I HAVE a great deal of sympathy with Jim Cassidy of Airdrie’s view (Letters, January 24) that the SNP have effectively been stalling on independence, having done nothing to press the independence case since the 2014 referendum or the Brexit vote in 2016.
But at the present time, there is no other independence party that can command the level of support the SNP has – and potentially will again secure in May’s elections – and for that reason alone, anyone who cares about independence for Scotland MUST vote SNP to have even the slightest chance of gaining it before the Tories totally trash Scotland’s economy and services including selling off its NHS.
READ MORE: I've had it up to here with 'task forces' and reheated mince from the SNP
That’s not to say that everyone in the Yes movement, including myself, is totally confident that the SNP will deliver, because to be honest, I haven’t a clue what they are playing at right now. I just have to take them at their word because I want Scotland to be saved from the soon-to-be irreversible damage being done by a party Scotland did not elect and has not elected since 1955.
My reasoning is this. The SNP are pretty much the only game in town so if we support them this one more time and they don’t deliver independence, we will have lost nothing timewise because no other independence-supporting party can possibly get close to where the SNP are right now in electoral terms. It’s either the SNP or nothing.
That said, the SNP had better be in no doubt that if they continue to let Scotland down by failing to take the independence issue seriously, it will be the very last time I and many others in the wider Yes movement will vote for them. Note to Nicola: BE WARNED!
By the time another independence party is able to get up to speed to take over from them, independence will effectively be delayed for at least another 20 to 30 years – too late to stop the Tory wrecking ball and misery it is already creating for most ordinary families struggling just to get by.
Here’s my message to the SNP: “Get Independence Done”.
Peter Jeal
Dalbeattie
IT'S interesting that Jim Cassidy, in a letter peppered with pejorative phrases (Letters, January 24) should use the term "Pavlovian supporters" to describe those he thinks are too uncritical of SNP policy and strategy. Ironically, it sums up perfectly his conditioned response of automatic criticism of these policies and strategies regardless of what they suggest.
Douglas Turner
Edinburgh
WHEN is a plan not a plan? When it has little chance of being delivered, or perhaps when it has been cobbled together and published before the supporters are given a chance to debate it or question it.
Sunday saw the much anticipated SNP National Assembly giving a chance for delegates to debate the options and focus on the issues and deliver a consensus. That, however, was not to be, as a “ready-made deal’’ – sort of a oven ready indyref plan, so to speak – was published in The National the day before.
READ MORE: Marco Biagi unveiled as strategist in indyref2 taskforce role
“Hurray”, I hear you say? Sadly it was only one option, and not a very good option at that if you ask me. It offered the carrot of an indyref only if the SNP got a clear majority in the May election. There was no certainty that any indyref would be legal, given the possibility Boris Johnson and his Brexit Tories could take the indyref vote and the result to court. So there is no sign that legal advice had been sought before the 11-point plan had been published.
Ironically a People’s Section 30 case had been heard in the Court of Session that might have helped deliver some legal certainty. The Lord Advocate had been arguing that the case was hypothetical and yet here within 24 hours was a plan?
The Yes movement is now well established, and that is a legacy that we must thank Alex Salmond for. If it was not for his foresight and vision plus some risk-taking then the indyref in 2014 would never have happened and the 45% Yes would not have grown to 58%.
READ MORE: SNP to launch independence taskforce to fire up Yes campaign
Since 2014 the SNP have won many elections but sadly this has not led to a substantial indyref strategy, and where are the policies that Scotland will need to deliver its better indyref future? Currency, EU membership and borders.
I for one want to see open respectful debate, expert advice and some examples of countries that have forged a better future after being independent before a final plan is agreed on and published. Sunday has proven one thing, and that is there is plenty of talent in the SNP membership,
It’s time for the Yes supporters to come together and get serious.
David Henry, SNP member
via email
I VALUE and appreciate any information and help in The National with regard to the voting “tactics” we should use to get the majority required in the May election.
I would like to mention that other things might affect the amount of votes which could help achieve the desired result. Having recently been asked for a new signature sample for my postal vote for elections, I did some research.
In one election in 2011, more than 150,000 votes were “discounted” due to differences in signature provided at the time of voting, in comparison to the sample held.
READ MORE: We can't take any chances by shifting from 'Both votes SNP' strategy
Due to the pandemic, I think it would be better for as many votes as possible to be by post, but we should be very careful that this issue is known about and that we use a “clear and repeating” style of signature (by that, I mean practise) as I believe some are now checked by a computer scanner. It would also be important at any future election/referendum in Scotland that totally independent/foreign observers are present at every stage, including postal vote opening, checking and counting. We are so close now, and everything counts towards achieving our goal.
Marie McIlwham
Crookston
ANENT the article in Saturday’s National, “Litigation is not ‘a game of snakes and ladders”, can someone please explain why one’s “standing” should have anything to do with asking legal people to interpret the existing laws provided they can pay for it? That’s what these people are there for, right? The stance being taken by the Lord Advocate smacks of that taken in the Middle Ages, not 2021.
Dennis White
Blackwood
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel