ON invitation from the conference committee, more than 100 resolutions were submitted by members to the SNP 2020 annual conference. Subsequently the conference committee decided not to accept any and instead draft six all-encompassing policy statements.

Again, on invitation from the conference committee amendments from many SNP Branches were submitted to these six conference motions. Again, the conference committee almost completely disregarded what was sent to them.

The preparation for the online conference has been disrespectful of ordinary card-carrying members of the party in terms of communication and even gives the appearance of eliminating any role members should have in policy formulation.

READ MORE: Revealed: The full list of candidates in the SNP NEC elections – part one

We have come to this dispiriting conclusion as four ordinary members who have had successful careers and wide experience in serious public, private and voluntary institutions.

In the first instance a clear impression was given that, although online, it would be a conference at which the membership of the party would have an opportunity to formulate motions within their respective branches, then submit them for scrutiny to a democratically accountable conference committee. That, and other iterations of that process, is the hallmark of social democratic parties in Western democratic societies.

In our view, if the party had, as many trade unions have done, sensibly intimated that because of Covid, nothing approaching a normal conference could be arranged, that would have been understood and generally accepted.

READ MORE: Tommy Sheppard: SNP must not make mistake of strangling debate

But, due to the lack of internal communication, a large number of SNP activists, who themselves are having to face up to Covid challenges, organised diaries and branch meetings in the expectation that something approaching normal policy formulation would take place.

The fact that multiple published deadlines were missed is not even the most egregious point. It is that expectant branches were not, repeat not, informed about delays. A simple “sorry-due-to-Covid-things-will-be-late” would have been a basic courtesy that could have been done with administrative ease.

It is an insult to the generations of SNP activists who played a key role in the anti-nuclear movement that the members of the SNP are to be denied their opportunity to explicitly embed in party policy the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Those in charge of conference arrangements have made a conscious decision to stick with an anodyne sentence, one that even prominent British multilateralists like could sign up to. Conference will have before it nothing more than a meaningless rhetorical flourish, itself grammatically clumsy. It reads: “We will be able to remove Trident nuclear weapons from our shores, which are an affront to basic decency with inhumane destructive power”.

Inexplicably, the agenda committee rejected a solid policy proposal that reads: “We (Scotland) will choose to be a sovereign state signatory of the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and ensure the removal of all nuclear weapons from Scottish territory with the support of the United Nations and international law”.

The wider membership may be aware that the First Minster gave the thumbs up to the TPNW publicly in 2017. Indeed all SNP parliamentarians in Holyrood and London have signed the ICAN Pledge to support the TPNW. Notwithstanding, it appears those in charge of the conference have decided (even where Covid presents no impediment) to ignore these facts and diminish the role of card-carrying members in the formulation of party policy.

Bill Ramsay, Convener; Jean Anderson, Secretary; Ron Dickinson, Treasurer; David Peutherer, Executive Member
SNP CND

OLIVER Mundell resigns from the Scottish shadow cabinet because of the “very specific needs of his constituents”. As one of those constituents, I am struggling to identify what these needs could possibly be?

The need to travel to a high-Covid area to have a meal or do some shopping? The need for people from high-Covid areas to come to Dumfriesshire to do likewise?

READ MORE: Jamie Halcro Johnston to replace Oliver Mundell after resignation over Covid rules

Essentially, Mr Mundell seems to be arguing for the right of his constituents to risk their lives and the lives of others.

May I remind him that there is an extensive list of permitted ESSENTIAL travel and it is only frivolous and unnecessary journeys that are precluded?

Perhaps Mr Mundell could explain to your readers the point of his melodramatic – and frankly dangerous – gesture.

Jennifer Rhind
Moffat

AS one of his constituents, I am both confused and concerned by the reason Oliver Mundell gave for resigning his position as shadow minister for rural affairs and tourism.

He reportedly said he could not support the recent Covid-related travel restrictions as being “in the best interests” of his constituents. The clear implication of this is that he believes there should be no hindrances to people travelling to and from Dumfriesshire.

If this is the case, I find his position not only irresponsible but potentially dangerous in terms of spreading the Coronavirus and I can only imagine how our hard-working NHS doctors and nurses feel about this.

The travel limitations provide an extensive list of exceptions and do not curtail necessary travel between regions, including to and from Dumfriesshire. They are simply designed to prevent unnecessary journeys and thus help reduce the number of potential deaths from Covid-19.

I have written to Mr Mundell requesting an explanation as to why he thinks his constituents should not be given this protection and why he opposes these protective measures.

C Donaldson
Moffat