Two SNP MSPs quit the party

Two Scottish Nationalist Party MSPs have today announced their decision to quit the party following the conference decision to change its policy on NATO membership.

For decades the SNP’s stance has been that an independent Scotland should not be a NATO member, due to concerns about joining what it saw as a nuclear alliance.  Like the Liberal Democrats (and the Liberal Party before), the SNP has a history of expressing suspicion towards the nuclear deterrent and the recent conference vote – in which the leadership won the day arguing that it was possible for a nuclear-free Scotland to part of the military alliance – was passed with a slender majority of just 29.  Clearly passions run as high within the SNP as they do among liberals where this issue is concerned, and while the leadership successfully fought off rebel amendments this victory has come at a price.

John Finnie and Jean Urquhart, both list MSPs for the Highlands and islands region, have decided they cannot longer serve the party they have been members of for 39 and 35 years respectively.   Mr Finnie told The Herald that “although I envisage that I will continue to share common ground with the SNP on many issues, I cannot in good conscience continue to take the party whip” while Ms Urquhart explained that "we believe in an independent Scotland, not a NATO-dependent Scotland."  They will now serve their constituents as independent MSPs. 

Clearly both leave the party without rancour and will, in all likelihood, continue to take the SNP line on most issues.  However, the resignations are a serious blow to the First Minister – not least because they coincide with accusations that he has lied, or at least misled the public, in relation to legal advice in respect to EU membership.  

If I was an SNP member, I would probably have been persuaded that NATO membership was not entirely incompatible with the vision for a nuclear-free Scotland (other NATO members are similarly nuclear-free).  However, I would also be concerned that parliamentarians who take a different view would feel strongly enough to leave the party over the policy change.  Could more have been done to keep them on board?  For the previous few years the SNP has successfully managed to appear united in policy and purpose, relatively free of the bickering and internal divisions so apparent within the Scottish Conservative and Labour parties.  While it is difficult to ascribe any particular medium or long-term significance to the resignations at this stage, there is certainly scope for divisions to be widened.  The public image of a party united has been challenged by this announcement and there is definitely the potential for this to create lasting damage, although to its credit the SNP has so far done well to behave in a courteous and respectful fashion towards Mr Finnie and Ms Urquhart.

There will, naturally, be further criticism from within.  Not simply criticism of a policy change, but also the way in which the issue and the debate were handled.  I profess no knowledge of such things, but if I was a member I would be deeply concerned at this development and would naturally ask questions in regards the extent to which rebels’ concerns were accommodated by the leadership.  It is difficult to know at this stage whether these resignations could have been avoided through more careful handling of a controversial issue or whether the principle of NATO membership was always a line in the sand the MSPs were never prepared to cross.

There have been some speculating today that these resignations signal “internecine warfare”, and that the two MSPs could become a rallying point for other SNP members dissatisfied with either the NATO stance or the SNP leadership more generally.  I see no reason to assume either.  However, with the SNP’s majority now reduced notionally to one, this will create headaches for Alex Salmond and has done little to strengthen his authority.  Today was a day I suspect he won’t want to remember.

I should commend John Finnie and Jean Urquhart for their stance.  While as a natural pragmatist I may disagree with them, I commend any politician so evidently making a sacrifice on a point of principle.  Whether those sacrifices were necessary or inevitable is, however, another matter entirely.

It is undeniably self-evident is that the one thing that unites the SNP is the commitment to independence.  What this debate, and the aftermath, has shown is that when it comes down to policy detail there is not that same level of unity.  While inevitably other matters may not arouse the same kinds of passions as the nuclear debate, as the political conversation surrounding independence moves from the general to the more specific we can expect more of these policy divisions to emerge.

Alex Salmond is a clever political operator and a shrewd tactician.  He has done well to see off various Labour leaders, defeat an electoral system designed to prevent any party from securing a majority and ensure the SNP’s policy of an independence referendum becomes reality.  Perhaps, however, a greater challenge will be to articulate a detailed Nationalist vision of an independent Scotland his party can fully agree with.

For those interested, a Scottish nationalist blog, Auld Acquaintance, asks Principle or Stupidity?