IT’S perplexing that, among the range of criticisms of the SNP’s perceived General Election strategy, there are those who avow their support for independence yet present their arguments as conditions to be met before voting for the SNP.
Such approaches may have emotional validity but appear to lack logical credibility.
Whether you wish to rid Scotland of Tory MPs or not, whether you wish the SNP to ally with a Labour government or not, whether you wish the next General Election to be considered a plebiscite on independence or not, it is indisputable that the more votes the SNP gain, the greater the likelihood we will achieve our common goal, and sooner rather than later.
READ MORE: Humza Yousaf says voting Scottish Greens in General Election is ‘wasted vote’
“Vote SNP for Scotland to become an independent country” will apparently be line one of the SNP’s General Election manifesto, and if the SNP wins a majority of seats then the Scottish Government will be “empowered” to commence independence negotiations and establish a Constitutional Convention constituted by MPs elected to Westminster, MSPs and representatives of civic Scotland.
Of course, many are right to be sceptical that the UK Government, even one led by a Labour Prime Minister preaching progressive democracy, would be receptive to engaging in such negotiations or even to earnestly devolving more powers to the Scottish Parliament such as the holding of a constitutional referendum (at a timing of its choosing) and establishing a Scotland-appropriate immigration policy.
READ MORE: Scottish independence group calls for 'Palestine solidarity bloc' at march
That said, the greater the majority of seats won by the SNP the more compelling its arguments, and should the SNP – in spite of all the political parties and mainstream media channels allied against it – actually manage to win a majority of the vote then finally the SNP will have a mandate that will have substance, not only in the UK but internationally should the UK Government continue to deny the legitimate democratic rights of the people of Scotland. If the First Minister were to fail to deliver on such a mandate then the SNP’s days in power would undoubtedly, and justifiably, be numbered.
But given the disarray within the Union and disenchantment with the two major political parties there is an opportunity to create a titanic political and constitutional upset by grasping independence from the jaws of the demise that many are predicting not only for the SNP, but for Scotland’s right to self-determination. Those who are considering staying at home, or voting for another party, should note that if more people had voted for the SNP at the last Holyrood election then the SNP would not have gone into coalition with the Greens, and if you consider that a mistake then you must seriously consider avoiding a similar “contribution”.
Should the SNP and the cause of self-determination fall short by a single vote, it will not be mine.
Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian
WELL said Joanna Cherry (Apr 5), thanks for elucidation on the legal aspects of the new Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act. More to the point are the remarks on the progress, or rather lack of it, towards independence since 2014 by successive SNP administrations.
It appears that since 2014, independence has been at best a secondary objective of Scottish Government. The main aim would seem to try and attract what they consider “progressive” elements of opinion to the SNP. By “progressive” I don’t mean the old Glasgow Corporation meaning of that description.
READ MORE: We can’t blame the media for reporting on dubious Scottish policies
By and large they were largely successful, but at the expense of alienating large sections of the general electorate. What the hierarchy considered “progressive” was and is seen as a crowd of oddballs by the public in general.
As long as this tendency continues to exert influence, the SNP can say goodbye to independence or even the prospect of staying in government. They may claim to lead on social attitudes, but that is not any good unless the general public goes along, and that appears not to be the case.
It’s probably too late for any change to significantly affect next year’s election, but change is necessary for any future advancement towards independence.
Drew Reid
Falkirk
FOR a good few years now The National letters pages have shown that many readers have serious doubts about the SNP leadership’s commitment to the cause of independence.
At first I dismissed these suggestions but as time has gone by the apparent lack of a coherent strategy has me wondering if the doubters may well be right.
As well as having to contend with a biased media, lying Unionist politicians and at least half of Scots opposed to independence, we now have our leaders gifting the naysayers the “hate” crime legislation.
I don’t accept that the bad publicity came as a shock to the government. It know from the outset that this legislation is hugely contentious, yet still it gets pushed through.
Does Humza want to lose support? It’s almost as if some shady UK establishment organisation has been at work inside the party leadership, dreaming up a vote-losing strategy. I hope I’m wrong.
Jim Butchart
via email
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