Our work to build a unified Yes movement is being undermined

As I understand it, Toni Giugliano is convener of the policy development committee of the SNP, nothing more. He is the elected chair of a committee whose role is to discuss policy questions and put their ideas before conference for further debate. I don’t think he has the authority to formulate SNP policy by himself. My questions are therefore: does his criticism of “intolerant fringe groups like Alba” represent an official SNP attitude, and is it the official SNP view that their tactics are “to frustrate and disrupt” or that such tactics are “voter-repellent and counterproductive”?

READ MORE: Scottish independence can only happen with cross-party input, says Joanna Cherry

Further, in the next paragraph, he mentions what happened to James Cook with the clear implication that Alba was somehow involved. Does he have proof that the altercation alleged to have taken place in Perth between a demonstrator and James Cook involved Alba or was the result of Alba policy? A number of groups and individuals took part in that demonstration, including myself. And I somewhat resent being tarred with that brush; that we were an angry rabble.

He then goes on to list the SNP, the Greens and Believe in Scotland as the potential organising bodies

for mass mobilisation events, but makes no mention of Alba party members. In my experience, many of the most dedicated activists now support Alba.

The Yes movement welcomes everyone whose objective is independence for Scotland, from all political parties and none, and denigrating or excluding any particular group, particularly on the basis of unsubstantiated claims, is unhelpful and unacceptable.

READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon attack sees Scottish Labour MSP schooled on devolution

Further on in the same article, Mike Russell pointedly refers to “other progressive pro-independence organisations” without identifying these organisations, but, again, not mentioning Alba. What exactly is meant by the adjective “progressive” in this context? And, perhaps more importantly, how would I decide if someone was not “progressive”?

Having worked hard for some years to build networks across the country, I despair when people in prominent positions, who should be more aware of the consequences of what they say, undermine all my efforts and those of many others to build a unified movement.

Julian Smith
Convener, Yes Dunfermline & West Fife

ALEXANDER Potts’s scholarly letter to The National published on Friday was well worth a read. However, I fear that even he has succumbed to UK Government propaganda! He says of the Edinburgh Agreement: “Nowhere in that agreement does it state that it is a once-in-a-lifetime choice for the Scottish electorate.” The argument, originally, was that the then Scottish Government promised a once-in-a-GENERATION referendum on Scottish independence.

Now, Mr Salmond did make reference to this in a speech broadcast from Bute House on the eve of the referendum mentioning a “once-in-a-generation” chance. His comments were taken out of context and probably twisted around to suit the ends of the UK Government. If we examine “mission creep” here, we have extended the time frame from once in a generation to once in a lifetime in a single bound! Where next? Once every two generations, once a decade?

READ MORE: Scurrilous claim that SNP supporters are ‘anti-English’ must be challenged

The same principle of mission creep is one which I highlighted to the letters page more than a year ago regarding the use of the word “nationalists”. The UK Government uses labelling theory and reverse political correctness, attempting to label pro-independence opposition with words that invoke the nastiest inferences and the implication of danger possible. Mission creep here has seen our enemies’ word for us go from nationalist to separatists, extremists and coming soon, unBritishness. The latter is already the subject of a bill is being prepared for this. “UnBritishness” is obviously a nebulous word, but there is no reason to doubt that the UK Government would waste no time in applying this charge to the Scottish independence movement.

At times like these, the prophecy of Orwell’s 1984 (1948 transposed) comes back into the nation’s conscience. The Ministry of Truth is “contraspeak” for the Ministry of Lies. There is no truth in UK Govermnent any more. If we are a successful independent nation shortly, should there be a charge applied to Scottish Unionists, that is being guilty of cultural treason? If the fear of an independent Scotland is so great, have we seen mass migration of cultural treasonists to over the Border? When we achieve independence, will there be a mass exodus of Unionists to England? I think not. These are the same Unionists who voted against a Scottish Parliament and yet they stayed. They will not leave Scotland on independence either. They will meekly go to their same workplaces, producing their same output, because they only believed they were on the side that was winning.

WJ Graham
East Kilbride

WHEN Lord Frost claims that independence for Scotland would be morally wrong because pro-Union Scots would be abandoned, he is doing nothing other than copying the Russian line that independence for the Baltic states, and other ex-Soviet republics, is wrong because Russians remain living in them.

Lord Frost is quite simply demonstrating that his grasp on democracy is as feeble as the Russians’, and we must be wary that he and others who subscribe to his views do not seek to emulate the Russians in other ways.

As London government retreats ever further from true democracy it makes the United Kingdom, such as it is, look ever more like a failing, if not yet a failed, state.

Andrew Parrott
Perth