WE were disappointed to read The National’s story on Friday (AFI’s ‘invite to unite’ snubbed by parties, October 9), not least for its very negative portrayal of a move that many people believe could serve to unite the indy movement and give us a rock-solid majority for independence at Holyrood next year.
To say the leaders of three other parties had dismissed an offer to talk with Action for Independence was disingenuous to say the least, given that the letters to the other leaders were only sent out on Thursday. AFI has repeatedly said it is not a party but an “umbrella” group, or alliance of parties, Yes groups and individuals with one common aim – independence. The only policy position we take is over independence, and candidates standing under our umbrella can take their own party or personal position on any other policies.
READ MORE: Action for Independence’s ‘invite to unite’ snubbed by political parties
To suggest that AFI will be choosing candidates for other parties – in remarks attributed to Colette Walker from the ISP – is simply wrong. We have said on many occasions that parties aligning with us will choose their own candidates. All of the quotes from other parties in the article are recycled, from weeks or even months ago, and were not responses to our letters, as Andrew Learmonth seems to imply.
Such sloppy journalism suggests to us that The National is perhaps too much in the pocket of the SNP to see what is going on outside of the party bubble. Many independence supporters, both inside the SNP and in the broader Yes movement, have expressed varying degrees of frustration that the party has ignored repeated mandates to progress independence, and AFI is attempting to bring them all together to #MaxTheYes and make next year’s Holyrood election THE independence election.
Derek Stewart Macpherson
Communications Officer, Action for Independence
Note: The Greens, ISP and the SSP were approached on Thursday night and asked for a response to AFI's letter. They all told us they would be rejecting the invitation to meet.
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