SO the SNP’s lead over Labour, which has been falling for some time, has almost gone. It should come as no surprise. The questions over its own finances, the sudden resignation and subsequent arrest of its former leader and its chief executive have done much to damage its public profile. The promotion of policies which are less than popular with the majority of the voting public, such as gender recognition and protected marine areas, have simply added to the problems.
The Green dream has, for the SNP, turned into a nightmare as Partick Harvie, a man who insists that men should compete on equal terms with women in cycle racing and presumably all other sports, appears to be setting the political agenda and not SNP leader and First Minister Humza Yousaf.
READ MORE: Scottish Labour and SNP neck and neck as independence support steady in new poll
No amount of pointing to the UKs failing capital projects, such as HS2, has managed to deflect attention from the two ferries still languishing in their Port Glasgow shipyard. They serve only as reminders of how not to manage a major project. The hundreds of millions of pounds continually poured into this project have had to be robbed from the likes of the Scottish health service, which struggles with long waiting times and even longer waiting lists.
Independence supporters have seen no real effort from the SNP to advance the cause, with the notable exception of taking a deeply flawed case to the UK Supreme Court. In time the gender recognition legislation will follow the same route.
The public see, in the political pipeline, no respite from the apparent madness as plans are afoot to force the upgrading of most homes in Scotland to heat pumps and to greatly increase council tax for many thousands of voters.
The cumulative effects have now finally caught up with the SNP. Next year many of its MPs will sadly be lost. It is probably too late to save them. Maybe, just maybe, there is time to rescue the result of the 2026 Scottish Parliament elections – but only with a massive rethink by the SNP’s leadership.
John Baird
Largs
THERE has been much discussion recently about the role of the Green Party in Holyrood. The main reason is the quality of legislation the Greens have brought forward, much of which could have had wide support if it had been handled more sensitively.
Most people, particularly those who live on the coast, know that greater protection for the seabed is long overdue, few people would oppose a thoughtfully constructed deposit return scheme and there is significant support for the move to more renewable energy use once a plan is in place to make the process affordable. In the case of gender recognition, I think a more gradual approach would have been much more effective in getting the electorate on board, but I’m not convinced that anyone outside of the Green Party felt this was such a massive priority.
READ MORE: Former Daily Record editor Murray Foote named new SNP chief executive
Perhaps all of these actions have been structured as part of some masterplan to create division with Westminster, but I doubt it.
The attitude of “it’s an emergency – we just need to get this done now” has resulted in proposals that have alienated not just the general public, some of whom are potential independence supporters, but also some of those who voted the Greens into parliament. That this has rebounded onto the SNP was inevitable. The latter’s handing of the green portfolio over to a ministerial team with no experience whatsoever in government, apparently without retaining any method of moderating the most extreme proposals, simply to gain a guaranteed majority, seems extremely rash.
There can be little doubt that any real progressive SNP policies would have gained Green support without a power-sharing agreement, and a bit of negotiation could probably have got their budgets approved when necessary. Who knows, we might actually have seen some real progress on land use and value tax.
Cameron Crawford
Rothesay
LIKE so many others, Peter A Bell (Letters, Aug 23) criticises the SNP and Alba for “deferring to Westminster” instead of thinking of ways that they will deliver independence and remove the requirement to defer to Westminster.
The devolved parliaments and governments were created by Westminster and subsequent events have shown that Westminster retained the power to add, amend and remove the powers of its devolved arms as and when it sees fit.
Westminster did not expect the Scottish people to elect a parliament that would evolve into a distinctive entity with policies of its own that are not shared with Westminster.
READ MORE: John Curtice gives verdict on SNP and Labour hopes for Scottish votes
Westminster can not risk the backlash from directly overruling the Scottish Government on matters like free education, prescriptions, bus travel, school meals and personal care or child allowances, mitigation of the spare room tax, different pay and conditions for those providing government services, etc.
Westminster will use a mix of under-financing and the court system to prevent the Scottish Government from introducing new measures and legislation or force it to reduce or remove existing measures.
If the Scottish people want to continue to diverge from the policies adopted by the Westminster government they will find a way to independence, just as the people in scores of other countries have done in the past.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry
ANENT the complaints and pearl-clutching from the opinionated TV cook Prue Leith bewailing the lack of proper table linen and silver service on the night sleeper from London. The train leaves when most folk are in their beds so mebbes a swift half before turning in then peace and quiet before it splits out in Lanarkshire and a very quick breakfast before arrival in town.
Silver service when hundreds of thousands of folk lack the means to fill the weans’ plates. She should be told not to book another trip.
John Meek
via email
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