THERE has been much discussion recently about whether the SNP MPs should withdraw from Westminster. You were kind enough to print a letter from me a month or so ago expressing my concern that our contingent of SNP MPs did show some signs of becoming too seduced by the trappings of the Westminster façade and too ready to join in its foolish charade.
They should review their whole strategy for being there. I read recently that Alison Thewliss was the chair of an all-party group. Alison is one of our most able MPs who should not be diverted into joining in the Westminster games of all-party groups. The SNP should avoid all and any activities that do not recognisably contribute to the objective of achieving our independence.
READ MORE: George Kerevan: This is how the SNP MPs should use their time at Westminster
I reiterate my suggestion that the first Westminster game they should withdraw from is the pantomime of Prime Minister’s Questions. This has been for some time a rather childish punch-and-judy show but Johnson’s conduct has turned it into a meaningless waste of time. Johnson simply ignores any question, then lies and makes outrageous claims for political effect. It suits his desire to undermine any kind of accountability but the SNP MPs should simply boycott it, while making clear exactly why they will not participate.
The SNP MPs should not, however, withdraw entirely. They need to participate to the extent that they expose the failures of this government. They need to use a Westminster platform to publicise the laws the Johnson government is passing, not only to highlight their egregious nature but also to make clear to the people of Scotland the contrast between the current actions of the UK Government and the alternative sense of direction that would be possible in an independent Scotland. They should be making it loud and clear that there would be no place here for barriers to voting (via identity checks), no curtailment of judicial review
as a check on government action, and no desire for a hostile environment for asylum seekers, to name but three.
The SNP MPs need to sustain a presence at Westminster to focus on matters like this. They also require to strip out all the peripheral activity and Westminster paraphernalia that distracts and diverts energy. They should also bear in mind that, if this parliament runs its course, none of them should be seeking re-election to Westminster but be returning to an independent Scotland.
Gavin Brown
Linlithgow
NI Holmes (Letters, Aug 4) is absolutely correct that the independence movement needs a new sense of unity, and this was one of the specific points I made at the AUOB rally in Dundee when on behalf of Scotia Future I said we had to proceed on the basis of unity in diversity. I also credited the SNP for its historic role in bringing the independence movement to where it is today, but the crucial point is that even many SNP members and activists themselves are articulating concerns over a paralysing reluctance amongst the current SNP leadership to advance the cause any further, despite many opportunities to do so.
READ MORE: So-called indy supporters poisoning the well are not helping our cause
There has to be a broad recognition amongst the whole Yes movement that just as Scotland is a diverse country, so too is the independence movement, and that while we are all united in supporting independence, the shape and form of that independence can be perfectly legitimately expressed through various political parties and ideologies. I also have to point out to Ni Holmes that this in fact is the official policy of the SNP as determined by its 2012 national conference, where a motion passed on independence strategy supported that any future independence referendum campaign would need to be a broad front. Too much of the “Ourselves Alone” rhetoric from elements of the SNP leadership only serves to widen division, as indeed does blanket condemnation of the SNP per se from outwith the party, however justified it may be in the case of the leadership.
Scotia Future will continue to support broad-based events open to a wide range of Yes supporters, such as the AUOB rallies, and work to build unity in diversity across the independence movement based on what we have in common, rather than on what divides us, whilst still maintaining our distinctive approaches.
Cllr Andy Doig
Scotia Future
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