YESTERDAY’S articles by Carolyn Leckie and George Kerevan had divergent starting points but converged towards the same end game: the need for the re-establishment of unity of purpose across the spectrum of the independence movement and the requirement for political action in relation to Brexit and indyref2. Can that unity of purpose be established without confirmation of political action in relation relating to Brexit and indyref2? Personally, I doubt it.
I recognise that without the spearheading by the SNP, and its original reason for being, we wouldn’t be where we are; pushing at the door of independence. But I fear that the SNP, being in government, has almost inevitably lost its radical edge due to the very need to concentrate on good government. But who says we should we expect one party to be that driving force, be that spear head?
In the lead-up to 2014, it was the pro-indy movement that carried out the work. The broad church and actions of the indy movement wasn’t orchestrated by party politics, but by people determined to bring about the very political change that couldn’t then and won’t now be won solely by politicians and their party-political viewpoints. We shouldn’t care which part of the indy spectrum folk occupy, which party beliefs they espouse. It’s the end game that matters and how we play the game to get there. For those still active, we meet, we organise, we’re ready, but in the main we’re not out there, talking to the doubters, talking up the benefits, negating the negativity of state-owned, pro-Union press and media. Processions, stalls, flags, gala days all help, but it’s neither concentrated nor directed and too infrequent to have lasting benefit.
So what should the indy movement coalesce around? Personally, I think it’s around a date for the second indyref.
The longer we wait, the more chance there is that voters at either the Holyrood or General Election will be seduced into the false belief that the change required is not independence, but the removal of the SNP from Holyrood and its majority of MPs in Westminster. Too long in government, too settled in their ways: I can almost hear “SNPbad” being buried under new slogans!
The false reiterations will continue that the SNP has focused too much of indyref2 without the bottle to call it, and in the process Scotland has suffered.
The lies and broken promises will be swept away in the pandemonium and uncertainty of actual Brexit, and the fear of further chaos will be ratcheted up if indyref2 is called later rather than sooner. Political action in relation to Brexit and indyref2 is vital, so using Brexit to further our pro-indy stance is essential, and a date for indyref2 would provide the impetus and action required for us to stop pushing at the indy door, and actually open it.
Selma Rahman
Edinburgh
ANOTHER very good article from Carolyn Leckie. This surely must be the most important way forward of all.
A few points of hard fact need to be made. The SNP and independence are two completely different things. The former has always had as its purpose in life the achievement of the latter. These are not the same. It is my belief that after the achievement of independence the SNP (and I say this as a member) will eventually either break up or reinvent itself into a quite different political organisation.
Some other points. The end result of the vote in the 2014 referendum was an exceedingly good result for those of us so inclined, considering the position from which we started and the lies and deceits perpetrated by the No side.
Secondly, that truly amazing result achieved by the SNP in the 2015 election was surely one of the worst results we could have had. Why? Because it put us in a position where the only way it was possible to go in the future was down. It produced a situation where lots of supporters felt that anything was now possible.
Sadly this is not how it works – study the history of elections and you will find that any government elected on a landslide vote will inevitably lose votes next time around, and will eventually be defeated the time after that or soon thereafter. That is just how it works – a combination of complacency on the part of supporters and a rise in the voices of the dissatisfied.
From that it follows that a date for the next referendum must be set before we get into any further Scottish parliamentary elections. After that, the point made forcibly by Carolyn is very much the case – all the independence-supporting people and organisations have to become united and work for the same ideal. Petty squabbling and localised disputes should be put aside and everyone should work together to win the supreme prize.
The present SNP government will still have to make its views clear on all the important areas such as finance, immigration, taxation, health and nuclear policy, because it will be the official government body in charge during the setting up of an independent country and the extremely complicated separation from rUK. Only after the separation has been accomplished will it be possible to hold a new election to our newly completely independent parliament and move on.
All the suggested points of discussion between different factions of the independence movement are, at this point, irrelevant. Whether you want to be in the European Union, or merely the customs union, whether you want to be in a Norway-style arrangement or something entirely different, even whether you want to continue with the present arrangements regarding the head of state, all these things have to be set aside and the simple question asked: independence – yes or no?
Get all the like-minded organisations together on this and we can and will achieve our goal and get out from our entanglement with the present Tory-led cesspit of immorality that is the Westminster government.
George M Mitchell
Dunblane
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