In a fantasy world where our political leaders actually listen to the people, this person would tell them that the first thing they must do is repudiate the Section 30 process as an illegitimate constraint on Scotland’s right of self-determination.
Yes activists - including SNP members - didn't remove Nicola Sturgeon from her role as the de facto leader of the independence movement. She never showed any sign of wanting that role other than for the purposes of helping win elections. She never gave the slightest indication of wanting to pursue Scotland's cause. She allowed that cause to languish for nearly seven years giving rise to the frustration among Yes activists which is now becoming anger.
In terms of the claim that we don't need the SNP It need only be pointed out that there simply is no other credible candidate for the role of political arm of the independence movement. And not the remotest possibility of developing an alternative before the 'last chance' of the Holyrood election. The reality of real world politics is that we are stuck with the SNP whether we like it or not and regardless of whether the party is fit for our purpose.
I pour scorn on these 'list parties' for sound, rational, considered reasons which have nothing whatever to do with loyalty to the clique of crazies or their enablers who have done to my party and Scotland's cause such grievous harm.
The problem now facing Mike Russell, who presumably is overseeing the drafting of the Bill, is that he has to lay the groundwork for a referendum without a Section 30 order while the SNP's position is still that Section 30 is the "gold standard" and the only "legal and constitutional" way to have a referendum.
It is also worth mentioning - although it is unlikely to be understood - that within the British political system a 'super-majority' only really counts as such if it is all one party. One of the main fallacies of the snake-oil parties' prospectus is that all pro-independence MSPs are of equal value to Scotland's cause. They are not.
Why is the SNP leadership so intent on silencing or sidelining anyone who asks this kind of highly pertinent question? Why are they propagandising against bloggers who do no more than insist that the SNP does what it is elected to do while pointing out the ways in which it is failing to fulfil its role as the political arm of the independence movement?
It is not the behaviour itself that must be explained, but the explanation for the behaviour. When we see the SNP leadership behaving in ways that cannot do other than adversely affect its electoral fortunes and doing so immediately prior to an election of historic significance, this can only be explained by a near-total absence of strategic thinking. No dots were joined in the making of this plan.
In reality, the nuance in this instance is not all that subtle. It's actually quite easy to imagine circumstances in which Boris Johnson might do a U-turn on his adamant opposition to a new referendum. Bear with me and I'll explain.
If you are too shallow to appreciate that the catch-all term 'social media' encompasses the most democratic means of expression and communication ever to exist, only then will you use it as a catch-all term for obnoxious expression and hateful communication.