Jim Sillars talks solid good sense on the matter of the internal reforms the SNP must undergo if it is to regain lost credibility. And lost members. What mechanisms for such internal reform remain available to members is questionable, however. Nicola Sturgeon did a very good job of insulating the leadership from the membership. But the members still own the party, even if they have lost control of it. Surely, they must have some power!
It is not enough for us to urge SNP members to use whatever power they have. We must also support them as they do so. Nobody - least of all Jim Sillars, I suspect - anticipates that an internal revolt will be easy or pleasant. Numerous noses will be put severely out of joint. It will get nasty. But it has to be done, or the SNP is finished as a force in Scottish politics. The concern must be what damage might be done to Scotland's cause as the party descends into political oblivion.
Jim Sillars is also correct to recognise that, whatever its failures and failings, the SNP remains the party political and parliamentary arm of the independence movement. It is an arm which is withered and paralysed, this is true. But it's what we've got! The SNP-haters calling for the destruction of the party are as much a problem for the independence movement as the SNP loyalists who want to exempt the SNP from normal scrutiny. Both these groups are obstacles to the kind of reforms that Jim Sillars suggests. Whether they are saying reform is not necessary or not possible, both are saying we should even consider the possibility of restoring the SNP to fitness as the 'party of independence'.
Having said so much that needed to be said and is such an emphatic but considered manner, it is doubly disappointing to find that Jim Sillars falls down when it comes to applying the "intellectual rigour" he speaks of to the matter of the process by which Scotland's independence might be restored. It is perplexing that someone who has demonstrated such clear thinking on other matters should remain wedded to the Section 30 process. The outer shell of radical rhetoric disguises but cannot conceal, the fact that Sillars is still prey to the old thinking that puts Westminster at the centre of the constitutional issue where the people should be.
Why the hell is he still thinking in terms of asking the British state's permission to have a referendum which, even if granted, could not stand as the exercise by the people of Scotland of our right of self-determination?
Referring to one of Nicola Sturgeon's 'demands' for a Section 30 order, Jim Sillars puts the following in bold for emphasis,
"Be grateful Westminster refused to give her one."
When I saw this, my heart lifted a little. Here at last, I thought, is someone with an influential voice recognising that a Section 30 referendum would be an unmitigated disaster for Scotland's cause. On top of the harm done merely by requesting one and thus compromising the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. But it turns out Jim Sillars is not celebrating Westminster's snub to Sturgeon because he's aware that a Section 30 referendum is a trap, but because he thinks there is not enough support to win it.
Apart from the nonsense of supposing that the polling for independence would be unchanged by calling and campaigning for a Yes vote, there is the fact that the Yes vote would be meaningless. A Section 30 referendum cannot be other than consultative and non-self-executing. A proper constitutional referendum has to be determinative and self-executing. Another Section 30 referendum would count as far as having referendums is concerned. But it would not count at all as far as restoring our independence is concerned. All a Yes vote would do would be to put the ball back in the British state's court. Where it would promptly be burst!
The very first step in any process that purports to be a credible route to independence is repudiation of the Section 30 trap.
I wanted to finish on a positive, and Jim Sillars provides one - almost! His suggestion regarding the creation of a "national Yes organisation" is excellent. But the notion that this should be done by the SNP - albeit a reformed SNP - is seriously wrong-headed. Sillars stresses that this organisation must not be an "SNP front". I would go further. I would say that it must not be seen as an SNP front. There must be no suspicion that it is and SNP front. That is not possible if the party is taking a lead role in the creation of the organisation.
There are three components acting for Scotland's cause. The movement; the party (or parties); and the campaign. While there should ideally be perfect coordination among these components, they have to be kept separate. The movement cannot access effective political power without the party. The party cannot acquire effective political power without the movement. Their roles are quite distinct. The movement cannot be limited by the constraints that apply to a party of government. The party cannot be directly associated with or responsible for the things said and done by members of the movement, because it has no authority over anyone other than party members.
The campaign is separate again. It must be a professional political campaigning operation taking its remit from the party but not its instructions. A national Yes organisation is necessary in order that the independence movement can speak with one voice and liaise with both the party and the campaign organisation.
This intervention for Jim Sillars has to be welcomed despite what I consider to be its flaws. Ignoring both the SNP loyalists and the SNP-haters, we should all be putting intense pressure on the SNP to implement - as a matter of the utmost urgency - the kind of reforms Jim Sillars proposes. This is surely the best time to do so, while the party leadership is still reeling from the electoral slapping it took last week.
I have never trusted Jim Sillars and would at best take any of his pronouncements with a large dose of salt. His political judgement and commiitment to independence have always seemed questionable to me; these latest comments give me no reason to change my opinion.