There is some irony in the fact that the person bleating most loudly about the need for open criticism is the same person who habitually censors responses critical of his arguments. Oh well!
This particular article is a veritable wee army of straw men, led by the following,
Are we really to agree that the independence movement is best served by adopting an unthinking unquestioning approach to our governments policies and actions?
Which immediately prompts some questions. Who is asking anybody to “agree” to any such thing? Who has suggested that the independence is “best served” by an attitude whose existence is nowhere in evidence?
Who is stopping you from questioning “our governments [sic] policies and actions”?
Is there anything more ludicrous than somebody using the loud and very public trumpet of the media – mainstream or alternative – to complain about how their voice is being suppressed?
The only people talking about “quietism” are those who really should be quiet – at least until they learn the difference between “being a tribal apologist for the SNP” and being astute enough to recognise that the SNP is the de facto political arm of the independence movement. Being sufficiently thoughtful to realise that it is perfectly possible to disagree with – or to be less than entirely satisfied with – some of the SNP’s policies and actions and yet still be aware that the party is essential to the political process of restoring Scotland’s rightful constitutional status.
Such people should be quiet at least long enough to reflect on the fact that the term “radical” is not synonymous with terms such as “right” and “righteous”. And it most certainly isn’t synonymous with political effectiveness.
They should be quiet enough to maybe discover that theirs is not the only voice in the independence movement. They do not own it.
They should be quiet until they have given at least a passing thought to what their alternative is. Before adding their voices to the raucous chorus of the British establishment’s propaganda machine and its incessant smearing of the SNP, they should maybe hush just enough to hear those who ask that they explain how they intend to reach the goal of independence once they have succeeded in bringing down the SNP.
And when they do speak, perhaps these people might afford other independence campaigners the respect of allowing that they might be perfectly rational. Rather than abusing other independence campaigners with taunts of ‘blind allegiance’ to the SNP, perhaps the shallow-thinking, self-righteous priests of ‘radicalism’ could open their eyes and their minds to the possibility that supporting the SNP is a considered, pragmatic choice by those who put the objective of independence before any personal manifesto.
If they are too dogmatic to comprehend anything else, maybe these people could at least try to grasp the fact that what distinguishes the SNP from other pro-independence parties (OPIP) is that its commitment to independence is not conditional on any political agenda. That is what makes it the ideal instrument. That is why a broad swathe of Scotland’s people have been able to see the SNP as an appropriate and acceptable tool by which to fashion a new politics.
The SNP is not the enemy. The SNP is the lever by which we will extricate ourselves from this anachronistic, dysfunctional, corrupt political union. It is the stick we wield against the might of the British state.
Criticise the SNP’s policies and actions all you like. Nobody is preventing you – or even trying to prevent you. All we ask is that, in your fervour, you don’t lose sight of the fact that the SNP is crucial, not only to the independence movement, but to maintaining the environment in which our new politics can develop.Views: 4170