MR Kerevan’s article on the perils of Stuart Campbell’s suggestion of setting up a separate independence party does seem to a tad alarmist (Independence won’t be won with rhetoric but through concrete actions, August 12). I think it is a strategy worth considering, and I write as a fully paid-up member of the SNP.
READ MORE: Independence won’t be won with rhetoric but through concrete actions
I believe the strength of the SNP’s constituency vote acts as a drag on our success on the list vote: the value of the constituency vote is detrimental to maximising the SNP vote on the list, leading to reliance by the SNP on the Greens to maintain power; not to mention the compromises by the SNP to push their manifesto through in the Scottish Parliament.
The loss on the list which the popularity of the SNP’s constituency vote contributes to means it surely makes more sense to vote for an alternative independence-committed party on the list, having a higher profile courtesy of Campbell’s website, against a constant reliance on the Greens.
Frank Lynch
Kirknewton, West Lothian
THE last thing Scotland needs is a second independence party. All a second nationalist party would achieve is a split in the nationalist vote – something the English Government would love.
Any student of Scottish history would know, the the policy of the English Government over the centuries has been to foster dissention in Scottish society, something they have done with great success. Divide and rule has been a standard English policy over the ages, used not only against Scotland but against many other countries.
We must support the SNP to the hilt. There are a number of people in Scotland impatient with the slow progress, but we should remember the phrase “softly softly catchee monkey”.
R Mill Irving
Gifford
READ MORE: Wings Over Scotland founder plans to start new party
GEORGE Kerevan is right on the button to reject Stu Campbell’s proposed strategy to ensure a pro-indy majority in 2021. His reservations are also echoed eloquently by James Kelly in his Scot Goes Pop blog.
Campbell has undoubtedly been a major asset to the indy movement with his relentless in-depth analysis of British and Scottish politics and his unrivalled ability to counteract blatant establishment lies with facts and figures. Why on earth the SNP have not copied his model for rebuffing Unionist media propaganda is a mystery.
I regularly visit his website as well as contributing to his annual fundraisers. However, my admiration for his specific talents would not automatically translate into voting for him. His non-party allegiance allows him the luxury of being able to state whatever he thinks on any subject under the sun, and he does so in the most colourful of terms. This is often entertaining but on the other hand the linguistic pictures he paints are, frankly, quite often vile and he tends to view everything in black-and-white terms with no room for manoeuvre on complex issues.
For his plan to work there is a massive assumption that his online popularity will equate with electoral success. It won’t. It will muddy the waters when we need them clear. This is a time to get 100% behind the only political vehicle in town that will get us over the indy line, and that is SNP. Not a time for experiments. I would urge him to continue contributing to the indy cause with Wings in his own unique way and not to drop the ball at the last moment through political folly.
Alan Black
Paisley
AS a Labour party member and activist I bought The National on Wednesday, interested to see your comments on John McDonnell’s announcement that a Labour government would not stand in the way of indyref2 (Branch Office has indyref2 meltdown, August 9).
Naively, I imagined this might be welcomed. I hoped there would be recognition that, faced with the prospect of No-Deal Brexit enacted by the most right-wing British government since 1931, the parties of the left could temporarily put aside their differences to fight this emergency together.
I was wrong: your paper was instead full of delight at the internal trouble this has led Scottish Labour into. Again we see tribalism at its worse: the SNP’s triumphalism at the state of its rival on the left, rather than looking at the opportunity to face the common enemy together.
I campaigned for Yes in 2014, enthused not only by its passion but also by the intelligence and rationality of its campaign (and appalled by Labour’s decision to campaign with the Tories). If there was an indyref2 right now, I might vote for independence again – as polls show many Labours voters might – but am repelled by the descent into an irrational, nativist politics that we see far too much of from nationalism right now. It is counterproductive, as well as just wrong, to replace rational debate with name-calling and jeering.
In these dangerous and threatening times, democrats should be uniting against the threats of the Johnson government.
Dr R Bray
Ardentinny, Argyll
I HAVE always enjoyed reading Kevin McKenna’s newspaper articles, as well as hearing his opinion expressed in TV debates. His analysis of the current scenario with regards to the Labour party in Scotland seems to me, as someone viewing from outside that party, to be very accurate.
Over the years I’ve had many honest and sincere friends in the Labour party and also at present in the Retired Members Branch of the Unite union, whom I consider to be excellent colleagues. Although some of them may not share my belief that independence is the road to travel, their commitment to the betterment of working people I would not question. It is in them – and as
polls show there are without doubt others in the Labour party – that I see hope for the future of that party.
As Mr McKenna points out, things are changing.
Bobby Brennan
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