TOMMY Sheppard logically wishes to see improvements in the SNP’s internal processes, as evidenced by his latest column (These obvious changes would put SNP on a better footing within the year, August 19).
This is an aim seemingly shared by First Minister John Swinney, but regrettably neither politician appears to have grasped the need for a radical “change” in approach by the SNP leadership.
READ MORE: What do we have to lose if an early Holyrood election is called?
John Swinney comes across as a likeable person with many admirable qualities but he does not (as he would probably admit himself) have the inspiring charisma of a young Alex Salmond or Barack Obama. As Joe Biden is perhaps now realising – given the immediate impetus provided by handing over the reins of democratic candidacy to Kamala Harris – good intentions are not sufficient to inspire the public in today’s world, never mind bring about a constitutional revolution in a mainstream media environment averse to fundamental change.
What it takes is a youthful belief and confidence to overcome whatever challenges lie ahead. If the SNP’s priority is to rebuild the party from the ground up, a process which should probably have begun a decade ago, then it will be another decade before independence is even on the horizon, let alone achieved.
From a perspective outside of the SNP, while some of the criticism of the party leadership has seemingly been justified, much of it has appeared reactionary and not reflective of the broader circumstances that have prevailed through different periods of the last ten years, or even cognisant of the direct impacts of austerity, Brexit and Covid.
READ MORE: John Swinney 'sure' meeting with Israeli diplomat will be discussed at SNP conference
That said, given the result at the General Election and with a Scottish election due within two years, brave regeneration would now appear to be a necessity if we are to achieve independence within the next five years.
While there are arguments for John Swinney to continue as First Minister, at least for the time being, my personal view is that he should now offer to step aside as party leader and recommend the party elect Stephen Flynn as his successor, with Kate Forbes remaining as deputy leader.
Such a selfless act would provide a clear statement of intent to reinvigorate not just the SNP but the wider “Yes movement” behind a “new” but recognisable face capable of galvanising and energising the campaign for self-determination (perhaps aided by a “Citizens’ Convention” on “Creating a Better Scotland”) and this significant change would – at least temporarily in the eyes of the general public – “separate” the day-to-day running of Holyrood from the delivery of independence.
The internal mechanics of this emphatic stride towards independence, including any necessary amendments to rules governing MPs “transitioning” to MSPs, must not be beyond the combined brains of the party’s politicians and strategists, neither should any required change in agenda at the forthcoming SNP annual conference to facilitate this bold “renewal”.
What might be instructive for SNP members to consider regarding a possible change of leader is that whatever was initially said in public it would not be welcomed by either the Labour Party or the Tory party!
Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian
THERE is a need for a proper clear-out at the top of the SNP. Anyone in office for over two years, get out, you’ve had your chance. There’s a Holyrood election coming up! With the way the SNP is going, you’ll be as scarce as hen’s teeth.
Get new blood in now, please! This country needs independence!
Francis Mcintosh
via thenational.scot
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