SNP Members for Independence

SNP Members for Independence Facebook Group:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/3595178527169350

 SNP members for Indy Facebook group has been set up with the explicit purpose of changing the party’s policy on the preferred route to independence. 

Why is this necessary ?  The answer has at least 3 parts.  

1. Westminster Refusal of S30 request: It is evident to a growing percentage of active members that the preferred Section 30 process has a success probability of close to zero. Either the westminster government will continue to refuse a section 30 request, or in the highly unlikely scenario where they do accept a request, will use the powers of the British state to negatively affect the outcome and aftermath of a referendum.  

2. S30 is an illegitimate route to independence: That the “colonial power” should have no involvement in the independence process of the former colony is an accepted tenet of international law, and furthermore has been fully recognised by the UK government, notably in the aftermath of the Balkan conflict. 

3. The SNP’s policy making process lacks democracy and favours the status quo:  SNP policy is “made in conference”, but the party’s internal controls severely restrict genuine policy debate, by preventing discussion of real alternatives to S30. There is no shortage of alternative proposals based on accepted international law and sovereignty, but these are unlikely to be discussed at conference because of the party hierarchy’s unseeing adherence to S30.  

SNPmembers4Indy aims to change party policy on this key issue by developing the ideas behind alternative routes to independence and creating one or a number of proposals for better routes to independence which can be proposed and debated at the 2020 conference – as yet unscheduled.  

This group, restricted to SNP party members,  needs to have genuine critical mass in order for this plan to succeed. So if you are an SNP member concerned like I am about independence then please join this group and contribute to the debate. If you are not on Facebook then please email admin@snpmembers4indy.scot to play a  part in the process. 

14 thoughts on “SNP Members for Independence”

  1. The SNP are sitting back accruing support watching support for Independence rising as their enemies make mistake after mistake.
    There is a belief generated by Wings o Scotland that the FM. Will not go for another referendum. It’s just a process intended to undermine her. As is the call for a “plan B” to be made public for friends and foes to study and plan against.
    What too many people forget is that Nicola Sturgeon fired the starting gun for Indy Ref. 2 in March 2017 just weeks before T. May called a GE. At which the SNP lost MP’s. Putting an end to IR2. If Sturgeon was prepared to call for a referendum them surely she will have no problems going for it again with support for the party and Independence at record levels.
    In July
    As a veteran SNP activist wrote in the National ” once International Law becomes involved in the Irish / Eu dispute other lines will be opened” . . . . “Our SNP Government is well aware of this issue” .

    As David Pratt wrote “Once independence movements become split with internal divisions their cause is lost? “

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I am not an SNP member.

      (To a fair extent this is because, like Groucho Marx, I do not want to join a club that would accept someone like me as a member.)

      All organisations, especially as they become more successful and larger, as the SNP has , tend to become more risk averse, and also, internal communication structures become much more formalised and unwieldy. And, there is always strands of goal displacement as people in positions of power – even at relatively low levels – start to act for personal goals rather than for the goals of the movement. The SNP is not unique in this – the Vatican, Church of England, NHS, Nazi Party, Labour Party, Women’s Rural Institute, the residents’ association, the Brownies, the BBC, etc, etc all suffer from it. So there need to be ‘ginger groups’ and transparency and checks and balances to reduce this. So, I understand why many in the SNP are setting up groups like this; they are necessary.

      The problem is that some individuals and groups, with Wings Over Scotland being an example, become so enraged, often for egotistic and idiosyncratic reasons that they become destructive.

      As a supporter of independence, I think that the actions of voters in England, the nastiness of the UK Government, its shambolic handling of Covid19, and the openness and honesty (yes ‘honesty’, Mr Stuart Cambell) of the SG and its competence, in association with public health services have combined to make many undecided voters in Scotland believe that we can run things satisfactorily ourselves and the ‘this precious, precious union’ is proving to be illusory.

      If we are going to become independent, then the SNP will be the main vehicle so, I urge people to express concerns, but also to ca’ canny and keep their eyes on the prize. Clearly, Mr Alex Salmond, for example, has a very strong and justified sense of grievance, but, given the arc of his life, I believe he will not fatally undermine the chances of Scotland becoming independent.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Alasdair
        Organisations “become more risk averse”. If the FM wasn’t risk averse 3 yrs. ago, why should she be now when things are clearly much more positive?
        “The SNP is not unique in this”. So it’s decided then: communication becomes formalised; goal displacement; but risk aversion?

        “The SNP is not unique in this”. Absolutely, it’s just like the Vatican, the Labour Party, Church of England, (organisations that have been around for ages) and as you say, “we need ginger groups”.

        It’s not the Independence movement that needs ginger groups to pressurise the SNP, it’s the Unionist Establishment that needs ginger groups to get their stooges into. Then onto their media to broadcast to the Nation that the SNP don’t want Independence. That’ll work!

        You “urge people to express concerns”. About what…… my punctuation? I’ll give you that.

        That still leaves my original question

        Organisations become more risk averse, if the FM wasn’t risk averse 3 yrs ago why should she be now when things are clearly so much more positive?

        If there’s no answer to this there’s no need for this Group. IMHO

        Like

      2. Robert Michels more than a 100 years ago developed his iron law of oligarchy which suggests “all organizations eventually come to be run by a “leadership class”, who often function as paid administrators, executives, spokespersons or political strategists for the organization. Far from being “servants of the masses”, Michels argues this “leadership class,” rather than the organization’s membership, will inevitably grow to dominate the organization’s power structures. By controlling who has access to information, those in power can centralize their power successfully, often with little accountability, due to the apathy, indifference and non-participation most rank-and-file members have in relation to their organization’s decision-making processes. ”
        So yes, there is a tendency for organizations to become more risk averse as the leadership look to protect their position.
        As for your own assertion that if the FM wasnt risk averse three years ago why would she be now? Well. how about experience – 2017 must have been a bit of a cold bath for the SNP, losing not just Salmond but Robertson as well.
        Other evidence of risk aversion? Not telling Davidson to wind her neck in the next time she told Sturgeon to focus on the day job. If pursuing independence isnt part of the day job for an SNP leader, what is?
        Where is the planning for the campaign? Or do we make it up like we did in 2014. Then there was about three years. Since we wiped the floor with the Unionists in 2015, FIVE years have passed and apart from Wilson’s report (a real curate’s egg) nothing I know of.
        Why has she not appointed a deputy (I mean a real one – Keith Brown is a nice well-meaning man, but a bag carrier. Someone who could take the indy campaign to the other side – Robertson maybe, or perhaps Tommy Sheppard along with Joanna Cherry? Or is that too near the nerve – too close to those who could be rivals for her position?
        As for the membership, first of all this is classic Michels, but is not a kind of broad brush to condemn ALL the membership?

        Like

      3. iamsoccerdoc

        “As for your own assertion that if the FM wasnt risk averse three years ago why would she be now? Well. how about experience – 2017 must have been a bit of a cold bath for the SNP, losing not just Salmond but Robertson as well.”
        Aye but, polls are showing much higher level of support for the party now than in 2017. So why would she be feart.

        “ “Other evidence of risk aversion? Not telling Davidson to wind her neck in the next time she told Sturgeon to focus on the day job. If pursuing independence isnt part of the day job for an SNP leader, what is?”
        During FMQ’s I’ve lost count of the times Sturgeon in response to Davidson’s “Day Job” jibe has stated that her reason for being in politics is to achieve Independence for Scotland.

        Like

      4. Clydebuilt, Thanks for taking the time to give such a full reply.

        With regard to our disagreement on ‘risk aversion’: I was making a general observation about organisations which grow in size.

        I was not talking about the specific instance relating to the FM and a second independence referendum. With regard to that specific question, I do not think the FM is being risk averse or, as some in the independence movement are suggesting – or worse, that she does not really want independence but some DevoMax settlement. I have no doubt that she wants independence and as soon as possible.

        As I said, I am not an SNP member so I have no personal experience of what goes on within the party committees. However, I stand by the points I made with regard to organisations.

        Like

  2. John, why only SNP members. One the one hand I can see the logic that it’s about changing the policy of the party of which you are a member. Fair enough.
    But it’s not policy re Education or the NHS, but about the most encompassing issue that we face just now. There are lots of us who want to achieve independence, but dont want to join the SNP, or in my case don’t want to join any political party at all.
    Why not? Well I would certainly endorse Alasdair MacDonald’s reasoning re Groucho Marx. However, another reason is that I want to maintain my own freedom of thought, to continue to think and write what I think is right and not just party policy.
    This might well be seen as very self-indulgent of me, but is there not scope for this in this group. In the first place I suspect if we take any two independence supporters, they will vary on how they think about an independent Scotland. What it will be like. What is meant by a fairer Scotland. We all have our own ideas on the destination. However, it is not only a range of ideas on the destination but on how we get there. We know about seeking a S30 Order, and worry about what happens next when BoJo says “naw”. But we also have our ideas on what we do – unofficial referendum, or piss them off so much that Scotland becomes ungovernable and they kick us out (in passing Kenny MacAskill came very close to this in an interview in the current edition of i Scot, though he subsequently rows back a bit. So I am not alone). I am sure there are many others who have their own different ideas.
    This leads to my final point. I suspect that if non-members were allowed to join it would not be taken well by SNP leadership and admin. However, d if the group is about coming up with different ideas on how to achieve independence, then would they not take the same view?
    In conclusion, surely independence has to be the broadest church it can be? If so, does this Group not fly in the face of that? Or should we heretics set up our own group in what would be seen and portrayed by the other side as competition? Chance lost?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I agree with this assertion, are WE not all supporters of independence , do we not give or lend our vote to the SNP in order for them to form a government in Scotland, are we to be silenced as to the means and methods of how we get there , are we to be considered as voting fodder when the need arises, are we second class citizens who are not worthy of a say . The last figures published for SNP membership was around 125,000, recent figures are unknown for whatever reason , the population in Scotland is 5 million + so as I have asked SNP members in the past with NO response , will only the 125,000 SNP members elect the next Scottish government or will we undesirables be required at some point

    To be quite honest and controversial it is the SNP membership that is responsible for the situation we find ourselves in , the reviled GRA and HCB , the blocking of MP’S like Joanna Cherry to sit in HR, The lack of a legal challenge to WM re indyref2 , the continued STUPIDITY to BELIEVE Bozo will agree to a sect30 , and worst of all to allow YOUR party to be hijacked by a shower of incompetent science and biology denying fruitcakes whose independence intentions are lukewarm if at all

    The membership have allowed all this to go on while asserting people to WHEESHT for indy , and all the while NS has plowed her own path whilst IGNORING and unchallenging the reality of our DIRE situation , so forgive me if I don’t have faith in the membership

    Like

  4. Clydebuilt – I dont know why she would be “feart”, but perhaps she is of a more cautious mindset than the previous incumbent of the role of FM? My main issue though is the failure to develop both a case for independence and an infrastructure to win it. Actually with the clowns in WM just now it may fall into our lap, but that is a relatively recent development
    As for not telling Davidson to get lost, words are cheap Clydebuilt, and I go back to my previous point about building a case and infrastructure which would have raised Davidson to an utter fury which would at least have been funny to behold. I know 2017 was a cold bath, but it was hardly a disaster and certainly not on the scale the Unionist media likes to tell us. All it confirmed was that Davidson is a thoroughly unpleasant one t rick pony.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “words are cheap Clydebuilt”

      The name Clydebuilt and words are cheap don’t belong in the same sentence.

      If words are cheap. You must be skint!

      Like

      1. as I think is obvious from the text, it was not your words that are cheap, but that if the FM did say to Davidson what you suggest (and I have to say I dont remember that, though that might be my memory) why no new plan, infrastructure development. At one point my view was that “independence” was the word that dare not speak its name. Given a claimed commitment to independence and what she has done in recent years, words are cheap!

        Like

  5. And inevitably the insults begin when anyone DARES to question the competence or ability of NS to get us independence

    Nicola Sturgeon is not independence or Scotland

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.