I HAVE always struggled to make sense of Kevin McKenna’s soor-faced politics, as he seems to contradict himself so often (Neither SNP nor Alba come close on what I want a new Scotland to be, May 5). Perhaps his struggle from his previous silence in a right-wing, ultra-Unionist Labour party accounts for his apparent aspirational conversion for a Scottish socialist republic? He does not say how to achieve this, other than not voting for SNP, which he supported a few months ago, or the Alba Party he supported last week.
He makes much of his Irish and Roman Catholic background, but says nothing of Labour’s use and abuse of that community by the Lords, Reids, Wilsons, Callaghans, Darlings etc. Nor of Labour’s massive class betrayals that caused the thousands of former voters to switch to the SNP.
READ MORE: Kevin McKenna: Neither the SNP or Alba represent what I want from Scotland
I share his frustrations at a tiny vociferous transgender minority seemingly taking control of the SNP and taking precedence over independence. Yes, no-one was bothering them, or wishing to persecute or discriminate against them. So why the sudden aggression? Sure, one can understand his point of view from a Catholic strong family man – or even feminist – point of view. But if the desire for independence is not strong enough to supersede this and many other legitimate gripes, then the alternative is to either openly support the Unionists by desertion from a cause over certain issues, or roam forever in the political wilderness as a moaning, greetin’-faced git.
In his autobiography, Labour’s former spin doctor Alastair Campbell admits that he tried to use Sir Alex Ferguson for a position in the Bitter Together campaign. Sir Eck declined on the grounds that he could not face the aggro. Neil Lennon had even stronger grounds for refusing. He was Irish, Catholic and a Sellick man. He may support the right-wing Unionist Labour Sellick Board, but certainly did not need the radical independence movement on his back.
READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: The decline of Unionism is shown clearly in Douglas Ross
As a member of the cross-party Scottish Republican Socialist Movement, with a maternal Irish Catholic side – including McKenna relatives from Renfrew (no relation) who left Labour for Independence – I had no hesitation in voting SNP one and two, whilst confessing some of our members, supporters and comrades were divided on the list vote. We can at least be positive about the many republican socialists in the SNP and have some confidence in the Scottish working class to achieve a different solution, after independence, to Scotland’s many problems caused by centuries of oppression or neglect. Monarchy, currency, trans this and trans that need not get in the way of that, after we have persuaded enough to at least get over the first hurdle towards independence. What other country would refuse independence over such temporary issues, which will sort themselves out in the overall scheme of things?
We are on the verge of seeing the Disunited Queendome collapse in the face of an independent Scotland and Wales, plus a united Ireland.
Why throw it away at this stage? Would Anas Sarwar wave a Labour Union Jack in a divided India and Pakistan, or any other former colony? Just don’t wave it in my face. He was able to rely on Tory tactical support in Nicola’s home constituency. Did he need SNP dissident, spoiler support as well?
I am 84 and will never see an international, nuclear-free socialist republic and world peace, or Partick Thistle win the World Cup. I could, maybe, just maybe, see an independent Scotland, free from a shoddy and murderous imperialist past.
If the moaning Minnies could just get their act together and unite for just one last push for Independence Day, I would die happy the moarra.
Donald Anderson
Glasgow
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