ALEX Salmond, the renowned gambler, lost his latest bet. Ash Regan ended her “reasonable letter” to First Minister Humza Yousaf with the words “the opportunity to write a new chapter for Scotland is in our hands”, revealing her expectation that she, as Alex’s and Alba’s representative, would be pulling the Scottish Government’s strings if Humza were to rely on Ash’s vote to survive as FM.
This was a huge opportunity lost for Alex and Alba which could have been seen to be working with the SNP, instead of against them (an impression compounded by Ash’s vote to bring down the SNP Scottish Government). Such a changed perception would have encouraged many SNP voters to give their second preferences to Alba in the next Holyrood election, rather than the Scottish Greens who seemingly allowed personal recriminations, rather than the goal of independence, to dictate their intended actions on a vote of no confidence in the FM.
As for the resultant leadership contest, Alex has already been attempting to influence the SNP by blaming the “old guard” (alternatively read “SNP establishment”, “senior members of the party” or “continuity forces”) for his failed gamble, and regrettably some SNP supporters appear to be falling into this narrative with regard to electing a new leader of the SNP and first minister.
From a non-party-affiliated perspective, much as I admire the talents of Kate Forbes, it would seem Kate has made a wise decision not to contest the party leadership at this time. With the Scottish Greens still looking to manipulate the Scottish Government towards a more radical green agenda, with the police investigation still hanging over the SNP and with a General Election looming, it seems a pragmatic leadership approach might best serve the immediate interests of both the SNP and the wider Yes movement.
READ MORE: SNP activist seeking to challenge John Swinney for party leadership
Perhaps ideally, if achievable, a joint leadership of the party could be promoted temporarily embracing parliamentary representation at both Holyrood and Westminster. Should it be possible to elect a joint leadership of perhaps John Swinney and Stephen Flynn, with the former as FM and the able Kate as Deputy FM (returning to government in a senior ministerial role), then good stable government can be achieved at Holyrood while Stephen, with more authority in the party, can step up the campaign for independence through the coming General Election.
Should the SNP win the most seats at that election then as co-leader of the party, he can immediately seek talks with the new Westminster government on progressing Scotland’s democratic rights through devolving the power to hold a constitutional referendum to Holyrood, or if a majority of votes was achieved, begin independence negotiations. Should either of these aims not progress quickly, then a Constitutional Convention should guide the way forward, preferably ahead of the next Holyrood election.
Given the apparent lack of commitment shown to independence by the Scottish Greens and without a significant change of tack from Alba, the question of second preferences at that election arises.
READ MORE: John Swinney: Leadership challenge from SNP activist will 'delay' rebuild
For those SNP supporters predicting doom and gloom, their second preferences should probably also go to the SNP so as to offset possible lost constituency seats with more list seats. For those more optimistic SNP supporters, if one of the Yes groups, such as Liberation Scotland (of which Salvo is the campaigning arm aiming to restore Scotland’s constitution) could, as a “party”, put up candidates across Scotland at the next Holyrood election, then even if the direct votes for the SNP were reduced, a majority for independence could still be achieved. And subsequently, the necessary steps to self-determination could be taken – in spite of the combined efforts of the UK mainstream media and the London-centric Labour, Tory and LibDem parties.
In the meantime, perhaps the SNP should shift their focus from the moral, democratic, economic and social failures of the Tories at Westminster (through policies in the main tacitly supported by the Labour Party) to the SNP’s many successes relative to the Brexit-supporting Labour Party. From Glasgow with the long-overdue equal pay award to other local authorities across Scotland not blighted by horrendously expensive PFI schemes. A country now free of most bridge and hospital parking tolls and with a new bridge across the Forth. A country delivering many social and educational benefits not provided in the rest of the UK. And one with regressive policies – introduced by a UK Government pursuing an austerity agenda – mitigated against.
A country where life under the SNP is better, on nearly every directly comparable measure, than in Wales under the Labour Party, including in areas such as health and education, as well as in renewable energy generation and on making progress towards net zero.
Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian
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 here