Surprisingly—or perhaps not—much of the best political commentary in The National is to be found not in the material provided by the professional journalists and columnists but on the paper’s Community page.
I see Dave Dugan mp for Angus glens as a future leader. But here's the thing... Can't as an MP I'm pretty sure the last time I looked at the SNP constitution, it changes weekly! Leader of the party must be an MSP and leader of the holyrood cohort of MSPs. But that's a tiny electorate to determine the leader and additionally the constitution says the leader currently can it be challenged at national conference.. it used to be that all of us better could be challenged at national conference. But now the leader is cast in stone. And it's not good because the leader of the SNP has to abide by the policy of the manifesto chosen by himself! Often leaving out radical policies decided by national conference. It's a turgid thing when we need a vibrant thing.
In fact in my opinion the leader of the SNP party as a whole should be anyone but an elected member of holyrood. Billy wolf was one of her greatest party leaders and he was never elected... Being party leader but not elected by this population in general is exactly what we need to progress the independence movement without the shackles of a manifesto commitment and party political strictures. While we were at it the constitution needs changed so that power returns to the branches and the branches can communicate effectively with each other. By the way I call John Sweeney the librarian because that's the kind of job that would suit him best lower to middle management
You are broadly correct about the SNP leadership entrenching itself. There are now significant hurdles confronting any would-be challenger. Although the details escape me for the moment.
However, the idea of the party leader being someone other than the First Minister and an unelected individual is problematic. There is too much potential for conflict in such an arrangement. It's not as if the party leader you envisage would have any real power. And conference would not be able to instruct the FM.
You will respond that conference can't instruct the FM now. But that is an aberration caused by the leadership clique 'fiddling' the party constitution to their own advantage. I would wish to see these changes rolled back. Alternatively, I'd like to see a party with genuine internal democracy take over as the 'party of independence'.
That is what New Scotland Party was meant to be. Unfortunately, there seems to be no possibility of reviving that initiative. something I profoundly regret.
Letters to The National seem to be getting ever closer to the nitty gritty, yet still reveal a rather 'rudimentary' understanding of our colonial reality, or how easily manipulated we are, not least by the journalist class.
Postcolonial theory informs us that the people must face the fact that the dominant national party elite seeks only to make 'an accommodation with colonialism'. As Peter implies, it matters little who the leader is, now or in future, for the party will continue to leave the matter of independence to 'meaningless slogans' and 'to future events'. Hence the 'rupture' in the movement.
In other words, depending on the colonizers political process is always inadequate and will always fail the oppressed/colonized group.
It is at this point that the people must start to really understand their colonial condition, which is at root racist, making them subordinate to another dominant people/culture. They must now 'shake themselves from their lethargy'. Or 'perish'. Perhaps our biggest challenge is therefore ignorance?
The history of decolonization and liberation of peoples/nations tells us what works and what does not work. As colonialism 'is force', in order to end colonialism the colonizer must somehow be compelled to depart.
Agreed, and it maps onto the frame in Doun-Hauden more closely than economics alone would suggest. Movements that actually forced a departure, like Saint-Domingue, Swadeshi and Guinea-Bissau, did not win by petition but by severing extraction until the colony turned from asset to liability. Cabral named the principle: imperialism is the usurpation of a people's productive forces, so liberation is their reconquest. What those movements severed, though, was largely physical: crops, markets, territory. Ours runs through something they never faced, the informational and legitimacy infrastructure that dresses the extraction as consent. The same technology harnessed to hold us can, understood correctly, be turned. How this might be achieved is best not laid out in a comment box. We have done a fair bit of work on how it maps onto our own colonisation, in your sense of the word, and would value the chance to share it with you. https://foundationscotland.substack.com/p/the-royal-exchange-1571-the-foundational?r=7rnu6p&selection=e1151df2-a865-4e2c-932c-f16cd8416106&utm_campaign=post-share-selection&utm_medium=web&aspectRatio=square&textColor=%23ffffff&bgImage=true
Spot on Alf .. and the exact example in front of our eyes in the Irish way to freedom. Unfortunately the British state and colonial ruler will not allow a democratic separation. But the Irish MPs and cabal at Westminster where exactly like the SNP and settled to the wages g0iven by the colonial power. What'. SinnFeign it was brilliant strategically by insisting elected MPs should not take the seat at Westminster nor take the Dane geld. That give their independence movement the freedom to truly address the issue of colonialism, and to beat it. One never knows maybe John Swinney talking engaging with the real nationalists of Ireland and Wales will grow some sort of backbone.
The one thing that Flynn has got going for him is that he's not part of the cabal around (first) Sturgeon and (now) Swinney. According to Joanna Cherry when Flynn became group leader at Westminster he stopped or at least didn't encourage the hounding of Joanna Cherry by her fellow MPs in that place.
However, on the constitutional question he appears confused - in an interview with John Drummond on the TNT Show in January 2024 he said:
“Oh yes, absolutely the Scottish people should be sovereign, are sovereign”
before going on to state in the very next sentence:
“Because of the nature of the Union that we have ultimately Parliament is sovereign on these isles”.
" “Oh yes, absolutely the Scottish people should be sovereign, are sovereign”
“Because of the nature of the Union that we have ultimately Parliament is sovereign on these isles”.
This is a perfect example of Orwell's " Doublethink ": the total contradiction of the two statements apparently not even registering with Flynn.
Only one of those statements can be true; but as long as supposed advocates of Scottish Independence affirm the latter, only that one has power.
Flynn may not have been part of the inner sanctum of the SNP-destroying ( as a member-led party ) Cabal - by definition that would always have had to be very small/select, so I don't think he accrues any credit for that: but neither did he - nor any other MP/MSP/ Party Member - utter the slightest word of protest/criticism about the filthy plot to politically assassinate Alex Salmond, even after the trial that proved his innocence; nor object to the Cabal's - principally Sturgeon's - disgusting attempts to smear him as guilty despite the court verdict - not a single word from him or any of them defending Alex; no protest either about the shameful Brexit capitulation or the constant failure to fulfil pledges, eg the much talked about never realised Convention or the Public Energy * plan *.
If he/they had not the honour to defend the man who had raised his party from the torpor & electoral doldrums of Swinney's first, woefully inadequate tenure, he, ipso facto, manifestly lacks the requisite qualities to lead Scotland to Liberation.
In plain language.....he was too much of a ( career first ) shitebag to raise his voice then; he'll never have the bottle to precipitate - and relish - the inevitable/ unavoidable confrontation with the British State that will precede the restoration of our status as an Independent Nation
I suspect that you are correct about Flynn's courage when it comes to Scotland's Cause and there is no doubt that he looked the other way regarding the stitch-up of Alex Salmond.
I merely posit that it MAY be possible to educate him as he would not be part of the Sturgeon continuity succession if he were to ascend to the SNP leadership.
'An adequate manager'.. (ref : Peter A Bell).....sums swiney up precisely.
Imagine standing in the front line of the front schiltron at Bannockburn facing an army of hostile foreign english 2 or 3 times the size of yer own and chatting casually wi jimmy standing next tae ye....
'Aye I reckon the Bruce is an adequate leader..dae ye think we'll win this battle Hamish?''
I reckon Hamish's answer would be ..'Bu**er this man ..am aff....'
But when it came to being tested Bruce decapitated his opponent in front of the Scots. I'm not asking swiney and crew to decapitate the foreign english. ( only if they want)..but stand up and vociferously defend our country How?
1 Don't you dare give our airbases to other countries .... dig up the runway...
2 Threaten removal of the radioactive hulks from Faslane if we don't get the reports on the leakage ( cancer rates are rising in that area).....a bad health report by our authorities ...close access to them...
3 Clear out the laughable Scottish Office...
4 Give Grangemouth financial support to stay open..just like stammer did for english steel..who cares if energy is reserved...it is now..to Scotland so try and stop us.
5 Close down 'the Red Coat' cafe in Edinburgh castle..that's an insult.
6 Call out racism by foreign english politicians.... take them to court. ( Scotland is a turd that won't flush away) Call out any insults are levelled at our nation and DEAL with it at a national level.
I read 'Old John' as well and always agree with him ..except he seems to be erudite whereas I lean towards more homicidal intentions as I don't like being taken for a mug..and we are being taken for mugs. We don't need the foreign english to do that ( tho they do) we have our own home grown quislings to do it for them.
Swiney and Co are TOO BL**DY COMFORTABLE...we need to unsettle them. A few bricks thro unholyrood would definitely unsettle anyone....Scots need to waken up and snarl...
That is true. But he is also a politician on the make. It is at least theoretically possible, no matter how improbable, that he could make his move on the leadership by proposing a genuine strategy for independence instead of the bowl of Swinney-pish the party loyalists are currently lapping up.
It doesn't look promising. But bear in mind that it doesn't take much to convince the SNP membership that you are the saviour of both the party and the cause. I refer you to last October's SNP conference.
Swinney is the man who when being questioned by a * Reporter * about his former Queen's insistent reply of " No comment " when she was being interviewed by the Police replied, with no sense of irony, let alone humour...." I'm not going to comment on that ", ie " No comment ". He may be acting as and have utility as a punchbag, maybe in the hope that when the current blizzard of blows the SNP is under abates, that party can get off the ropes and prevent suffering a knockout?
What, though, is to say that onslaught will abate? My impression is that the Yooniparty scent blood and have no intention of easing up; why would they when not only have they the existent self-created ( by the SNP ) shitshow to exploit, but the prospect of more, possibly even shittier shows pending?
As we've said often enough, the problem isn't Swinney, so much, as the * culture * that developed under Sturgeon that has - among other malign effects - created the situation where even if JS is replaced, there is not a single prospective replacement who would be any more likely to progress our cause than he is proving. Including the bantamweight, ie Flynn, who in some quarters is considered the likeliest next contender in the Scotland v England-as-Britain Heavyweight Contest. " In like Flynn " and out like a light in Round One
Until a SERIOUS contender emerges either from inside or outside the SNP - and there is no prospect of that on the horizon, the result will be a TKO win for the * Union *
In 2012 a customer of mine, a fierce nationalist to every cell of his being, said he was voting NO because Scotland didn't have the calibre of politician we needed apart from Alex Salmond, Jim Wallace, Charles Kennedy. I said we wouldn't get better until we were independent.
In the end he and his family voted YES, but what he said made me think - and agree.
As is so often the case, you fail to comprehend. While it is certainly true that some people are simply saying "Swinney must go", that is not what I argue in the article. I may be saying 'Swinney must go if there is to be any possibility of progress on the constitutional issue'. But that is probably too nuanced a view for you to understand.
The underlying point is as it has been since long before the election. By voting for Swinney and the SNP we voted for five more years to be wasted. That can't be helped now. There is no way out. Replacing Swinney could, in theory, lead to the change of approach to the constitutional issue that is required. But it probably won't. That fresh approach will all but certainly have to come from a different party. But, as I say in the article, that party doesn't exist any more than does the leader the SNP needs if it to return to being the party of independence.
There are no bright prospects. If you see one, it's a mirage.
Another point is, that I don't think anyone within the SNP is demanding Swinney must go, just a few odd bods here and there, including the totally unrepresentative btl in the National, so the chance of there being - at the moment - any challenge to the leadership is precisely zero. It's almost certainly Swinney until 2031 - at the earliest.
It's wasted breath, better would be structured and constructive criticism of Swinney and the SNP that people might pay attention to, and actually achieve something.
I agree. But I take the view that we should not go quiet into that dark night. We must kick and scream and protest. Otherwise, we are saying it's okay. And it very much isn't.
The chances of there being a challenge for the leadership of the SNP – or any political party – are never quite zero. When you say "structured and constructive criticism of Swinney", I hear 'polite' and 'restrained' and 'respectful'. My view is that Swinney's betrayal of Scotland's cause should be called out in every way possible.
I see Dave Dugan mp for Angus glens as a future leader. But here's the thing... Can't as an MP I'm pretty sure the last time I looked at the SNP constitution, it changes weekly! Leader of the party must be an MSP and leader of the holyrood cohort of MSPs. But that's a tiny electorate to determine the leader and additionally the constitution says the leader currently can it be challenged at national conference.. it used to be that all of us better could be challenged at national conference. But now the leader is cast in stone. And it's not good because the leader of the SNP has to abide by the policy of the manifesto chosen by himself! Often leaving out radical policies decided by national conference. It's a turgid thing when we need a vibrant thing.
In fact in my opinion the leader of the SNP party as a whole should be anyone but an elected member of holyrood. Billy wolf was one of her greatest party leaders and he was never elected... Being party leader but not elected by this population in general is exactly what we need to progress the independence movement without the shackles of a manifesto commitment and party political strictures. While we were at it the constitution needs changed so that power returns to the branches and the branches can communicate effectively with each other. By the way I call John Sweeney the librarian because that's the kind of job that would suit him best lower to middle management
You are broadly correct about the SNP leadership entrenching itself. There are now significant hurdles confronting any would-be challenger. Although the details escape me for the moment.
However, the idea of the party leader being someone other than the First Minister and an unelected individual is problematic. There is too much potential for conflict in such an arrangement. It's not as if the party leader you envisage would have any real power. And conference would not be able to instruct the FM.
You will respond that conference can't instruct the FM now. But that is an aberration caused by the leadership clique 'fiddling' the party constitution to their own advantage. I would wish to see these changes rolled back. Alternatively, I'd like to see a party with genuine internal democracy take over as the 'party of independence'.
That is what New Scotland Party was meant to be. Unfortunately, there seems to be no possibility of reviving that initiative. something I profoundly regret.
Letters to The National seem to be getting ever closer to the nitty gritty, yet still reveal a rather 'rudimentary' understanding of our colonial reality, or how easily manipulated we are, not least by the journalist class.
Postcolonial theory informs us that the people must face the fact that the dominant national party elite seeks only to make 'an accommodation with colonialism'. As Peter implies, it matters little who the leader is, now or in future, for the party will continue to leave the matter of independence to 'meaningless slogans' and 'to future events'. Hence the 'rupture' in the movement.
In other words, depending on the colonizers political process is always inadequate and will always fail the oppressed/colonized group.
It is at this point that the people must start to really understand their colonial condition, which is at root racist, making them subordinate to another dominant people/culture. They must now 'shake themselves from their lethargy'. Or 'perish'. Perhaps our biggest challenge is therefore ignorance?
The history of decolonization and liberation of peoples/nations tells us what works and what does not work. As colonialism 'is force', in order to end colonialism the colonizer must somehow be compelled to depart.
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2024/05/25/the-three-phases-of-decolonization-lessons-for-scotland/
Agreed, and it maps onto the frame in Doun-Hauden more closely than economics alone would suggest. Movements that actually forced a departure, like Saint-Domingue, Swadeshi and Guinea-Bissau, did not win by petition but by severing extraction until the colony turned from asset to liability. Cabral named the principle: imperialism is the usurpation of a people's productive forces, so liberation is their reconquest. What those movements severed, though, was largely physical: crops, markets, territory. Ours runs through something they never faced, the informational and legitimacy infrastructure that dresses the extraction as consent. The same technology harnessed to hold us can, understood correctly, be turned. How this might be achieved is best not laid out in a comment box. We have done a fair bit of work on how it maps onto our own colonisation, in your sense of the word, and would value the chance to share it with you. https://foundationscotland.substack.com/p/the-royal-exchange-1571-the-foundational?r=7rnu6p&selection=e1151df2-a865-4e2c-932c-f16cd8416106&utm_campaign=post-share-selection&utm_medium=web&aspectRatio=square&textColor=%23ffffff&bgImage=true
Spot on Alf .. and the exact example in front of our eyes in the Irish way to freedom. Unfortunately the British state and colonial ruler will not allow a democratic separation. But the Irish MPs and cabal at Westminster where exactly like the SNP and settled to the wages g0iven by the colonial power. What'. SinnFeign it was brilliant strategically by insisting elected MPs should not take the seat at Westminster nor take the Dane geld. That give their independence movement the freedom to truly address the issue of colonialism, and to beat it. One never knows maybe John Swinney talking engaging with the real nationalists of Ireland and Wales will grow some sort of backbone.
The one thing that Flynn has got going for him is that he's not part of the cabal around (first) Sturgeon and (now) Swinney. According to Joanna Cherry when Flynn became group leader at Westminster he stopped or at least didn't encourage the hounding of Joanna Cherry by her fellow MPs in that place.
However, on the constitutional question he appears confused - in an interview with John Drummond on the TNT Show in January 2024 he said:
“Oh yes, absolutely the Scottish people should be sovereign, are sovereign”
before going on to state in the very next sentence:
“Because of the nature of the Union that we have ultimately Parliament is sovereign on these isles”.
https://x.com/Rogue_74/status/1755375270901473726
Stephen Flynn has a lot to learn ... starting with the basics.
" “Oh yes, absolutely the Scottish people should be sovereign, are sovereign”
“Because of the nature of the Union that we have ultimately Parliament is sovereign on these isles”.
This is a perfect example of Orwell's " Doublethink ": the total contradiction of the two statements apparently not even registering with Flynn.
Only one of those statements can be true; but as long as supposed advocates of Scottish Independence affirm the latter, only that one has power.
Flynn may not have been part of the inner sanctum of the SNP-destroying ( as a member-led party ) Cabal - by definition that would always have had to be very small/select, so I don't think he accrues any credit for that: but neither did he - nor any other MP/MSP/ Party Member - utter the slightest word of protest/criticism about the filthy plot to politically assassinate Alex Salmond, even after the trial that proved his innocence; nor object to the Cabal's - principally Sturgeon's - disgusting attempts to smear him as guilty despite the court verdict - not a single word from him or any of them defending Alex; no protest either about the shameful Brexit capitulation or the constant failure to fulfil pledges, eg the much talked about never realised Convention or the Public Energy * plan *.
If he/they had not the honour to defend the man who had raised his party from the torpor & electoral doldrums of Swinney's first, woefully inadequate tenure, he, ipso facto, manifestly lacks the requisite qualities to lead Scotland to Liberation.
In plain language.....he was too much of a ( career first ) shitebag to raise his voice then; he'll never have the bottle to precipitate - and relish - the inevitable/ unavoidable confrontation with the British State that will precede the restoration of our status as an Independent Nation
I suspect that you are correct about Flynn's courage when it comes to Scotland's Cause and there is no doubt that he looked the other way regarding the stitch-up of Alex Salmond.
I merely posit that it MAY be possible to educate him as he would not be part of the Sturgeon continuity succession if he were to ascend to the SNP leadership.
Unlikely I know ...
Alf Baird would surely agree.
https://peterabell.substack.com/p/the-slowest-dawn/comment/289917072
Excellent piece of writing ..if a tad depressing.
'An adequate manager'.. (ref : Peter A Bell).....sums swiney up precisely.
Imagine standing in the front line of the front schiltron at Bannockburn facing an army of hostile foreign english 2 or 3 times the size of yer own and chatting casually wi jimmy standing next tae ye....
'Aye I reckon the Bruce is an adequate leader..dae ye think we'll win this battle Hamish?''
I reckon Hamish's answer would be ..'Bu**er this man ..am aff....'
But when it came to being tested Bruce decapitated his opponent in front of the Scots. I'm not asking swiney and crew to decapitate the foreign english. ( only if they want)..but stand up and vociferously defend our country How?
1 Don't you dare give our airbases to other countries .... dig up the runway...
2 Threaten removal of the radioactive hulks from Faslane if we don't get the reports on the leakage ( cancer rates are rising in that area).....a bad health report by our authorities ...close access to them...
3 Clear out the laughable Scottish Office...
4 Give Grangemouth financial support to stay open..just like stammer did for english steel..who cares if energy is reserved...it is now..to Scotland so try and stop us.
5 Close down 'the Red Coat' cafe in Edinburgh castle..that's an insult.
6 Call out racism by foreign english politicians.... take them to court. ( Scotland is a turd that won't flush away) Call out any insults are levelled at our nation and DEAL with it at a national level.
I read 'Old John' as well and always agree with him ..except he seems to be erudite whereas I lean towards more homicidal intentions as I don't like being taken for a mug..and we are being taken for mugs. We don't need the foreign english to do that ( tho they do) we have our own home grown quislings to do it for them.
Swiney and Co are TOO BL**DY COMFORTABLE...we need to unsettle them. A few bricks thro unholyrood would definitely unsettle anyone....Scots need to waken up and snarl...
For OUR Scotland and her sleeping weans.
Flynn has as much interest in Independence as I do in bungee-jumping. Or swinging through the jungle like Tarzan.
Oooh-eeee-ye-eee-aaaaaaaah-eee-yeee-eee-ooooh.
Jings I needed that.
That is true. But he is also a politician on the make. It is at least theoretically possible, no matter how improbable, that he could make his move on the leadership by proposing a genuine strategy for independence instead of the bowl of Swinney-pish the party loyalists are currently lapping up.
It doesn't look promising. But bear in mind that it doesn't take much to convince the SNP membership that you are the saviour of both the party and the cause. I refer you to last October's SNP conference.
Swinney is the man who when being questioned by a * Reporter * about his former Queen's insistent reply of " No comment " when she was being interviewed by the Police replied, with no sense of irony, let alone humour...." I'm not going to comment on that ", ie " No comment ". He may be acting as and have utility as a punchbag, maybe in the hope that when the current blizzard of blows the SNP is under abates, that party can get off the ropes and prevent suffering a knockout?
What, though, is to say that onslaught will abate? My impression is that the Yooniparty scent blood and have no intention of easing up; why would they when not only have they the existent self-created ( by the SNP ) shitshow to exploit, but the prospect of more, possibly even shittier shows pending?
As we've said often enough, the problem isn't Swinney, so much, as the * culture * that developed under Sturgeon that has - among other malign effects - created the situation where even if JS is replaced, there is not a single prospective replacement who would be any more likely to progress our cause than he is proving. Including the bantamweight, ie Flynn, who in some quarters is considered the likeliest next contender in the Scotland v England-as-Britain Heavyweight Contest. " In like Flynn " and out like a light in Round One
Until a SERIOUS contender emerges either from inside or outside the SNP - and there is no prospect of that on the horizon, the result will be a TKO win for the * Union *
There is no replacement for Swinney, and just about everybody knows that.
It's why the few saying "Swinney must go" are looked at as though they're daft. Or Unionists.
Swinney is it. Like it - or lump it.
There's always a replacement ..especially if the peasants are becoming unruly...
In 2012 a customer of mine, a fierce nationalist to every cell of his being, said he was voting NO because Scotland didn't have the calibre of politician we needed apart from Alex Salmond, Jim Wallace, Charles Kennedy. I said we wouldn't get better until we were independent.
In the end he and his family voted YES, but what he said made me think - and agree.
As is so often the case, you fail to comprehend. While it is certainly true that some people are simply saying "Swinney must go", that is not what I argue in the article. I may be saying 'Swinney must go if there is to be any possibility of progress on the constitutional issue'. But that is probably too nuanced a view for you to understand.
The underlying point is as it has been since long before the election. By voting for Swinney and the SNP we voted for five more years to be wasted. That can't be helped now. There is no way out. Replacing Swinney could, in theory, lead to the change of approach to the constitutional issue that is required. But it probably won't. That fresh approach will all but certainly have to come from a different party. But, as I say in the article, that party doesn't exist any more than does the leader the SNP needs if it to return to being the party of independence.
There are no bright prospects. If you see one, it's a mirage.
It wasn't actually aimed at you.
Another point is, that I don't think anyone within the SNP is demanding Swinney must go, just a few odd bods here and there, including the totally unrepresentative btl in the National, so the chance of there being - at the moment - any challenge to the leadership is precisely zero. It's almost certainly Swinney until 2031 - at the earliest.
It's wasted breath, better would be structured and constructive criticism of Swinney and the SNP that people might pay attention to, and actually achieve something.
I agree. But I take the view that we should not go quiet into that dark night. We must kick and scream and protest. Otherwise, we are saying it's okay. And it very much isn't.
The chances of there being a challenge for the leadership of the SNP – or any political party – are never quite zero. When you say "structured and constructive criticism of Swinney", I hear 'polite' and 'restrained' and 'respectful'. My view is that Swinney's betrayal of Scotland's cause should be called out in every way possible.
Yes.