"They are raised, I think its fair to say, on a daily basis. So much so that they are increasing less debated and increasing ignored.
If you want something to be taken seriously and debated it has to have substance. It also helps if those raising the debate have any credibility themselves."
I think there is something else at work here. What you call 'credibility' seems much more of an emotional commitment on the part of the SNP core vote, at least: rather as Labour voters used to behave in 'the old days' of Labour's hegemony in Scotland.
Simply put, if they don't like the people conveying the message, they are not prepared to give it credence. Tories, clearly, not trusted by the majority in Scotland, therefore their criticisms are, as you put it ignored, whether they have substance or not. Labour now seem to be in a similar position to the Tories in Scotland, electoral support having been reduced to their core vote. Lib Dems have the northern isles. Any criticism from these parties has been 'tarnished' or is apparently not to trusted in the eyes of many 'floating voters' given various political shenanigans over the past 12 years.
You may say, but other more credible sources have been making criticisms (e.g.. my and your own party the Greens), but all too often these sources do not get widespread media exposure. The media prefer to see the political divide in terms of the post-indyref polarisation between nationalist and unionist, with the Greens in the nationalist camp, therefore criticism from Greens either does not fit with this simplistic binary (some say tribal) view, or the media prefer to report the opposition from the unionist angle to up the unionist ante. As we know, for the sake of the Cause no dissent is allowed from within the SNP itself. The SNP as the party of government naturally have a lot of access to media through official announcements, etc. which are nearly always reported.
"Take recent events re the bridge. All that effort by opposition politicians.activists (and their media pals) to try and slaughter the SNP failed because it had little or no substance."
I could not disagree more. The failure of the bridge is a direct consequence of decisions taken under the watch of this government. The criticism that I have heard was based on the facts, that the bridge's current state is a result of delays to recommended maintenance, issues which have been known about for years.
So it was not the message, but from whose mouths the message came (or rather whose mouths the media chose to report) that seems to been the problem. That's the 'credibility' gap you were referring to, which in my view is a product both of political polarisation/tribalism and inherent media bias.
So we arrive at the incredulous situation where the SNP are now trumpeting the 'early' reopening of the bridge as a great triumph, despite being caused by their own government's negligence of their duty of care to maintain the structure. I've even seen various 'Yes' group postings circulating on social media with a group photo of the Amey workers on the bridge as heroes. Okay, they did a great job but the SNP sanctioned message ignores that this maintenance was recommended nearly a decade ago!
Of course the SNP narrative on the bridge suits them. It suits the government for people to see it as a structure falling apart, "just one of those things", can't be helped, all the more reason why they're spending so much and working so hard building than big new bridge right next to it. Except of course the bridge's deterioration could very much have been helped: abolishment of tolls, delays to maintenance, privatisation of maintenance, have all contributed to greater damage and the recent closure.
Which we can all hear about in the media, but because it's coming from the mouths of unionists, the SNP don't want to hear it, will not admit they might have some culpability. Neither, it seems do its supporters. Why should they admit they might be wrong about anything? They're popular, they're in charge, they can portray opponents and critics as "traitors" to Scotland. Because, after all, the SNP are Stronger For Scotland. Even when they're not, enough people will vote for them anyway.
posts
