Trying to figure out WTF is going on I see the comments on this article in The National (SNP independence rebel weighs bid for party president) have descended into the customary unedifying tribal ding-dong twixt SNP loyalists and SNP haters. One might dismiss this as trivial squabbling among the immature and intellectually challenged but for the fact that these two factions have become a serious obstacle to progress for Scotland's cause. Two facts make fools of the lot of them:
That's a lot of dumb denial. Let's ignore this rabble and focus on the story. Not that it is much of a story. Graeme McCormick is considering another bid for the role of SNP President. Currently, that office is held by Maureen Watt. Nobody noticed. This kind of kite-flying exercise is a now familiar part of Graeme's modus operandi. Nothing wrong with that, of course. It's perfectly reasonable to test the waters before taking the plunge. I just hope he has learned a lesson after allowing himself to be dissuaded from mounting a leadership challenge against John Swinney with assurances that - quite predictably - turned out to be worth about the same as a Gordon Brown promise of 'devo-max'. I note in passing that The National once again ignores the Newington Resolution - which is a real and radical alternative to the ledership 'plan'. It could be that this is merely a ploy to give The National an excuse to mention the 'rebel' conference resolution on 'independence strategy' with which Graeme McCormick is associated. A resolution backed by at least 43 branches which is said to rival the 'official' motion submitted under the names of John Swinney and Keith Brown - party leader and depute leader respectively. In fact, the only significant difference between the two is that where the leadership motion is blatantly partisan and brazenly proposes the treachery of a Section 30 request, the alternative seeks to include non-SNP pro-independence voters and uses the euphemism of "negotiations" rather than being explicit about pursuing the toxic Section 30 process. I note in passing that The National once again ignores the Newington Resolution - which is a real and radical alternative to the leadership 'plan'. Neither of these 'rebel' resolutions made it onto the draft agenda. Both are newsworthy for the same reasons. Yet the Newington Resolution continues to be ignored. I wonder why. But I digress. Obviously, I wish Graeme McCormick every success should he decide the presidency kite is airworthy. We can be confident he would bring a bit of visibility to the role. Having said that, it may be that the constitutionally defined duties and responsibilities of the SNP President will preclude him being quite the thorn in the side of the party's leadership that his supporters hope he would be. It would be interesting to have someone in the role who was willing and able to test its limits. I am not convinced, however, that Graeme has the mettle for this. The damp squib of his leadership bid creates a niggling doubt his resolve and tenacity. We shall see. Fascinating as all this may be to the anorak-clad politics nerds among us, it is not the most politically interesting content of the article. That comes in the final paragraph.
I should say at this point that I had a very strong suspicion from the outset that the leadership motion was a largely a negotiating gambit. I was put in mind of the occasions when as Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy in Alex Salmond's minority administration, John Swinney always seemed able to pull something out of the bag in order to get his budgets passed. The police numbers concession to the Tories being a notable example. It seemed to me that Swinney (directed by Salmond?) was holding these concessions in reserve until one of the other parties gave a firm undertaking of support in return. It occurred to me that Swinney was doing something similar with his resolution on 'independence strategy'. That resolution goes all-in on both the SNP-only and the Section 30 aspects. It's the Sturgeon doctrine on steroids. Why go in that hard if not to leave some wriggle-room. By going in as hard as possible, Swinney makes even the most meagre softening seem like a significant concession. The softening comes in the form of an amendment. Consider this! Swinney tables an amendment which modifies one or both of those critical aspects of the original resolution. Maybe and amendment which changes SNP-only to SNP and/or a majority of (nominally) pro-independence votes on the regional ballot. Perhaps an amendment which drops explicit mention of Section 30 in favour of the "negotiation" euphemism. The 'rebel' motion's fox is shot. Swinney's amended resolution is passed by acclamation. Swinney keeps everything he wanted. The 'rebels' get nothing. The delegates imagine they've done a superb job. Nothing changes! As I said in a recent article, Swinney is a man who works very hard at ensuring nothing happens. The ploy I've just sketched - or something similar - would be typical. All 'Telt ye' rights reserved! You're currently a free subscriber to Peter A Bell. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment