnstone had not acted in a "neutral manner". READ MORE: UK Government 'set to proscribe Palestine Action after RAF protest' Holyrood's Presiding Officer is impartial – when MSPs take up the role, they give up their party affiliation. They are responsible for chairing meetings in the debating chamber, selecting which questions will be asked at First Minister's Questions, as well as chairing Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and Parliamentary Bureau meetings. The Presiding Officer is supported by two deputies – currently Annabelle Ewing (SNP) and Liam McArthur (LibDem). According to the Scottish Parliament website, the Presiding Officer receives a salary of £130,500.
Scotsman
3 hours ago
- Scotsman
Readers' Letters: Exclusion isn't the only response to difficult pupils
A reader has a suggestion for the First Minister when it comes to dealing with difficult pupils Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Apparently First Minister John Swinney warns that 'Excluding disruptive pupils risks pushing them into organised crime' (19 June). That may be so, but there are other alternatives for those young people who, for whatever reason, find mainstream education challenging. For example, he could look at the opportunities provided by the Spartans Community Foundation in Pilton and their Alternative School for secondary school students, extending now to P6/P7 pupils. Fiona Garwood, Edinburgh John Swinney wants every Scottish pupil to have a good educational experience (Picture: Andrew Milligan - Pool/Getty Images) Deadly games Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad US President Donald Trump is taking a fortnight to consider whether to join Israel in attacking Iran. Good. It means internal advisers have got to him, perhaps even the Europeans, Canadians and UK. Such a move would be an act of folly. Remember the run-up to the Iraq war. Labour in power, Tony Blair gives early notice of his support for the 'special relationship'. They produce a 'dodgy dossier' speaking of 'weapons of mass destruction' which probably didn't exist. Blair struts around beside George Bush, looking macho. There is a 'victory', but long-term chaos descends on Iraq, certainly no democracy. Iran is much bigger than Iraq, and there will be greater chaos. Israel is the immediate major aggressor, and is a client state of the US, which is totally complicit. Meanwhile, Israel has reduced Gaza to ruins, and is starving its population, what remains of it, to death. At the same time, it is a land-grab, with more Israel settlers being facilitated. Crawford Mackie, Edinburgh Ban US bombs Earlier this week, Donald Trump demonstrated his grasp of diplomacy by making an offensive early exit from the G7 meeting in Calgary, presumably rushing home to plan a joint war with Israel against Iran. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Will Britain, in an echo of their actions in joining with the USA to wreck Iraq, now join with the US to wreck Iran? It would seem that this is the intention of our Prime Minister, not wishing to cross his big orange buddy. I sense that the great majority of Scots are not up for waging a new war in the Middle East, just as we do not support Israel in their obliteration of the Palestinians, but what can we do? Well, we might take journalist Neal Ascherson's advice, and act as if we are already an independent nation. The USAF regularly use Prestwick to refuel their flights to the Middle east. Might bunker buster bombs be part of the payload of USAF aircraft refuelling at Prestwick? The airport is owned by us, the Scottish people. Our Scottish Government should veto any USAF flights resupplying Israel's military, and should certainly veto any transit of bunker busters ultimately intended for Iran. This would very much displease Keir Starmer, but would be recognised by right-minded people, nationally and internationally, as a correct and moral action. Ken Gow, Bridge of Canny, Banchory What the X? So the SNP's Communication's Officer, David Mitchell, asks on X, 'why exactly is Scotland is paying for [HS2] when it doesn't even stop in Scotland?' And yet, the SNP government has stated that it has not contributed any funds to HS2. Indeed, Scotland will receive proportionate Barnett consequentials funding based on that (albeit flawed) investment. So it seems to me that part of Mitchell's role is to miscommunicate in an attempt to provoke groundless outrage amongst dyed-in-the-wool separatists. Martin Redfern, Melrose, Roxburghshire Planning language Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Words fail me too (Letters, 19 June). The Government has taken its eye off the ball. There is a much more important language than Gaelic or Scots that must be made official so they can pursue their dream of covering Scotland with wind farms – planning language. I doubt SNP MSPs had any idea how, for example, the word 'localised' would be used when they passed National Planning Framework 4, based on the manifesto of the Scottish Greens, voted for by 8 per cent of the electorate. The Government voted for the two National Parks and National Scenic areas to be protected from wind farms but 'Where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will generally be considered to be acceptable.' It seems 'localised' in the dictionary means 'restrict or assign to a particular place'. Developer language 'for planning purposes' means you can insist the effect of 18, 180m high turbines along the Moorfoot Scarp in view of Midlothian, parts of East Lothian and South Edinburgh, including the castle, are localised. It is said significant effects of Torfichen wind farm would reach to Gorebridge 5.6km away, about three and a half miles! Locally three wind farms have already been refused on wider landscape grounds. Surely the opposite of localised is 'widespread', as used by Nature Scot in their representation 'widespread visibility of the turbines from many areas of East Lothian and Midlothian... and would result in adverse cumulative landscape and visual impacts'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Why should a minority party decide the shape of Scotland to come? Why no strategic plan instead of landowners deciding where wind farms should go? Now the pact has ceased, and the New National Park has been scrapped, this has to be looked at again. All governments make mistakes but, as we have seen lately, it is how and if they rectify them by which they are judged by the electorate. Celia Hobbs, Penicuik, Midlothian Green dreams Scotsman writer Paul Wilson will certainly not feature on the Green brigade's Christmas Card list ("Mighty growth from Scotland's Acorn could prove elusive', Perspective, 19 June). He strips away the green film to reveal hard, indisputable facts not the green fiction politicians and those of a green persuasion would have us believe. Soaring electricity costs are costing jobs and are not being replaced by the green jobs so beloved and promised by clueless politicians and their followers. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad So where is the cheap electricity we were promised? In the last year wind and solar could only provide 35.8 per cent of our electricity while gas was 29.9, nuclear 14, Drax using trees to produce electricity was 7.3, and imports from Europe totalling 11.5 per cent kept the lights on. The Scottish Government, keen to 'lead the world', said they would achieve net zero by 2045. Yes and pigs can fly. China has set its net zero target as 2060 and India 2070. Both huge maybes. As Paul Wilson says, the green jobs bonanza that politicians promised for decades has failed to materialise and the UK is shedding jobs by the thousands. At least the Scottish people can show their anger in May 2026 and throw out the green charlatan MSPs and their hoards of mega-expensive climate advisors. Clark Cross, Linlithgow, West Lothian Minimum brains It appears the SNP administration is still keen on introducing a minimum income guarantee payment of £11,500 to every Scot, whatever their status. This would cost £8 billion-plus. Maybe the nationalists think it a vote-winner. This in spite of every country that has ever tried to implement anything similar finding it to be unworkable and financially disastrous. An 'expert' group was commissioned by SNP ministers in 2021 to work it all out. That alone should send shivers down the Scottish spine. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Be afraid, be very afraid. This could make the ferry fiasco look like a drop in the ocean. Alexander McKay, Edinburgh The Never-Never Like Nessie, growth remains elusive for this government. The Bank of England has just prioritised control of inflation over any immediate interest rate reduction which could have stimulated growth. But worry not! Grand plans are in hand. Following on the heels of last week's Spending Review setting out the UK Government's priorities for the next four years or so, a £725 billion, ten-year infrastructure investment plan for the UK has just been announced. Moreover, the Government's much awaited Industrial Strategy is imminent. The devil is always in the detail of big plans and aspirations. Often overlooked, the devil here may lie in the detail of the approval process for capital projects in the public sector. The appraisal techniques that are used are set out in the Treasury's Green Book – the UK's Bible of 'best practice'. (Scotland has its own version which largely follows this.) The Chancellor announced that the Green Book is about to be revised and updated, making capital project approvals quicker and easier, so the taxpayer gets a bigger bang for their buck, especially for projects (eg new homes) in areas of deprivation. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However, it is unclear how this will work in practice. One concern relates to the level of analytical rigour required, which may prove over-challenging for parts of the public sector. If that's true, then, somewhat perversely, Green Book 'enhancements' could have the effect of slowing down approval rates, with knock-on effects for the speed at which any related growth impacts are realised. 'Never Never Land' is the fictional domain where children never grow up, or some other imaginary ideal. There is a fear here that despite good intentions, when facing increasingly fierce and uncertain macro-economic headwinds, and the micro-challenge of delivering growth-inducing capital projects on the ground, that the plans and aspirations of this government run the risk of being equally fanciful. Ewen Peters, Newton Mearns Write to The Scotsman
The Herald Scotland
4 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Scotland's future is uncertain. But then so is the here and now
At the same time, many in the mischievous media exaggerate the transient. Who is up, who is down? What is new, what is demanding attention? Always eager to hasten to the next caravanserai. This week, by contrast, there was a glance towards the longer term. Where are we going with our NHS, our services, our fiscal structure? What, an Edinburgh conference asked, will Scotland look like in 2050? Now, even adopting such a perspective may be viewed as courageous, given the perils currently confronting our planet. As Israel and Iran trade missiles, as President Trump ponders, it may seem rash to contemplate anything other than our collective survival. However, we cannot live that way. We cannot flee for the sanctuary of a dark corner whenever Donald J. Trump turns into King Lear: confused and uncertain yet insisting that he is the terror of the earth. And so it is entirely right to cast an eye ahead. However it may appear at first glance that there is a faintly futile tinge to the entire endeavour. Consider. In 1920, did the ravaged continent of Europe discern that, by 1945, they would have endured a second, bloody conflict? They did not. More prosaically, in 1980, did we know that the passing of a further quarter century would lead to a transformation in Information Technology and the creation of a Scottish Parliament? We did not. Yet contemplate a little more deeply. Were not the roots of the Second World War seeded in the aftermath of the First World War? The constraints and financial reparations understandably imposed upon Germany – but resented by their emerging, deadly leader? Read more Brian Taylor Do the Scottish Conservatives have any reason to exist? This is a set-back and an opportunity for the SNP - which one will they embrace? Brian Taylor: The fundamental battle which unites Donald Trump and Nigel Farage And the more modern period? Were there not early prequels for the 21st century information revolution? Further, here in Scotland, was not the cause of Scottish self-government measurably advanced in the wake of the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979? In short, when we purport to look into the future, we are in reality studying present-day conditions. We are examining how reform might generate a steady transformation which would emerge over that longer period. It is a way of urging impatient voters and the mischievous media to cut a little slack for our elected tribunes. It is about the future, yes, but viewed through the prism of the present. In the context of reform, there was much talk this week about reviving thoughts advanced by the commission on public services, ably chaired by the late and decidedly great Campbell Christie. I recall Campbell for his intellect, his humour, his baffling devotion to Falkirk FC, his fierce competitiveness at golf – and his determination to work with all and sundry to make Scotland a better place. In 2011, his commission urged Scotland to embrace 'empowerment, integration, efficiency and prevention' in transforming the public sector. This week, Ivan McKee, Scotland's Public Finance Minister, set out a programme of reforms and savings – with an explicit nod to those earlier endeavours by the Christie team. Mr McKee is a key figure in the Scottish Government, returning to office alongside his close ally, Kate Forbes. Both advocate a focus upon efficiency – and, perhaps above all, economic growth. In doing so, they are most certainly aligned with the instincts and aims of the First Minister. Now John Swinney displayed another intuitive tendency in his forward-looking remarks this week. His solution to the entrenched problems confronting Scotland? It lay, you will be astonished to learn, with independence. So shifting attention back to independence, rather than the day-to-day concerns of the voters? Was this a U-turn? Not really, no. Indeed, I suspect too much can be made of this apparent change. Firstly, Mr Swinney is a believer, a fervent Nationalist. He yearns for independence. Secondly, he leads a party which contains many whose fervour is undimmed by minor matters such as convincing others. Thirdly, there is an SNP National Council this weekend. Enough, Brian. Away with cynicism. I believe John Swinney is simply sustaining his dual strategy. He feels a little more liberated to advance the option of independence – while simultaneously concentrating for the most part on the anxieties of the people, such as the cost of living and the health service. John Swinney (Image: PA) In short, his attention is drawn by the here and now, even as he offers a potential vision of the future. His opponents are similarly grounded. Labour's Anas Sarwar, for example, glanced forward and concluded that the SNP were only offering 'managed decline.' Still, futurology can be a source of innocent merriment. What might we favour? Ivan McKee is surely right to suggest public services which prioritise customers rather than producers, which share information and thus resources. But how about the health service? The current system is simply unsustainable, unaffordable. Do you see that nurse gesturing to you? That health worker is not waving but drowning. We have to cut waste – but also overall demand. Perhaps, as the Health Secretary Neil Gray suggested, that can be done in part by an emphasis on prevention. However, that will undoubtedly take time – which ministers facing elections do not have. Politically, Mr Swinney's focus will be upon ensuring that the stats are going in the right direction. Education? Our economy, our society, both need the acquisition of useful skills. I recall my school textbook entitled 'Physics is Fun!' This proved to be a brazen lie. However, physics is vital, along with tricky stuff like maths, literature and French irregular verbs. Our universities are struggling financially. But, as they reform, they must maintain the objective of excellence. If they are truly to be world-class, as Scotland advertises, then they must aspire to the very highest standards. And the economy itself? We need growth and prosperity. We need an environmental drive, including renewables, which does not shut down our industry and agriculture. The future? Simple really. 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
