The leadership problem

I would ask Nicola Sturgeon what the point is of winning the “political case” for independence but failing to secure a process by which that victory can be turned into actual change. But I long since learned the futility of asking questions which cannot be answered without acknowledging that the Section 30 process has been chosen despite the impossibility of it leading to actual change.

The very fact that the de facto leader of Scotland’s independence movement is talking about winning the “political case” for independence is evidence that they are not fitted to that role. A suitable leader of the independence movement would not entertain the notion that there could possibly be a “political case” against independence. The person best fitted to lead the campaign to restore Scotland’s independence has to be someone who has Scotland’s nationhood written in their DNA. Someone who has the sovereignty of Scotland’s people engraved on their heart and our right of self-determination indelibly stamped on their mind.

It has to be someone who detests the Union as an abomination. An insult to democracy and a grossly offensive imposition on Scotland.

At the minimum, it has to be someone who regards independence as rather more than an administrative reform that has to be justified. They should see the campaign to restore Scotland’s independence as a fight for justice. An effort to rectify a historical wrong which has a worsening impact on Scotland and Scotland’s people.

Scotland’s cause needs the leadership of someone who thinks of independence, not as something that would be good to have if only a benign British political elite would deign to grant it to us, but as something that is both essential and our inalienable right being withheld from us by a malign British state.

The Yes movement craves leadership from an individual who takes as their starting point the right of Scotland’s people to determine the nation’s constitutional status and choose the form of government which best serves their needs, priorities and hopes. The independence movement cannot be led by someone who sees these things, not as our absolute entitlement but as a glittering prize for which we must strive.

I cannot help but see in Nicola Sturgeon someone who is more concerned with pandering to the infinitely variable demands, requirements and conditions thrown up by the British political elite as they seek to preserve the Union and the structures of power, privilege and patronage which define the British state than with defending the sovereignty of Scotland’s people and asserting the democratic legitimacy of the Parliament that we actually elect.

Nicola Sturgeon is a superb leader of Scotland as it is. But that role appears to be incompatible with leading the campaign to make Scotland what it ought to be.

13 thoughts on “The leadership problem

  1. Scotland needs a proper leader one that loves her people and her country, they do not need to fight for independence they already have it within our great Nation, should the people wish to change some rules then do so within our nation or are we going to have another northern island problem regarding whether the border will be, the pits and the Scots together we Hadrians Wall as the border of our countries, are we going backwards to their? With Europe trying to dictate our rules and regulations, how we manage our borders , our financial system our assets and so much more. Not me the Scottish leader required does not exist at the moment, find one the right one fast then let the people speak. Kindest regards Raymond E. Clewer 1RECC someday I shall tell you why because I am fighting the same battle as Scotland at the moment .( yes I am challenged but I will not lose) and neither shall our Scotland.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You can’t be a native of these Isles, can you?
      As to border between England and Scotland, that would be a lot easier than that within Ireland. There are only 3 major crossing point, and a few minor roads. The border itself has nothing to do with Hadrian’s Wall (that being wholly within England), nor the Antonine Wall (wholly within Scotland).
      I suggest you look at a map, Wallsend is not far from Newcastle-upon-Tyne. You may have heard of a place called Berwick-upon-Tweed, it is rather closer to the border (though still within England), the border hits the coast a couple of miles north of there at Marshall Meadows Bay and at the Solway Firth in the west. The present border has been more or less stable for around 800 years.
      So no reason to move it, unless Cumbria, Northumberland, Newcastle, and Tyne & Wear wish to join Scotland, but that would be for them to decide if and when a regional government is imposed there.
      I suggest you look at Wikipedia, for once it has a fairly accurate description of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Scottish_border and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debatable_Lands
      One could argue that we are one Nation, but one has to recognise the politicial divisions. Ireland being the big one, the Scotland a secondary one. However despite the interbreeding of our peoples over the centuries, there are still (minor) cultural differences, in part leading to the aforementioned political divisions.
      Since the political differences exist, if one is to support the concept of democracy “people power”, even it its weaken modern “representational democrary” form, then there is a strong argument for Scotland being an independent state.
      Now I’d rather that at least in the short term, an independent Scotland not immediately join the EU, and that such should be a distinct policy decided by the people after independence; but maybe eventually it may make sense.
      Certainly historically Scotland maintained its own relations with the continent, and was quite influenced by it. In terms of population, Scotland is not too dissimilar from that of some other smaller European states.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Yes I am totally a native of these isle including Scotland and retain all the requirements to verify my comments.

        1RECC Sent from my iPhone

        >

        Like

  2. Peter unfortunately we are being directed by someone who is a capable administrator, but who lacks the PASSION , DETERMINATION AND DRIVE to FIGHT for our independence , there has been NO challenge to the wastemonster dictats just MEEK acceptance , whilst all the while the establishment continues to STEAL our revenues and attempts to write a constitution which will literally enslave our country and citizens , is this how our LEADER considers the correct way to win independence

    Fiddling with legislation re the GRA which alienates 50% of her voter Base whilst Rome burns

    IMO the SNP membership of which I am not one has to FORCE the hierarchy to ditch this nightmare legislation and remind the FM exactly why the SNP were voted in ( of which I am one ) I voted for the SNP for better governance and to get us our independence , not to feck about with a science denying pet project whilst our children are greatly suffering from a corrupt amoral government

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I think you make the most important point in the last paragraph. The role of leading the independence movement is now different from if more incompatible with the role of governing the country. In which case, Nicola could stay on doing what she does, while the independence movement is led by others.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Indeed. I think the divergence has got to do simply with the contradictory position of the SNP, made particularly salient by the result of the EU referendum. The SNP is now charged with governing under next to impossible circumstances while continuing to campaign to overturn the system by which it is permitted to govern at all. Confrontation is now inevitable between the people and government of Scotland, and British imperialism. This may necessitate several, if not many, leaders working in different ways and on different fronts. Although if one person comes forward with wherewithal and intelligence of history sufficient to lead the conflict, good and well.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. She’s a superb first minister. But a first minister is not a compatible role with the leadership of an independence movement. The first minister role is essentially the role of the Scottish manager of a devolved administration with very limited powers.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. “The person best fitted to lead the campaign to restore Scotland’s independence has to be someone who has Scotland’s nationhood written in their DNA. Someone who has the sovereignty of Scotland’s people engraved on their heart and our right of self-determination indelibly stamped on their mind.”

    Yes indeed, Peter. These sentences have a ring to them that stirs the heart.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Many fine points. It is becoming clear that many in the Yes movement and the SNP are not in agreement as to how to get over the line.
    It’s important to note though; that Nicola will; in all likelihood, be one of the most knowledgeable people in the country on how close we actually are……if there is a clamour for a different approach, then let the wider Yes movement lead that debate, and perhaps take steps toward that approach.
    Be absolutely assured though; the membership of the SNP will NOT countenance removal of their leader to suit ANY portion or faction of the Yes movement…….however the wider movement chooses to act; the SNP will act as Nicola sees fit. Any other course of action would be folly; and acting in the interests of parties who wish Scotland ill…

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.