A NUMBER of SNP branches have lent their backing to a proposal to debate an alternative route to independence without a referendum.
SNP MP Angus Brendan MacNeil and senior SNP councillor Chris McEleny submitted a motion to the party’s conference committee, demanding a fall back position if the UK Government refuses to grant Holyrood powers to hold a new vote by granting Section 30 order.
After it was rejected, the proposal was resubmitted to party bosses as an amendment to motion from Deputy First Minister John Swinney and Early Years Minister Maree Todd.
McEleny said six branches have so far given their support and others have asked to discuss the amendment, which is being put forward for the autumn conference.
He said: “It is obviously engaging party members – the feedback is the grassroots of the party think this is something we should be debating a least.
“It is really up to the powers that be at the party whether they let it on the agenda or not, but I think it would be quite unbelievable if they didn’t.
“If people don’t think this is a good idea and if people think this shouldn’t be party policy, then we are more than happy for them to stand on the platform at conference and argue why what we are proposing is wrong.
“But to actually try and stop it being debated in the first place, I just think that is something that is not credible.”
READ MORE: Fresh hope indyref2 Plan B will be debated at SNP conference
He added: “If they are just going to keep saying no you can’t have another referendum, for us to just keep saying we want another one, it is not a credible position to keep as policy.
“Plan B may soon become plan A.”
SNP MP Dr Lisa Cameron has also added her support to the amendment, saying it is “vital to hold the feet of Boris Johnson to the fire”.
She said: “If Boris Johnson and the UK Government continue to refuse to agree to an independence referendum then it’s vital that we have a plan B to ensure Scotland’s voice is heard, whether he likes it or not.”
However the original resolution was rejected by the members of the party’s conference committee on the basis such a significant policy shift should not be determined in a single conference debate.
Critics say any alternative plan should not be decided until after a request for a Section 30 order has been made.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel