This is just my "starter for ten". I often discuss "Independence" with friends in Yorkshire (where one of my daughters and her family live) who, in the main, are genuinely dismayed by their take on the concept of Independence, feeling - refracted as it usually is through the prism of an unsympathetic and often crass press - that it is a negative, simplistic and anti-English construct alone.

Murray offers a different vocabulary and tonal quality which I find helpful and which would defuse some of this latent hostility. That's before we get onto other robust and salient issues which are inevitably portended by Independence, especially the cementing of the social union of which he speaks. I think this emphasis on presentational quality and constructive dialogue is also vital for the success of the debate in Scotland itself.

It's not a question of tiptoeing our way to Independence while carrying a matchstick, so much as casting all sticks aside while persuading, repeat persuading, those who are halfway to joining our cause anyway. This will serve to isolate the strident language of those who will never be so persuaded for this is a priori a generational matter as much as anything else, not a dialogue with the deaf involving ingrained unionist diehards, or dare I say it those who believe "Independence" is a self-evident truth. It is much more valuable and cogent than that.

I believe there is a majority in Scotland already for serious reconstruction of governance, particularly the fossilised institution of Westminster itself, within a radically reformed United Kingdom structure of which Murray speaks. Such a notion will resonate in Yorkshire (and well beyond) for sure.

Our approach thus becomes symbiotic and unifying. Why try to kick the door in when turning the key would be so much more productive?

One of the strengths of the current campaign for an independence referendum is that those involved in it understand that what unites us is a desire for Scotland to become an independent self-governing sovereign state.

Our own individual hopes and aspirations for the social, political and economic nature of an independent Scotland are important but these are questions for debate outside the structures of such an umbrella organisation as the SIC.

Or to put it another way, would the SIC welcome a blog entry here outlining why we should immediately initiate a debate on whether an independent Scotland should be a republic or not? You cant have it both ways.

I suspect not since this could potentially undermine the unity in action within the SIC necessary to secure and win the forthcoming referendum, and open up all sorts of premature arguments on constitutional issues.

My understanding is that the role of the SIC (at this juncture) is not to be a debating forum on the nature of how an independent Scotland should be organised. (There are plenty of other good independence-minded forums for that.) The role of the SIC is to unite all independence supporters around the common goal of securing and winning a referendum.

All of which makes me wonder why Murray Ritchie has chosen to use the SIC blog to go down the route of boldly declaring "let the argument begin" in order that "we campaign for a new, different Union – a United Kingdom of independent states."

Without going down the route of debating the ins and outs of Murray's idea, surely the basic contradiction between the ideas in the above blog entry and the stated aims of the SIC are pretty glaringly obvious.

Explain yourself Murray? Is the SIC now a forum for debating the post-independence constitutional arrangements?

Kevin Williamson asked me to explain myself and wonders why I have invited a discussion on the definition of independence. Happy to oblige.
The simple fact is that I was asked at the most recent meeting of the SIC to produce a clear and simple definition of what we mean by independence as a means of furthering our cause. The result is my blog and is meant as a discussion document. The opinions expressed in it are mine and personal.

Surely there can be no harm in having clarity of ambition. My views are motivated by weariness with the lies told by our opponents whose dishonest response to independence has not changed in decades but seems to remain effective with a significant section of the electorate. They misrepresent us as separatists, isolationists, Anglophobes, etc, and I merely want a clear, cogent and positive response to their negativity.

I write as a republican but one who is realistic. There is not a snowball’s chance in hell of us having a republic as long as the present monarch is on the throne. But we can withdraw from parliamentary union. So I will take what is possible for starters – and that is independence with a seat in the UN, the basic requirement for international recognition. The republic can come later if we will it. 

My personal view is that we need to continue a close social relationship with England after independence which is why I want a confederal Britain or new Union of independent states. If we continue to take part in an economic and political union with almost all of Europe – which we will do until or unless we decide otherwise - it would be perverse not to have at least as close a union with our nearest neighbour. It’s just common sense.

"As we argue in our White Paper submission there should be no bickering about the European Union or the monarchy or any other subject that divides those who support independence. All those questions and arguments are for another day."

MURRAY RITCHIE, SIC BLOG, 6 JULY 2007

Murray wrote: "Second, we need to realise that we can have independence without a republic but we can’t have a republic without independence."

I'm sorry Murray, but that is patent nonsense. If we had our own monarchy, one which is not the epitome of the very state we are determined to become independent from, you may have a case. But how can you retain a monarchy which would, if she were to occupy the same constitutional role she does now, with power of veto over Scottish legislation, at the whim of British/English Ministers? This veto has already happened in other supposedly independent countries which were daft enough to retain Queenie.

If we want to build a new nation free from the shackles of the British imperialist mindset and if we want to be clear what independence is; about delivering real social and economic justice to our people, then we simply cannot retain the diametrically opposed symbol, of that aspiration, enshrined in the institution which is the British monarchy and seriously call ourselves independent.

I don’t want independence simply for independence sake. I certainly don’t want to become a red, white and blue “mini-me” version of our neighbours to the south. The traditions which the British state hold so dear, of patronage, of class divide, of elitist attitudes which together has conspired to keep our country down for decades has no place in the modern, forward thinking, progressive Scotland which we should all aspire to. Let them keep their Queen and let us embrace our own truly independent future.