HAVING had almost a week and a last-minute weekend in Ibiza to numb the disappointment, I fear that I might be ready to feel my feelings about the SNP’s General Election defeat.
I have always been one to keep the faith or so it goes. I have knuckled down and at times blindly trusted party forces in times of uncertainty. Though I have always been outspoken in times of discomfort around policy or internal processes, I have always kept the faith that the party as a machine knew what it was doing and had the talent and the sense to steer itself through a challenge.
While that faith firmly remains, the optimism perhaps has been gradually depleting and has been replaced with a somewhat less-rosy dose of reality. More readily I would say since the departure of Nicola Sturgeon, who despite what opponents will no doubt scramble to assert, is a talented, honest and dependable politician.
READ MORE: New SNP frontbench roles confirmed after loss of Westminster seats
The hard truth is that we weren’t just beaten last week, we were almost obliterated. Some of the most dedicated politicians in the country were sent packing by the Scottish electorate in favour of some candidates who had never even stepped foot in their constituencies before their campaigns began.
A collective loss to the country – more importantly than the party – and national swing or not, at least some of the blame lies exclusively with the management of the SNP and the direction, or lack of, throughout our election campaign.
I have repeatedly made the point, especially over the last year, that there was an increasing urgency to find the party’s post-Sturgeon groove before our support deserted us in the midst of the fumble to find our feet.
We have yet to find it – and that is not to say that the two leaders who have come after her have not been capable or the right choice for their own reasons.
Humza Yousaf for me was a breath of fresh air and was taking the party in the direction I wanted to see it go in. He felt like the natural next step from Sturgeon in a way that simultaneously felt like we were moving forwards, and I think his time was unceremoniously cut short before he could really embed himself with the electorate.
Had he had that time, I think we would have seen a much different set of circumstances. I don’t mind being disagreed with on that point either, part of the nature of politics is this disagreement – if we can partake in it healthily.
John Swinney, though I had reservations, is a strong and capable leader who was the right choice for the party at that point in its journey. A shaky time called for a steady pair of hands – and he has delivered on that front. Though his decision to appoint Kate Forbes as Deputy First Minister has ultimately, as predicted, been a costly one.
Neither though have struck a chord with the remaining membership or the voters in a way that even mildly smells like the party’s previously enjoyed success.
Not necessarily because they couldn’t or won’t, but because the wider vision and direction is absent.
The messaging is growing tired, and the direction that was once clear as day is now confused and lost amongst leadership changes and tired advice. The fact is that the way the party has always done things is no longer resonating with our support and those warnings have fallen on deaf ears, despite repeated noise about this very consequence.
For a party that managed to be so united under one leader, there is very little coherence as to how we move forward. As to how we cross that line to independence, or what Scotland might look like when we do. And so, we have stayed stagnant while our opponents re-branded and stormed ahead to the finishing line.
A party that has fostered the talent of some of the greatest political minds in Scottish history, has been well and truly stumped for over a year by the departure of one leader.
It is far beneath the capabilities of the party that I have witnessed do world-changing things. To be a party with even a fraction of the SNP’s achievements, only to then behave like you’re a party with little to offer and resign yourself to that reality is the very definition of digging your own political grave. This movement is bigger than any one person or idea or way of doing things, and the SNP’s entrenched tendency to press ahead in our one specific font – one that tends to be increasingly safe and less radical in its policy output – has halted the party’s progress to an almost complete stop.
To arrive at this much of a low on the back of more than a decade of unparalleled success is a political fumble of the highest order – and it should be answered for.
I hate to admit it, but the inability to change tact accordingly when your support is crying out louder than ever before for it is a level of incompetence that deserves to be highlighted. It is a difficult pill to swallow, but to not do so does little but ensure our comfort in the trenches of political irrelevancy for elections to come.
THE time for the SNP to rely on the popularity of one leader, to ignore any and all advice on strategy, and to claim it has the monopoly on how to do things simply because we have got used to winning elections is now over. We are not winning them any more. And as much as I am feeling the discomfort of the last week deeply, I hope it is the fright the party machinery needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
The country wanted more than what the SNP offered this time, and we as a party undersold what we’ve got because we refused to embrace it.
As humbling as it might be, there is plenty of time before the next election for us to take this on the chin and reroute accordingly.
To our advantage, Keir Starmer is now the Prime Minister and the pressure to deliver has landed firmly at his door.
My faith might have been shaken, tested, questioned and even felt with contempt at points since I joined the party as a 16-year-old – but it has never been misplaced.
Though a difficult time for us and the wider movement, there is spirit and determination at the core of the SNP that has underwritten some of the greatest political achievements in our history as a country – and it will see us through, if we’re ready to listen.
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