" All previous and current efforts to unite the independence movement have taken unity to mean all gathered together under a single umbrella group.". That is simply accurate, P, and I'm afraid it illustrates your ( willful ? ) misunderstanding of what, eg AtLS are all about.
Yes, disparate entities WERE " gathered together under a single umbrella group "; and that " umbrella " was INDEPENDENCE NOTHING LESS NOTHING ELSE- other than that unifying idea, they were free to stand for and promote whatever policies and principles they desired. That seems to me the best way to manifest the concept of " E pluribus unum ", ie One in many/many in one: surely a better idea than enforced - ergo bound-to-fail - conformity or the self-defeating free-for-all of competing " visions " of how to progress our cause.
I wish you and NSP well, P, but I have to say......I really don't think what the Independence Cause needs at this time is YET ANOTHER Political Party; which IMO will only serve to fragment the Pro-Independence demographic even more than it currently is. Look how poorly the " new kids on the block " done in May, what makes you think another new " kid " will fare any better next time?
Yes, I know you intend NSP to be radically different - and I don't doubt in Spirit & " Intellect " ( ie with a deeper understanding of what's required and how to realise it ) it will be; but , realistically, it will not be able to escape the same quotidian, boringly predictable, seemingly intractable problems & dilemmas as every other Political Party: which can be encapsulated in one word......Humans.
Sorry, I don't mean to be a cold water pouring negatron, but these are my honest thoughts on the subject.
However.......at the risk of flogging the proverbial deceased equine entity.....a NSP under the aegis of AtLS could, potentially, be a VERY GOOD THING - more to the point, an aid in breaking the baleful spell the SNP has cast over the Pro-Independence demographic ( though, with the latest Sturgeon/Murrell - related crisis bubbling up and pouring molten negative perceptions over that Party, it's decline seems inevitable ). And, by proximity, you may well be able to convince the participants in AtLS of the advisability ( necessity ) of adopting the core ideas of NSP, eg the MFI
I honestly believe on it's own NSP will struggle to achieve escape velocity ( that turgid " both votes/ single vote SNP gravity is a real drag ) and combining strengths and resources will be a more fruitful path
You begin by saying my remark is "simply NOT accurate", then proceed to confirm the accuracy of everything I've ever said about AtLS. It was an umbrella group. At least one candidate/party walked away because they didn't want to be associated with some policy or position with which the group was identified. (I don't recall the details.) And "INDEPENDENCE NOTHING LESS NOTHING ELSE" is a slogan, not a plan. Not even an original slogan, at that.
I could never take AtLS seriously. I'm not sure if I mentioned this, but one of the last things I saw posted by someone from the party was a demand that the First Minister call an election. If they don't even know about fixed-term parliaments, I don't see how anyone could take them seriously. Evidently, the electorate didn't.
Clearly, you have no understanding of the thinking behind New Scotland Party, the #ScottishUDI strategy, or the Manifesto for Independence (MfI). The latter does not belong to me personally or to any party. It is there for any party to adopt. It defines the purpose which creates unity of purpose.
MfI is an essential element of the #ScottishUDI strategy. That strategy is not merely a slogan. It is a plan. It describes a step-by-step process with independence as its endpoint. It is not a pick 'n' mix menu. The process only works as a whole. It would make no sense for NSP to be associated with another party which had a different plan. Or no plan at all, as was the case with AfLS. Try to imagine the SNP joining AfLS while still pushing the both-votes thing and you'll get a sense of how impossible it would be for NSP to be associated with AfLS.
If AfLS had embraced the #ScottishUDI strategy and adopted the Manifesto for Independence, NSP would have been redundant. But they evidently thought they could get away with just a logo and a slogan. Unsurprisingly, it flopped. The same can be said of Alba Party. It failed because it simply didn't have a sufficiently distinctive and credible offering.
You should also know that I was ready to be involved with AfLS in its early days. It seemed like the seed of a good idea. Let's just say was not made to feel as if I was welcome in an organisation that purported to be trying to unite the independence movement.
If one is to condemn anothers argument then it is only fair to ensure that one is fully familiar with the argument that they are making, before passing judgement.
To fail to do so is also likely to create the negative situation that the others feel they are being unfairly slandered, or 'attacked' as da kids seem to say these days.
I refer the honourable gentlemen to previous remarks:
I could post a link here to a relevant recent social media post, but I choose not to do so.
The general ideas are what are important, not the personal particulars.
We all have to rely to some extent on what has been written previously and in this case the shorthand ‘dissolve parliament’ is predicated on the fact that as part of the smith commission negotiations the threshold for the Scottish Parliament to change its own rules was reduced from a qualified majority to a simple majority.
It is not really very complicated.
(This is all IIRC BTW)
If you want to attack the explanation, then the fair approach would be to debunk whichever part of it you disagree with.
If you don't like Alec Salmonds justification for how he said that the Alba party could proceed, then debunk the idea he promoted, which is this 'dissolve parliament' idea that Alba, ISP, I4I and AtLS have all talked about at various times throughout the years leading up to the recent Scottish election.
I do not recall seeing any place that you have done this.
I must first apologise for not responding to your comment. Sometimes they slip past me.
I have addressed the matter referred to, however, and for the very reasons you set out. As I don't recall where that is, I'll deal with it again. First of all, I'll reproduce part of your comment for context.
"The call for the SNP to dissolve the Scottish Parliament is based on the premise that an executive with a working majority can first use its powers to make a change to the parliamentary rules to reduce the two thirds majority currently required to a simple majority."
The essence of my response to this is that there is a difference between what is technically possible and what is politically feasible or practically credible. It may be true that a Scottish Government with a working majority COULD alter the standing orders of the Scottish Parliament, as you say, but WOULD it? The only party that might have this working majority is the SNP. There is just no way the SNP would do as you suggest.
Even supposing it did, you then ask us to believe that SNP MSPs would vote themselves out of a job. Nah! Never gonna happen!
So, that's dealt with. But the post I was referring to was not as you suggest. It simply said the FM should call an election. Which is just as nonsensical as I called it.
" There is just no way the SNP would do as you suggest.
Even supposing it did, you then ask us to believe that SNP MSPs would vote themselves out of a job. Nah! Never gonna happen!
"
I do not ask you to believe that.
As it happens that analysis concurs with my own.
Your habit of deliberately moving from discussing the argument to personalising it is a crude and diversionary rhetorical tactic that you would be much better served to stop deploying.
Other than that, the shorthand for 'dissolve parliament' and 'independence election' COULD be used usefully but unfortunately the complexities that they cover up do not seem to want to be examined by ANY of the other independence players, apart from you.
It wasn't my intention to personalise anything. The word 'you' doesn't always refer to a particular individual. It's one of those quirks of the English language. What I meant was advocates of the proposal ask us to believe, etc. The 'you' is as hypothetical as all the rest.
Your point about the nominally pro-independence parties not wanting to examine complexities is well made. I would extend that to most of those advocating 'solutions'. If one tries to pick their proposal apart in order to examine those complexities – even in a spirit of pure constructiveness – one is accused of 'attacking' the proposal and/or the individual doing the proposing.
Political ideas are not honed by applauding them. They are honed by criticising them.
For the avoidance of any misconception, I am not 'supporting' the idea.
I am not 'advocating' for the idea.
But the idea has been out there for some years now, for at least 3 or 4 ?
Indeed, IIRC Stuart Campbell advocated for how it would be doable in an article he wrote on Wings over Scotland.
Anyone who gives it even the most cursory examination should see that it is an unnecessary complication to say that we should dissolve parliament so that we can then hold an 'independence election'
when that stage could have been avoided completely by just starting with holding an actual 'independence election' in the first place.
Such as by utilising the mechanism described in the Manifesto for Independence.
But none of the 'Independence' parties did that.
So once again through not doing what was required at the required time the key players in the Independence scene have arrived back where they started from and seem predestined to make the same mistakes all over again.
Thus I expect the calls to 'dissolve parliament' to then hold an 'independence election' will continue for another 5 years.
ps....I agree my initial sentence * appears * contradictory; what I meant was, I think your idea of how that " umbrella " functioned ( was meant to function ) was inaccurate, ie it did not mean surrendering whatever distinct characteristics each participant had and submitting to an enforced " programme ". The only requirement was a stated, unequivocal commitment to prioritise the realisation of the Independence aspiration
" Clearly, you have no understanding of the thinking behind New Scotland Party, the #ScottishUDI strategy, or the Manifesto for Independence (MfI). The latter does not belong to me personally or to any party. It is there for any party to adopt. It defines the purpose which creates unity of purpose." I never said or in any implied it " belonged to me personally ", how the fck you arrived at that conclusion I have no idea .
I note you never addressed a single point I made about the - to my mind " debateable " - value of yet one more Political Party entering the already cluttered Pro-Independence * market *. IMO there is only room for ONE non-SNP P-O Party, and even that ( unlikely ) prospect would suffer the same " problems & dilemmas " referred to above.
I watched that exact scenario play-out in Catalonia, ie a plethora of Pro-Independence Parties/Groupings all competing for votes/support; all dissing each other; all presenting their opponents limitless opportunities to scorn, diminish and, ultimately, all losing.
If you imagine NSP to be just another pro-independence party, you clearly know nothing of its intended purpose.
If you object to the proliferation of pro-independence parties, why are you promoting AfLS?
The Manifesto for Independence is the best way to overcome the 'problem' of a proliferation of pro-independence parties. It might be better if there were a single pro-independence party. That's what the SNP was meant to be. Clearly, it isn't that now. AfLS isn't either. For all the reasons I have previously stated.
AfLS and NSP are both trying to do much the same thing but coming at it in different ways. The former's methodology has much in common with the SNP, while the latter takes a markedly different approach informed by a reframing of the entire constitutional issue.
I am genuinely baffled by the difficulty so many people have getting their heads around the thinking behind the #ScottishUDI process. I constantly find people commenting on it in ways that make it obvious they haven't bothered to read a single word of the screeds I've written explaining it.
Let's be clear! I am NOT 'attacking' AfLS. I'm not against it. My attitude towards it is indifference, because it is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because it is never going to gain any traction with the electorate. It is never going to get traction because, like the SNP, it behaves as if it is entitled to support on the basis of rhetoric alone. Lots of bold-sounding slogans, but no plan.
AfLS makes the same mistake Alba Party made. Both tried to beat the SNP in a contest of rhetoric about independence unaccompanied by any powerful ideas. The SNP already 'owns' the idea of independence in the eyes of the electorate. If you truly want to be an alternative to the SNP, you need a very distinct offering. Just talking a better game won't do because the SNP has the megaphone.
NSP has that distinctive offering. It is built on recognition of the realities of the constitutional issue. Realities such as the fact that talking about independence is putting the cart before the horse. There are two battles to be fought, and going for independence before you've won the self-determination battle makes no sense. Before we can even engage in the battle to win independence, we must secure the means and opportunity to fully and freely exercise our right of self-determination.
Legislative competence is the key. The SNP imagines the issue of legislative competence can be resolved by persuading Westminster to transfer powers. AfLS didn't even attempt to address the legislative competence question other than to dismiss the idea of it being an issue. NSP tackles the issue of legislative competence head on by first of all acknowledging that transferred powers won't work even if the British state were inclined to transfer those powers – which it emphatically is not.
Having acknowledged this, NSP then recognises that the only way the Scottish Parliament can acquire the legislative competence required is to take it. To assert it. To repossess it.
This is only an example to illustrate how distinctive the NSP offering is. Obviously, there's a lot more to it. But in every regard you might think of, it is different from the SNP.
NSP is not what's important. Another thing that makes NSP different is that it does not prioritise electoral success. It exists solely as a vehicle for the thinking behind the #ScottishUDI process.
Like I say, I have explained this repeatedly in as many different ways as I can think of. None of it has done any good because so many people refuse to read anything that's longer than 20-50 words. I've actually had people tell me they're not reading the 1,000-word article I've pointed the way to and insist that I sum it up in a couple of sentences.
Even the Manifesto for Independence is too much for these people, and it is only six bullet points!
There is a lot of dissatisfaction and anger around.
Turnout fell by 10% at the last Scottish Parliament elections to 53%. SNP vote share fell by 9% and 13% absolutely in the Constituency and Regional ballots to 38% and 27%, respectively. In relative terms the SNP lost on-fifth and on-third of its vote share, respectively in those ballots.
At the last UK general election in Scotland 2 years ago turnout declined by 10% to under 60%. SNP vote share contracted by 15% to 30% which, proportionately, is a one-third reduction.
If opinion polls ae to be believed around half, or maybe just over, of eligible voters expressing a view support full self-government for Scotland.
That would imply that there is at least 15% and very probably 20% of the electorate that either don't, no longer vote SNP or don't participate at all.
#EndTheUnion + #ManifestoForIndependence + #ScottishUDI might be the ticket for these Independence supporters currently without a political home.
Those figures give some context to the argument that the SNP is the failed national party predicted by post-colonial theory. Alf will be secretly delighted, I'm sure.
The problem is nobody to date has been able to harness that potential and turn despair, disappointment, despair and disaffection into clear-eyed, robust and determined support for Scotland's Cause.
New Scotland Party will be trying an entirely different approach that both sidelines Westminster as well as plots a credible pathway to Scottish independent statehood.
Wishart is merely a device to illustrate the point that the SNP has been failing Scotland's cause for a long time. I'm not sure how anybody could fail to comprehend that.
And yet, we have people who simply refuse to take-onboard the simple reality of the self-interest to be found amongst political parties, despite their often many years of experience in the world of Scottish politics. Is this the result of a willful happy-clappy naivete or of an over indulgence of THC bearing plant-life? We deserve answers!
Watching ..with my axe behind my back. I already did the 'end the union' on my vote.
I truly believe we will not get our freedom RETURNED to us as nowhere can I find the foreign english did that..they always had to be educated ..PAINFULLY. If Scotland walks away foreign england is finished . The loss of our resources and the self respect they feel at dominating another country...countries.... counting the other Celts..would diminish their standing internationally. ..as lonely wee resourceless england stands bereft. ( finally having to pay us for goods already stolen)
We only have to say..we're off ..and there is absolutely nothing they can do...if they get tanks on the street it would be just the excuse the Scots are waiting for..and I reckon Wales would not be far behind with the Irish already contemplating unification.
The Union is finished .....Scots are starting to realise that this english union has nothing to offer Scotland...with plentiful energy resources we pay the highest bills so another foreign country can thrive while our purses are empty.....the inevitable must happen. The sad aspect is watching the foreign english try to pathetically grasp onto us so THEY can survive while dragging us down....we have to kick them off...It's up to us. Show the same mercy they have shown us over 300 years.
For OUR Scotland and her just needing an excuse to fight weans.
" All previous and current efforts to unite the independence movement have taken unity to mean all gathered together under a single umbrella group.". That is simply accurate, P, and I'm afraid it illustrates your ( willful ? ) misunderstanding of what, eg AtLS are all about.
Yes, disparate entities WERE " gathered together under a single umbrella group "; and that " umbrella " was INDEPENDENCE NOTHING LESS NOTHING ELSE- other than that unifying idea, they were free to stand for and promote whatever policies and principles they desired. That seems to me the best way to manifest the concept of " E pluribus unum ", ie One in many/many in one: surely a better idea than enforced - ergo bound-to-fail - conformity or the self-defeating free-for-all of competing " visions " of how to progress our cause.
I wish you and NSP well, P, but I have to say......I really don't think what the Independence Cause needs at this time is YET ANOTHER Political Party; which IMO will only serve to fragment the Pro-Independence demographic even more than it currently is. Look how poorly the " new kids on the block " done in May, what makes you think another new " kid " will fare any better next time?
Yes, I know you intend NSP to be radically different - and I don't doubt in Spirit & " Intellect " ( ie with a deeper understanding of what's required and how to realise it ) it will be; but , realistically, it will not be able to escape the same quotidian, boringly predictable, seemingly intractable problems & dilemmas as every other Political Party: which can be encapsulated in one word......Humans.
Sorry, I don't mean to be a cold water pouring negatron, but these are my honest thoughts on the subject.
However.......at the risk of flogging the proverbial deceased equine entity.....a NSP under the aegis of AtLS could, potentially, be a VERY GOOD THING - more to the point, an aid in breaking the baleful spell the SNP has cast over the Pro-Independence demographic ( though, with the latest Sturgeon/Murrell - related crisis bubbling up and pouring molten negative perceptions over that Party, it's decline seems inevitable ). And, by proximity, you may well be able to convince the participants in AtLS of the advisability ( necessity ) of adopting the core ideas of NSP, eg the MFI
I honestly believe on it's own NSP will struggle to achieve escape velocity ( that turgid " both votes/ single vote SNP gravity is a real drag ) and combining strengths and resources will be a more fruitful path
You begin by saying my remark is "simply NOT accurate", then proceed to confirm the accuracy of everything I've ever said about AtLS. It was an umbrella group. At least one candidate/party walked away because they didn't want to be associated with some policy or position with which the group was identified. (I don't recall the details.) And "INDEPENDENCE NOTHING LESS NOTHING ELSE" is a slogan, not a plan. Not even an original slogan, at that.
I could never take AtLS seriously. I'm not sure if I mentioned this, but one of the last things I saw posted by someone from the party was a demand that the First Minister call an election. If they don't even know about fixed-term parliaments, I don't see how anyone could take them seriously. Evidently, the electorate didn't.
Clearly, you have no understanding of the thinking behind New Scotland Party, the #ScottishUDI strategy, or the Manifesto for Independence (MfI). The latter does not belong to me personally or to any party. It is there for any party to adopt. It defines the purpose which creates unity of purpose.
MfI is an essential element of the #ScottishUDI strategy. That strategy is not merely a slogan. It is a plan. It describes a step-by-step process with independence as its endpoint. It is not a pick 'n' mix menu. The process only works as a whole. It would make no sense for NSP to be associated with another party which had a different plan. Or no plan at all, as was the case with AfLS. Try to imagine the SNP joining AfLS while still pushing the both-votes thing and you'll get a sense of how impossible it would be for NSP to be associated with AfLS.
If AfLS had embraced the #ScottishUDI strategy and adopted the Manifesto for Independence, NSP would have been redundant. But they evidently thought they could get away with just a logo and a slogan. Unsurprisingly, it flopped. The same can be said of Alba Party. It failed because it simply didn't have a sufficiently distinctive and credible offering.
You should also know that I was ready to be involved with AfLS in its early days. It seemed like the seed of a good idea. Let's just say was not made to feel as if I was welcome in an organisation that purported to be trying to unite the independence movement.
If one is to condemn anothers argument then it is only fair to ensure that one is fully familiar with the argument that they are making, before passing judgement.
To fail to do so is also likely to create the negative situation that the others feel they are being unfairly slandered, or 'attacked' as da kids seem to say these days.
I refer the honourable gentlemen to previous remarks:
https://substack.com/@yourh4nd13/note/c-258837378
I could post a link here to a relevant recent social media post, but I choose not to do so.
The general ideas are what are important, not the personal particulars.
We all have to rely to some extent on what has been written previously and in this case the shorthand ‘dissolve parliament’ is predicated on the fact that as part of the smith commission negotiations the threshold for the Scottish Parliament to change its own rules was reduced from a qualified majority to a simple majority.
It is not really very complicated.
(This is all IIRC BTW)
If you want to attack the explanation, then the fair approach would be to debunk whichever part of it you disagree with.
If you don't like Alec Salmonds justification for how he said that the Alba party could proceed, then debunk the idea he promoted, which is this 'dissolve parliament' idea that Alba, ISP, I4I and AtLS have all talked about at various times throughout the years leading up to the recent Scottish election.
I do not recall seeing any place that you have done this.
I must first apologise for not responding to your comment. Sometimes they slip past me.
I have addressed the matter referred to, however, and for the very reasons you set out. As I don't recall where that is, I'll deal with it again. First of all, I'll reproduce part of your comment for context.
"The call for the SNP to dissolve the Scottish Parliament is based on the premise that an executive with a working majority can first use its powers to make a change to the parliamentary rules to reduce the two thirds majority currently required to a simple majority."
The essence of my response to this is that there is a difference between what is technically possible and what is politically feasible or practically credible. It may be true that a Scottish Government with a working majority COULD alter the standing orders of the Scottish Parliament, as you say, but WOULD it? The only party that might have this working majority is the SNP. There is just no way the SNP would do as you suggest.
Even supposing it did, you then ask us to believe that SNP MSPs would vote themselves out of a job. Nah! Never gonna happen!
So, that's dealt with. But the post I was referring to was not as you suggest. It simply said the FM should call an election. Which is just as nonsensical as I called it.
Thankyou Peter.
2 points though.
" There is just no way the SNP would do as you suggest.
Even supposing it did, you then ask us to believe that SNP MSPs would vote themselves out of a job. Nah! Never gonna happen!
"
I do not ask you to believe that.
As it happens that analysis concurs with my own.
Your habit of deliberately moving from discussing the argument to personalising it is a crude and diversionary rhetorical tactic that you would be much better served to stop deploying.
Other than that, the shorthand for 'dissolve parliament' and 'independence election' COULD be used usefully but unfortunately the complexities that they cover up do not seem to want to be examined by ANY of the other independence players, apart from you.
This is a very depressing state of affairs.
:-(
It wasn't my intention to personalise anything. The word 'you' doesn't always refer to a particular individual. It's one of those quirks of the English language. What I meant was advocates of the proposal ask us to believe, etc. The 'you' is as hypothetical as all the rest.
Your point about the nominally pro-independence parties not wanting to examine complexities is well made. I would extend that to most of those advocating 'solutions'. If one tries to pick their proposal apart in order to examine those complexities – even in a spirit of pure constructiveness – one is accused of 'attacking' the proposal and/or the individual doing the proposing.
Political ideas are not honed by applauding them. They are honed by criticising them.
For the avoidance of any misconception, I am not 'supporting' the idea.
I am not 'advocating' for the idea.
But the idea has been out there for some years now, for at least 3 or 4 ?
Indeed, IIRC Stuart Campbell advocated for how it would be doable in an article he wrote on Wings over Scotland.
Anyone who gives it even the most cursory examination should see that it is an unnecessary complication to say that we should dissolve parliament so that we can then hold an 'independence election'
when that stage could have been avoided completely by just starting with holding an actual 'independence election' in the first place.
Such as by utilising the mechanism described in the Manifesto for Independence.
But none of the 'Independence' parties did that.
So once again through not doing what was required at the required time the key players in the Independence scene have arrived back where they started from and seem predestined to make the same mistakes all over again.
Thus I expect the calls to 'dissolve parliament' to then hold an 'independence election' will continue for another 5 years.
:-(
Aye!
ps....I agree my initial sentence * appears * contradictory; what I meant was, I think your idea of how that " umbrella " functioned ( was meant to function ) was inaccurate, ie it did not mean surrendering whatever distinct characteristics each participant had and submitting to an enforced " programme ". The only requirement was a stated, unequivocal commitment to prioritise the realisation of the Independence aspiration
"unequivocal commitment to prioritise the realisation of the Independence aspiration"
Even the SNP could make that claim. It's quite meaningless without a plan.
" Clearly, you have no understanding of the thinking behind New Scotland Party, the #ScottishUDI strategy, or the Manifesto for Independence (MfI). The latter does not belong to me personally or to any party. It is there for any party to adopt. It defines the purpose which creates unity of purpose." I never said or in any implied it " belonged to me personally ", how the fck you arrived at that conclusion I have no idea .
I note you never addressed a single point I made about the - to my mind " debateable " - value of yet one more Political Party entering the already cluttered Pro-Independence * market *. IMO there is only room for ONE non-SNP P-O Party, and even that ( unlikely ) prospect would suffer the same " problems & dilemmas " referred to above.
I watched that exact scenario play-out in Catalonia, ie a plethora of Pro-Independence Parties/Groupings all competing for votes/support; all dissing each other; all presenting their opponents limitless opportunities to scorn, diminish and, ultimately, all losing.
Ach well, as always....." time will tell "
If you imagine NSP to be just another pro-independence party, you clearly know nothing of its intended purpose.
If you object to the proliferation of pro-independence parties, why are you promoting AfLS?
The Manifesto for Independence is the best way to overcome the 'problem' of a proliferation of pro-independence parties. It might be better if there were a single pro-independence party. That's what the SNP was meant to be. Clearly, it isn't that now. AfLS isn't either. For all the reasons I have previously stated.
AfLS and NSP are both trying to do much the same thing but coming at it in different ways. The former's methodology has much in common with the SNP, while the latter takes a markedly different approach informed by a reframing of the entire constitutional issue.
I am genuinely baffled by the difficulty so many people have getting their heads around the thinking behind the #ScottishUDI process. I constantly find people commenting on it in ways that make it obvious they haven't bothered to read a single word of the screeds I've written explaining it.
Let's be clear! I am NOT 'attacking' AfLS. I'm not against it. My attitude towards it is indifference, because it is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because it is never going to gain any traction with the electorate. It is never going to get traction because, like the SNP, it behaves as if it is entitled to support on the basis of rhetoric alone. Lots of bold-sounding slogans, but no plan.
AfLS makes the same mistake Alba Party made. Both tried to beat the SNP in a contest of rhetoric about independence unaccompanied by any powerful ideas. The SNP already 'owns' the idea of independence in the eyes of the electorate. If you truly want to be an alternative to the SNP, you need a very distinct offering. Just talking a better game won't do because the SNP has the megaphone.
NSP has that distinctive offering. It is built on recognition of the realities of the constitutional issue. Realities such as the fact that talking about independence is putting the cart before the horse. There are two battles to be fought, and going for independence before you've won the self-determination battle makes no sense. Before we can even engage in the battle to win independence, we must secure the means and opportunity to fully and freely exercise our right of self-determination.
Legislative competence is the key. The SNP imagines the issue of legislative competence can be resolved by persuading Westminster to transfer powers. AfLS didn't even attempt to address the legislative competence question other than to dismiss the idea of it being an issue. NSP tackles the issue of legislative competence head on by first of all acknowledging that transferred powers won't work even if the British state were inclined to transfer those powers – which it emphatically is not.
Having acknowledged this, NSP then recognises that the only way the Scottish Parliament can acquire the legislative competence required is to take it. To assert it. To repossess it.
This is only an example to illustrate how distinctive the NSP offering is. Obviously, there's a lot more to it. But in every regard you might think of, it is different from the SNP.
NSP is not what's important. Another thing that makes NSP different is that it does not prioritise electoral success. It exists solely as a vehicle for the thinking behind the #ScottishUDI process.
Like I say, I have explained this repeatedly in as many different ways as I can think of. None of it has done any good because so many people refuse to read anything that's longer than 20-50 words. I've actually had people tell me they're not reading the 1,000-word article I've pointed the way to and insist that I sum it up in a couple of sentences.
Even the Manifesto for Independence is too much for these people, and it is only six bullet points!
Christ! " P.I ( Pro-Independence ....) " not " P.O :)
" simply NOT accurate...."
From the National, this is the sort of thing that is regularly needed:
https://archive.is/80bKN
"SNP offer Keir Starmer 'chance to learn by shadowing John Swinney'"
Scratch that itch!
There is a lot of dissatisfaction and anger around.
Turnout fell by 10% at the last Scottish Parliament elections to 53%. SNP vote share fell by 9% and 13% absolutely in the Constituency and Regional ballots to 38% and 27%, respectively. In relative terms the SNP lost on-fifth and on-third of its vote share, respectively in those ballots.
At the last UK general election in Scotland 2 years ago turnout declined by 10% to under 60%. SNP vote share contracted by 15% to 30% which, proportionately, is a one-third reduction.
If opinion polls ae to be believed around half, or maybe just over, of eligible voters expressing a view support full self-government for Scotland.
That would imply that there is at least 15% and very probably 20% of the electorate that either don't, no longer vote SNP or don't participate at all.
#EndTheUnion + #ManifestoForIndependence + #ScottishUDI might be the ticket for these Independence supporters currently without a political home.
Those figures give some context to the argument that the SNP is the failed national party predicted by post-colonial theory. Alf will be secretly delighted, I'm sure.
It's true that is the case.
The problem is nobody to date has been able to harness that potential and turn despair, disappointment, despair and disaffection into clear-eyed, robust and determined support for Scotland's Cause.
New Scotland Party will be trying an entirely different approach that both sidelines Westminster as well as plots a credible pathway to Scottish independent statehood.
Meanwhile, a chance for the ScotGov to find a Scots Law to protect our legal property:
"Wallace letter 'should remain in Scotland', minister declares"
https://archive.is/WtQAY
And the gorja boys with their greedy eyes
Coveted our letters, coveted our letters.
Well, they burnt enough of them over 280 years, along with our history.
Colonial powers of course, steal and suppress a colony's culture. It's one of the markers of an unprotected NSGT.
Good grief, now it's all Pete Wishart's fault. Who knew!
That's not what I said. But experience tells me this hardly matters.
So why go on and on and on about him?
Wishart is merely a device to illustrate the point that the SNP has been failing Scotland's cause for a long time. I'm not sure how anybody could fail to comprehend that.
I'm surprised you didn't call him Wet Pishfart as the others like you do.
And yet, we have people who simply refuse to take-onboard the simple reality of the self-interest to be found amongst political parties, despite their often many years of experience in the world of Scottish politics. Is this the result of a willful happy-clappy naivete or of an over indulgence of THC bearing plant-life? We deserve answers!
Watching ..with my axe behind my back. I already did the 'end the union' on my vote.
I truly believe we will not get our freedom RETURNED to us as nowhere can I find the foreign english did that..they always had to be educated ..PAINFULLY. If Scotland walks away foreign england is finished . The loss of our resources and the self respect they feel at dominating another country...countries.... counting the other Celts..would diminish their standing internationally. ..as lonely wee resourceless england stands bereft. ( finally having to pay us for goods already stolen)
We only have to say..we're off ..and there is absolutely nothing they can do...if they get tanks on the street it would be just the excuse the Scots are waiting for..and I reckon Wales would not be far behind with the Irish already contemplating unification.
The Union is finished .....Scots are starting to realise that this english union has nothing to offer Scotland...with plentiful energy resources we pay the highest bills so another foreign country can thrive while our purses are empty.....the inevitable must happen. The sad aspect is watching the foreign english try to pathetically grasp onto us so THEY can survive while dragging us down....we have to kick them off...It's up to us. Show the same mercy they have shown us over 300 years.
For OUR Scotland and her just needing an excuse to fight weans.
That's the story in an nutshell, Ms McNamara.