WITH the recent local elections in England and Wales, we’re witnessing the blurred battle lines being smudged even more between Tory and Labour as they square up for the coming General Election. Tory battle lines are turgid and mired in 14 years of failures, ranging from posturing leaders to corruption and scandals and then all the way round to the actual inability to govern effectively.
Labour are in the enviable position of watching the Tories commit political suicide, providing them with the opportunity to say little, renege on earlier offerings, promise nothing, and provide nothing more than name change. What is more frightening in Labour’s push to power is their willingness to evolve into a less democratic party: appeasing big business over workers; flirting with international court censure over their failure to condemn the actions of the state of Israel; chasing votes and abandoning principles.
READ MORE: John Swinney: I'm sticking with Humza Yousaf's independence strategy
At exactly the same time, I don’t know if Scotland has just experienced a crisis or a blip on the road to independence. Claims of independence being either off the agenda or already terminal following the latest Scottish upheavals are way off the mark.
I wonder, though, how we square the circle between party politics and people’s political aspirations. Will we stutter on with a pro-independence and, let’s face it, pro-European majority in the Scottish Parliament as it somehow seeks to avoid confrontation and fallings-out, or will we thrive and progress?
The nature of the D’Hondt system does require consensual cross-party working, previously achievable. The bedrock commonality of independence doesn’t cut it, not if recent events are anything to go by. Surely the challenge to the parties seeking to deliver independence is to help establish a vision of independence and identify policies of change that are driven by civic society. That vision, of what independence could mean, what change independence could offer, has been reduced to an intangible soundbite, paraded on marches accompanied by flags whilst the political parties have battled for supremacy and political survival.
READ MORE: What did John Swinney say about independence at his SNP leader launch?
What an irony that the efficacy of the Scottish Parliament to date, such as years of mitigation, the Scottish Child Payment, the Domestic Abuse Scotland Act, and so much more are overshadowed by gender/identity policies, bottle banks and ferries, all aided and abetted by a biased media.
So, in the coming months, will the Scottish Parliament address the day-to-day issues that are possible within the scope of the “devolved” agenda? To interlink, agree and act on the urgency of climate change, business, environmental transition policies, education and health should not be beyond the capabilities of pro-indy parties. Where is such a strategy, or will it act out as silo working, isolating and self-destructive?
If 2026 elections become a de facto referendum, what will be the build-up? How do we prepare, how do we generate the required political momentum? It has to be the people’s democratic change articulated and formulated, local up to national.
Can we start the conversation asap with conventions, congress, reigniting a Scotland-wide debate, engaging outwith electioneering times and drawing in civic society from beyond our bubble?
Selma Rahman
Edinburgh
THE problem for me with the SNP indy strategy is a lack of firm commitment to using Holyrood 2026 as a de facto referendum. But that can be sorted.
Rosemary Champion
via thenational.scot
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 here