I COULD not agree more with the sentiments expressed by David McEwan Hill in Friday’s Long Letter. The Unionist support must be rubbing their collective hands at the sight of so much apparent discord in the independence movement.
The time for opening up divisions in the politics of independence is after the goal has been achieved, not when we are so close to convincing a clear majority of its benefits.
At different times I have broadly supported the actions of both Joanna Cherry and Angus Robertson. They are both excellent politicians in their different ways, and it is for the people of Edinburgh Central to decide who they want to represent them. If that decision sends a message to the SNP leadership, then the democratic voice will have been heard. There is no need for the movement to assist the mainstream media in portraying this as a leadership fight.
READ MORE: Leaked messages reveal Joanna Cherry in SNP dispute over Holyrood race
While I am as keen as anyone to see progress towards our ultimate objective, I hope we don’t have the massive distraction and significant own-goal of a leadership tussle in the near future. It would take years for any future leader to build the national and international presence of the current one, and this would stall the existing momentum. Maybe one of them could find a spot somewhere else – Caithness, Sutherland and Ross, Mr Robertson?
As for the various Plan B options put forward by those dissatisfied with progress to date, I have yet to see one that would not either alienate more people than it attracts to the cause or require the electorate in England to accept the need for their own constitutional arrangements to be changed, something they show absolutely no sign of recognising.
READ MORE: Joanna Cherry endorsed Angus Robertson in previous SNP contest
The case for four-plus-one parliaments put forward by George McKnight immediately following David McEwan Hill’s contribution is a good example of this. A neat little idea, but one that could take decades to implement, if there was any appetite for it south of the Border at all, and then it would only be step one towards independence.
We need to concentrate all our efforts on dispelling the myth of “the most successful union in the history of everything” by diligent identification of the reasons why it is only a success when viewed from one perspective. That is the perspective of a London-centric lobby that doesn’t admit that this union has systematically stripped our nation of natural and human resources for more than 300 years while simultaneously telling us we only survive through their generosity.
In what universe can a situation when lower productivity, equality, life expectancy and a host of other indicators the Unionists use against us be defined as a picture of a “successful union”? That needs to change, and it needs to change now. Lets keep concentrating on that rather than biting each other’s ankles.
Cameron Crawford
Rothesay, Bute
WITH several top-flight SNP MSPs retiring, the contest looming between Joanna Cherry and Angus Robertson for Holyrood’s Edinbugh Central seat in next year’s Scottish elections is quite ludicrous. This situation should never have arisen, and could be construed as a leadership failure if it is allowed to continue.
Joanna Cherry, an Edinburgh resident, with her Westminster seat covering most of Edinburgh Central, should be the obvious candidate, with Angus Robertson contesting another seat. What an asset these talented and high-profile politicians will be in Holyrood, not in competition with each other or with leadership ambitions, but as of now showing unity of purpose for independence.
As the massive Unionist media will surely focus on the SNP following the Alex Salmond trial, there is no need to provide further material for them to exploit. Due to the utter intransigence of Westminster it is now clear that only through Holyrood and a massive Yes vote will Scotland become an independent nation again with the right to determine its own future.
Grant Frazer
Newtonmore
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