For months now I have clung to the hope that the Yes movement could somehow press the reset button on the political wing of our cause. I genuinely thought that it would be possible to force the SNP leadership to adopt a new and realistic approach to the constitutional issue. I am now persuaded that this is a forlorn hope. It probably always was. Time has run out. And so has my patience.
No shining visions. No radical agendas. No messianic leaders. Just the one clear objective. The one purpose. End the Union. Isn't that what we all want?
What of the idea that Galloway is peddling with his 'Alliance for Unity'? What of the notion that the British parties in Scotland might combine in a bid to thwart the SNP and hence the cause of restoring Scotland's independence?
Other than the premature obituary I found Stu's article both fascinating and cause for even more disappointment. As if we haven't had enough of that lately from our friends in a certain political party.
If social media is a concentrate of human folly and general awfulness then it is equally true that what we regard as 'the real world' is a dilute solution of the same foolishness and unpleasantness. So which offers the most accurate insight? Is the view we get of our fellow human beings in the 'real world' overly kind? Or is the view through the lens of social media excessively harsh? Can those who completely eschew social media precisely because it exposes more of the rawness of their fellow creatures than they are comfortable with really be said to have a less distorted impression of our species than those who only know the 'real world' as occasional visitors?
Nobody wanted to hear that the diversity which could exist, however precariously, in a movement and might even be said to enrich it had no place in a campaign. Nobody wanted to hear that inserting diversity into a single-issue campaign was akin to giving it a lethal injection.
Mr Dornan seems unable to distinguish between the SNP as an administration and the SNP as a political party. Not exactly a trivial distinction.
There is a very narrow sense in which it is fair to say that more is indeed cause for merriment regardless of any other consideration. In terms of votes in a referendum to determine Scotland's constitutional status, numbers are all that matters.
Kevin McKenna is jumping on a bandwagon at least in the sense that he is adding his voice to a growing clamour of protest directed not at the 'auld enemy' of the British establishment but at the de facto political arm of Scotland's independence movement.
Why did Nicola Sturgeon commit to the Section 30 process? Was she unaware of the fact that it was both a dead end and a trap?