A Watershed?

In his letter to The National (October conference will be a watershed moment for the SNP 28 August), Dan Wood provides a comprehensive - and very depressing - overview of the current dire plight of the Scottish National Party. I know the response from some quarters will be "So what?" - expressed with either pointed indifference or gnashing vehemence. Those who think with their neurones rather than their hormones will know exactly 'what'. They will know why the fate of the SNP matters greatly to those concerned with Scotland's cause. They will recognise that taking the polls as the best information available, the SNP is set to be the largest party in the Scottish Parliament again, as it has been for approaching nineteen years.

Thoughtful people realise that such is the SNP's dominance that - combined with the effect of voter inertia - even if the party is quite severely chastised by the electorate, it will still be the largest party and, in all probability, the party of government - either as a minority administration or as the dominant partner in some form of coalition.

Rational people capable of objectivity will recognise that even if the SNP is punished by the electorate much more than the polling gives us reason to expect, it will still b a significant presence in Holyrood. They will recognise too that any moves to progress Scotland's cause will require the votes of every (nominally) pro-independence MSP. If a (nominally) pro-independence parliament is maintained at all, it will only be by a small margin. Even in the vanishingly unlikely event that the SNP was lost all but one seat, the vote of that sole MSP would probably be required to pass any measure intended to advance the struggle to restore Scotland's independence.

If you are pro-independence then the fate of the SNP matters. It is likely to matter for many years. It will definitely matter in relation to the 2026 Scottish Parliament election. Therefore, it matters now.

You may not like these facts. But they remain facts. The SNP cannot be discounted. You can be non-SNP and pro-independence. But you cannot logically be anti-SNP and pro-independence. If, like myself, you are unwaveringly committed to Scotland's cause, you cannot actively seek the downfall of even a party which is pro-independence in name only without doing harm to that cause. Because parties that are pro-independence in name only are all we have at the moment.

The Scottish independence movement is currently bereft of the party-political and parliamentary arm that is essential if it is to achieve anything. The nominally pro-independence parties are the driftwood the movement clutches to avoid drowning. The SNP happens to be the biggest piece of driftwood. That chunk of timber is all that's left of the ship that was supposed to carry us to independence. The ship we built. The ship that has been steered onto the hull-splintering rocks by a series of inept captains commanding a cowardly and self-interested crew.

Having no party-political and parliamentary arm, the independence movement must seize hold of the next best thing. Because the next best thing again is the worst thing imaginable - Holyrood being recaptured by the British parties that squat there. Having no general to lead the charge, the independence movement must defend itself as best it can by using the nominally pro-independence parties as a shield against those British parties. Regardless of our feelings on the matter, the SNP is going to remain a vital part of that shield.

The fate of the SNP matters. Therefore, the SNP conference in October matters. That conference will certainly be a watershed moment for the party. It could also be a watershed moment for Scotland's cause. Dan Wood writes:

Already many are indicating that the October conference will be a watershed where the membership will be prepared to vote down the leadership and ensure that over the next nine months the SNP will spearhead and lead the whole Yes movement in our drive to independence.

I think Dan may be indulging in low-level hyperbole here. He is overstating the case - presumably for effect. There is certainly a mood of rebellion in the party. Branches and their members are getting on their hind legs and making their presence felt. Their voice is being heard. It is, by the standards of the SNP, a radical voice. By the standards of the SNP, polite disagreement is radical. Genuinely radical voices still can't get a hearing. But we take what we get in the hope that it leads to better. If the canny rebels can score a success against the leadership, those genuinely radical voices might just slip through.

Where Dan overstates is his suggestion that "the "the membership will be prepared to vote down the leadership". I don't think we're quite there yet. I suspect conference delegates might balk at taking down the leadership. I am certain this is what John Swinney is counting on. If the leadership resolution is given the thumbs down it so richly deserves, the nails haudin' the jaickets o' baith the leader and his deputy will tak' oan some serious shoogliness. If another resolution on 'independence strategy' is passed, one or both of those jackets could fall.

I don't expect John Swinney will be explicit about it. He won't actually come right out and threaten to resign if delegates embarrass him. But he will contrive to make it known that to go against him on this issue is to risk a leadership contest with an election looming. That is certain to give delegates pause for thought.

Dan comes across as wildly optimistic when he anticipates the fall of the leadership bringing about the transformation of the SNP into a party that will "spearhead and lead the whole Yes movement in our drive to independence". Under whose leadership, Dan? Is there such a leader to be found anywhere in the SNP? Even if there were, what chance that they'd be elected? And even if they're elected, where is the plan they might pursue? Does there exist withing the party a capacity for straegic thinking capable of formulating and implementing a genuine plan to restore independence? Will the mass of the SNP be so easily weaned off the Sturgeon doctrine?

Dan pitches a very pleasing movie screenplay. But real life tends to be more mundane. and there are a few relatively mundane ways this could go. John Swinney might remain adamant that no alternative resolutions should be on the agenda. On the one hand, this might anger delegates enough to make them more likely to vote against the leadership resolution. On the other hand, delegates might see no point in voting it down when it's all there is. It's unlikely anyone will get on the platform and denounce a Section 30 request as an act of treachery. Even the rebels aren't ready to hear their leader branded a traitor. That is a truth too far for the party faithful.

This is the sort of situation that tends to end in a fudge. Probably in the form of a motion to refer back. This is a wee bit like the not proven verdict. The resolution is not accepted. But it's not quite rejected, either. Such a motion just means the leadership is being told to go away and have a wee think about their resolution. A referral back suggests that there is some wee thig wrong with the resolution that can be fixed with a bit of tinkering. There is no fixing the resolution tabled in the names of John Swinney and Keith Brown. It is all wrong. Unalloyed wrongness. The only way to make it better is to make it so that it never existed.

If the leadership motion is referred back, all that will happen is that Swinney will have AI rewrite it, so the words are moved around but it says the same as it did. He will then proceed with his act of treachery. The watershed moment turns out to be the epitome of a damp squib. John Swinney is an artisan damp squib maker par excellence. If the guy had a strapline, it would be 'Business A Usual'. Has there ever been a political leader who works so hard at making nothing happen?

The term 'watershed' implies that things must go one way or another. Trust John Swinney to ensure things go nowhere at all.

What Dan Wood describes is what we all want. Well, all but those who have come to hate the SNP so much that they'd forego independence rather than have the SNP play in part in its restoration. These are idiots to rival the idiocy of party loyalists. Most of us would be more than happy to see the SNP transformed into the independence war-horse Dan describes. The thing is, the SNP is going to be either a dominant force or a deciding factor in the next parliament. So, wouldn't it be better to have it there as a genuine pro-independence party? How could that not be a good thing?

That is what the watershed moment of the SNP conference is really about. It is the moment when the SNP membership decides whether their party comes down on the side of Scotland and independence, or on the side of devolution and the British state. John Swinney's resolution represents the latter. The Newington Resolution represents the former. The Tweeddale Resolution is a compromise that ultimately favours the devolution/British state side. Swinney could grudgingly accept it knowing that when it came to negotiating with the UK, he would be negotiating a Section 30 order.

Only the Newington Resolution transforms the SNP into a spearhead for the independence movement. As things stand, there seems no possibility that the Newington Resolution will even make it onto the final agenda. The Tweeddale Resolution has effective killed it - soaking up all the rebelliousness that might otherwise have gone to a truly radical proposal.

So, my 'prediction' (no betting!) is that the watershed at the SNP conference will be a choice of two different routes to a Section 30 request. Which means that progress for Scotland's cause is off the table for another five years. It would be gratifying to see the leadership motion defeated. But if the Tweedale Resolution is the only alternative, it's a defeat for the SNP leadership without a win for the cause.

Here's a final thought. The fact that the Newington Resolution exists - and to an extent the Tweeddale Resolution - tells us that there is in the SNP a force for positive change. At the very least, it strongly suggests that those who deem it impossible to change the SNP are wrong. As I have maintained for many years, the SNP could be recovered if only the wider independence movement got behind people like Mike Wallace, who has been the main driving force behind the Newington Resolution. The independence movement has thus far failed to give the support that's needed. And so, yet another opportunity is squandered.

I have been considering travelling to Aberdeen for the SNP conference. Perhaps arrange a meeting or two to explain the thinking behind the #ScottishUDI plan, which is the basis for the Newington Resolution. I know there will be a substantial independence movement presence outside the venue - mostly urging delegates to figuratively kick some leadership arse. I expect there will be a few folk lobbying for the Tweeddale Resolution. There may be three or four lobbying for #ScottishUDI. I might be one of them. I'll let you know.

The final paragraph of the Newington Resolution.

Therefore, Conference agrees that the SNP shall put in their manifesto for the 2026 Scottish Parliament election, that if a majority of SNP and other pro-independence MSP’s are returned to Holyrood in 2026, they will bring forward a bill to assume responsibility for constitutional affairs as directed by the people of Scotland. This will include the right to hold referendums on increased powers and independence—driven by the will of the people.