Great! Yet another SNP 'initiative' announced! Is anyone keeping a tally of these? How many survive past the announcement, with its fanfare of glib slogans, vacuous soundbites, and banal generalities? This one is topical, I suppose. At least in the sense that these SNP 'initiatives' always remind me of the Christmas tree decorations we had when I was a child. Brilliantly colourful and shiny on the outside, they were globes of wafer thin, extremely fragile glass encasing absolutely nothing. When inevitably one was broken, it could be seen that the shiny colourfulness was nought but a coat of lacquer even less substantial than the glass of which the bauble was made.
I never cease to be amazed that so many people continue to be taken in by these transparently trivial party marketing exercises. But taken in they are. Like the proverbial goldfish, they swim in circles around their bowl greeting with delighted surprise the plastic castle they pass on each circuit. It's a novelty every time.
As well as recalling those festive decorations of yesteryear, this 'initiative' reminds me of the SNP's efforts to claim ownership of the Yes movement. The advice itself is fine. The tactics they suggest would almost certainly be effective. Forgiving the clunky jargon, a campaign that's "data-driven, people-powered, and tailored to the modern media landscape" is a really great idea. But let's not fall for the ruse. This has nothing to do with Scotland's cause. The intended beneficiary of this "data-driven, people-powered" effort is the party, not the fight to restore Scotland's independence.
Yet again we find a nominally pro-independence political party using the language of Scotland's cause as a tawdry electioneering device.
This being the SNP leadership, they take a promising idea and render it worthless. There can be no doubting that the way for Scotland's independence movement to combat the almost universally hostile 'legacy' media is to make the best use possible of the 'new' media. To do that, there must be combination. Not the unity that so many bang on endlessly about while the movement remains stubbornly fragmented and faction ridden. Combination!
We are constantly told that the independence movement cannot succeed until and unless there is unity. With this being defined - explicitly or implicitly - as amalgamation. What the SNP and the other nominally pro-independence parties and the 'old guard' of the Yes movement who have made a career of the campaign are telling us is that we must all come together under a single umbrella organisation, In the case of the 'initiative' under discussion, the umbrella under which we are all urged to assemble is the corporate Yes entity wholly owned and operated by and for the benefit of the SNP.
Once we are all bound together in this 'unity', we will be expected to accept direction from the SNP. Our campaigning will be their campaign. Our messaging will be their message. Our envisioning will be their 'vision'. Dissent from the party line will be equated with betrayal of Scotland's cause. Scotland's cause will be the party's cause. And vice versa.
It should be obvious that this form of 'unity' is not achievable. Or if achievable, is certainly not sustainable. Few things are better designed to foster disharmony than intolerance of dissent. For 'unity' defined as amalgamation to work, every part of the whole must be in agreement with the umbrella entity on every matter on which the entity pronounces. Or they must be silent.
Aye! That'll be right!
There's as much chance of creating this amalgam as there is of Keir Starmer becoming a socialist. For the avoidance of doubt, that is no chance at all. For all practical purposes, this kind of 'unity' is an impossibility. No person of normal intelligence could suppose otherwise. Assuming the individuals making up the SNP and the other nominally pro-independence parties and the 'old guard' of the Yes movement etc are possessed of normal intelligence, they must be aware that the melding they urge just isn't going to happen. Which bids one wonder why they make success for Scotland's cause so critically dependent on achieving the impossible 'unity' they speak of.
Who would make success for a venture contingent on a miracle? Only those who had no great desire for the venture to succeed!
Combination is different from unity. Not least because combination is doable. It is simply not credible that the various factions will work together as a single homogeneous entity. It is entirely credible that they might work separately for a single clear purpose. There is nothing extraordinary or problematic about the idea of diverse groups and individuals acting in combination for a solitary and specific purpose.
That is what is missing from the 'unity' argument. Whether that argument is being made by the SNP or another nominally pro-independence political party or any of the others who have evidently learned nothing in the course of the last decade, the element that is always missing is the purpose. A singular purpose that is precisely defined and pointedly detached from all other purposes.
Taking the SNP leadership as an example only, this is what they fail to offer as they urge a general 'unity' for no particular purpose and therefore for whatever purpose they subsequently choose. By taking ownership of the Yes umbrella organisation and not defining a purpose directly related to Scotland's cause, they make uniting under that umbrella akin to signing a blank (or blanket?) contract - giving themselves the 'right' to fill in the details as expedient.
By portraying their 'unity' as a prerequisite of success for Scotland's cause, they make failure to sign the blank contract equivalent to betrayal of that cause.
Forget 'unity'! Think combination! 'Unity' is the old and outmoded thinking. Combination is part of the new thinking. All the parties and factions can keep their distinct identities and promote their various agendas while combining for the purpose of a common manifesto commitment on the constitutional issue.
Many parties! One Manifesto for Independence!
Your message is clear Peter, and you have made the same message before, but that does not mean there is no reason to repeat it, because as you point out people are still being drawn into this sidetrack and away from a genuine route to independence. We Scots are a diverse and individually mixed group of people, who speak, at least, three different languages in our daily lives. That we should unite under one unclear idea is meaningless. What is remarkable, and possible is that the majority of us can work together in some wider combination around a clear objective such as a politically and economically independent country.
As I've said before Pete, the various YES/INDY groups need to ensure their members are fully supportive of a policy of electing MP's that first and foremost, will pursue a credible means of restoring Scotland's independence. That obviously rules out Section 30 or any other incarnation of it that requires a "gift" from Wastemonster. Once MP's are aware of the purpose of their potential election and the consequences of their failure to follow through on said purpose, we may actually see some positive action. To make this happen, will require a great deal of organisation and we are running short of time until the Holyrood election in 2026. Marches and speeches etc, only serve to reinforce the voting intentions of those already committed to the independence cause. The only real power the YES/INDY movement has is their "bloc vote". The sooner they start to use that to dictate the outcome of Scottish elections, the better as far as I am concerned.