Every plan to achieve indy must be subject to the test of practicality

The National

2 days ago

As an incumbent administration and being at the core of the cause for a very long time, they are fully aware of the practical limitations and constraints of the various possibilities that people promote. Therefore, their plan is already couched in terms of what is achievable. Of course there are always lots of fancy ideas of what people wish were workable, but they will not have any better chance of success than the ones that actually take account of the forces arrayed against us.
READ MORE: Holyrood 2026 is the first step in regaining our political mojo
This does not necessarily mean that ideas are summarily dismissed, but as with any strategy the individual steps are the most important and hence critical. All plans have to be subject to the test of practicality, and that is what the SNP have been doing for many decades and particularly since the last Labour administration. There are two critical things that complainers ignore.
The first is that regardless of whichever plan is pursued – and it may require several running in parallel – they all absolutely must as a prerequisite have the support of a recognisable majority of voters, at the time of being tested, which is in the absence of a referendum based on elections. Without such a majority no plan is ever going to get off the ground, regardless of whoever's ghost is leading it. A minority appeal to the UN or EU or whoever gets nowhere other than an acknowledgement that there are some people wishing for a change.
So, secondly, complainers must also bear in mind what we will end up with if they continue to undermine the SNP. Nothing but at best a Unionist Labour administration or even worse, one that is Reform/Tory. Ordinary voters will, unless they are long-term politically astute, invariably vote in accordance with their more immediate needs based around their perception of the parties on offer. So exactly what do the anti-SNP activists think they are achieving?
READ MORE: A single electoral outcome could open up many routes to independence
Voters will only look as far as the fact that even the so-called independence supporters cannot agree with each other, and base their choice around that. Criticism is one thing but the creation of workable plans and strategies demands working together, and if people think that arguing against the SNP is likely to make them fall in line with whichever minority shouty group is around then they are being naive.
The SNP have the experience and detailed knowledge of the situation and are best placed to produce the plan. Such a plan is also tested by those arrayed against us who are in fact the only ones preventing the plans from succeeding. The progress has been stalled not by the SNP but by the Unionists who also happen to be supported, hopefully unintentionally, by those among us arguing against the SNP. And the Unionists seize on that disunity – united we stand, divided we fall. Fair enough, produce a different party to elect after we have independence, but let us achieve that goal first.
Nick Cole
Meigle, Perthshire
I FIND myself in agreement with James Murphy, Campbell Anderson, George T Watt and Selma Rahman (Letters, Aug 16). It appears that the leadership of the SNP are unwilling to consider views other than from the coterie surrounding them. The main idea being to suppress other views and thus contain ideas on how achieve independence to those that the leadership favours.
READ MORE: It's clear we need a new way of doing politics and economics
No matter that this seems to be keep asking for a referendum until Westminster relents out of sheer boredom with the issue. What matter if independence is thus delayed for another decade or two. Awkward questions can be ignored and issues kicked further down the road. A quiet life had by all at the top as the independence gravy train rolls on!
Frustration with current 'strategy' is rising amongst independence supporters and is likely to result in an increase in 'stay at home' by them come next May. This by default is likely to result in a better result for Unionist parties.
Drew Reid
Falkirk
IT is with some dismay and incredulity that I am informed that a motion on a strategy to gain independence submitted by 42 SNP branches for the agenda of the SNP national conference in October has not been included in the preliminary agenda. What is on the agenda is only one motion on independence in the names of leader John Swinney and depute leader Keith Brown.
Their motion has been criticised as being a flawed prospectus to gain independence. The 42 branches were to meet in Perth on August 9 to consider their motion and organise support for it. They did not expect that it would be omitted from the agenda, which was published the day before. There has been no explanation, as far as I can tell, as to why it was not included.
READ MORE: Tommy Sheppard: Why a plebiscite election won't deliver Scottish independence
This denial of basic party democracy, whereby a significant number of branches submit a motion for consideration by delegates that does not reach the preliminary agenda, is outrageous and should not be accepted.
I am not a member of the SNP but have long been of the opinion that the arcane practices and rules relating to how the organisation is run are unacceptable. This particular situation must be resolved and it is up to the members of the SNP to do so. As said, I am not a member and some will say that I don't have the right to question their actions. It may be said that I don't have a dog in the fight, but I have, and that dog is independence. I welcomed the fact that there would be a debate with opposing views and strategies being expressed as the right way forward to gain our independence. We have to get it right. I say to the SNP leadership – get a grip.
John Milligan
Motherwell