NEC should allow for debate on Plan B to take place

Independence is, after all, about the democratic choices of the people and the most effective way for Scottish people to have a government reflecting their choices.

Such an important decision about how best to achieve that must be a priority for a party for which independence and that democratic right is the party’s main aim. It is surely a democratic imperative to permit the branch delegates to discuss such a resolution and any proposed amendments at conference.

If this debate is permitted at conference, the merits of Plan A can be explained and, if plausible and clear, then it is probable the majority could be convinced to support Plan A and reject B. In contrast to the damage to the party by appearing dictatorial/non-democratic by not enabling the debate, the SNP will have proved its democratic credentials in comparison with the undemocratic actions of a UK Government ignoring four mandates for a referendum and indicating its intention to refuse a request for a Section 30 for a referendum, no matter how pro-independent the outcome of the 2021 election.

The NEC should, as a matter of urgency, hold an emergency meeting to reconsider its decision and recognise how important the democratic voice of members is in this matter. They should recognise in retrospect they made a mistake in omitting the resolution from conference and reverse that decision. The practicalities may be difficult but should be achievable if decided soon, allowing changes to the conference to be publicised in time and for any proposed amendments to be submitted.

With a democratic debate and decision the SNP will gain considerable credence and members, and the wider Yes movement are much more likely to get behind it.

Jim Stamper

Bearsden

“NOW is not the time for splits in the Yes Camp” was the headline for Cliff Purvis’s letter in the Sunday National. For good reason I would support those words for some of the reasons set out in his letter.

Cliff referred to the new indy parties, which have manifested these past months and have all expressed one common aim, namely Scotland’s independence. That’s fine with me, but what are their other policies for heaven’s sake? What do they say about the environment, health, education, national security, etc? Questions I have asked several times without any answers. Only a certain two-man party have expressed the need for independence, but also to avoid re-joining Europe, which gives them no chance given that Scotland voted, and substantially, for Remain. It has even expressed the notion that it will put candidates up for constituency election, unlike the others who will only select for list places. But it poses the question, who are these candidates? What is their background? Do they have a political background, or are they just wannabes looking out for themselves?

I have read fervently the explanations concerning constituency candidates, which I understand, and the list candidates which still leaves me cold. So I will not be voting for anyone of the new indy parties for two main reasons. The first is that I fear they will only split the independence vote thus reducing that vote through the candidate not achieving sufficient votes to be elected. Secondly, the lack of any experience, admittedly as yet unknown. And that goes also for whichever new indy party manages to even achieve a candidate.

I know who to vote for on my constituency vote because the party has been around for a good many years and is doing exceedingly well in the polls at the moment. My list vote will go also for whoever represents independence, plus the environment, knowing the trees that I love will be protected from the unlikely event that a high-speed railroad will be bulldozed through our wonderful country, while destroying ancient woodland and forest, unlike the Johnson high-speed railroad currently being bulldozed through the South East of England.

Alan Magnus-Bennett

Fife

I WAS amazed to read that Brian McGarry (November 3rd) is “heartened” by the fact that 53% of the electorate say that they will waste their list votes to elect one or two list SNP MSPs, when they could instead be used to elect 20 more Green list MSPs. Even more depressing was Brian’s suggestion that the Greens are not fully behind independence. As chair of Yes North East Fife and a Green candidate, I can assure him that the Greens are as committed to independence as the SNP.

Brian must be aware that most Green supporters “lend” their constituency vote to the SNP, to maximise the number of Yes MSPs. Yet he suggests that SNP supporters will not “lend” their list vote to the Greens, because they do not understand the voting system. Surely it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that everyone understands the voting system? The “lending” of Yes votes is not “splitting” the Yes vote, it is simply voting for the Yes party that is most likely to win a seat with that vote: SNP constituency, Green list.

Brian may have his own reasons for not wanting to vote Green, but my experience is that many, if not most, Yessers are very supportive of Green policies and increasingly intend to use their list vote to maximise Yes MSPs, and drastically reduce the number of Unionist MSPs.

Andy Collins

Fife