As a veteran SNP member of some 45 years' standing at the last count I write
to endorse the thoughtful and courageous comments of the backbench SNP MSP, John Mason, in relation to the excessive reluctance of so many of his party colleagues to criticise the SNP administration in the various Holyrood committees ("Backbencher Mason
attacks fellow MSPs", The Herald, September 22.)
While I can understand that, in the run-up to last year's independence referendum the SNP whips were particularly anxious to avoid giving the impression of any emerging splits within the governing pro-independence party, it is surely unrealistic to maintain this facade of total
conformity ad infinitum as it is, in any case, unhealthy in a representative institution.
Moreover, despite my support for the SNP as the principal pro-independence
party, I have never for a moment believed that any party has a monopoly on political wisdom and, in an independent Scotland, I would hope and expect people to be free to make their own choices. In the event of a second independence referendum, I would argue that the achievement of independence could enhance rather than reduce opportunities for the expression of different political opinions and that, in the meantime, the SNP
could set an example by tolerating the expression of such differing views within their ranks.
I am reminded of the splits in the UK Labour party back in the 1950s
and early 1960s between its right-wing (the Gaitskellites) and the Bevanite left-wing which the Tories inevitably sought to exploit. In response Nye Bevan, the esteemed Welsh founding-father of the NHS, shrewdly pointed out that "the only place where there is complete unanimity is the graveyard".
Ian O Bayne,
8 Clarence Drive, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel