This morning brings news that John Finnie MSP and Jean Urquhart MSP have left the SNP following the nail-biting and passionately-argued debate at their party conference over NATO. A decision probably thought to be without cost by the party’s Westminster group is proving extremely expensive indeed, and this is a major blow both for the party and, sadly, for the prospects for a Yes vote in the referendum.
First – it takes the SNP group down from 67 to 65 at Holyrood. Will the SNP regret pushing Tricia Marwick as Presiding Officer? A majority of nine became a majority of eight without her, then six when Bill Walker was expelled: now their majority is just two – 63 on the opposition side to 65 SNP, plus the PO’s casting vote. It won’t undermine the referendum bill itself, of course: both Finnie and Urquhart will still vote for it, as will Margo MacDonald, Patrick Harvie and Alison Johnstone.
Second – the pressure will now be on the other MSPs who supported the party’s previous anti-NATO policy. Some of the names are here on the defeated amendment: Sandra White, Marco Biagi, Jamie Hepburn, Bob Doris, Dave Thompson, and Gordon MacDonald. Remember other MSPs backed other options that would have blocked the change or at least postponed it: Christina McKelvie, John Wilson, John Mason and Rob Gibson, notably. I’ll add other names here if people have them. Goodness only knows what calls are being made right now to this list by the leadership. Two lost is a disaster – two more would be much worse, particularly for Angus Robertson, who should have known better than to try and divide his party on the strength of media pressure. The party backed him, narrowly, and he can’t be sacked: but this is his misjudgement, and he probably knows it. But the other pressures are enormous too. John and Jean have set a marker – that’s what a principle looks like, these resignations say: colleagues, do you believe in the principle too? Do you want to be remembered as the MSPs who argued for that principle but buckled when the leadership told you to? Reputations will be made and lost today.
Third – an informal grouping of five anti-NATO MSPs is already possible, including Margo and the Greens. Five seats gets you on the bureau. That challenges the the SNP’s one-party stranglehold on the business of Holyrood – one more departure would confirm that.
Fourth – it’s not coincidence that both John and Jean represent the Highlands and Islands. The strength of feeling in the Highlands and Islands branch has always been substantial: I’ve listened to Rob Gibson play anti-nuclear protest songs on his guitar, and if I were guessing who on that list will be feeling the heat, Rob and Dave Thompson are prominently placed.
EDIT Fifth – I was challenged on why this is bad news for the referendum, and realised I hadn’t explained that. The reason is, sadly, that as far as much of the media see it the SNP is Yes and Yes is the SNP: and the SNP themselves go out of the way to blur that boundary. Listen to the Who Dares Wins crowd telling everyone Scotland will now stay in NATO, rather than saying this is now the SNP’s new policy but that the decision will be taken the people after independence. The public don’t vote for divided parties, which the SNP now clearly are. I want a Yes vote, but hopefully it’s now utterly obvious to the SNP that they need to stop blurring the boundaries between themselves and the broader movement for independence: that movement remains united around the principle that Scots should make all the key decisions that affect them.
Since the bloodbath over selection and Swinney’s leadership in 2003, the SNP have run an extraordinarily tight ship. Four years of minority from 2007 onwards saw no rebellion of any significance whatsoever. Salmond has, for good or ill, commanded his party like a well-drilled regiment. This looks like it could be his greatest test.
#1 by Colin on October 23, 2012 - 11:04 am
Could you elaborate on this please? :
”A decision probably thought to be without cost by the party’s Westminster group is proving extremely expensive indeed, and this is a major blow both for the party and, sadly, for the prospects for a Yes vote in the referendum.”
How exactly is this a major blow for prospects of a Yes vote in the referendum? I see no further comment on this in the post, and cant understand how you arrive at this conclusion.
#2 by James on October 23, 2012 - 11:16 am
Colin, have edited to add that in.
#3 by Colin on October 23, 2012 - 11:23 am
Aye I see your point now. I wouldnt really say the party was completely split on the issue though. The SNP will never split in the way that other parties have over policies as its defined by the overaching goal of achieving indy.
I dont see this as bad news for yes. Infact I doubt the ‘average voter’ cares about this debate. I am anti-nuke but not overly bothered by the nato decision. It’s not a dealbreaker for me, and I suspect others feel the same.
SNP policy is not policy of a future indy Scotland. NATO decision means very little other than to reassure a sceptical public that the SNP are ‘serious’ about defence.
#4 by James on October 23, 2012 - 11:25 am
I hope you’re right about the implications for the debate, but I’m not seeing it. Tomorrow’s newspapers won’t see it either: in spades.
#5 by Peter A Bell on October 23, 2012 - 11:31 am
The British nationalist media will see precisely what they want to see. And if they don’t, they’ll lie.
#6 by Colin on October 23, 2012 - 11:32 am
well the newspapers have agendas of their own!
i think the nato decision was something the snp probably had to do, and robertson clearly done a lot of research (and i am assuming polling to show that defence was an area in which the public had low confidence in the snp) before putting it forward.
infact it surprises me that anyone is shocked by it. its very much in line with the leadership’s gradualist, softly softly approach to winning a yes vote.
#7 by James on October 23, 2012 - 11:33 am
If this is softly-softly, I hate to imagine what a heavy-handed or divisive move would look like 😉
#8 by Colin on October 23, 2012 - 11:40 am
ha!
i meant softly softly in the ‘mainstreaming’ snp’s appeal – which has undoubtedly happened as we move towards indyref. (the pound, the queen etc)
#9 by BaffieBox on October 23, 2012 - 11:19 am
I think it’s great news for the campaign. I’ve long since said the dominance of the SNP in the independence campaign needs to be reduced. I think it’s healthy that we demonstrate there are principled MSPs who support independence and as long as they haven’t changed that stance I dont have a problem.
I will admit though – while principled, it does seem a bit strange to resign. Splintering the party on what is a largely hypothetical set of circumstances seems to misjudge how and why they were voted in to parliament – a parliament that has no power to legislate on NATO. And as list members, which I think they are from what I can tell, votes were for the party rather than the candidate. I respect their principled stance but I’m not 100% convinced that it is merited at this point in time.
Lastly, both John and Jean both seem to be indicating that they believe NATO membership means Trident stays. I’m not sure how this aligns with what the SNP resolution actually said – naive as it might have been.
As I said though, as long as they still support independence, I think it’s good news.
#10 by Andrew Smith on October 23, 2012 - 11:26 am
What this does is set a precedent. So far the SNP has been a very disciplined party in government, but this shows that when it comes to the biggest issues some will consider resignation.
We can only speculate on this, but would any have resigned if the government had openly proposed two questions in the vote rather than one? Are there other issues that could do this or is NATO a special case? The formation of a new block of indi MSPs would be an interesting development.
I’m not sure that either of these MSPs will start to vote against the Scottish government with any regularity, but they may provide a new scrutiny on some more contentious policies which can only enhance parliamentary debate.
#11 by Doug Daniel on October 23, 2012 - 11:32 am
I don’t think I’d be particularly uncomfortable with the SNP being reduced to a minority government again, since there would still be a considerable majority of MSPs I trust to vote in the interests of Scotland rather than the interests of their Westminster leader. Maybe we’re seeing the split of the SNP into two parties that we’ve all pontificated over happening now instead of after independence? That’d be quite exciting…
As much fun as it was for the SNP to win a majority in 2011, minority government proved to be a rather pleasing way of running things last term. A minority government that needs to look towards principled politicians like John, Jean and the Greenies rather than LibLabCons for support is by no means a bad thing. And I really hope that grouping you speak of comes to fruition because it has always bugged me that the Lib Dems get on the business bureau but the Greens don’t.
In regards to your fourth point – any thoughts on why it’s those who live furthest from Trident who seem most strongly against it?
#12 by James on October 23, 2012 - 11:35 am
Thanks Doug – that does all make sense. I think Dounreay was a particular driver of opposition, but beyond that I’ve only got speculation about urban-vs-rural divides.
#13 by Gregor on October 23, 2012 - 12:58 pm
Military exercises using live rounds don’t blow up bits of Glasgow – but they certainly scar large swathes of the Highlands.
#14 by Susan Rose on October 23, 2012 - 11:34 am
Let’s dream a little…it’s good for the Yes campaign as it shows it to be more of a movement. It’s good because we’ve always known the SNP were a divided party. I’d go as far as to call it a mosaic and allowing people who dislike the current party leadership to see that they are not voting for them is an asset. On this occasion it doesn’t matter that the SNP are seen to be divided. It’s positively beneficial. On Independence Day I won’t wake up in the Scotland of my dreams and neither will Salmond or Urquart or Finnie or You but we’ll all have the potential that we lack now. Anyway Granny, that’s how you suck eggs. 🙂
#15 by Peter A Bell on October 23, 2012 - 11:40 am
What exactly is the point of complaining about the media blurring or ignoring the distinction between the SNP and Yes Scotland while assiduously working to contribute to that distortion?
#16 by Doug Daniel on October 23, 2012 - 11:42 am
I don’t see Marco resigning incidentally – sounds like it’s not a red line issue for him: https://twitter.com/MarcoBiagiMSP/status/260691139902967808
#17 by James on October 23, 2012 - 11:52 am
That’s very clear, agreed.
#18 by Doug Daniel on October 23, 2012 - 12:24 pm
And thinking of it, I suspect any other resignations would have come alongside them. They must have discussed the idea with others before going ahead – I doubt they’d want to trigger an avalanche of resignations.
We’ll see, though!
#19 by Richard Lucas on October 23, 2012 - 11:56 am
The SNP conducts a debate at its conference, something the Libs, Labs and Cons dare not countenance. As a result two people decide to continue their work towards Independence outside the SNP. All I see here is integrity and honesty, and a demonstration of the ‘Yes’ movement’s commitment to democracy – directly contradicting the often expressed Unionist view that Salmond is a dctator in waiting. A future with real choices has been revealed to the people of Scotland as possible only with a ‘Yes’ vote. I cannot share your gloomy outlook.
#20 by Alasdair Frew-Bell on October 23, 2012 - 1:02 pm
They might have resigned when policy change was bruited. They resign after a democratic debate and vote. Looks like an unedifying example of petulance. The decision was not to my taste but were I in their position I’d clench my teeth and wait. They have handed the opposition a nice slice of propaganda and an opportunity to do mischief. At this stage in the game party discipline and seeming unity does matter. Or is the SNP regressing into internecine squabbling. The voting public will not be understanding.
#21 by Allan on October 23, 2012 - 7:03 pm
Did a post on the conference season a couple of days ago and almost as an after thought wrote that if the SNP were serious about NATO membership, then maybe this kind of devisive issue could have been (and should have been) tackled last year. Ummmm….
After thinking about this, the resolution looks poorly planned. The SNP leadership must have known that there would have been a split on this issue, and should have thought about proposing this long before the eve of campaigning for Independence. It also rather makes the SNP leadership look like they haven’t done their homework properly on another of the key issues – like the rushed policy of forming currency block with rUK and the unraveling of Salmond’s policy regarding i-Scotland’s entry to the EU.
James is spot on in that this is bad news for Yes Scotland. Lamont, Darling & co must he somewhere having a good laugh at this, after all they haven’t started yet, the yes vote is still behind in the polls and likley to fall further behind after today.
#22 by Indy on October 23, 2012 - 10:40 pm
I don’t think it will make any difference to anything really to be honest. They’ve already said they will go on supporting the SNP and obviously will campaign for a Yes vote so it’s not as if they have switched sides really.
Politically the two main casualties of this are going to be Angus Robertson – not for bringing the debate forward or even for his opening speech which was perfectly reasonable but for losing it a bit in his summing up and for the who dares wins comment – and Alyn Smith. Angus won’t lose his seat or anything because the party is quite forgiving but he’ll be gently sidelined. Alyn Smith is toast. Neither side of the debate will forgive him for his comments. He offended everybody in the hall.
#23 by Topher Dawson on October 24, 2012 - 6:20 pm
In today’s issue of the Scottish Review,
http://www.scottishreview.net/GeorgeRobertson28.shtml
there is an article by George Robertson, ex-head of NATO, whose views on nuclear weapons I am diametrically opposed to. But he makes the logical point that the SNP’s new stance on defence is “plainly dishonest” and he makes it well. The latest NATO policy includes: “ensure the broadest possible participation of Allies in collective defence planning on nuclear roles, in peacetime basing of nuclear forces and in command, control and consultation arrangements.”
In other words to him the SNP policy looks like a cynical posture to reassure the electorate about defence so they vote Yes, with no real intention of NATO membership at all.
Maybe this is so, and maybe it is the best thing to do in the circumstances, but insincere policies may backfire on the party. I hope not because I’m SNP and CND, and I view a Yes vote as the only way we will ever get rid of Trident.
#24 by Alex Buchan on October 25, 2012 - 10:13 am
I tend to agree with Alasdair that his will have an effect. The SNP are right to say that Scotland is different from other places like Quebec, Catalonia, Ireland or Flanders, but that, in fact, is to point to how much more the argument in Scotland depends on how coherent the case for independence put by the SNP is. In all those other places an acute sense of them and us fuelled and fuels the drive towards independence, based on language, religion or culture.
In Scotland, by contrast, the issue is less communal and more to do with the yes campaign projecting a coherent case and the SNP looking coherent and confident. The resignations and arguments over EU legal advice, as presented by the press, is a voter turn off. The main thing I notice on most Scottish blogs is an underestimation of the unionist parties and of the UK government. The last two days have shown that discipline and determination is more evident on the unionist side and that the three unionist parties and the UK government will be working in unison to undermine independence and the SNP from now until 2014 and beyond. Their drip, drip of criticism of the SNP and independence aided by the BBC and the press is what this is really all about and unfortunately it does affect voter attitudes to independence. The ‘No’ side don’t just want to win, they want independence off the map for good. Even if the polls show support for independence languishing they are more likely to renew their efforts.
The resignations seem to show that SNP MSPs have a false sense of security based on their numbers in Parliament, if so they are misguided.
#25 by Allan on October 25, 2012 - 6:55 pm
Alex.
The drip drip effect has been going on, unckecked by the SNP/Yes supporters, for years. For example all those stories that appear in the Daily Fail & Sexpress saying that Scotland could not afford to go it alone. Now the Yes supporters on the MacBloggosphere might have been able to sucessfuly refute this claim in cyberspace, out there that argument still has to be beaten.
I think that it isn’t just an underestimation of the pro-Union parties, but a complete miscalculation of how popular Independence is among Scottish people. This failure to recognise that a large minority of Independence supporters is still a minority means that the SNP have two years to make the case, when they really should have been making that case for years. In short the default setting for most Scot’s is that they are part of the UK/GB.
#26 by Edulis on October 25, 2012 - 1:56 pm
I accept that there are preliminary advantages here for the ‘No’ side, simply because any dissention causes instablity. However the NATO motion is conditional. Irrespective of George Robertson’s comments, if a time scale for Trident removal cannot be negotiated because of inflexibility from NATO, then it will be clear for all to see that it you want the advantage of a nuclear-free Scotland, you can only get it from a ‘Yes’ vote. For those people who like the thought of being in NATO but not of hosting the WMD, the choice is clear. A decision to join with Ireland and Sweden in the annexe to NATO won’t be as problematical and it asks searching questions of Labourite CND voters. This is an opportunity.