SNP, Labour and Internal Democracy 159


Not even Turkmenistan, where the Glorious Leader renamed the days of the week after his family and bequeathed the Presidency to his dentist (who remains President) do they have a national anthem as ludicrously obsequious as the British. Furthermore, even North Korea’s anthem makes no mention of the ruling dynasty. I haven’t sung the British hymn to arse-licking since I was old enough to understand what it meant (about 13). As a British diplomat and Ambassador I used to do exactly what Corbyn did – stand silently. And I have done that while in the Queen’s company.

I was musing on the choices Nicola Sturgeon and Jeremy Corbyn made in the same circumstance, though it is more difficult when you are actually with the Queen, as Sturgeon was. Nobody wants to insult an old lady. And it led me to muse on a problem each has with party democracy, where again the approaches are different.

The SNP recently does not seem over-concerned with party democracy. Or to put it another way, it does not seem to have much party democracy. I have attended two party conferences, one in Perth and one in Glasgow, where there was absolutely no debate on policy issues. Leadership addresses dominated the agenda and almost every speaker called was a member of a parliament or an approved candidate. It does not seem the forthcoming Aberdeen conference will be much better. There will be no debate on the really interesting issues – NATO, the monarchy, currency post-independence, the single police force, privatisation of CALMAC. Remember, 90% of the party membership were not members when there was last a debate on any of these.

Rather the motions selected by the party gatekeepers range from the self-congratulatory to the anodyne, with only a small proportion selected which originated with constituency grassroots. The management is heavy-handed. Most notably, the party members will not be permitted to discuss the key question dominating Scottish politics – the second referendum.

Nicola Sturgeon has briefed the media that the SNP manifesto will set out the circumstances in which a second referendum may be held. In coordinated briefing, Blair Jenkins and others have been floating 2021. What is being made plain is that the leadership will decide, not the membership. That seems to me disrespectful to the 100,000 members of the Yes campaign who joined up and may be presumed to have an opinion.

I consider myself a party loyalist. Actually I am especially loyal because I keep supporting the SNP no matter how plain the SNP makes it that it does not want me. I believe the SNP is the necessary vehicle for independence. But there is a difference between a party loyalist and a leadership loyalist. Leadership loyalists reply that you cannot argue with success, and the SNP achieved massive victory at the Westminster elections, and is set to achieve massive victory at the Holyrood elections.

To which my response is, that I do not deny that autocracy can be a most effective means of gaining and maintaining power. But that does not make autocracy desirable. Some very bad people have been extremely good at gaining and holding power. It is not a proper measure of success.

It has become accepted within the SNP that the criterion for a second referendum is that there must be a “material change” in circumstances. But why is that the criterion? Apparently because Nicola Sturgeon said so. We didn’t vote on that. Now the argument becomes about defining that material change. I gather we still don’t know what it will be exactly, but we kind of know it will come about in six years time.

Apart from “material change” the other hackneyed phrase defining what passes for “debate” on the issue – and there is almost no debate on the issue in which ordinary SNP members are permitted to participate – is “when the Scottish people decide”. When I called a couple of months ago for a referendum in 2018, the internet was filled with leadership loyalists parroting no, it would be “when the Scottish people decide”. The problem with that concept is that it is unclear how the Scottish people are to express their decision. What is the mechanism for that? Is it psychic? What people really meant was “When Nicola decides the Scottish people have decided.”

I still want a second referendum in 2018. I believe we can win it. I am very confident the SNP will sweep the coming Holyrood elections. I am not so confident about the Holyrood election after that; it would be a brave prediction that the SNP trajectory will be ever upward. Stuff happens in politics.

Therefore we must go for a second referendum on the back of these forthcoming Holyrood elections; we might not have another chance after 2020. Besides which the unpopularity of the Etonian government in London continues to work in our favour. I don’t give a stuff about “material change”, but if you want to point to one, the SNP sweeping two elections is a “material change”. 2018 should be it.

There are people who I respect as genuine supporters of Scottish independence who would prefer to delay beyond 2020 or until they are “sure of winning”. Listen. You are never sure of winning. Politics can overturn orthodoxies. Jeremy Corbyn was a 200 to 1 shot. We will never have a better chance than now. Let’s go for it.

People can argue that I am wrong about the timing. But why can’t we do that? Argue? Debate? At conference? And have a democratic vote on the timing? Why is the SNP not a democracy?

Rather more worryingly, the degree of democratic space permitted within the SNP appears to vary according to which side you are on. Readers will recall that I have been twice refused vetting as an SNP parliamentary candidate, on the grounds that I refuse to accept I will tow the party line at all times. I was told very directly it is completely unacceptable for an MP or prospective MP to argue against the party line.

Yet here is an example of an MP – Angus Robertson – arguing directly against the democratically agreed party policy. In 2012 Angus Robertson gave many media interviews advocating membership of NATO, at a time when party policy was firmly against membership of NATO. I raised this precise example at my latest vetting refusal and was told that this was different; the party leadership was entitled to argue against party policy because they had a leadership role, and Angus Robertson had succeeded in winning a vote subsequently to overturn the policy at conference.

It seems to me self-evidently pernicious to develop a doctrine that the party leadership may ignore agreed policy, but nobody else may. Another interpretation may be, of course, that you can attack party policy from the right, but not from the left.

Back in January I argued that the SNP appeared to be a democratic centralist party, where policy was centrally decided but then everybody was forced rigidly to stick to it. I said strict democratic centralism was generally not accepted as part of mainstream political tradition in this country, but was generally considered as Stalinism.

But actually it seems it is worse than that. Policy is not democratically decided. Rather a leader is democratically elected, but then that leader makes up the policy, and everybody has to follow it. That is an even worse political system than democratic centralism, and is known as the Leadership Principle. I could have put that in German.

That is the SNP, of which I remain a loyal but long-suffering member.

In Labour, Jeremy Corbyn faces related problems of party governance and internal democracy, but of a rather different kind. Corbyn has the backing of a large majority of his members, but he has a right wing parliamentary party – in some instances quite astonishingly right wing – which is entirely out of step with both Corbyn and the membership.

We therefore had shadow work and pensions secretary Owen Smith saying today that Labour supported the benefits cap, and going on to say that Labour supported overall benefits cuts, and could not oppose benefits cuts when the public supported them. Smith appears not to have noticed that the debate in the leadership election had happened, or that he was putting forward precisely the argument that got Liz Kendall a humiliating 4.9% of the votes of party members.

After three days of the parliamentary party doing everything conceivable to undermine him, what I believe is Corbyn’s strategy is to institute reforms to party democracy whereby the members decide policy. He can then obtain clear party policies which he supports and demand the PLP support them. That includes on Trident, where the SNP continue to twist the knife as Corbyn is hamstrung by a parliamentary party absolutely owned by the corporatist agenda.

In the longer term, I just do not see how it can work. The only conceivable strategy for Corbyn to succeed is mass deselection of the right wing shills who constitute 70% of his MPs. But that process is incompatible with a working party at Westminster. I genuinely wish Jeremy, whom I know and respect, well. But I very much fear the Blairites have put the Labour Party as an institution well beyond saving.


159 thoughts on “SNP, Labour and Internal Democracy

1 4 5 6
  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    Just more convenient obfuscation

    Germany’s invasion of Western Europe showed that Conservative most false hopes about the Phony War were just more appeasement which Attlee put as tastefully as he could when he pulled the last rug out from under Chamberlain and his ilk, as did Churchill when he said during those mort dire times that he now felt that he was on the side of destiny.

    The Brits are not known for telling as it is, as its treatment of MI5’s Peter Wright aka as SCOTT and ‘K’ has also demonstrated for all over a half century.

  • Tim

    If I understand you now, you are saying that the failure immediately to attack Germany in September 1939 constituted a continuation of the policy of appeasement. A lot of Poles would agree with you. Although direct intervention when Stalin was occupying eastern Poland would have made things a bit complicated.

    But if you think that there was an influential pro Nazi movement in the UK by 1940 you are as deluded as Rudolf Hess (whose role you are doubtless privy to)

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    I said nothing about Britain attacking Germany at the war’s beginning, only that Britain should have done much more during the Phony War than going through the motions in France since it appeared that a German attack would never come..

    The size and preparation of the BEF was little more than a rehearsal for a resumption of WWI which the Germans had lost.

    And my ideas have nothing to do with Hess’s loony flight to Britain.

    Only think that Britain thought that it could wait out the German threat until it could become a part of it aka as catching the German bus to victory.

    The Germans allowing most of the BEF to escape seems based upon the anticipated continuing appeasement.

  • Jemand

    It doesn’t take much to get a comment deleted around here by the spitefilled mod squad. My comment, following Mary’s reference to Corbyn’s supporters objecting to the BBC’s branding of him as “left wing”, simply observed the fact that the BBC also labels critics of unregulated migration as “far-Right”. And that benign, and true, comment was enough to get it deleted. How do people justify sneaky, sinister censorship?

  • glenn

    Ahh, quit whining. All of us have had posts deleted at some point or another – man up and get over it.

  • Andy Nimmo

    Am I the only one that thinks Mhairi Black was approved by the hierarchy to stand as a candidate in the belief that she hadno chance of winning and her approval wad a first steo o a learning curve.for the future.
    I am sure that the same members who banned Craig were privately holding their heads in their hands at this loose cannon’s maiden speech, bearing in mind that said speech ledto the re-engagement of millions of previous disenfranchised voters.
    A re-engagement that could end up costing the SNP big time

  • Pan

    “Am I the only one that thinks Mhairi Black was approved by the hierarchy to stand as a candidate in the belief that she had no chance of winning”?

    I strongly suspect you are not.

    “I am sure that the same members who banned Craig were privately holding their heads in their hands at this loose cannon’s maiden speech”

    Based on what I have just seen (Mhairi’s maiden speech on youtube) I would say that she appears to be brave, quite eloquent, a humanist with a sense of right and wrong, and an outspoken advocate for personal integrity (I liked her reference to Tony Benn’s “weathercocks and signposts”).

    On that basis, it seems possible that there are many in high places holding their heads in their hands, wondering where this ghastly (to them) trend is coming from.

    Thanks for the heads-up, Andy.

1 4 5 6

Comments are closed.