SNP history

Jim Sillars was not opposed to the SNP's participation in the Constitutional Convention, as Peter Jones claims. Jim was very much in favour and he and I led the debate at Inverness at the annual conference in 1983, when the party voted for participation by seven votes.

It was I who argued for non-participation on the grounds that the Labour Party would use it as a trap. My argument was vindicated at the first meeting of the convention in January 1989 when it became obvious the SNP would be asked to drop independence and agree the role of the convention should be the establishment of a Scottish Assembly.

The SNP delegation, Gordon Wilson, Margaret Ewing and Jim Sillars, decided that they had no option but to recommend non-participation to the party and that decision was taken by an overwhelming majority, at National Council of the SNP.

It is no more than sophistry to suggest there are "many different degrees of independence" and it is a nonsense to contend that Scotland can be independent while its currency is controlled and the direction of its economy is determined by either the Bank of England or the European Central Bank, either of which would suit Mr Salmond and the SNP.

Take that argument to its logical and intellectual conclusion and we can argue with equal validity for "independence in the UK" and "independence in Europe". Neither position is intellectually valid or even honest.

If independence is not the centre of gravity of constitutional debate in Scotland, it is surely the duty of the self-appointed leader of the independence movement in Scotland to make it the centre of gravity. It was a duty recognised and accepted by the Old SNP. Unfortunately the New SNP, under the leadership of Mr Salmond, lost sight of that responsibility a long time ago.

JIM FAIRLIE

Heathcote Road

Crieff