SNP figures have suggested grassroots members are being shut out of the party's policy making process as well as decisions over governance following the publication of the draft conference agenda.
Joanna Cherry, the Edinburgh South West MP, drew attention to the provisional document when it was published last night.
Instead of motions being put down in the names of individual members or branches, as is usually the case, the agenda contains resolutions on a set of broad topics including independence, the economy, the NHS and the pandemic but not under any particular members' or branches' names.
On independence the resolution states that the party would not accept a Westminster veto on a new referendum, though it does not say what it would do in response to any further refusal by the Prime Minister to agree to a new vote.
READ MORE: SNP conference motion says party won't accept Westminster veto on indyref2
There is also no provision in the agenda for changes to be made to the National Executive Committee (NEC). A review is currently underway into the NEC.
The document states: "Given a correlation between the published remit of the Governance Review and many of the internal resolutions submitted, the Conferences Committee has asked the review group convened by Depute Leader Keith Brown to consider these issues separately. They will update members as to their next steps."
Highlighting the publication of the document, Cherry, the party's justice and home affairs spokeswoman at Westminster, tweeted: "The constitution of @theSNP says 'National Conference is the supreme governing & policy making body of the Party.' The provisional agenda is now available online. It’s confidential but members should scrutinise the agenda bearing in mind the constitution."
The constitution of @theSNP says “National Conference is the supreme governing & policy making body of the Party.” The provisional agenda is now available online. It’s confidential but members should scrutinise the agenda bearing in mind the constitution
— Joanna Cherry QC (@joannaccherry) November 3, 2020
Cherry pulled out of the contest to be the party's Holyrood 2021 candidate in Edinburgh Central following the "dual mandate" rule change made over the summer. The new rule meant that candidates would have to stand down from Westminster ahead of the election.
The party said the change was made to prevent a series of possible by-elections after it was believed several MPs were looking at a switch to Holyrood.
David Henry, a Cherry supporter and activist who is suing the party over the new dual mandate rule and who hopes to be elected as a top office bearer, said the agenda contained six resolutions out of more than 130 submitted by party branches.
Henry, who is standing to be the SNP's national secretary, issued a press release on the matter.
It said: "With the publication of the SNP draft agenda last night, which contained only six resolutions out of over 130 that branches submitted and not containing any that address the SNP's internal or operational issues. There is grave concern that this will erode trust both in the party and the party leadership."
It added: "The SNP National Conference is the supreme governing and policy making body of the party. The failure to include any of the resolutions that would address the internal operations of the party is both unconstitutional and unprecedented.
"The SNP membership is being denied their basic rights to have a say and the delegates at the next SNP conference ... are being denied their constitutional rights to have a vote on these important and pressing issues. Branches didn't propose, draft and vote to support these resolutions for them to be excluded."
The statement added that members of the SNP and all branches are urged to demand that the SNP Sighthill/Stenhouse Branches "Transparency" resolution in particular is placed on the conference agenda by writing to the party's chief executive Peter Murrell.
A senior SNP source said: "The SNP’s annual conference is the supreme decision making, and policy setting, body of the party.
"The draft agenda is a complete whitewash that denies party members their right to debate particular policy positions that then determine our policy position on them.
"Branches across Scotland put a lot of effort into submitting policy motions but instead of them being debated we have a non agenda with motions that aren’t even attributed to anyone.
"Of course even more concerning is that there are clear organisational issues that need to be addressed but instead of resolutions on this being accepted they have been remitted to Keith Brown to review and then report back on them next year.
"We are now effectively asking people to pay £30 to attend an online knitting bee. It is outrageous. “
An SNP spokesman said: "Effective leadership during the global pandemic is proving a real boost to support for an independent Scotland. The SNP will continue to focus on what’s important to the people of Scotland, and our conference agenda is reflective of those priorities."
It is understood that 42% of resolutions submitted by branches were used to shape the provisional agenda, last year that was just 19%.
The conference is to take place on line from November 28-30.
Branches have until 5pm next Tuesday, November 10 to submit amendments to the resolutions, the draft agenda states.
The final agenda for the event will be published later.
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