IF you’ve ever dared venture unwisely into the deepest weeds of Scottish nationalism, you’ll find a fringe conspiracy being worked over for the umpteenth time that British intelligence is constantly plotting to defeat the Yes movement.
Now, according to the numerous spooks I’ve spoken to over the years, that’s utter nonsense. I’ll leave you to decide whether you accept their assurances.
However, to any casual observer the current SNP leadership contest couldn’t be more damaging to the party if it was an actual MI5 plot.
Read more: Mhairi Black in scathing attack on Kate Forbes' equal rights comments
The entire escapade has been absurd, a tragi-comic implosion of a party once revered for its mastery of political messaging.
The SNP currently has the gravitas of a Carry On film. Aside from the fact that this mayhem brings into question how the current cabinet can in any way functionally govern Scotland right now, it also raises this issue: what does the SNP really stand for?
Is it the socially progressive party of Nicola Sturgeon? Or the socially conservative party of Kate Forbes? Is the environmentally friendly party of Sturgeon, or the party of Ash Regan, who has attacked Sturgeon’s green agenda? And what does Humza Yousaf really stand for?
Read more: Former SNP minister challenges Yousaf's gay marriage vote excuse
Indeed what have so many people been voting for all these years?
Does the SNP truly believe in anything beyond independence? Whether you like or loath, trust or distrust, the Labour Party, the Conservatives, or the Lib Dems, it’s fairly clear to everyone what they believe in, and stand for - that is no longer the case with the SNP.
SNP loyalists - in utter disarray - may try to claim that ‘well, this is a leadership contest and it will...
To read the full article from Neil simply subscribe to our Unspun newsletter, delivering the best political comment, insight and analysis straight to your inbox every weeknight at 7pm.
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