How to identify a 'genuine' independence supporter

A couple of comments from a supporter of Liberate Scotland got me thinking about what criteria might be applied to identify a 'genuine' pro-independence party, organisation, group, or individual. The comments were very much in the vein of the tribalist sniping that is no the incessant, grating background noise of the independence movement. You know the kind of thing I mean. Claims of unique authenticity accompanied by blatant othering of this or that entity also claiming exclusive title to Scotland's cause while othering the otherer. It's endless and endlessly tedious. But this instance set me to wondering how we might differentiate between the real deal and the ersatz when it comes to those claiming to be supporters of Scotland's cause.

Is it enough that a person or group self-identifies as pro-independence? Or is there some test they must pass to be considered genuine? Are there certain identifying characteristics that a person or group must possess in order to qualify as true independence supporters? What might these be?

Let's consider the Scottish National Party (SNP). The SNP self-identifies as the 'party of independence'. The party's constitution is quite explicit about its aims.

(a) Independence for Scotland; that is the restoration of Scottish national sovereignty by restoration of full powers to the Scottish Parliament, so that its authority is limited only by the sovereign power of the people of Scotland to bind it with a written constitution and by such agreements as it may freely enter into with other nations or states or international organisations for the purpose of furthering international cooperation, world peace and the protection of the environment.

(b) the furtherance of all Scottish interests.

Despite this, it is very common now to find people claiming that the SNP is no longer seeking "the restoration of Scottish national sovereignty by restoration of full powers to the Scottish Parliament". The SNP is labelled a devolutionist or even a Unionist party. While the last of these is a bit silly, it is clear that for some people at least, self-identifying as a pro-independence party is not enough. But what more is required?

Many (most?) SNP members will insist that their party is still the 'party of independence'. How do they justify this claim? Do they even feel they need to justify it?

For obvious reasons I have used the SNP as an example. But the same - or something very similar - can be said of all the nominally pro-independence parties. All of them claim the right to call themselves 'independence parties'. Although they tend not to assert exclusive rights to the title of 'party of independence', each of them claims to bring something unique or special to the independence campaign. In my experience, it is rarely if ever possible to pin down exactly what this unique or special feature is. The most common and possibly ubiquitous characteristic stressed by these 'alternative' independence parties is that they are not the SNP. Ask what makes them 'genuine' and you will be told the same story about the SNP's failures and failings and nothing whatever about the party in question.

If these other (non-SNP) parties did have something to say about themselves that would make them unarguably distinct from the SNP, what might that be?

Are there objective criteria by which to assess the authenticity of a nominally pro-independence party? Does it matter? Supposing they could be identified, do people generally use such objective criteria when considering how to vote, or do they tend to be guided mainly by subjective judgements?

Given the proliferation of nominally pro-independence parties, it is surely important that people be provided with the tools to make a rational, informed choice. Whether they use these tools is a matter for the individual. But it would be gratifying to suppose at least some voters might choose to assess parties by reference to the specifics of their offering rather than the urging of their gut.

I would suggest that it is certainly not adequate that a party should merely state an aspiration to restore Scotland's independence or a 'vision' of what this might mean for the nation and people. They must also set out how they intend that this aspiration be realised. The aspiration/vision thing reduces the constitutional issue to the level of a meaningless promise such as parties make with casual ease when an election looms. So, one candidate for those objective criteria would be a credible plan for restoring Scotland's independence. There may be others.

For example, we might insist that to properly qualify as pro-independence for electoral purposes, candidates must have affirmed their adherence to the principle of the sovereignty of Scotland's people.

We might also consider what would constitute reasonable grounds for disqualifying a party or candidate from a contest of pro-independence parties. We might discount them if they were guilty of making false or misleading or utterly fantastical claims based on a best-case scenario that is as close to impossible as makes no difference. An example would be a new, fringe party with no record of electoral performance making promises which assume they are in government. Electoral miracles do happen. But miracle-dependent plans make no sense.

Imagine a checklist of pros and cons which could be applied to the nominally pro-independence parties in order to assess their potential usefulness to Scotland's cause. Perhaps a scale on which to score each item. Without actually starting to rate the parties, what items would be on your checklist?