WHILE being interviewed on the Sunday politics show, Humza Yousaf, who I actually have a lot of time for, clearly outlined why I once again cannot campaign for the SNP in the forthcoming coming General Election.
He wants the SNP to be Scotland’s voice in Westminster but I want our MPs out of Westminster completely and their voices to be heard in our own independent parliament, not in a foreign one. In 1707 we gave up our own parliament and joined the English parliament, which no longer works in Scotland’s best interest and where Scotland’s voice is basically ignored.
READ MORE: Humza Yousaf urges SNP to 'make Scotland Tory free' as election looms
He mentioned my MP by name and how she had campaigned tirelessly for the subpostmasters. I know how hard she worked on their behalf and how she also campaigned tirelessly for the WASPI women. Her voice was not heard on either occasion. It was an ITV documentary that resulted in anything being done by the uncaring Westminster government to help the subpostmasters, and as all women of a certain age will know from bitter experience, nothing has been done for the WASPI women.
I couldn’t campaign for the party in 2021 because of their “both votes SNP” policy. It was obvious to me that if it had been constituency SNP and list vote either Scottish Greens or Alba then we could have reduced the number of Unionists in Holyrood by half, which would have greatly benefited the independence cause.
However, I shall be voting SNP in the next General Election as not to do so will allow Labour to win the seat. No matter our views on the policy position that Humza has taken for the next General Election, not to turn out and vote SNP will simply allow a Unionist to win the seat and set back the independence cause for years.
Ian Roberts
via email
MARTIN Geissler carried out his role as a BBC presenter as required by his English bosses to perfection in that, a la Fiona Bruce, Kirsty Wark etc, you must always interrupt your SNP interviewee and change the subject if you don’t like the answer you’re hearing!
READ MORE: Humza Yousaf defends Scotland's higher taxes in spat with Martin Geissler
As for the poll by Redfield and Wilton Strategies polling agency, I’ve always distrusted their findings as I always think similar Ipsos polls at the same time are usually more accurate and highlight how skewed or unweighted R&QS’s polls are.
As for Mr Geissler, maybe he needs to watch back this interview and take a good look in the mirror. Maybe it’s time all SNP ministers just ignored the interruption to drone on and finish the answer like the Tories get away with doing!
Steve Cunningham
Aberdeen
WHAT’S the message? Calling for a “Tory-free” Scotland is wrong and it won’t happen – anyone representing a constituency in Scotland is a Scottish voice, and a voice for Scotland. Whether you agree with that or not is the essence of democracy. Scotland will have Conservative MPs at the next election. They may even have more. Whether in the north-east or in the Borders, Scottish Tory MPs have a right through democracy to exist and to be elected.
Conservatism and the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party will not disappear. Even in the event of independence, the Conservatives will exist in Scotland and may even run an independent Scotland at some point, even if that is an uncomfortable truth to some. Dare I say, excluding and saying particular parties or representatives do not represent Scotland or are not “Scottish voices” crosses into the territory of ethnonationalism. This is a space the SNP or independence movement should not be in.
READ MORE: Watch the full interview as Owen Jones speaks with Humza Yousaf
This rhetoric may work with some of the core base of the SNP, but not the wider public and voter base. What is the SNP’s message other than make Scotland “Tory-free”? More messaging on what the SNP have to offer and what their policies are in this election would be welcome, rather than dragging themselves into a spat over what is a “Scottish voice” and trying to make Scotland “Tory-free”, which has only played to the opposition’s hands.
It also touches on the topical and serious issue over the safety of politicians and the increasing threats they face. Language is important, and everyone involved in politics should be aware of their role to not fan the flames of abuse and threats.
Ben Munnoch
via email
AS a qualified (though non-practicing) lawyer, regarding the “enabling” element of Gove’s new extremism definition – I have to assume that will scoop up GB News?
Amanda Baker
Edinburgh
AS “unlawful” means that an action is not authorised by law because no such law has been passed, the explanatory notes are even more chilling than the definitions of extremism when they contain expressions such as “advocating unlawful means to challenge the political system” in a country that prides itself on having such high values that its government does not require a rigidly defined, legally binding constitution.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry
ONCE again Selma Rahman tells it as it is (Did the Speak refuse Abbott a question to spare Tory discomfort?, Mar 15). My question on this horrendous situation is, “why would Scotland want to be associated with a political party that takes donations from a racist?” Clear answer: it wouldn’t. We hear claims from Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party leader Douglas Ross that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party did not receive any of the £10 million donation from a racist, prompting the question: are the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party not under the same banner as the UK Conservative and Unionist Party?
Catriona C Clark
Falkirk
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