There's just been a fascinating development in the Wings party saga. Somebody asked Stuart Campbell whether it was true that he planned to have no involvement with the party (ie. he would be merely lending the Wings 'brand' to a group of candidates), and this was his reply -
"I'd have to be the leader, it's my party. As for being a candidate, not decided."
Remember the criticisms that were made of the Brexit Party when it was set up? That Nigel Farage 'owned' the party in the same way that he might own a business? That he had set himself up as leader-for-life and that there were literally no democratic means by which the members could ever replace him? And indeed that there were no members at all, merely a fan club of 'supporters'? And that the supporters had no say over policy, which was instead solely decided by one man?
It's surely unthinkable that any progressive, left-of-centre independence supporter would intentionally want to sign up to a party organised along those lines, but that appears to be exactly what Stuart is suggesting - he clearly sees the party as his own personal possession and will appoint himself leader for an indefinite period. It's murderously hard to imagine the party having proper members with a democratic say over policy if they are to have no democratic say over who is leader.
Many potential Wings supporters are rightly concerned about the SNP's cautious managerialism and stifling of debate at conference. But for my money they'll rue the day they swap all of that for the Il Duce principle.