THE SNP and indy movement face a dangerous few months as the shock of the First Minister’s impending departure brings a period of significant uncertainty. It does also, however, provide an opportunity to assess how we have found ourselves sailing into the doldrums with respect to the party’s key objective.
Government is a tough and relentless business and the daily grind has been magnified since the 2014 referendum. Government has faced the incessant juggling act required to steer the country through the after-effects of austerity, Brexit, Covid and now the global impact from a Ukraine war which has no end in sight.
Our leaders must be forgiven for prioritising the day job during the last eight years but the points recently raised by John Curtice should be seen as the necessary jolt reminding us that the party’s reason for existence has merged with the background noise and members and the population must also be forgiven for losing sight of the vision. Without that vision, all the political capital required to win the independence argument in the short-term either has or soon will dissipate.
READ MORE: John Curtice outlines one thing SNP must do 'above all' to win independence
As truly worthy as the government’s actions and achievements have been, no amount of GRA-style legislation or baby boxes will replace the vision of an independent Scotland required to convince an unequivocal majority to believe that the end is worth the effort and risks involved.
If we do not address this now, the independence movement will be suggesting people should go on a holiday but to a destination without any brochures. So I sincerely hope that those who have the courage to throw their hat in the ring for one of the toughest jobs in politics will recognise that it is a leader which is required, not an outstanding manager or administrator. And the principal role of that leader is to define rather than create the vision, then establish the strategy required to make it a reality and communicate this to the party and country.
The articulated vision will have to be clear and it is likely that clarity in some areas will offend some sections of the party and the movement but there is no longer any wiggle room on some of the key issues. The questions around currency and future relationship with the EU and rest of the UK are the most obvious but not the only examples.
If this clarity leads to individuals believing they should seek another political home so be it. This will be better than a continuation of factionalism and infighting within the party. There is no point in crying for unity among people with diametrically opposing views so where necessary let’s be truthful rather than diplomatically truthful.
We should be confident that the right leader can steer the party and movement out of the doldrums but also be realistic enough to know that the wrong leader can point us at the rocks with the inevitable damage to the cause, potentially creating a hole below the waterline which might take decades to fix.
Gus McSkimming
North Ayrshire
I WAS confused reading Ash Regan’s comment piece in The National on Saturday. Credit to a politician who wants the SNP membership to have plenty of time to hear from candidates.
But I’d have thought members know what they want – independence – and are looking for the candidate with the best chance of delivering it. It’s not enough to tickle the ears of members. Who, in this period of crisis, has the answers to economic woes and climate crisis? Who will build on the baby boxes and nursery places to create a bright education for our young people?
Who will add to free prescriptions and free travel for specific groups, staving off more serious health problems and adding opportunities that help in the fight against depression and loneliness?
In other words, which candidates will use this time to publicise all the good things that are currently happening and give hints as to the way Scotland could forge even better paths if we were free to do so.
How would they solve economic problems? National bank? National energy company? Reasons for having/not having these? Would the tidal energy research be given a boost with the possibility of sharing expertise around the world?
What would they do with the £5 billion from whisky that would pour into Scotland’s coffers should we be independent, and would they use that to enhance our export markets? What’s their take on Trident? I’m not in the SNP but I’d love to see a candidate who has a vision for Scotland’s future that transcends political ambition, a politician who talks to the nation, who sees this as the first, very public, campaign announcement of what we can do better, not just for the people of Scotland, who need immigration to help with agriculture and hospitality, but for future generations.
What’s the view on decentralisation and giving local communities more say in decisions? How do they balance the needs of the islands against the central belt? How would they encourage repopulation and mesh housing needs with environmental concerns?
Let’s see who can think fast, who has ideas and who can respond to tricky questions. Politicians don’t always get time to form a measured response and I’d like to know who is ready for action.
So please, those brave enough to put their hat into the ring, don’t think of it as a popularity contest among the SNP. You will be representing an entire country and perhaps you should think about what the general public would like to know. And SNP members … you’ll have the final say so I wish you well.
J Guz
Dundee
ASH Regan thinks giving SNP members only four weeks to decide on a new leader is disrespectful. Patronising nonsense. People who join political parties tend to have a greater interest in politics than the average voter.
They will already have formed a rough opinion on most of their party’s candidates prior to any leadership campaign. The campaign will either cement those opinions or cause them to reconsider. Candidates have ample time to highlight their ideas for the future direction of the party. Have they not been wracking their brains for years like the rest of us?
If they are unable to put together a pitch of substance and clarity within this period then perhaps they should reconsider their application.
Alan Black
Paisley
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