Disney’s animated feature, Brave, tells the story of Scotland placed in great peril by the foolish choices of a self-obsessed princess. She then gets to be the hero of her own story by having lots of other people put themselves in harm’s way in so she can take credit for saving the nation from her own folly. The film manages to bring the whole thing to a happy conclusion in the space of 99 mildly entertaining minutes.
Delegates at the SNP’s 89th Annual National Conference in Aberdeen in a couple of weeks will have just one minute longer to pull off their own dramatic rescue of their party and Scotland’s cause.
One hundred minutes! That is the time allotted by party managers to ‘debate’ a strategy for restoring Scotland’s independence. Of course, in practice it won’t be anything like 100 minutes. Anyone who has attended conference will know that a large part of that allotted time will be taken up with procedural matters and general time-wasting; such as when delegates scheduled to speak in the ‘debate’ contrive to be at the greatest distance from the stage possible within the confines of The Event Complex Aberdeen (TECA) when their name is called. You can probably deduct about 20 minutes for all of this.
So, less than an hour for what might reasonably be described as the most important ‘debate’ ever staged at an SNP conference. Not over-generous, I’m sure you’ll agree. It is, however, quite possible to have a decent debate in less than hour. What matters is not so much the time constraints but restrictions on what can be discussed. If, for example, delegates were charged with choosing between two plans both of which had been formulated over a period of time and with a great deal of internal discussion, 100 minutes would be ample time to present considered arguments for and against each of these plans before moving to a vote. with effective chairing and good organisation, it could be done in considerably less time while still permitting at least half a dozen speakers from each camp.
But that’s not what’s going to happen. Delegates will not be choosing between two credible strategies by which to end the Union and restore Scotland’s rightful constitutional status. No such strategy is being proposed. The leadership motion is nothing more than a barely-disguised restatement of the insipid drivel used by Nicola Sturgeon to keep both conference delegates and voters enthralled while she let Scotland’s cause rot. To support the leadership motion is to support the same strategy that has seen the fight to restore our nation’s independence immobile for nine years. The ‘strategy’ set out in that motion is not a strategy for independence. It is a strategy for obtaining votes using the idea of independence as a lure. It is not a ‘plan’ for restoring independence. It is a plan for keeping the SNP in power. The plan doesn’t have independence as its end-point. Its end-point is yet another fucking Section 30 ‘demand’.
Of course, the whole idea of using the next UK general election as a de facto referendum on independence is as obviously idiotic as the leadership motion is a deceit. If we win, the result will be dismissed because it wasn’t a real referendum. If we lose, the result will be carved into the side of a mountain there to remain until the rock melts in the sun because it was every bit the real referendum the Scottish Government insisted it was. So, the fact that most if not the whole of the ‘debate’ in Aberdeen will be about what constitutes a win gives the entire proceeding the aspect of farce. Delegates will be arguing about how to define a mandate that will never be recognised as a mandate for independence and which in any case is only a mandate to beg permission from the British state to do something we have an absolute and inalienable right to do.
I urge people to thoroughly scrutinise the leadership motion. I have watched dumbfounded as SNP loyalists and apologists attach the most fantastical meanings to the text. In reality, it is all about deferring to the British state. Because nobody in the SNP leadership is brave enough to do the other thing.
In a little under a fortnight, we’ll know whether the delegates are brave enough to reject the leadership motion and send Yousaf et al back to their bubble to think again.
Peter A Bell 
I liked the movie Peter! 🙂
“But are you willing to pay the price your freedom will cost?” – A quote from the movie.
I most certainly am!
LikeLiked by 3 people
If delegates are brave enough, and I really hope they will be, they will probably be timed out, or “procedured out”. The real question we should be asking is whether they are brave enough to seize control of the agenda and ensure that at least a few hours, and preferably a whole day is available for the debate. If they are brave enough to do that and ensure a proper debate, then they are brave enough to ensure that a meaningful motion on independence is proposed and carried. Delegates should ignore conference procedures to make this happen, just as the cabal ignored internal party election procedures to ensure that Humza Youssaf was “elected” as FM.
LikeLiked by 6 people
The debate could last a week, Geoff, and it would make no difference if all they’re debating is what qualifies as yet another mandate for yet another S30 request. Given the substance of the motion, that’s all they can debate. That’s all the convener will permit. (Rightly, I should add. Standing Orders.) None of the amendments alters the end-point of this sham strategy. It ends with a S30 request. Which if refused, leaves us back where we started. And if granted, fucks us completely.
If there is no way to get a late amendment which basically wipes out the leadership resolution and replaces it with something meaningful, then all that’s left is either the direct negative or the option to refer back. Either of these would be regarded as a slap in the face to the party leadership. Will anybody even be brave enough to move either of these? We await developments.
I’d like to know what happened to all the other motions. There were some good ones, I believe.
LikeLiked by 4 people
The other motions were dealt with under the NEC ‘syandong orders’. They weren’t competent, they weren’t received, they were late, they weren’t worded correctly. Anyway, we decide what the Conference committe approves.
Take your pick.
LikeLiked by 3 people
” The ‘strategy’ set out in that motion is not a strategy for independence. It is a strategy for obtaining votes using the idea of independence as a lure. It is not a ‘plan’ for restoring independence. It is a plan for keeping the SNP in power. The plan doesn’t have independence as its end-point. Its end-point is yet another fucking Section 30 ‘demand’. ”
Yip , perfectly described , Peter . Can you imagine another ” 10 years ” of this ? No , me neither .
Referring back to Robin MacA’s paper ….. unless I missed something , there’s nothing in it that addresses , or suggests ways to change , the sheer hopelessness of the ( current ) SNP’s ( supine ) position on Independence ; and , as we’ve been remarking with an ever-increasing sense of urgency , our Brit State opponent will not be standing idly by for another 10 years as Papers come and go most likely to be hailed then ignored before ending-up clogging drains like so much wet confetti .
My guess is the SNP will get a serious * doing * at the next G.E , a clamour will arise , reaching a fever-pitch of blind desperation at the prospect , not of rescuing the Independence aspiration , but of salvaging as many places at the WM/Holyrood troughs as possible . Exit The Makeshift Humza – Enter The Dragon , guess who ? That’s with the caveat she hasn’t been selected for some Globalist gig before then ; which , I’m sure , is her preferred outcome . Still , it’s easy to imagine her wanting to equal Alex Salmond’s ” Second Act ” , playing the returning hero and enjoying once again the uncritical idolatry of her flock and high media visibility .
LikeLiked by 5 people
You’ll give me nightmares.
The problem is, there’s nobody in the controlling clique of the party I would entrust Scotland’s cause to.
LikeLiked by 7 people
Aye , P , tis the stuff of nightmares right enough and agreed , ain’t nobody home re possible contenders of any worth to replace H.Y . It’s grim up North for sure
LikeLiked by 4 people
Prism stated exactly that same nightmare return to the front line politics. We will be completely funked.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The donkeys will nod and continue to chase the elusive carrot dangled before them.
They’ll probably put more effort into changing the party’s name than developing a proper stratergy for independence.
Bums on seats is all they are interested in {i.e. Westminster or Holyrood}.
It will drag on. In more ways than one.
LikeLike
There is no proposal to change the party’s name.
LikeLike