LAST week’s decision to ditch the Greens in such a brutal manner before they potentially made the decision themselves to end the Bute House Agreement was probably the wrong decision. Humza and his “advisors” failed to consider the badly bruised ego’s thirst for revenge, and at best it was a decision made through political naivety. However, every crisis provides an opportunity.
Step forward Anas Sarwar, branch manager of Labour’s Scottish accounting unit. Mr Sarwar wanted a no confidence vote on the Scottish Government and after ten years of little progress towards independence, I was delighted at the prospect of an independence election where the SNP could unequivocally offer the people the chance to vote for immediate negotiation with the UK/English government on independence.
READ MORE: Motion of no confidence in Scottish Government fails
Sarwar would be seen by the voting public as being the cause of the government’s collapse, for which his party would reap the electoral consequences. I thought maybe we had a plan and the decision to ditch the Greens wasn’t so naive after all. The SNP would be showing real leadership and would be going into the election with the prospect of tapping into the 50-plus independence vote. It could only be a win-win, with a massive Yes majority in Holyrood and a major stride taken towards independence.
Alas, after a weekend’s soul-searching Humza Yousaf took the saddening decision to retreat rather than take on the British state. There was no plan.
The SNP was created in 1934 to remove the country from this toxic Union and the SNP’s elected representatives should be reminded of that fact on a daily basis. Devolution is now effectively dead. The choice is a return to full Westminster control or independence. The Single Market Act and Section 35 veto, together with regular transgressions of the Sewel Convention, have reduced the ability of the government in Scotland to effect any significant change.
READ MORE: Scottish Parliament calls out 'massively' wrong story on Humza Yousaf
Add to that the fact that we have a wholly hostile media and opposition parties, particularly the Conservatives, who now see their role as making Holyrood unworkable with boorish behaviour in the chamber and constantly looking for opportunities to seek resignations. The Conservatives can’t defend the actions of their bosses in Westminster so their tactic since the referendum has been to attempt to destroy the credibility of the parliament at Holyrood.
The SNP is not the party of devolution. Attempting to make the increasingly failing devolution project work, given the aforementioned circumstances, is a political dead-end. With regards the SNP leadership, party members I speak to are incredulous that the party establishment are pushing someone like John Swinney as the continuity candidate. The previous continuity candidate didn’t work out particularly well – have they learned nothing? In the absence of a referendum, give us the independence election Nicola suggested and the movement as a whole demand.
Alan Calder
East Ayrshire
I REGRET the departure of Humza Yousaf, a decent, well-meaning man, but unable to change the party’s trajectory. We need new thinking, a new, more aggressive approach. John Swinney was an excellent finance secretary and an excellent deputy first minister, but he is old guard, and I believe something new is needed. I understand he is preferred by our party membership. It seems that Kate Forbes is preferred by the public at large.
The public at large, in my view, is more important than our members; those are the people we have to bring on board. A further matter to be addressed is our party’s addiction to woke politics. We have had a lot of woke as of late, and it seems to have done us no favours. I have a feeling that Kate Forbes will be less inclined to pander to woke and as such will be more in line with the general public view.
READ MORE: Social conservative Kate Forbes is not the leader the SNP need
On another tack, ruling out cooperation with other nationalist organisations should be abandoned. Any student of Scottish history could tell you that divide and rule was used over the centuries by successive English governments and is still used today. Nationalists have many differences; at this time, they are inconsequential. Differences can be addressed subsequent to independence. The main drive of all nationalists now must be independence, not bickering.
R Mill Irving
Gifford, East Lothian
THERE is one important and fundamental point to remember concerning the current SNP leadership debate.
It is an interim post lasting just a couple of years or so until Scotland has its own election where, quite possibly, a new party leader and First Minister will be elected. And only from the SNP if it wins that election once again.
Regardless of the fact that the leadership election is a party membership concern, it is interesting that Swinney stands second place in popularity to Kate Forbes where the nation is concerned. And is obviously regardless of Kate Forbes’s views on religion, same-sex marriage etc.
READ MORE: Kate Forbes and John Swinney hold 'secret talks' on SNP leadership
Neither of the suggested contestants have formally committed themselves at the time of writing. But other suggested individuals, as posed previously in this paper, have ruled themselves out by backing John Swinney.
At this moment in time, it is seen to be a vote for someone who can heal the self-inflicted wounds of the SNP government, and pull it back together into the party we all remember from the thousands who attended the SNP party conferences just a few years ago.
John Swinney might just be the man to repair the party within the next couple of years. That said, I for one would also like to see Kate Forbes as a senior member of the next SNP government.
Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife
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