Richard Walker is being overgenerous when he says “the independence message from the SNP is confused”. It has certainly confused Richard. Like many (most?) of us, I suspect, he is still struggling to figure out who was saying about what the party’s ‘strategy’ was at any given time. He reminds us that “Humza Yousaf said the return of a majority of SNP MPs would signal the start of independence negotiations”. Which was in line with the resolution he and Stephen Flynn submitted to the party’s conference last October. But then in March of this year, Yousaf told Sky News quite explicitly that he intended to ask Keir Starmer for a Section 30 order. (‘Humza Yousaf confirms he will ask Keir Starmer to allow indyref2’ – The National 27 March)
This was certainly confusing for the SNP loyalists who had argued vehemently that the resolution passed by conference did not involve a Section 30 request. Although many of us had pointed out that it could mean nothing else. What the delegates at the conference thought they were voting for is anybody’s guess. I reckon at least some of them must have been aware that they were voting for a supposedly new ‘strategy’ that was actually just a continuation of the Sturgeon doctrine, but avoiding any mention of Section 30 in the hope people would be deceiived into thinking they’d actually changed tack.
Richard also reminds us that “John Swinney seemed to roll back on that (Yousaf’s original position) to suggest it would prompt demands for another independence referendum”. Presumably, this was when he said in May that he backed Yousaf’s ‘strategy’, but without making it clear which of Yousaf’s ‘strategies’ he was referring to. (‘John Swinney backs Humza Yousaf’s Scottish independence strategy’ – The National 6 May)
The spirit of generosity is maintained when Richard say “It’s not the clearest or most compelling of messages”. In fact, it was a garbled mess. That’s what happens when you tell one deceitful story to conference delegates in order to secure their approval then try to present that approval as being for something else entirely.
Later in the piece, truth and falsehood are deftly woven into a single sentence, revealing Richard’s bacground as a journalist.
“And it is true that while the SNP manifesto, also published this week, places independence at its heart, the route to achieving it is no clearer than it has been for years.”
The first part is false. The SNP manifesto makes liberal use of the word ‘independence’. But that is a very different thing from having the restoration of Scotland’s independence as the document’s primary focus. Routinely tacking onto every policy statement phrases such as ‘we could do more with independence’, is not the same as having ‘independence at its heart’.
The second part of the sentence quoted above is painfully true. Richard phrases it with the generosity of spirit we have come to expect when he says the SNP’s route to achieving independence “is no clearer than it has been for years”. In fact, it is non-existent. The SNP has signally failed to identify a process by which Scotland’s independence might be restored. Had it done so, and had it included this in its manifesto, then the claim of it having “independence at its heart” might have been more credible.
The reality is that the SNP’s manifesto contans nothing which could pass for a genuine, heartfelt commitment to Scotland’s cause. It is wishy-washy on the subject. At most, it is an undertaking to seek the British Prime Minister’s permission to do something which the sovereign people of Scotland have an absolute and inalienable right to do. Self-determination is a human right. But the SNP (in common with other nominally pro-independence parties) accedes to the British state’s asserted veto over our human right to choose. In doing so. the SNP leadership compromises the principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign and makes immediate and rapid progress all but impossible.
Despite this, Richard Walker remains loyal to his party regardless of the cost to the cause he claims to espouse. He will vote SNP pretending it is a vote for independence when in fact he is condoning a ‘plan’ which will do untold harm to Scotland’s cause. And he is far from alone. There are a lot of people out there who will blithely turn a blind eye to the SNP’s betrayal just so they can say their ‘side’ won. And doubtless claim gloating rights over Alba and the rest – in perpetuity!
These people will insist that they are not putting party before country. But what else can it be called when they choose to ignore both the past failure of the SNP to progress Scotland’s cause and its stated intention to betray that cause?
There is no way to know how big the party loyalist vote is. Might it be enough to save a few seats for the SNP? It could mean disappointment for those hoping to give the party a bit of an electoral slap to hopefully bring it to its senses. It could mean that the SNP leadership can claim a mandate for its ‘strategy’ of betraying the most fundamental principle underpinning Scotland’s constitution for the sake of seats, status, salaries, and short money. We shall find out all too soon.
Personally, I would rather repurpose my ballot as a vote to #EndTheUnion.
Peter A Bell 
A few weeks ago I wrote that the SNP ‘campaign’ had 4 different strands, namely
At that stage the SNP support in the polls seemed to be rapidly in decline the party’s was stressing #4, presumably in the hope that this might help retain a few seats in Scotland where the Tories were the main challengers to the SNP.
However, with recent opinion surveys suggesting that SNP support has shored up and that the Tories are somewhere at 13%-15% (in Scotland) – this compares to 25% in the 2019 general election – they may feel that they are relatively safe from losses to Douglas Ross and his hapless gang.
It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that SNP loyalist and propagandist Richard Walker’s has now switched the emphasis to #3:
“Scottish votes have only rarely been needed to put Labour in power at Westminster and are more unlikely than ever to be needed to remove the Tories in this election.“
with a soupçon of #1 when he says that:
“Any other vote in July weakens the case and will be interpreted by the mainstream media as a drop in support for independence. It would therefore be an indulgence we cannot afford.“
and added dash of attempted moral blackmail and blame apportionment too when he states that the SNP haven’t progressed Scotland’s Cause because the party
“cannot by themselves deliver independence. That needs the support of the Scottish people“
(Incidentally #2 seems to have been entirely abandoned … at least for the time being:
“Indeed, the only Labour policy which has remained consistent since 2014 is their opposition to not just independence but to allowing us even another vote on independence.“)
Basically, it’s a contradictory message as it is simultaneously arguing that your vote is wasted at Westminster but you had better vote SNP in any case. Not that this has deterred any of the SNP loyal brigade in the past from spouting the same nonsense.
There is a little bit of attempted moral blackmail and blame apportionment too when he states that the SNP haven’t progressed Scotland’s Cause because the party
“cannot by themselves deliver independence. That needs the support of the Scottish people“
Where Richard Walker is accurate is when he confesses with respect to the SNP’s approach to the constitutional question that:
“the route to achieving it is no clearer than it has been for years.“
and
“This election may give it a mandate for independence but the SNP have had mandates before and they have moved us no closer to the ultimate goal.“
The conclusion from this for anyone with a genuine and realistic commitment and desire to witness the return of Scotland’s full self government and banishment of the British system in our country must surely be:
No process. No plan. No point.
#EndTheUnion!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Peter your wrong about putting party before the cause, all this election is about is themselves and their friends and family the party doesn’t venture into their scheming ways.
If they where bothered with the party the membership would be strong and its not, their would a well of money within the SNP books and there isn’t and there was democracy it would be with the membership and its not.
The SNP leadership has destroyed the Party and the cause, the problem was never the party it was the people running it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
A point that cannot be repeated too often. For the most part, the members are OK.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I used to laugh at people supporting leader Nicola Sturgeon and her devo-loving deputy John Swinney. I’d offer £100 bets on there being no indyref2 before the 2021 election. Only one SNP member took me up on it and I’ve not asked him to pay out. I only want to win a bet like that if I feel like I’ve taken a risk.
Now though, I’m becoming increasingly angry. Not with the gullible who are being fooled but with the con artists still making fools out of decent, genuine people almost 10 years later.
I’m even getting a bit annoyed with the commentariat who fail to comment on the blatant dishonesty.
Some people I know have very sensibly left the SNP. Some have joined Alba but now I’m worried that Alba is going along with the charade. Alex Salmond is talking about an “independence coalition” when he knows that the SNP is not a party of independence. John Swinney and the devolutionist SNP are cementing devolution in place.
The Greens aren’t really nationalists either, they just use nationalism to win seats and to promote their other obsessions.
The SSP are opportunists too, they only turned away from international socialism for the additional short money they hoped to pocket.
How can Scotland be an independent country when “almost 51%” of us are living a lie – some knowingly lying, some actively playing along, some guilty of seeing it and saying nothing, and some completely fooled into believing utter pish.
LikeLiked by 2 people