THE SNP has said it “will not accept a Westminster veto” on holding a new independence referendum, according to a motion approved for debate which has been included in the draft agenda for the party’s annual conference.
The resolution does not set out what the party would do if the Prime Minister continues to refuse a new vote but it does open the prospect of further action being taken.
It comes days after we revealed a Plan B, proposed by Angus MacNeil and Chris McEleny to seek an alternative route to independence if Boris Johnson refused a new Section 30 order request for a new referendum, had been rejected for debate.
MacNeil and McEleny backed requesting a Section 30 order but argued that if it was rejected then Scottish ministers should seek a legal challenge to see if Holyrood could stage a referendum without the UK Government’s agreement.
Should this second step fail, their proposed motion argued the May 2021 elections should be a de facto referendum on independence.
READ MORE: SNP facing internal protest over party conference agenda
The draft motion, contained in the SNP’s provisional conference agenda leaked to The National, says if there is a pro-independence majority in Holyrood after the May 2021 poll there “can be no justification whatsoever for the Westminster Government to seek to veto that democratic choice nor should we accept such a veto”.
It notes that there has been a material change in circumstances since the 2014 vote, including Scotland’s place in Europe and the manner in which the UK Government has treated the Scottish Parliament throughout the Brexit process.
It states: “Conference agrees that if there is a majority in the Scottish Parliament after the Holyrood election in May for a fresh referendum on independence there can be no justification whatsoever for the Westminster Government to seek to veto that democratic choice nor should we accept such a veto.
“Conference believes any attempt to block the right of people in Scotland to decide how they should be governed would be both undemocratic and unsustainable, and would only strengthen support for independence.”
READ MORE: Indyref2: Judge gives green light to landmark Section 30 court case
Amendments can be submitted to the motions by next Tuesday with a final agenda to be published later. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon will address the online conference, being held from November 28 to 30, on the final day.
Responding to the independence resolution, McEleny said: “We will say that we won’t accept a Westminster veto to indyref2 but have no plan for when that outcome becomes a reality. We said we wouldn’t accept the Boris veto after last years General Election, and we did.
“We can huff and puff as much as we want, but without a plan we most certainly will not be blowing Boris Johnson’s opposition down.”
Critics of Plan B insist the SNP’s strategy of holding out for a Section 30 order is working with support for independence at record levels. They contend if Johnson is not going to grant a Section 30 order he is unlikely to enter negotiations on Scotland becoming independent.
They also note comments by pollster Sir John Curtice who warned putting a Plan B in an election manifesto could weaken the SNP’s negotiating position with Johnson to get a Section 30 order.
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