ONE of the most depressing features characterising the wider Yes movement in the last two years has been the bitterness that’s developed between the SNP and Alba. We all know its roots lie mainly in the personal enmity that has arisen between Nicola Sturgeon and her political mentor Alex Salmond.
This was perhaps inevitable given the circumstances surrounding the trial of Salmond on serious charges ranging from sexual misconduct to sexual assault and the perceived role that his successor and her closest allies played in this. Salmond, was, of course, cleared of all charges.
The dispassionate observer (of whom there are very few in the Yes movement) could reasonably find fault with the both of the main protagonists. Salmond, though not guilty of any of these charges, by his own admission indulged in conduct over a prolonged period that was highly questionable while he was in public office.
Some of this occurred in Bute House which he, along with all first ministers, are granted on a basis of trust and respect for the office by the people of Scotland. Even among those who admired him greatly during his time in the role, the lack of anything resembling a profound apology for such behaviour was depressing.
Sturgeon and some of those close to her could be deemed guilty of failing some of the complainants by a chaotic and incompetent approach (tainted by bias) to the initial investigation. Not the least of this was the leaking of confidential details to a Scottish national newspaper which formed the basis of their original front-page exclusive.
Some of the questions about what really occurred in the years leading up to this will probably never officially be answered. The extraordinary efforts by some government officials to conceal certain tranches of potential evidence ensured that the public was never intended to get anything like the whole truth.
Yet, even if all of the details had emerged, it would probably not have been possible for Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond ever to have recovered anything from their previous relationship. Mending one bridge might have been achieved, but not a dozen.
Even so, once it became apparent that Alba, the party founded by Salmond, was here to stay there ought to have been a level of co-operation. Scottish nationalists have always insisted that the ultimate goal of an independent Scotland over-rides all other divisions.
In recent years this has been manifest when some of us are moved to criticise the Scottish Government over its handling of health and education and the glacial (and inconsistent) approach to forming a robust strategy for making a second referendum happen. The phrase “wheesht for indy” is used to urge all Yes critics of the SNP to back off until independence has been achieved.
Yet some of those who enthusiastically promote this approach conveniently ditch it when it comes to the prospect of working with Alba. Some of the well-paid and exalted professionals who exist on the SNP’s scarecrow wing (we all know who they are) seek to sow favour with the party leadership by hurling insults on social media at Alba. Their most infantile rebukes focus on the poor electoral numbers for Alba.
Instead of indulging in such foolish and performative mud-slinging, which is rooted in a desperate attempt to be noticed, they should be asking themselves why a high number of committed, talented and experienced independence voices felt they could no longer continue with the SNP.
Very little of this was about the broken relationship between the SNP’s two greatest leaders. Rather, it came about because the atmosphere of bullying and intimidation (most evident at national conferences) became too much to bear.
Anyone who dared to question the leadership’s strategies, or even to deviate in the slightest from an aggressively enforced party line, was considered fair game for “the treatment”.
This usually consisted of a hit squad chosen from among the youth wing to be given the front two rows at conference and verbally abuse those who were deemed not to be made from the right sort.
Mocking Alba for their unspectacular electoral performances ignores an important reality, that many of those who have migrated to the new party were among the most hard-working advocates for Scottish independence and some of the most respected across the party political divides.
In the very few Scottish electoral contests that have occurred since Alba’s founding, this hasn’t amounted to what might be considered a breakthrough in votes.
A gruelling and extended referendum campaign is a different matter, though. Every vote for Yes counts and is far more important than any cast in a Holyrood election.
During a referendum campaign, all the powerful forces of the UK establishment will gather to defend the Union with all means at its disposal. Party conflicts and clashes of personality will be laid aside for the task of attacking and undermining the cause of independence. They will chivvy out any and all signs of division in the Yes side and feed on them.
This is why one of Stephen Flynn’s (above) first acts as new leader of the SNP Westminster group of MPs – to signal a fresh spirit of co-operation with Alba – was so crucial and welcome.
His olive branch represents a departure from the years of immature posturing by some on the SNP front bench, which reached its nadir last month when a number of their MPs, led by Ian Blackford, got to their feet and walked out of the chamber as Alba’s Kenny MacAskill rose to speak about Tory raids on Scotland’s energy. It was a pathetic stunt.
Alba have welcomed Flynn’s rapprochement and have urged the SNP group to sign their Early Day Motion endorsing the St Andrew’s Day Declaration.
This states: “We the people, elected members and civic organisations of Scotland assert that our nation has the right of self-determination to freely determine our political status and to freely pursue our economic, social and cultural development.
“Mindful of the Scottish constitutional tradition of the sovereignty of the people, we will democratically challenge any authority or government which seeks to deny us that right.”
The St Andrew’s Day Declaration epitomises what many Scottish independence supporters would regard as the basic minimum of commitment for any politician at Westminster being paid handsomely to represent them and advocate for them.
In view of the mutual resentment which has previously existed between these two parties I’d be surprised if Flynn immediately urged his members to sign this. But he appears to grasp the importance of forging closer links to the wider Yes movement and that, of itself, is a welcome change.
