Not being a member of the SNP, I'd like to know whether there is approval or acceptance of the direction ( or lack of it) the party within the party membership? Do they all think their leadership are doing a great job or is there a body of dissent and disillusionment? I just can't for the life of me understand why they're happy to coast along with no strategy or focus on the taking of independence?
There is definitely a "body of dissent" within the party. But the SNP leadership has made it all but impossible for the voice of dissent to be heard. The branches are isolated from one another to an extent that makes it very difficult for them to coordinate action. Conference has been effectively stripped of its role as the party's ruling body. The agenda is tightly controlled so as prevent anything but the mildest and most manageable controversy. In short, the SNP has been Britified.
I genuinely admire the people who continue the struggle to restore some measure of membership influence within their party. As a former branch delegate, I understand something of the difficulties they face. It must be almost as frustrating as may own chosen task of persuading people that #ScottishUDI is the only route to independence.
The plain truth is that the biggest obstacles to progress for Scotland's cause are within the independence movement.
Thanks for replying. I had no idea it was like that and sadly, it explains a lot which doesn't bode well, certainly in the short term. It's a big enough job to persuade the undecided to get on board to take their independence but then it seems another even bigger job to persuade so many of the already converted to independence that they're being directed down a very long road to a dead end in a party that's structured along lines of compliance rather than defiance of Westminster and the system it operates.
As I mentioned in another comment, the SNP leadership actively obstructs direct communication among branches, making it all but impossible for them to organise any coordinated action.
MSPs are not answerable to branches. They could submit questions. But the MSPs would just ignore them. Or respond with some meaningless twaddle of the sort they dish out to constituents. The constituency associations might have some influence. But I would expect they have all been brought under the control of people loyal to the party leadership by now.
The only thing I can imagine rocking the boat would be some sort of revolt during a televised session at conference. If a large enough group did something sufficiently disruptive it might make a dent in the armour protecting the party's leaders and senior managers. Again, however, this would require that those participating be organised. It is not easy to see how this could be done.
Imagine yourself trying to assemble such a group of around 100 members. They would have to be people who have access to conference, for a start. Delegates or perhaps member visitors. How would you recruit them? You could hardly advertise. You would have no way of being sure who can be trusted not to 'inform'.
I was also in the session on democracy when Tommy spoke about the problem of the Supreme Court decision. I disparaged this and spoke of the need to use the Treaty of Union and go to the Decolonisation Committee of the UN as Salvo / Liberation are doing.That got some support in the group but not from Tommy or the Chair who said it was taking us off course!
Not being a member of the SNP, I'd like to know whether there is approval or acceptance of the direction ( or lack of it) the party within the party membership? Do they all think their leadership are doing a great job or is there a body of dissent and disillusionment? I just can't for the life of me understand why they're happy to coast along with no strategy or focus on the taking of independence?
There is definitely a "body of dissent" within the party. But the SNP leadership has made it all but impossible for the voice of dissent to be heard. The branches are isolated from one another to an extent that makes it very difficult for them to coordinate action. Conference has been effectively stripped of its role as the party's ruling body. The agenda is tightly controlled so as prevent anything but the mildest and most manageable controversy. In short, the SNP has been Britified.
I genuinely admire the people who continue the struggle to restore some measure of membership influence within their party. As a former branch delegate, I understand something of the difficulties they face. It must be almost as frustrating as may own chosen task of persuading people that #ScottishUDI is the only route to independence.
The plain truth is that the biggest obstacles to progress for Scotland's cause are within the independence movement.
Thanks for replying. I had no idea it was like that and sadly, it explains a lot which doesn't bode well, certainly in the short term. It's a big enough job to persuade the undecided to get on board to take their independence but then it seems another even bigger job to persuade so many of the already converted to independence that they're being directed down a very long road to a dead end in a party that's structured along lines of compliance rather than defiance of Westminster and the system it operates.
Well, let's see when Swinney and the SNP NEC are asked "Are reserved powers making the SNP run a colony for England or not?"
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8544/CBP-8544.pdf
page 16 onwards.
Funny, TREASON is a reserved matter.
We SCOTS will identify our traitors, not Englands silly 'supreme court'.
Who will put that question to Swinney?
How do the SNP voters do it? Every branch meeting present the SAME worded message to their local SNP MSP. EVERY time?
As I mentioned in another comment, the SNP leadership actively obstructs direct communication among branches, making it all but impossible for them to organise any coordinated action.
MSPs are not answerable to branches. They could submit questions. But the MSPs would just ignore them. Or respond with some meaningless twaddle of the sort they dish out to constituents. The constituency associations might have some influence. But I would expect they have all been brought under the control of people loyal to the party leadership by now.
The only thing I can imagine rocking the boat would be some sort of revolt during a televised session at conference. If a large enough group did something sufficiently disruptive it might make a dent in the armour protecting the party's leaders and senior managers. Again, however, this would require that those participating be organised. It is not easy to see how this could be done.
Imagine yourself trying to assemble such a group of around 100 members. They would have to be people who have access to conference, for a start. Delegates or perhaps member visitors. How would you recruit them? You could hardly advertise. You would have no way of being sure who can be trusted not to 'inform'.
I was also in the session on democracy when Tommy spoke about the problem of the Supreme Court decision. I disparaged this and spoke of the need to use the Treaty of Union and go to the Decolonisation Committee of the UN as Salvo / Liberation are doing.That got some support in the group but not from Tommy or the Chair who said it was taking us off course!
Spot on.