SNP chiefs are being urged to use a virtual conference to decide if the party should adopt a “Plan B” approach on independence.
Western Isles MP Angus MacNeil and Inverclyde councillor Chris McEleny want the manifesto for next year’s Holyrood elections to include a pledge that winning a pro-independence majority would be grounds to start negotiations with Westminster for Scotland to leave the UK.
The pair had hoped their alternative approach would be discussed at the SNP conference in June – but the event was cancelled as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.
They say the issue should be debated at a virtual conference, with SNP members given an online vote on whether the party should adopt this stance in next May’s Scottish Parliament election.
McEleny, leader of the SNP group on Inverclyde Council, said: “If we are now able to go for a picnic, play golf or go to bowling greens, then we should be able to talk about Scotland’s future.”
Both McEleny and MacNeil have been arguing an alternative approach is needed after first Theresa May and then Boris Johnson turned down Section 30 requests from First Minister Nicola Sturgeon for power to be transferred to Scotland for a second vote on independence to be held.
The most recent request was made after December’s General Election saw the SNP increase its tally of MPs at Westminster, following a campaign focusing heavily on the issue of independence, but Johnson refused in January.
In March, the Scottish Government halted all preparatory work for a future referendum as the coronavirus crisis hit.
MacNeil said: “We can’t afford to waste another mandate for independence by allowing a ‘Boris veto’ because we don’t have a Plan B for when he says ‘No’ again to a Section 30 request.”
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