As we prepare to dismiss Graham Campbell's diktat as some momentary silliness, a disturbing thought occurs. What if this were a serious suggestion?
Joanna Cherry cherry has earned the virulent hatred of this clique not by betraying the the principles on which the SNP was founded but for upholding them. Not for flouting the standards which the party is supposed to operate but for insisting on them. Not for a lack of integrity but for having integrity in a measure which embarrassed too many who today are responsible for managing the party's affairs. Not because she is unpopular with 'ordinary' members but because she is so detested by those jealous and fearful of that popularity.
Why would we, in one breath assert the sovereignty of the people of Scotland and in the next allow that the British state has the rightful authority to question the choices made by the sovereign people of Scotland? What kind of 'sovereignty-lite' does the Reverend Campbell envisage? Is this conditional sovereignty conceptually similar to the idea of 'managed democracy'? I think we should be told before we commit to anything.
Any outcome which doesn't lead to the Union being dissolved in the very short term provides the British establishment with opportunities to create new and increasingly intractable obstacles to restoring Scotland's independence. If we don't get Plan A right, you can just forget the rest of the alphabet.
How do any of them defend a Union which places Scotland at the mercy of Boris Johnson and whatever form of unthinkable worse that is yet to come?
I realise that Alex Salmond is being politic when he says that the situation has "seemingly been resolved". But, of course, it hasn't. The Wings Over Scotland YouTube channel may have been restored but, at the time of writing, Peter Curran's channel has not. To the very limited extent that the process by which these … Continue reading A jarring disconnect