I have decided to write a response to Shona Craven’s 8th August piece, ‘Who gets to decide what is divisive within the independence movement?’, which is her response to my 7th August letter, ‘Be clear about why actions of SNP Prestwick prompted anger’ – which itself is a response to Richard Walker’s 4th August article, ‘Do SNP need a bloody nose to refocus on independence?’.
From Craven’s article title it’s clear the author is of the ‘wheesht for indy’ brigade – an approach which undermines open debate and which has the effect of keeping matters problematic. In order to identify the pressing problems in the Yes movement we need to have free and open discussion.
Moving on, it’s clear from Craven’s opening remarks that she either didn’t properly read my letter, or she didn’t understand it. Either way, the fact that I thoroughly scrutinised Walker’s piece, an article which conveyed the same divisive tone of contrasting delivering leaflets against marching, as chimed by the SNP/Green hierarchies as a justification for divisive behaviour; and as I highlighted serious issues with his arguments, that it shows that my letter has got the right people rattled.
I am not surprised to see a kneejerk reaction from a member of the commentariat. I was expecting something like this, and it demonstrates that the arguments in my letter have hit a nerve, not least of all due to the tangible public support that the piece received online. Craven’s regurgitation of Walker’s points, without addressing the counter -arguments that I made, does not give a good impression of the author’s capacity for critical thinking. Craven displays her disregard of the points that I made by refusing to address them, and instead steamrolls over the arguments as if they were not made, most notably not addressing the need for unity in action, whilst attempting to gaslight readers in casting doubt on what I said when I described the ‘party’. Craven ought to properly read an article before she responds to it, else she makes herself look foolish at best and deliberately misleading at worst.
The author then ventures off on a tangent into cancel culture politics, citing the fact of AUOB always aiming for as broad a platform of speakers from across the Yes movement as possible, as justification for the Scottish Greens leadership refusing to attend and speak at the rallies. This point is completely irrelevant, and was not in the response I wrote to Walker, nor indeed was it mentioned in his original piece. Craven shows that she doesn’t understand the nature of the Yes movement, that we are united around a single point of solidarity which is desiring Scottish independence. Again, I thoroughly addressed this in my letter, and once again, I recommend that in the future Craven reads what she is responding to, and then responds on point.
The author continues by stating that: ‘The decision of the SNP not to rally its troops for All Under One Banner could have many practical explanations, not least that a subsequent low turnout (whether due to weather, scheduling or any other factors) would be seized upon by the Unionist media as evidence of waning enthusiasm for independence (or indeed waning enthusiasm for acting in accordance with SNP endorsements).’ This statement is preposterous, and it poses the question, if this is actually the case, which it is not, then why is the same approach not being applied in respect of the SNP leadership and party machine getting fully behind the Believe in Scotland March for an Independent Scotland in the EU demonstration on 2nd September? How is this argument any different for this demonstration compared to AUOB ones, or indeed any other non-bubble initative? I am surprised that Craven didn’t see how contradictory and illogical this was when she wrote it.
Craven continues with an attack on the AUOB marches, and alarmingly displays an apparent penchant for Toryism, yet I comprehensively addressed this on 29th June last year in a letter titled ‘Toryism is, by its very nature, Pro Poverty and Anti Scotland’. Again, I suggest Craven properly studies topics which she writes about before she publishes her work.
In conclusion, it’s clear to me, and it will be clear to many who have been following this exchange, that Craven’s attempt at gaslighting has not worked, but if it has worked at all it has done so counter productively, and has not, in one iota, given legitimate justification for the avoidance tactics and divisive SNP/Green leaderships behaviour which she has done her best to deflect from. Furthermore, my letter contained absolutely no ‘stamping of the feet’ to get ‘political endorsement’ from the SNP, but rather I took the opportunity to definitively outline what the problem is and who is causing it. AUOB is a campaign organisation for independence which is completely independent of all the parties, and so does not need endorsed by any of them. As such Craven, and anyone else who wishes to write about this matter, should only come back if they address the substantive points which I have made, and not just regurgitate previously stated, and now definitively challenged, arguments.
I find Shona Craven’s articles to be intellectually impoverished and this was no exception. To me, she exemplifies the mediocrity encouraged by the Sturrells and their heirs. ‘A’ class leaders with talent and ability nurture others with talent and quality. They populate their teams with exceptional people. Leaders without these qualities, fear those who have them. (Joanna Cherry, anyone?) This culture works its way down the ranks of Parties and Movements … until you come to the likes of Ms Craven and her like.
Game, set & match to Barrhead boy
Actually to Neil Mackay. I just published it
Regarding the present SNP’s many problems, see Joan’s explicit comment above.