THE second day of the SNP’s (virtual) 2020 annual conference persevered despite a return of the internet gremlins. The ever eloquent, and sadly soon to retire, Michael Russell MSP was temporarily muted when he attempted to introduce the morning resolution on “An independent future for Scotland”. Fortunately, Mike was soon reconnected, which stopped several thousand delegates and watching party members hollering “press unmute” at their screens.
The first session began with an impassioned speech from the party’s Westminster leader, Ian Blackford, speaking against an extraordinarily beautiful Skye dawn. Ian wore his trademark tweed jacket and waistcoat, looking only a little incongruous surrounded by his somnambulant sheep.
The debate on Scotland’s political future was a weird affair. The gigantic composite motion did not actually specify any points of action, which (as a number of speakers were quick to point out) probably made it unconstitutional. However, we are under standing orders especially written for a virtual conference, so the rules of debate are very elastic. Besides, the whole reason for the motion was to banish any mention of Plan B from the agenda. This proved a hopeless exercise as dissenting delegates simply spoke to the direct negative then argued for Plan B anyway – otherwise known as what to do if Boris denies a Section 30 and a referendum.
The official motion also mentioned dumping Trident but was silent on the UN Treaty on Prohibiting Nuclear weapons. Dissenters duly explained that some 14 branches had put down motions calling for said Treaty to be ratified by an independent Scotland. So why was the topic missing from the agenda? Cockup or could the Treaty pose awkward questions for Scotland’s putative Nato membership? In the end, 262 delegates voted against the anodyne main motion, versus 1204 for. That suggests around a fifth of the party are entrenched Plan B supporters.
READ MORE: Adam Price: Scotland and Wales must form our own Celtic Union
Meanwhile, behind the scenes, a battle royal surrounds voting for the various party placeholders. Normally this is a geekish affair where branch activists hand out self-printed leaflets arguing why they should be deputy sub-committee convenor for this or that. But growing discontent with the way the party’s National Executive Committee and National Secretary have performed has turned this year’s elections into a contest between dissidents and leadership loyalists – with many of the party’s foot soldiers caught in the middle. It does not help that the toxic issue of gender recognition and trans rights has raised its head in the internal voting process.
In many respects, this conference represents a coming of age for the new, mass member SNP that emerged after the 2014 referendum. As one of the largest parties in Europe, disparate currents were bound to emerge - divided over tactics and split between left, right and centre. That, after all, is the very stuff and stuffing of democratic, electoral politics. Just ask Labour or the Tories. I bet super calm, conference chair Kirstin Oswald wishes she could control the mute button. Come to think of 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