THE news that Labour for Independence (LFI) is to be revived will be welcomed across the independence movement (Labour splinter group rallies pro-indy fans, The National, January 6).

Along with groups such as Women for Independence and Business for Scotland, LFI was among the most influential forces in the first referendum campaign. Its importance can be gauged by the effort that was put into discrediting LFI by the anti-independence campaign.

Equally important is the strengthening of Yes2 that this development represents. I have long held that there should be no equivalent of Yes Scotland for #indyref2.

Loading article content

It would be wrong to say that it was a mistake to create the formal Yes campaign umbrella group back in May 2012. It was necessary at that time. It had a function as a focal point for non-SNP independence campaigners. It served its purpose so well that it very quickly became all but redundant as the Yes movement began to grow organically.

But there was a downside to this two-pronged approach in that it introduced an element of factionalism which was very effectively exploited by a British state well-practised in the devious tactics of divide-and-conquer.

The organic network of the Yes movement still exists. In many ways, it is stronger than ever. There is no need for a new Yes Scotland. I have always anticipated that the diverse Yes groups would coalesce around a primary organisation as part of the same organic process by which it came into being in the first place.

By this process, each group will settle upon the form of association with this central organisation that it is comfortable with.

Hopefully, this will reduce the scope for factionalism. Or, at least, allow for more effective management of its deleterious effects.

It has for some time been apparent that Yes2 was developing into the core campaign group for the next independence referendum campaign. This would seem to be confirmed by the news that Labour for Independence is joining forces with the group.

These are very positive developments. But we cannot afford to be complacent.

The diversity of the Yes movement is a large part of its strength. However, there is always the risk that diversity might breed a divisiveness and failure of focus that the independence campaign simply cannot afford.

The next big test for the Yes movement will be the Scottish Independence Convention’s one-day conference in Glasgow next Saturday.

It is essential that all the groups represented at this gathering find a way to present a united front. It is vital the entire Yes network puts its weight behind the SNP as the de facto political arm of the independence movement.

I will be attending that conference. I am not relaxed about it.
Peter Bell
via thenational.scot

I AGREE with a lot of what you say about not creating division, but then you say the most divisive thing of all: “It is vital that the entire Yes network puts its weight behind the SNP as the de facto political arm of the independence movement.”

As an SNP member, I say no to that, the SNP can be a member of Yes if they want, exactly the same as the Greens, the Labour for Indy, Rise, SSP, LibDems for Yes, Conservatives for Yes – or even Ukip for Yes if there is such a thing.

But to expect all these parties to bow down to the mighty SNP is mince.

This isn’t about any political party, it’s about independence.
Peter Piper
via thenational.scot

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes2 has not started yet – we  are biding our time

I THANK Michael Fry for his article regarding the apathy surrounding a second vote on Scottish independence (Independence is much further away than it was just before Christmas, The National, January 5).

However, I would like to remind him that we yet haven’t started Yes2. We haven’t actually started anything. The BBC et al have been unified in a vicious anti-EU policy whereby it is suggested that if the EU survives it shall be in the grip of the extreme right. That’ll be the extreme right that the new darlings of English politics inhabit? If you are daft enough to believe UK state media on matters of Scotland or Europe then you deserve the Union!

As one of the many thousand “gung-ho enthusiasts” who marched after the EU vote, let me assure Michael, that we are merely biding our time. Can I also remind the powers-that-be of Scottish independence that we require focus.

It is of precisely no advantage to have day after day of English-based Sky News polls knocking our support to go unanswered. Give us a chance to clear our throats and we shall roar for you. Michael merely gives voice to the very heart of Westminster desire, the depressed, defeated, demoralised Scot.

The Scot who is easy to control, easy to force upon his fellow man. The very worst of our past and the bane of our future. Perhaps he is interested in a career with the Scotland Office?

For any and all Unionist journalists, politicians and individuals, I would like to remind you Scottish independence is the future. It is inevitable, be it in five or 50 years. Scotland is awake and shifting under your weight and we hold a power we have not possessed in many centuries. We shall build our second enlightenment from the ashes of this Union and with open arms welcome our former doubters.
RJ Bulloch
Shawlands

AS a daily reader of the National, I usually enjoy and agree in all or in part with Michael Fry’s articles. I can usually see his point of view although I may not always agree with it.

Christopher Bruce’s letter of January 6 is spot on; in it he ridiculed the whole premise of Michael’s most recent article. I must support him in this, I agree totally. Michael has read the signs wrong, in my opinion.

Like Christopher I believe we could win indyref2 by a good majority. To achieve this we need to continue to talk to 2014 No voters with fact and debunk the rubbish in the press and on TV. Also, when the campaign starts, to ensure we get these facts out to all voters. I have turned three No voters to Yes. Let’s all get on with it. Just covert one each and we win easily.
Robert Anderson
Dunning

WITH apologies to Shakespeare, “methinks they protesteth too loudly” was my reaction to yesterday’s letters condemning Michael Fry’s views on the current state of Scottish affairs.

It is unbecoming of independence supporters to condemn someone trying to point out real obstacles to the economics and objectives of the Scottish Government in the way that Brexiteers have condemned Sir Ivan Rogers for spelling out how it is for Brexit. This very attitude, “you’re not one of us so we don’t want to hear your arguments”, brought RBS and HBoS to the brink of bankruptcy.

I don’t agree with everything that Michael wrote, but his points need to be taken seriously to avoid falling off the edge of a cliff for want of honest debate.
Mike Underwood
Linlithgow

BOBBY Farmer is spot on in his response to Michael Fry’s column (Comments from thenational.scot, January 6).What my calculations tell me is that the best way to secure Scotland’s future is by escaping from Westminster’s longstanding record of mismanagement.
Peter Gorrie
Edinburgh

FURTHER to the letters from Malcolm Bruce (Letters, January 6) and Joseph G Miller (Letters, January 4), readers may be interested to know that there is an e- petition to urging the UK Government to take part in the UN negotiations on a treaty to prohibit all nuclear weapons: petition.parliament.uk/petitions/175096
Eileen Cook
Edinburgh