A SECOND bid to have an alternative route to independence without a referendum debated at the SNP ’s autumn conference is set to fail.
SNP MP Angus MacNeil and senior SNP councillor Chris McEleny submitted a motion to the party’s conference committee, demanding a fallback position if the UK Government refuses to give the Scottish Government the powers to hold a new vote by granting a Section 30 Order.
After the “Plan B” call was rejected, the proposal was resubmitted to party bosses as an amendment to a motion from Deputy First Minister John Swinney and Early Years Minister Maree Todd instead.
But now the motion from Swinney has been dropped from the conference agenda.
McEleny said he believed it had been taken off by “party apparatchiks” to stop the debate from taking place, despite several SNP branches backing the idea.
However an SNP source said: “Members now have a much bigger say in setting the conference agenda, with the 3000 delegates selecting the motions to be debated – not the conferences committee.”
McEleny said: “Ultimately, on one hand it seems we have ordinary party members that thought no matter what position conference ultimately took, at the very least our route to independence was worthy of debate. And on the other hand unaccountable party apparatchiks who have tried everything – even taking the Deputy First Minister’s motion off the agenda – to stop members having a say.
“We are a party who embrace vibrant debate. The Tories don’t want to give Scotland a voice on our future, members would be rightly concerned if it appeared our own party structure was denying them the opportunity to have their say.”
The SNP councillor said they would continue to accept invitations from branches that want to discuss the idea of “Plan B”.
He added that there would be opportunity to raise it each morning of conference as an emergency motion – but expected that would be treated “with the same degree of
contempt”.
He said: “It is a wider issue I think – if you want people to engage in a political party then you embrace new ideas. If you treat them with contempt, ultimately it is not good for the wider movement.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel