HOW disappointing to read E Ahern’s offering (Letters, February 26) denigrating those who would question Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership of the drive for independence.
Ahern’s premise seems to ignore reality and expect concerned campaigners to desist from comment and instead become little more than Stepford-like bystanders, in some forlorn hope that by keeping quiet independence will somehow happen?
READ MORE: The Unionists can be soundly defeated in 2021 if we get organised
However, I rather prefer the premise of Kenny MacAskill, reported in the same edition, which clearly suggests that Sturgeon has never had a plan B. Rather than setting the agenda and having a campaigning riposte to Boris Johnston’s widely anticipated refusal of a Section 30 order to facilitate the referendum we are democratically entitled to, Sturgeon has floundered, her apparent response seeming to be waiting and hoping, while maintaining that a referendum will still be held this year, which we all sense is neither likely nor practicable.
Isn’t it clear through the lack of intervention by her party lieutenants that they too have no clue as to what Sturgeon is thinking – the party and campaign leadership appearing like a drifting ship hoping to avoid the reef of failure? Doesn’t the wider campaign deserve more from its de facto leader?
I prefer Julia Pannell’s premise (Long Letter, February 26). She states her concern that the SNP rank and file are already uneasy about the direction of the party and its lack of bite.
READ MORE: A ban on questioning SNP strategy really would be ‘cult-like’
Shouldn’t we remember that none of the around 70 territories which previously seceded from Westminster domination achieved their independence without some form of adversarial intervention; whether Rhodesia’s overtly confrontational unilateral declaration of independence on one hand, or the peaceful passive resistance of Ghandi’s India on the other?
Assuredly, to make an omelette you need to break eggs. Isn’t Westminster the political egg that needs to be broken in order to get independence done?
Without highlighting to Unionist objectors and ditherers precisely how Westminster fails we Scots, and to create the foundation on which to articulate how the policies of independence will benefit domiciled Scots when divested of Westminster, won’t independence remain a pipe dream?
Sturgeon’s leadership isn’t cutting it; we urgently need direction and drive. Doesn’t Sturgeon need to lead the agenda, or step aside for someone with the ambition and drive to get independence done?
Jim Taylor
Edinburgh
TO those who are pinning their hopes on a resounding SNP victory in next year’s Scottish Parliament election being the catalyst for an independence referendum, I ask what difference it would make in terms of practical politics.
We already have an identified majority for independence in the Scottish Prliament and a larger one for our right to choose. Winning bigger next year does not change that significantly, nor ensure in any way that the UK Government will change its position. What will change in the interim is the effect of Brexit. I am entirely with Lorna Campbell (Letters, February 27) on this issue. The damaging effect of Brexit will not be immediately felt by most people, and when it comes along our people will adjust as they always do to their immediate circumstance and just get on with it.
The “right time” in politics is an elusive concept. Most often it is recognised after it has been missed. What astute political organisations do is make sure they are prepared, that everything is in place for the door opening to the “right time”, and dart through before it closes again. As it always assuredly does. The momentum gathering on “our right to choose” suggests the “right time” is imminent. September, anyone?
David McEwan Hill
Sandbank, Argyll
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