Am I the only one who sees the problem with this?

Why would we, in one breath assert the sovereignty of the people of Scotland and in the next allow that the British state has the rightful authority to question the choices made by the sovereign people of Scotland? What kind of 'sovereignty-lite' does the Reverend Campbell envisage? Is this conditional sovereignty conceptually similar to the idea of 'managed democracy'? I think we should be told before we commit to anything.

Do polls mean anything?

Given that no credible process for a free and fair referendum exists within the legal and constitutional framework developed by the British state for the purpose of preserving the Union at any cost to the people of Scotland, the party must commit to creating such a process immediately upon being elected to govern. Only be having a commitment to the Manifesto for Independence well in advance of the election can the Scottish Government have an unassailable mandate to take the action which will be required when the inevitable confrontation with the British state happens.

Can BBC Scotland be Scotland’s voice?

We are entitled to ask why powers over broadcasting are being withheld from Scotland's democratically elected parliament. The only parliament with democratic legitimacy in Scotland. The only parliament that truly speaks for the people of Scotland. The reason cannot be that having powers over broadcasting held by a parliament furth of Scotland and not elected by the people of Scotland and unqualified to speak for Scotland results in a better service for Scotland. Not only is this jarringly counter-intuitive it is most definitely not borne out by the evidence.