I WAS saddened by Tuesday’s front page headline and the associated comments from the First Minister. He is quoted as saying “I don’t need you in the SNP if you don’t want to advance independence.” Given the fact that the recent disastrous SNP by-election campaign in Rutherglen and Hamilton West saw the SNP reduced to paying a commercial company to deliver its election literature, I would have thought the SNP needs all the active members it can retain.
A party which, over the past few years, has lost around a third of its membership and is apparently still financially reliant on a loan from its former chief executive is in no position to be quite so selective.
READ MORE: Humza Yousaf: I don't need you in SNP if you don’t want to advance Yes
Many of those who have joined Alba first joined the SNP in the 1970s. They grew the party to its high point in the aftermath of the 2014 referendum. It has been a downhill journey ever since. When Humza Yousaf was born in 1985 many of Alba’s current members had been campaigning for more than a decade.
Next year’s UK Parliament election will, by all predictions, see a further drop in SNP support. The outcome of the Covid inquiries will not help the situation. It is clear from the recent Green Party conference they will be more than happy to assist the Labour Party to regain control of the Scottish Parliament in 2026. There will likely be no independent Scotland in the period from 2026 to 2031.
Perhaps we will be free by 32.
Glenda Burns
Glasgow
STIRRING words from Ash Regan – “Time has come to all work together for independence” (National, Oct 30) – but how on earth can that be achieved by splitting the independence vote? Ash is of course correct that we need a 50% vote to demonstrate unequivocally our desire for change, and we can achieve that next year, as well as a majority of seats, but only if we pull together as a single movement. Now is not the time for division when we have a historic opportunity to rid ourselves of Westminster’s grip forever.
Alba would like an electoral pact, but giving them a back-door share of potential seats is unrealistic given their electoral failure to date. Besides, it hardly matters who gains the seat if we’re going to leave Westminster anyway. Even so, the SNP should consider not opposing senior ex-SNP figures like MacNeil and MacAskill, to support our common goal. Fighting the election on purely party grounds is not the way forward.
Robert Fraser
Edinburgh
SO we are supposed to believe that Angus MacNeil and Ash Regan, by leaving the one party big enough to negotiate our independence, they are promoting working together. Looks to me more like big egos throwing their toys out of the pram in a huff because no-one is giving them the importance they feel due.
P Davidson
Falkirk
I SEE from the front page of Monday’s National that in Lorna Slater’s mind, the cause of independence, isn’t a “red line” which would prevent her party potentially doing a deal with Scottish Labour. This, I suppose, comes as no surprise to someone who has voted at both national and local level for the Greens.
READ MORE: Independence supporters respond to Lorna Slater 'red line' claim
During the past three years I have attended the Holyrood cross-party group discussing the case for the proposed change in legislation governing “assisted dying”. To that end I also embarked on meeting, questioning and discussing with my MSP and list MSPs on this issue. I write, “all my MSPs” save one. The Green Party has singularly failed to respond coherently to my requests to meet with a representative. Whilst being aware of the difficulties that any small party must have, the experience of emails being unanswered and unacknowledged, again at both national and local level, leads me to ask of the Greens, “Are you simply a sophisticated lobbying group whose purpose is to gain power at a political level? Or are you a bona fide political party of representation?”
The difference is that in the latter case, you really ought to be available to your constituents (whether they voted for you or not) for dialogue. It is, in actual fact, what you receive payment and funds for.
In my local area, 18 months after local council elections, my Green councillor would still appear to hold no surgeries. After four emails to both Lorna Slater’s email address and the Holyrood Green Party address, I have had but one response from her assistant. She acknowledged receipt of my email and asked for more information, and that in my reply would I please refer to her by her new name and not the one in the contact information. This I duly did. End of contact.
Lewis Waugh
Portobello
BY chance (I avoid the BBC like the proverbial plague ) I witnessed Martin Geissler’s cross-examination of Lorna Slater on Sunday. The usual aggression reserved for non-Unionist politicians was evident throughout yet, between interruptions, I thought she performed admirably. When she opined that “it’s hard to know what Labour stand for”, the hypothetical red line notion was seized on with great gusto by Mr Geissler – no surprise. Judging by the Website Comments in Monday’s National, mission accomplished.
READ MORE: Independence supporters respond to Lorna Slater 'red line' claim
The raison d’etre of the Greens has never been independence. They are essentially an environmental pressure group which thankfully has embraced the goal of Scottish independence. I joined the SNP in 1968 for ONE reason: to help/argue/work for Scotland’s independence after which all matters social, economic and, yes, environmental, will be addressed by our own democratically elected government, be it SNP, Labour , Socialist, Green or even, God forbid, Conservative. It behoves all of us to focus our energies on that goal which unites the disparate groups and parties in these times.
James O’Neill
Coatbridge
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