THE National seems to be swithering on the notion that a second Yes vote party/alliance could be formed to gain the second vote for Scottish Parliamentary elections. Be careful what you wish for. This can only give succour to those who keep wanting to form yet another party to confuse our voter base. We need another rival independence party like we need another hole in the lifeboat of the good ship “independence”.
The EBC and “Scottish” media have already picked up on this, hoping for a “civil war” within the SNP itself. Andrew Marr was like a demented parrot on his Sunday BritNat programme: “Nicola resign”, Nicola resign”, screeching in the most undignified manner from his perch. Nicola remained calm and extremely dignified, responding to his silly questions. The lady is not for turning, or committing harakiri, or drapping her cerry oot, in the face of victory.
READ MORE: We need your ideas, energy and support to Max the Yes in 2021
Actor Brian Cox articulated what many of us have been saying for years, that the very title “National” party is a free gift to all British nationalist parties and that a new title should be quickly agreed and decided. “Scottish Independence Party” could do for a working title, for the sake of argument.
The simple costs of this – changing stationery etc – would be as nothing compared to the massive publicity and wounds inflicted upon the British propaganda machine. As a trial, SIP, or whatever working name, could be used as an umbrella name for all list candidates. The SSP, who abstained rather than vote SNP, and their RIC/RISE allies, who campaigned for Labour, would have to openly stand against the only independence party on their own true demerits. Those in the Yes movement foully attacking each other in laptoap or handbag fights could direct their sweary words elsewhere and gie us a’ effin peace.
READ MORE: Keep an open mind about the idea of a Yes alliance for 2021
This cunning plan for a new title – as an approach to Labour’s minefield of an electoral system for a neutered parliament , which was designed as a Scotch hotchpotch, to be complicated – can be dead simple.
Change the SNP name and beat the Brit spy game. Keep it simple. Lance the pimple. Tories are blue. Labour is too. LibDems are yellows, so are Labour bedfellows.
Donald Anderson
Glasgow
ANENT the Long Letter in yesterday’s National about a new Yes party to fight next Holyrood election, I have to disagree for several reasons. There is an assumption that the SNP will easily win practically all constituency seats; I wish I were so confident about this in the South Scotland region, where there is no guarantee this will be the case and list votes for the SNP could be critical.
Also, recent history shows us that it is almost impossible for a new party to establish itself in months rather than in years; the consequence being that at most it would do no more than split the SNP and possibly the Green vote. For the SNP not to stand for the list vote would be inconceivable and send a terrible message to voters, many of whom in the few months before election day would still have no concept of a new party.
READ MORE: Someone needs to crunch the numbers on maximising 2021 Yes votes
In the d’Hondt voting system the list vote is considered the important one (in Germany, for instance) as seats are allocated to parties according to the percentage obtained (the d’Hondt system in Scotland is slightly different, giving slightly more weight to constituency seats rather than the typical 50/50 list/constituency seats elsewhere). The SNP getting 50% (or very close) of list votes would have a guaranteed majority of seats overall.
That is why I shall be campaigning for the SNP to get as high a list vote as possible and why I shall be giving my first vote to the SNP on the list and my second vote to the SNP for the constituency.
Tom Crozier
Ayr
RUTH Wishart makes some important points in her column this week. While it is important for SNP MPs to do what they can for their constituents and highlight that it is only the SNP who stand up for local Scottish communities, their presence in Westminster is limited.
Holding the government to account is difficult when you are the third party in Westminster and have limited parliamentary time and when your views can so easily be ignored, due to the large Tory majority. The aim of every SNP member should be to promote the arguments for Scottish independence, and frankly sitting in committees, or even the chamber, offer only limited chances for this.
READ MORE: Ruth Wishart: Ignored and impotent SNP MPs should spend more time in Scotland
It is time to look at using our MPs more productively. Some suggestions have been made online that maybe they should focus on being liaisons between Scotland and other countries (particularly in the EU) to help ease the transition to independence by highlighting how an independent Scotland can be a positive force within Europe and the wider world. Similarly, let’s get them back into local constituencies or even specific campaign issues, and focus on increasing support for Independence. Of course they would still have a role within Westminster and the throwing the occasional spanner into the workings of there – by, for instance, disrupting budgets or the occasional walkout – could also be a more beneficial use of their time.
Cllr Kenny MacLaren
Paisley
I’M sympathetic with some of the argument in Ruth Wishart’s column, but this is no time to “do a Sinn Fein” and ignore Westminster.
Having SNP members on House of Commons bodies, holding government to account, is important for Scotland.
No or little presence in Westminster while they hold the strings is a recipe for disaster as the Johnson administration does its best to destroy our countries.
Rachel Wentworth
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel