JIM Cassidy points out that “it is becoming increasingly unpalatable for many in the Yes movement to stand with the main party of Scottish independence” (Letters, January 24). I agree and perceive two linked reasons for that, to both of which Mr Cassidy alludes.

First, the SNP has increasingly focused on a tiny number of individual personalities. That is always dangerous for a political movement. It threatens legitimacy, as well as wider engagement. Any party that aspires to democratic government whatever the level needs ultimately to imbue power in a framework of institutions more than in specific individuals. That is the bulwark against tyranny.

READ MORE: If the SNP fail to press for independence, they will lose my votes

While Mr Cassidy praises the “air of control” in Holyrood’s handling of the pandemic (let’s be honest: still amongst the worst in the developed world), the flipside is that such an air portends control-freakery. The recent schoolyard bickering involving current and former SNP first ministers is symptomatic of a system whereby egos and personalities are allowed or even encouraged to overwean the institutional imperative. That is always damaging to good governance. But for a party which seeks to claim a mandate for far-reaching constitutional reform, a demonstrated inability to value institutions clearly undermines legitimacy.

There is also a chicken-and-egg element to this elevation of a small number of personalities. Why does the First Minister hog media limelight when it comes to the pandemic? Does she lack confidence in the competence of her colleagues? Or do her colleagues fail to grow their competence because they are given insufficient opportunities? The result either way reflects the second reason for the SNP’s disconnection from many erstwhile supporters: a basic lack of competence. As Mr Cassidy wrote, “in so many… areas [the SNP] have been an utter letdown, most notably the ethics (or lack of them) in regards to transparency and accountability”.

​READ MORE: I've had it up to here with 'task forces' and reheated mince from the SNP

That is not a coincidence: ego-led administrations where a cabal seeks to dictate government policy has historically led to administrations characterised by weak oversight, reduced transparency, corruption and long-term damage to the political system, almost without exception. The Trump administration in the USA illustrates the point.

Parts of the SNP leadership may be intoxicated with their own sense of success. But the electorate is not stupid. The party’s consistent disappointment of many of its own supporters will come back to haunt it.

Christopher Ruane
Lanark

I THINK George Kerevan’s choice of content was a strange one when one considers our present political scene (Sooner or later, the SNP will need a new leader. Here’s who is in the running, January 25).

​READ MORE: Sooner or later, the SNP will need a new leader. Here’s who is in the running

Pandemic aside, despite it having an impact on everything, what in the context of the independence issue are the conditions favourable for our struggle?

We are nearer to winning independence than we have ever been. 

Our movement is stronger and more organised (George is part of the leadership of one new organisation) as well as still developing. It is really to go on full throttle. 

The polls tell us there will be an independence-supporting majority at the Holyrood election. Unionism is very worried, A plan is now in place from the SNP for achieving indyref2. People in Scotland are now witnessing the contrast in competence between our Holyrood government and Johnson’s shambolic Westminster. There are many other things happening.

Considering all the above, what is George’s content for his column? 

It is the termination of Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership and his assumption as to who will replace her, a couple of whom he is not very complimentary about. He also gives us a brief sketch and profile of previous leaders, their character and tensions. He mentions too the present divisions and factions within the SNP (I’m not a member of the party). 
There has never been a party or movement, in particular in labour movement history, that didn’t contain division within it.

​READ MORE: Does the Scottish Government really need a fifth mandate for indyref2?

I think George’s article adds to division within his party.

Finally, I have some understanding of Spanish but not French so I had to research his last quote, meaning I think “after me the flood”. Can I say to George the flood will be coming first, and it will be for our democratic right for self-determination.

Bobby Brennan
Glasgow