It is disappointing – even if not entirely surprising – to find Richard Walker dutifully toeing the party line that the ‘how’ of restoring Scotland’s independence was settled at the SNP conference with the passing of the lightly tinkered leadership resolution on a so-called ‘strategy for independence’. The line is, of course, a lie. which in part, at least, explains why the leadership is so desperately anxious that we all “move on” and not stop to scrutinise the content and meaning of that resolution.
It is not possible to tell from reading Richard Walker’s account of the SNP’s conference whether he is to be counted among the deceivers or the deceived. Is he aware of how dishonest it is to claim that the matter of process has been dealt with and need no longer concern us and seeking to promulgate the lie? Or has he fallen for the scam so completely that he actually believes the leadership’s version of the story?
Fool or knave? Does it matter? It does, I suppose, if we are concerned about assessing the man’s character. But I have no interest in judging Richard Walker. If he is lying about the ‘strategy’ endorsed by conference then I am certain he is doing so in what he calculates to be the best interests of Scotland’s cause. If he really believes the SNP conference thoroughly debated process, examining various options and hearing the arguments for and against each, then this is a testament to the effectiveness of the pretence acted out by Humza Yousaf, Stephen Flynn and various bit-players in the performance.
To those of us who come to these things with critical faculties intact and functioning, the performance seemed hammy the script hackneyed and the plot a serious challenge to our ability to suspend disbelief. But to those who watched the show desperately wanting to believe they were witnessing a revival, with new stars restoring the SNP’s claim to be the ‘party of independence’, faith may have trumped objectivity. Which side of this divide the individual falls on may be gauged by their reaction to the standing ovation given to Nicola Sturgeon. If the reaction was jaw-slackening, brow-furrowing bewilderment, the empress was being seen fully disrobed. If the reaction was a warm glow of proud affection, her nakedness was being covered by glorious raiment conjured from the imagination.
The dispassionate observer saw the game being played. If Humza Yousaf was to be portrayed as introducing a new approach to the constitutional issue – as was the intention – there was a danger that this might be perceived as rejection of Sturgeon’s way. This risked allowing the notion to develop that the leadership could be wrong. That would never do! By introducing Sturgeon as a heroic figure with a proud record of achievement, any impression that she was being criticised was effectively countered. It’s clever stuff, even if rather clumsily executed.
The double-bluff (if that’s the correct term) lies in the fact that Yousaf wasn’t introducing anything new at all. Strip away all the palaver about seat or votes and Westminster or Holyrood and most or majority and the ‘strategy’ is the same as it has been for all of the years that the SNP Scottish Government has abysmally failed to progress Scotland’s cause so much as a millimetre. It is not a ‘strategy for independence’. It is a strategy for persuading people to vote for the SNP again. Look at the resolution absent the rose-tinted spectacles and all you’ll see is the SNP leadership yet again seeking a mandate to ‘demand’ a Section 30 order. Exactly as was the case in the last election. And the one before that. And the one before ….
Either Richard Walker hasn’t managed to figure this out for himself, or he is determined that nobody else does. You decide!
Peter A Bell 
I decided some long while ago that Richard Walker had joined the ranks of the mostly dishonourable roll call of knaves who write for The National. Or, as Stuart Campbell so aptly put it earlier this week, The National Embarrassment.
All the regular columnists, whether journalists like Richard Walker and Lesley Riddoch or half-arsed politicians like Alyn Smith and Karen Adam, are in effect soliciting SNP votes on a false prospectus while hunkering down together to await the winter of discontent that is undoubtedly coming for Scotland’s Cause.
A winter that will last a lot longer than a single season.
The consequence for their deception should be much worse than being left with a little egg on their faces as a result of an SNP gubbing at the forthcoming British general election.
Rather their names should be mud and forever linked with shame in Scotland’s struggle.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Richard Walker is of the extreme left and mistakenly thinks he can drag the SNP and the YES movement along with him in his extremities. Anyways, a deeply insightful article in the Herald by Andy Maciver (Message Matters):
https://archive.ph/BGVXl
Some may not agree with his criticisms [well, in WGD where I just posted this where no criticism of the SNP or ScotGv is ever ever ever allowed on pain of excommunication and indeed abuse], but the main message appears to be that Yousaf is doing what’s needed, and that is one I now agree with.
In spite of praising his speech at the National / Sturgeon rally in Freedom Square (2019?), I underestimated him and I suspect the unionists have as well.
And seeing as how Ash Regan’s new main policy seems to be to futilely try to make the oldest profession illegal for buyers, and Kate Forbes seems to think people are possessed by Demons, sadly it looks like the SNP did indeed dodge a double barrel.
I think strong criticism of the SNP is needed, but am putting myself – pro tem – totally behind Yousaf. Not just for the SNP, but for Independence. It might just be he’s the breath of fresh air needed, and in international relation terms he’s hit the vast majority view of Scotland (and the rest of the UK even), unlike Scottish Labour who got Iraq right along with the majority in Scotland but are now out of touch.
Oh well, back to gathering up leaves that the wind kindly put into neat piles for me and dried off as well. Why not go with the winds of change whenever possible?
LikeLike
Explain what it is you are backing in relation to independence. Or rather, what you imagine you are backing. Because Humza Yousaf is proposing nothing that can possibly lead to the restoration of Scotland’s independence. Nothing!
LikeLiked by 2 people
People have had faith in the ordinary SNP members turning around the SNP, but it’s clear that the voting lay with the delegates. The power also lay with them, and the likes of those who selected resolutions to discuss.
Yousaf did start the Assemblies and at least came up with the resolution, which is better it seems to me than the likes of Alyn Smith would want as it at least seems to want Indy in the shorter term rather than after Smith has had his cushy life at Westminster, one which frankly he stole from the previous actual resident of his adopted second home constituency.
That wish washy resolution will go into the manifesto, but there’s still time to give it some balls. Maybe in time the SNP members will be able to turf out those office bearers who haven’t got the slightest interest in Indy. And maybe that will give wind to Yousaf’s wings – if he has any.
Basically speaking he has 9 months to turn around the SNP and make it fit for purpose. I wish him luck – if that’s his intention. He’ll need it.
LikeLike
To add to that, the SNP went from 25,500 members in 2014 to 125,000 by 2015. Who were those 100.000 new members and where did they come from? I was one – lasted till 2017 but political parties aren’t my bag so I didn’t renew.
The SNP went down to 72,000 members by this year – who were those who left, and how many of them were some of the original 25,500 members from 2014? How many of the 72,000 (75,000 now) are remotely interested in Independence, or are more interested in whinging about Labour or jumping on the bandwagon themselves?
I can think of MPs that fit that bill, and MSPs as well. No idea about office bearers. But it seems to me the SNP has been corrupted.
LikeLike
So, nothing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MP Peter Wishart was on the wireless tonight, Radio 4 “Any Questions”, coming from Glasgow MaryHill Burgh Halls.
The question came up, about UK not needing EU permission for the Brexit Referendum, so why should Scotland need Westminster permission for an Independence vote.
He was asked what if London say “No” what would SNP do?
His answer was the usual, that it would show up Westminster and it not being good for Democracy, etc, etc.
I was not overly impressed!
We had the truly awful MSP J.Bailie of Labour there too, and when she was asked what Labour would do, went off on an anti SNP rant, No actual answer was given by her.
The LibDemer, MP C.Jardine again sidestepped the point about her supposedly being a “Liberal Democrat” and why she would oppose such a vote.
Again the usual pro London anti SNP waffle. MP, Andrew Bowie muttered stuff about it being the Legal way.
It was not too inspiring from any one of them, it has to be said.
However, on an earlier topic about the proposed Council Tax freeze, I was somewhat disappointed that when both Bailie and Jardine complained SNP policy originally was to change the Council Tax system back in 2007, MP Wishart didn’t intervene to point out both Labour and tories would block any such plans, and that it was a Labour Government in London at the time.
He was a little bit too shy in my view, considering the way MSP Bailie constantly talked over him, in the most appalling way.
However, on that subject of Council Tax, did I hear J.Bailie say SNP should sell Scottish Water???
This program airs live at 8PM Friday nights, but is repeated Saturday at 13:15 after the Radio 4 One O’Clock News.
But I’m sure that’s what I heard her suggest.
If so, SNP should go big on it.
At any rate, SNP has no policy what to do when London says “No”, but to look to the 2026 Edinburgh Parliament elections. That seems to be their only bet now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As I have been trying to get across to the terminally deluded, the SNP hasn’t changed its ‘strategy’ in any meaningful way. Their message is still that we must give them a mandate to ‘demand’ a Section 30 order. After that, they have nothing. They have no idea what they will do if the response is a refusal, as it is almost certain to be. We can only assume they will do what they’ve done on all previous occasions – fuck all!
There will be an article on this topic today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The motto “Stronger for Scotland”
tells you enough to know nothing’s changed. The motto should contain words like “Independence” or “leaving the UK”
or “Self-Determination”. Anything else is just twaddle.
LikeLiked by 2 people