SNP politicians should be focusing on the cause that got them elected

Politicians can say and do dreadful things in private before showing a more angelic face to the public. Even more so if they are keen to hold onto power. They are helped by loyal supporters who will swear blind when defending the indefensible that they are not suffering from amnesia when recalling political issues. In other words, don’t go against the political grain if you want a political career in the party of your choice.

READ MORE: Long Read: The inside story of the week that rocked the SNP

The party faithful in all parties would rather flatter their leaders and publicly agree with their motivations than risk losing their party standing by doing the right thing and opposing the stance of the cabal. Recently, the SNP dropped its most formidable MP, Joanna Cherry, from its front bench. An MP feared by Unionists and, it would appear, equally by the SNP leadership. I can recall the attempt to exclude Joanna Cherry from contesting a Holyrood seat by bringing in a last-minute ruling. That happened only weeks after Ian Blackford MP had left the Supreme Court along with Joanna Cherry to address the TV cameras. Both of them proud as punch with their hands raised in the air in victory.

A matter of weeks later, the NEC political assassins were doing their best to derail Joanna Cherry’s political career. Later, she was sacked from the front benches. Their hostility is such that the First Minister and Ian Blackford removed her without paying tribute to the work she had carried out on behalf of the party and just when you think they couldn’t sink any lower, it was claimed neither of them could bring themselves to even sympathise with her after she was threatened with physical violence.

It is becoming more about the SNP and holding onto political power than about gaining independence. The lack of transparency is palpable. The leadership can refer to the polls all they like but it doesn’t take away from the fact they are paying more attention to supporting agendas unrelated to the cause of independence than the May election.

READ MORE: Scotland's politicians could learn from our rugby team about reconciliation

None of this is playing out well with those outside the bubble they have created for themselves. Some of our elected members are child-like in their behaviour. We have many excellent MPs and MSPs but far too many are part of the payroll vote to publicly protest at Joanna Cherry’s treatment. If the leadership was half as proactive at achieving independence as it has been with its trans ideology and Hate Crime Bill then we would be close to reaching our goal of independence. If we fail to get a majority elected in May, let it be on the heads of the leadership and those parliamentarians who have neglected the cause they were elected to strive for.

Bill Clark
Fort William

WHAT is most important just now is not how we got into this government and SNP omnishambles but how we manage it and move on. To achieve a clear and sustained majority for independence, voters in Scotland have to be confident that there will be a political infrastructure (political parties and institutions) that will reflect their views and values – and is mature enough to acknowledge and manage differences.

We will not be a one-party state on independence, and that diversity of representation is perhaps beginning to appear. It is the lack of channels for open debate that has contributed so much to the frustration and anger in trying to suppress current debate within the “discipline” of a single party.

READ MORE: I'm not 'screeching with rage', Mr Russell, but I'm sad and disappointed

What matters in May – should the election go ahead then – is the proportion of the voting population that votes for independence-supporting parties in #1 and #2 votes. That will provide a clearer mandate as well as a cross-party base to move forward. It would help the process perhaps to delay the election by six months – but certainly to adopt the suggestion by journalist Neil MacKay of having an attached question about wanting to have a referendum within the course of the next parliament.

A referendum towards the end of the next parliament would allow that political infrastructure to develop and for the referendum to be based on a roadmap on how the first government of a independent Scotland would be elected and how our independence and inter-dependence would be managed. That would be challenging in four years, but attainable.

Or do we prefer to continue to call each other names and wait for the next grievance?

Bob MacKinnon
Inverness

THE taxpayer will shell out more than £24 million to settle a claim by two men wrongfully prosecuted during a fraud probe relating to the sale of Rangers Football Club. My question is why on earth should we, the taxpayer, have to pay anything at all in settling this case?

We didn’t do anything, so why do we have any responsibility? The incompetent person or persons who wrongfully prosecuted the Rangers personnel are the ones with the responsibility and it should be down to them to pay for their own inept actions. £12m per person seems an incredible amount. Having said that, I wish someone would wrongfully prosecute me if I would end up with such a huge settlement.

Harry Key
Largoward

IN his article “Debate on land reform must aim to create consensus instead of conflict” (February 9), Michael Fry makes the case, unintentionally I would guess, for the sort of land reform promoted by Common Weal in Part 2 of the ‘Resilient Scotland’ report.

READ MORE: Michael Fry: Land reform debate must create consensus instead of conflict

He writes, “Rich sportsmen pay hefty sums for the pursuit of their pleasures, and some of this ends up in then pockets of locals who need it.” (My emphasis). Case made. What we need is that all of it ends up in the pockets of people who live on the land.

Donald J MacKenzie
Glenfarg