YOU have to hand it to Stephen Flynn. At a stroke he has exposed as utter fiction three SNP myths.
First, that of John Swinney’s “leadership”. He has been simultaneously ignored, sidelined and humiliated. Second, that of a party united by collegiality, team spirit and collective endeavour, all in the pursuance of one objective – independence. What, when there are careers to be promoted? And third, the notion that the turmoil of the last few years is a thing of the past and that the party has entered a new more settled and positive phase.
READ MORE: Independence activists split over SNP MPs applying for Holyrood
It seems that Mr Flynn’s positive press notices have gone to his head and, as ever, hubris and vaulting ambition have led to a very poor and questionable decision that I suspect he will come to regret. I very much hope so, as this is not the behaviour nor the spirit that will take the independence movement forward in the principled manner which I believe is integral to its core identity.
Tom McFadyen
Kirkintilloch
PERHAPS my memory is fading faster than I had appreciated, but I do not recall Stephen Flynn missing a vote in parliament because he was officiating at a professional football match.
The faux outrage of not only the Tories but those who persistently criticise the Scottish Parliament for a perceived dearth of talent is not surprising, because those who dogmatically wish to sustain a failing Union know that with even greater numbers of highly capable SNP MSPs at Holyrood the dawn of a once-again independent Scotland draws nearer, especially if the newly elected Scottish Government has a mandate to call a constitutional referendum.
READ MORE: Kate Forbes backs Stephen Flynn as he bids to join Scottish Parliament
Brexit Britain is broken but neither the federal “reform” proposed by Gordon Brown nor the anti-immigrant “Reform” of Nigel Farage is the solution. The way forward is for those who call Scotland home to determine their common future in an independent country.
Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian
IT is with great sadness that we have now found out that Joanna Cherry and Mhairi Black have not put themselves forward to stand in 2026. I suspect that I will not be the only one who is upset to say the least!
How can it get to the stage that people of that quality would rather not stand for election to the Scottish Parliament? I am pleased that Stephen Flynn has decided to go for it. However, I am less than impressed by his decision to stay in Westminster. That will simply not do! The money side of it is of no consequence but the ethics are!
READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: Stephen Flynn should change his mind – here's why
I hope that Stephen takes time to think on this, as it is not going to go down well. From my point of view I would like him to resign his seat at Westminster at an appropriate time and run for the Scottish Parliament. That way we are not going to get embroiled in any controversy. We just don’t need that!
Please just do the right thing, Stephen. We need people like you up here instead of wasting your time down in the cesspit.
Old John
Ayrshire
SURPRISE Surprise! Stephen Flynn wants to be an MSP and an MP. This was a situation the SNP’s NEC voted against some time ago in order to keep Joanna Cherry out of Holyrood. I have no doubt that decision is about to be changed. Does the fact that he wants to stay on as an MP until 2029 indicate a certain lack of confidence that we might be independent by then? I hope not but I think so.
John Baird
Largs
IN the long letter of November 13 Graeme McCormick brought us some troubling news anent the “celebrated” Stephen Flynn MP. Stephen apparently said “that he knew of no other legal route to independence other than requesting permission from Westminster, and that he would not undertake any research to explore alternatives.”
So let us help him out by offering a “people’s alternative” using the “What if” investigative scenario; speculative, but popular in game theory activity.
READ MORE: Third SNP MP applies for Holyrood 2026 as SNP yet to make decision on dual mandates
What if the SNP win 2026 with a clear majority and the Scottish Government offers a referendum on independence to the Scottish people? What if the UK government, using the powers embedded in the Supreme Court’s referendum judgement, deny permission and use law officers to arrest the leaders of the proposed referendum? A constitutional crisis would erupt.
“What if” 2: what if the referendum, monitored by a panel of distinguished persons, is won by the SNP-led indy forces? Then the call goes out from the Scottish Government for the UK Government to convene a constitutional conference to implement Scottish independence .
Once again, what if this is denied/ignored by the UK Government using the Supreme Court’s judgement? Constitutional deadlock and crisis would occur.
Are there any legal luminaries out there willing to offer an alternative “What if” scenario?
Thom Cross
Carluke
WOULDN’T it be great if there was a Holyrood SNP and Westminster SNP strategy to drive Scottish independence!
A concerted effort to get our best brains, like our two Stephens (Gethin and Flynn), into the Scottish Parliament whilst keeping their contemporaneous seats in Westminster.
Using their experience at Westminster to get under the skin of Unionist parties in both houses AND offering the SNP membership hope that 2026 will bring a determined SNP government in to light a fire under a de facto 2029 General Election. If it’s not, it needs to be.
Dr Jacqui Jensen
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