IT must be a bitter pill to swallow when you have lost your parliamentary seat in an election. And perhaps even worse when you leave that political party you served only to join another that didn’t win any seats in a following election.
So how dare Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh accuse the First Minister and our government of being the failure she and her new party has become, simply because independence is not in the foreground of the Scottish Government’s order of business (This is the difference in indy prep between governments, Jul 28).
READ MORE: Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: Is this current SNP government really preparing enough for independence?
She even dares to state that it is not just a failure (in her view) that there is no sign of a planned constitution, but that the Freedom of Information request she refers to is a stupid embarrassment for making it known to all and sundry. I would suggest that issues centered around any preparation for independence at this stage are government business and no-one else’s.
Yes, we are all concerned about the lack of any forthcoming independence information. However, we also understand that, unlike Johnson’s government, Nicola Sturgeon is still trying to get the Covid-19 pandemic under control, and with more success than Westminster I might add.
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh also states that the SNP fought and lost the fight for independence. She should remind herself who was the SNP leader and First Minister at the time in 2014. It was the same person she appears to idolise and who leads her new failed political party.
So get off your high horse, Tasmina. Swallow your pride and start supporting your country. For the last almost two years our government has been busy fighting a disaster that has been a different and difficult battle in order to keep our country as safe as possible.
Normality is in sight. So then will be the time to start planning.
Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife
THE National, a bountiful fountain in a Scotland bereft of honest water, publishes opposition views from Unionists and Tories, Yessers and concerned Scots alike. Few others do that.
Honest people will tell you that Alex Salmond is a giant of the independence movement. That a dark body, centred in Holyrood, set about destroying his reputation is now recognised as fact.
We know that our once highly regarded system of law has terrible fault lines which have already cost Scots millions of pounds in failed court cases and compensations.
READ MORE: Trade unions have a key role in strengthening the fight for a referendum
We regularly see sexual slurs still aimed at Alex Salmond, and we see it in your paper too, terms like “toxic” applied to him and to Alba alike. Imagine? People striving for indy called “toxic”! Only Unionists will do that. These people are like blowflies, laying their eggs under the skin of Scots who deeply desire and deserve the freedom to run their own country.
I was a long-term SNP member, a contributor to their funds. The only deplorable behaviour I saw then was from the SNP and I was horrified and shocked. I saw it on Facebook and in your paper too. At first I took it to be Unionists causing trouble, but I saw those nasty words being echoed by SNP MSPs.
I didn’t see the Alba site then or follow them, but what I saw coming from the SNP I found quite unacceptable. In fact, Tory-like!
I spent more time then looking at Alba and what they were offering. IF you really wanted independence for Scotland, then their proposals made a lot of sense and were 100% supportive of the SNP. Again I looked at the SNP and saw vicious nasty behaviour (and that has continued). That made the decision for me.
I cancelled my standing order and my membership of the SNP with a heavy heart, and a few weeks later I joined Alba. In the election, I voted SNP 1 Alba 2. I want Scottish freedom and that was the best way to get it.
Understand this: it is in the Unionists’ interests alone to massage the schism created by the SNP towards Alba, and to continue with the sexual slurs.
At the next election, if I’m lucky enough to live that long, BOTH my votes will go to Alba.
I do know with a terrible certainty now that I’ll not see indy with this SNP.
Christopher Bruce
Taynuilt
I DON’T relish the thought of entering into the dangerous world of semantics, but Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh’s use of the word “paraphrasing” (Jul 28) rather turns its meaning on its head when she inserts the word “don’t” when quoting the Duke of Wellington’s famous phrase on examining his troops, and in particular the heavily bearded, wild-looking Scots: “I don’t know what they do to the enemy, but by God they (DON’T) frighten me.”
Paraphrasing means that the source has to be maintained, but by inserting one word she has completely invalidated that source. She should instead have used the phrase, “With apologies to the Duke of Wellington.”
Bruce Moglia
Bridge of Weir
ABBI Garton-Crosbie’s article “SNP tweets about indy dropped by half after the Holyrood election” (Jul 25) is an excellent example of stating the obvious – at length.
Independence is SNP policy. Of course there were lots of SNP tweets about it during the campaign, often in response to tweets or media articles by opponents of independence. After the election a drop-off can hardly have come as a surprise.
Ms Garton-Crosbie’s use of statistics also leaves something to be desired. Her pre-election analysis period appears to cover eight weeks. The post-election period is six weeks. If you’re not comparing like with like, don’t expect to be taken seriously.
This article is about as relevant as a statistical comparison of the use of umbrellas during and after rainfall.
Douglas Morton
Lanark
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