My head is birlin’ with voting stats, so how must younger folk feel?

I have to ask, did the Hamilton decision come as a shock to some? Or one “someone” in particular? Were there folks standing in the wings, waiting to rush forward and rescue a party thrown into disarray with the resignation of its leader just prior to electioneering?

Was this latest intervention to be seen as some form of “duty” ensuring Scotland’s push for #indy wasn’t lost at worst, or slowed at least? After all, there has to be some pre-planning and decision-making in registering yet another political party.

READ MORE: I feel angry and betrayed – and the SNP will now get both of my votes

It certainly looks to a non party member that this is a personality-led initiative. Surely the dignified approach would have been some form of public announcement urging Scotland and our voters to vote for an SNP constituency majority?

Such a public stance, promoting the role of the SNP as the party pushing for indy, put into office by the majority of the electorate, could have been a statesman-like, rehab stance.

There could have been considered follow-up, back-up, producing stats, facts and figures, passing these on to us the voters, offering us info on how best to use the second vote per particular area. Coming from a non-party but dedicated pro-indy person would this not have been considered “doing it for Scotland, doing it for indy”? And how about insightful policy papers, discussion arenas, fostering further politicisation of the public? All clearly speaking up for Scotland, making independence the focus, not the person.

I appreciate that such initiatives and delivery would require financing, and understandably this is not possible without deep personal pockets.

READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon is the best person to lead Scotland, Alex Salmond says

So should I now be asking, who is financing all these new political pop-ups? And since one such newbie has already withdrawn (AFI), will we ever know who and how they were financed?

What a tangled weave is woven around Scotland at the moment, and to whose benefit? My head is birlin’ with stats relating to how to vote, who to vote for, what tactics will help ensure more indy MSPs and fewer Unionists in Holyrood.

If my head is in that state, with so many elections in my life, having come to my senses and left a political party, what chance for younger voters?

How are they regarding this melee? Are they following in traditional family footsteps? Is there a social media strategy in full flow that I’m unaware of targeting specific groups, such as first-time teenage voters? Is there something focussing on “pensioners” and worries over pensions? Now, I’d fit into that age range, but, no, nothing.

Perhaps campaigning is so sophisticated that it knows my political viewpoint and skips over me. But then taking voters for granted doesn’t equate to getting the vote out, does it?

READ MORE: Alex Salmond has gifted the Unionists a 'supermajority' soundbite to use

OK, Pat Kane, maybe I am a grandparent, but I don’t read The Express and I do swear loudly at the appearance of certain politicians, flag or no flag (Could this be why older voters seem to be more prone to voting for No?, March 27). Can I assure him that a high proportion of golden oldies in say Edinwfi and Pensioners for Indy are digitally literate sufficient to meet needs, stay engaged during Covid and promote indy? We know the impact of the grassroots in 2013-14, and our continued ongoing participation.

Seizing the day is for everyone: no-one is excluded from shaping the future; it’s our future, no matter how long we may have left, no matter the age range.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but this campaign, unlike any previous one, will need to be sharply attuned to all sections of society with messaging that talks the talk, and enthuses us to vote for the future, not have it snatched away through division predicated on personalities, individuals and come backs.

Selma Rahman
Edinburgh