STEPHEN Flynn’s announcement that he is seeking to stand as an SNP candidate in the forthcoming Holyrood election is not unexpected. His star has been rising as an excellent debater and no nonsense dealer.
However without the message, even the most impressive messenger ultimately fails the cause which he claims to support.
Alarm bells first rang when Stephen spoke to an SNP meeting in Lochgilphead several months ago, when the members’ excitement and expectations were cruelly drowned by his admission that he knew of no other legal route to independence other that requesting permission from Westminster, and that as he was not a lawyer, he would not undertake any research to explore alternatives. Why would a young man have such a closed mind even though he had the independent researchers of the House of Commons Library to do it for him?
READ MORE: SNP politicians call for Stephen Flynn to 'rethink' bid to be both MP and MSP
An avowed leader of a pressure group is hardly the political 21st-century descendant of Wallace, Bruce or Ewing.
But by far the most worrying fact is that one of our MPs let slip that before the General Election that “we” reckoned only 12 SNP MPs would be returned.
The ”we” was not defined, but as the MP was one of Stephen’s lieutenants it is pushing credibility too far to suggest that Stephen was not one of the “we”.
As one of the principal architects of the party’s campaign strategy which eschewed the prosecution of independence for a “get the Tories out” tribute act to Labour’s real thing, I think all SNP members are due an explanation from Stephen. Were all these SNP MPs who were destined to lose their seats aware of the leadership’s anticipation of the result?
I can’t believe that MPs who had put body and soul into their time at Westminster – even though they collectively failed to deliver independence – would just act like sheep and not offer a coordinated independence campaign to fire up our activists and inspire our population.
READ MORE: SNP MSP Audrey Nicoll speaks out on Stephen Flynn's bid to replace her
As John Swinney has rightly stated, the Scottish Government has to regain the trust of the Scottish people. To achieve that, the SNP leadership has to regain the trust of the membership.
An essential element of trust is transparency and openness. That starts with party members being treated with respect. Nothing should be hidden except matters of a purely personal nature which are not potentially criminal.
The party has an endemic problem with transparency. A resolution to our National Council to require all civil service advice and reports to Scottish ministers to be made public simultaneously – to encourage debate, deliver better law and remove the convenient cloak of anonymity from those with huge influence on our society – was excluded from the agenda. A resolution requiring Scottish ministers to respond to members’ criticism of a policy was also excluded.
READ MORE: Will SNP rules let Stephen Flynn be MP and MSP at the same time?
Another example is an SNP-led council administration which is party to a secret deal to prevent commercial competition in its largest town and refuses a local referendum on the future use of a sensitive site in the town despite thousands of local people wishing the right to decide. The local branch had not been kept advised by its councillors and had been left compromised when activists had consistently and historically portrayed themselves as a community party.
Sometimes party leaders have to keep to themselves sensitive information on matters of national security. The party members and the public will more readily accept that occasional position provided these same leaders demonstrate a culture of transparency in all other matters.
That’s what real public service is about, and we should accept nothing less in our democracy, especially amongst those who would wish to represent us.
Graeme McCormick
Arden
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