SNP delegates have rejected a call for the party to have a “Plan B” for securing independence should Boris Johnson or a successor prime minister reject giving Holyrood powers to hold a new plebiscite.
On the first day of the party’s conference in Aberdeen, there were boos and jeers from some of the party faithful in the conference hall when Inverclyde councillor and National Executive Comittee member Chris McEleny walked on stage to put his argument forward.
McEleny has proposed that a pro-independence majority at the next election should be considered as a mandate for talks to begin with the UK Government over an independent Scotland.
READ MORE: First Minister to ask for Section 30 Order by the end of the year
In his speech to open the conference, the party’s Westminster leader Ian Blackford had warned against members backing the proposal. “When you hear talk of a so-called Plan B, I ask you to consider this – the time to talk of a Plan B is not when Plan A has momentum,” he said.
“And make no mistake – with rising support for independence and a General Election on the horizon, we have that momentum.
“You know, Plan Bs are by definition second best. That’s why our opponents would love us to shift on to that ground – it concedes their right to block the best route to independence. And they will always settle for second best for Scotland. But we never should.
“When it comes to choosing Scotland’s future, we should demand and win the gold standard for democracy and for our country.”
Speaking in support of his resolution, McEleny said: “I think that as a democratic political party, it’s absolutely legitimate that we, the grassroots members of this party, have at least the opportunity to debate a Plan B at our party conference.
“Plan A is the plan that we want to have. We have a triple-lock mandate for an independence referendum.
“What do we benefit from a quadruple-lock mandate, or even a fifth or a sixth mandate of continually winning elections when we have a usurper prime minister in Boris Johnson who refuses to accept the democratic mandate of Scotland.
“That’s why I support a plan B and I think we should, at the very least, have a debate on it.
“You may not agree with the policy of having a plan B, but we are a democratic political party and vibrant political debate is what’s made this party the party that it has been for 85 years and it’s what got us to government in the first place.”
He added: “Plan B is if Boris Johnson, an unelected Tory prime minister, if he refuses to give Scotland a Section 30 order so that we can have the referendum that we have the mandate for, then a pro-independence majority at the next
election should be a mandate to enter straight into independence negotiations with the UK Government.”
SNP National Secretary Angus Macleod said the conferences committee had already twice considered the resolution, but deemed that it had not been competently drafted.
“Clearly, if a properly drafted resolution was submitted to the conferences committee, we would consider that for a future conference,” he said.
“However, this is not a question of debate, or the possibility of debate – we are always prepared for that in the conference committee and in this party, it is a proud tradition that we have. It is a question of whether we need competently drafted resolutions on which to have that debate, and the committee was not convinced that we do.”
The debate came as a poll for the pro-independence website Wings Over Scotland found eight out of 10 SNP voters believe the party should pursue some form of “Plan B” if the UK Government continues to refuse permission for another referendum.
Reflecting on the vote, McEleny said: “I fully accept the decision of conference delegates, who were swayed with the high-profile level of opposition.Time will tell whether or not we do need a Plan B.
“But the day an SNP representative decides not to progress an argument they believe in just because they’re scared it might not be popular is the day we are worse off as a party, so I’m not down-beaten by the outcome and thank all the grassroots independence supporters for their kind words.”
The Wings survey found just 6% of current Yes voters back the current policy of continuing to seek a Section 30 Order from Westminster to hold indyref2.
The alternative plan which received the most support in the poll – at 45% – was the SNP legislating to hold a second referendum without permission and then challenging the UK Government to block it in court.
And more than a third of Yes voters – 36% – backed the idea of adopting a policy where pro-independence parties securing more than 50% of the votes would be regarded as a mandate to negotiate independence directly, without the need for a second referendum.
Meanwhile support for the current policy of waiting for permission was far higher among No voters, with 21% backing the plan compared to 6% of Yes supporters.
Delegates have say on Plan B vote
WE asked SNP delegates for their thoughts as a bid to have a Plan B for gaining independence was rejected by party members.
Caroline Welsh, from Glasgow Kelvin:
“Very clearly delegates are of a mind that the focus should be on the properly legal route that would be accepted internationally. Another way might be satisfying but in the longer term it’s in our interest to do something in a way that’s internationally the best.”
Rab Collinson, West Aberdeenshire branch:
“Britain was a founder of the United Nations and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights gives the right of self-determination. It is international law. Britain cannot refuse to give a Section 30. Theresa May did not say ‘no’. She said ‘now is not the time’. We will
get the Section 30 Order when we ask for it and we will hold a referendum. We don’t need a Plan B.”
Senior delegate who spoke on condition of anonymity:
“What a load of s****. Anybody who suggests our executive doesn’t understand that there other options is off their head. Plan A is the gold standard. As soon as we walk away from that, we’re working for the opposition. It’s like going to Hampden and saying ‘we’re gonna get beat today but we’ll win next week’. If you want to change our leadership, put
your name on the f***ing paper and change it.”
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