THE SNP’s president Mike Russell has hit back at critics of the party’s new independence strategy, insisting it is not “confusing or complicated”.
At the Independence Convention on Saturday, Humza Yousaf pledged that the Yes cause would be front and centre of the next General Election campaign – proposing that if the SNP win the most seats, they’ll seek negotiations with the UK Government on how to give “democratic effect” to securing independence.
In the event of a win, the party will also produce a draft legal text on the necessary transfer of powers from Westminster to Holyrood to “prepare for independence”, including details on how assets would be divided between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Scotland would also send a special envoy to Brussels to pave the way for a return to the EU and begin drafting a new “interim” constitution, Yousaf confirmed.
READ MORE: BBC apologises after claim 'Humza Yousaf U-turned on SNP commitment'
However, since the strategy was announced – ahead of it being voted on by members at the SNP conference in October – public policy professor James Mitchell has said it is “steeped in ambiguity and incoherence”, branding it “deeply confused”.
Meanwhile, MSP and former SNP leadership candidate Ash Regan cast doubt on whether the UK Government would listen in negotiations if the bar was not set high enough by the SNP.
Former first minister Alex Salmond was also critical of the plan, saying Yousaf was trying to be “all things to all activists” and will end up “disappointing everyone”.
But Russell said there was nothing complicated about the SNP’s plan and it would in fact give the party space to get away from process and start persuading people of the benefits of independence.
He told The National: “When you win an election you take on an obligation to implement what you have had in your manifesto. That’s democracy 101.
“I’m not going to take lectures about what constitutes a victory.
“You can test an election, and if you win an election, you have a responsibility to move forward what you have argued for.
“I think this is very easy to understand and I can’t understand why that would be a controversial point of view.”
Asked whether the plan was flawed because the UK Government was unlikely to play ball, Russell said: “One of the problems that exists in politics is someone says ‘A’ and another person then says ‘but what if they say B?’.
“Elections are elections. You have an election, somebody wins an election, and you go on and implement the results of that election. That’s not difficult to understand.
“People are entitled to different views, but it seems to me, reasonable, in a democracy for a leader of a party to say we are going into this election saying this, and if we are elected, we are going to do this.
“I’ve observed a lot of people who seem to think this is confusing or complicated. I think they need to look at this and realise that’s a fairly normal and democratic thing to do.”
The National asked Russell if the method of seeking independence negotiations based on winning the most seats was really democratic, given the First Past the Post voting system does not truly reflect how people have voted.
But he said the party have no choice but to play what is in front of them, unless they want to continue getting bogged down in process talks.
He said: “That’s the system that we’ve got [First Past the Post]. I much prefer proportional representation but that’s not how it is.
“We sometimes overdo the fairness aspect. That’s what is in front of you, and that’s what you do.
READ MORE: All Under One Banner Kernow organises rally for democracy in Cornwall
“We need to stop this obsession with process. It delights the UK Government to think that all we’re going to talk about is process and just talking about process doesn’t bring independence a moment nearer.”
Russell added: “My strong advice to my fellow members of the Yes movement is let’s get on with persuading people why we need independence and let’s stop obsessing about process.
“This method gives us space to be able to persuade people of the benefits of independence and allows us to get on with it.”
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