I READ the website comments relating to Labour in Monday’s paper with great interest, followed by a letter on the next page from G Mckenzie in relation to Alex Salmond, all confirming what I had been reading over the weekend as featured in much of the Unionist media. I do find it informative to read up on the opposition!
One aspect of their anti-indy tactics being touted is to hark back to mythical halcyon days with Labour in charge of Scotland.
The media knows, deep down, just how toxic the Tories are here. Promoting them or any alleged social economic advantage emanating from Westminster, no matter how spurious, is a lost cause. They understand that to maintain Unionism, even if that means us being in hock to a parliament we don’t vote for, there is the need to glorify the good old days, with the good old Labour boys running the show.
With the backing they have, media will force-feed a narrative that ignores the benefits derived from devolution and our Holyrood parliament.They will pedal the need to turn the clock back before Scotland can go forward with Labour. It’s SNPBAAD on steroids.
Another part of their tactics will undoubtedly be a return to the tried and tested: divide and rule as exemplified by the Sunday Mail and its interview with Alex Salmond. Other papers delivered what they believed was an insight into a lack of succession planning regarding Nicola Sturgeon and her desire to “move on”. Not content with that, there was a run-through of the possible FM candidates, complete with their frailties, faults and obviously no “strengths”.
There’s also a theme emerging in the belief of some natural demise of the SNP majority in the forthcoming local elections. A dubious theory that if one party is in power for too long the voter then hankers after change, any change.
What a picture it paints: a struggling Scotland, a stagnating Scotland held back by the SNP who’ve hijacked (good) devolution with the redundant call for (bad) independence. You can see the circularity of their argument. To go forward, to recover from our deviating from the benefits of the Union, Scotland needs to go back to our natural home: Labour! Really?
It’s very naive of me to even try to formulate a fundamental question, but here goes: can’t the pro-indy parties, their politicians and personalities create a non-hostile atmosphere? One that focuses on the task at hand. One that doesn’t score own goals. One that doesn’t reek
of in-fighting. Too simple, too naive? Probably, but I cannot be alone in not knowing which party, which “leader”, whose manifestos will get my vote in an indy Scotland. And really, if that is your current focus, are you truly focussed on the fight at hand, securing the required majority who believe that independence is the way forward?
Selma Rahman
Edinburgh
THE belief that Alba and the SNP could ever work together is at best a triumph of optimism over reality. There is nothing in it for the SNP. There is no political advantage to bring on board a tiny party with a leader who is even less popular than Boris Johnson. A party that often accuse SNP supporters of being a personality cult around Nicola Sturgeon while being oblivious to the obvious shortcomings of their own leader.
Many Alba members still seem to cling to the belief that the SNP hierarchy, the Scottish civil service and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service conspired to try to have Alex Salmond jailed and that the Scottish judiciary are part of a further conspiracy against him and some of his supporters. This is a theory that even such staunch supporters of independence, Murdo Fraser, Alex Cole-Hamilton and Jackie Baillie would not support. Alba under its current leadership is more of a liability than an asset so why would anyone think the SNP should work with them?
Alan Thompson
via thenational.scot
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