Ed Miliband is not a deal-making kind of guy–but he’ll do one post-GE2015!

Better mute the "pooling and sharing" bit with Scotland as you get closer to May 7th, Ed - the English electorate won't like it!

Get elected as a minority government, then do your deal with the SNP, Plaid and Greens - dump Trident, give the Scots what they were promised - devomax - then work with your new partners to undo the untold damage done by Blair, Brown and the Coalition to the people of these islands.

P.S. We'll be back sometime in the very near future for our independence after the next referendum that Scotland holds - without asking anyone's permission.

Murphy’s Big Idea – a flawed concept

It should be evident to all but the most blinkered right-wing Murphy media fan that Jimbo is not a deep thinker.

Despite presenting a media persona that affects profundity in its body language, Murphy is devoid of content – he’s a superficial, headline-grabbing soundbyte politician. You will search in vain for his deep thoughts in writing or in YouTube archives – Murphy’s tools are the ingratiating motherhood statement - oozing vague social concerns and that nauseating brand of Scottish Labour faux internationalism - alternating with a hectoring, blustering approach honed in long university student politics (at the taxpayers expense) and in the smoke-filled rooms of West of Scotland Labour politics, red in tooth and claw.

His core problem in trying to reverse his party’s fortunes before GE2015 is that of Scottish Labour epitomised in one man – the belief that values, policies and principles are coins that can be flipped over after the toss without the electorate noticing.

Time is running out fast for Jim – he was dumped by Miliband from his cabinet and from the shadow defence post that gave him his credibility in the Henry Jackson Society. His two mentors and role models – Tony Blair and David Miliband – are no longer around to support his right-wing HJS agenda of WMD and aggressive transatlantic US/UK hawkish foreign policy. He backed the wrong horse, the wrong Miliband in the Labour leadership election.

For a conviction politician, such setbacks would be a problem, but not for Jim Murphy, who is George Galloway in spirit, but without Galloway’s undoubted intellect and rhetorical gifts. Like Galloway, facing a declining career on the margins of Westminster politics, he looked north during the referendum campaign, and reached for his Irn-Bru crate.

Here was his big chance to grab media headlines and ingratiate himself, not only with Labour, Miliband, Brown and Darling et al, but with the right-wing unionist British Establishment and its shadowy international allies who held the key to the career path he probably aspired to – the Mandelsonian, Blairite, Robertsonish, David Milibandish high road to an international stage and the glittering prizes that awaited him.

It seemed to work, despite the eggings. The media began to call him a big beast, his face was everywhere. The plan seemed to be working. The NO vote prevailed. He seemed oblivious to the fact that the people of Glasgow were not too happy with him – indeed he wore their contempt as a badge of honour – and not even the fact that Glasgow voted YES, that Glasgow was YES City dented his complacency.

But it became evident even to a man as self-absorbed as Murphy that, post-referendum, a sea change had occurred in Scottish politics and the Scottish electorate, and things were not going according to plan. Scottish Labour – his party, was in a parlous state, as poll after poll chronicled their decline, while the SNP was doubling, then trebling, then quadrupling its membership.

As his allies melted away – Brown and Darling slinking off the stage  - and as his Scottishness became a poisoned pill in London Labour’s electoral strategy – and as the British Establishment and their media shills displayed utter confusion and bafflement over why the Scots hadn’t just rolled over and peed up their bellies in craven submission after the indyref, his Westminster career looked even more uncertain and his Scottish heartland was moving en masse to the SNP and the other independence parties.

Could he rely on the former solidly Tory East Renfrewshire electorate to still stand behind his right-wing agenda – pro-Israel, pro-NATO, pro-HJS values, pro-WMD – or would they be affected by the great tectonic movement sweeping Scottish politics?

London Labour wanted none of him, an uncertain future faced him after May 2015. His Westminster defence contacts were diluted and fading fast, and the revolving doors out of the Commons and into armaments industry, commerce, non-exec directorships and consulting contract, open to many in his position, didn’t seem to be spinning invitingly in his direction. But Johann Lamont really focused his mind, in the manner of her resignation.

Time to flip the coin – time to re-invent, re-focus – time to get the tartan carpetbag out of the closet. He threw his hat in the ring for the Scottish Labour Leadership, won convincingly and the new Murphy emerged from the Tardis, swathed in tartan habiliments, now claiming to be of the Left, and militantly anti-London Labour.

But there was the inconvenient baggage of his Blairite past and the dumbells of Scottish Labour’s core referendum arguments to fall over at every turn – Iraq, support for Trident, faux internationalism, unionism and the pooling and sharing mantra.

The motherhood statements and the shining, but suitably vague social vision were wearing thin as the general election campaign loomed. Something headline-grabbing that resembled a policy had to be found, and what better one, in the grip of winter and both Scottish and rUK NHSs under severe resource challenges, than a bidding challenge on nurses to fire at the SNP.

The SNP were in government, forced to balance budgets squeaking under the strain of cuts caused by Labour, LibDem and Tory incompetence, but Jimbo didn’t have to deal with the real life! All he needed, as ever, was a gimmick …

THE THOUSAND NURSES AND THE MANSION TAX

Murphy’s thought processes, as outlined by him and by enthusiastic and admiring journalists and commentators (almost all from the right of the political spectrum) with as little understanding of post-indyref politics as himself, ran as follows -

1. The SNP is past the post-indyref honeymoon period, needs to defend its record, and show why problems exists in areas under its devolved control, especially the NHS.

2. To play down his right-wing unionist London-Labour past, and to kill the Lamont branch office label, he has to demonstrate independence of Westminster Labour, and make a big gesture of defiance.

3. Nurses, and the pressure on nursing staff, are one of the key problems in both NHSs, and nurses always elicit public sympathy and support.

4. Since real policy formation, rigorous thought and economic rationality are not in Jimbo’s skillset, a simple outbidding ploy was needed. 1000 is a nice round figure (e.g. 1000 extra policemen a la SNP 2007-2011) and 1000 extra nurses is even nicer.

So – Murphy as FM would match any SNP staffing commitment by promising 1000 nurses on top of it.  But how to fund it? Easy – the mansion tax, popular on the left, unpopular on the right. Bash the rich, fund more nurses. In the Jim Murphy Ladybird Book of Politics, this was a nice wee simple story to feed a gullible Scottish electorate, especially the fabled 200,000 older Labour voters who were going to swing the election his way.

But this would offend London Labour and Westminster, since it would be essentially the London mansion owners who would fund it. Simples! Let them be offended – this would demonstrate that born-again socialist, Scottish Murphy is not afraid to put Scotland first and take the branch office sign down.

What’s wrong with this? Just about everything …

THE WORMS IN THE MURPHY APPLE

1. The Scottish electorate are no longer the gullible, reflex Labour-voting automatons that Labour relied on for generations – honed on the grindstone of the referendum campaign, they are now politically aware, social media adept, engaged, articulate and sceptical – and organised.

2. The pooling and sharing rationale, worked to death by Murphy et al during the indyref campaign, was never credible to YES supporters, and never mattered to rUK voters – except the ill-informed – because in practice, it didn’t work that way.

But in the post-indyref climate of rUK electorate resentment against Scottish vibrancy after defeat, SNP resurgence and the Smith Commission, a major sense of resentment and inequality was building over what was perceived as bribes to Scots losers.

And now pooling and sharing was expected to favour already bribed Scots and the Scottish NHS over the rUK electorate and the rUK NHS with English - nay, London! - house owners taxes!

This was guaranteed to upset just about everybody, except the right-wing media claque for Murphy. The Tories wouldn’t like it, Londoners of all shades of political allegiance wouldn’t like it, and for Miliband’s Labour Party in electioneering mode, it would be folly to endorse it.

But crucially, the Scottish electorate that Murphy hopes to con with his pledge know that he can’t deliver it without the support of Westminster, which won’t be forthcoming – and that it’s therefore an empty gesture.

And empty gestures are the essence of Jim Murphy …

Coalitus and coalascere

Coalitus? Sounds painful – maybe an inflammation caused by household fuel? Or is it a fancy name for the food craving of some pregnant women?

And coalascere ? Something Il commissario Montalbano might order as a side dish in his favourite Sicilian restaurant?

No – coalitus is the medieval Latin past participle of coalescere, meaning fusion or a coming together and coalesce and coalition derive from it.

A coalition is an alliance of some sort between two or more parties for combined action in concert in certain defined circumstances, one that is usually intended to be temporary.

Used in a political context, it is often for the purpose of forming a government.

(I am familiar with it in a negotiating context in voting behaviours with individuals and groups,  and the mathematical horrors of The Banzhaf Dilemma that I used to frighten senior managers with on negotiating skills courses.)

COALITION GOVERNMENT

We have lived with a coalition government in the UK for over four years in the form of the pernicious Tory/LibDem Coalition of 2010, formed in the aftermath of economic, social and foreign policy shambles left by the Blair/Brown governments of 1997 to 2010.

If we go back to 1852, the Peelites and the Whigs formed a coalition headed by Lord Aberdeen. It lasted till 1855. The noble Earl had a rash of Lords and knights in his cabinet, but he also had one William Ewart Gladstone, a fellow Peelite, of whom rather a lot was subsequently heard.

There was another short-lived LibTory coalition right in the middle of the Great War after the Gallipoli disaster: it collapsed and was promptly replaced by another under Lloyd George. It fell apart in 1922 over scandals, notoriously the blatant flogging of peerages for hard cash by Lloyd George.

The coalitions of 1931 to 1940 preferred to call themselves National Governments because by that time the term Coalition Government had a bad name(!)

The Second World War brought a Tory-led coalition under Churchill (1940-1945). It was referred to as the War Ministry, and last until May 1945, when Churchill resigned after the war ended.

It was replaced by the Churchill caretaker ministry until July 1945, when the general election resulted in a Labour landslide and the Attlee Government.

One might therefore say that the record of coalition governments has not been a stellar one, with the exception of the War Ministry Coalition of 1940-1945.

I’ve been alive during three of the six of them, witnessed the end of two of them and hope to witness the end of another on May 7th 2015.

The question is – will we see another coalition government sometime after May 8th 2015 – and should we want one?

SNP Westminster strategy

The SNP’s core strategy for GE2015 is to contest all Westminster Scottish seats and get as many SNP MPs elected as possible.

Its preferred outcome for the UK-wide ballot is Labour as the party with the largest number of seats, but without an overall majority, and the end of Cameron’s Tory/LibDem Coalition Government.

This outcome would leave UK Labour with three choices -

govern as a minority government, with no formal arrangement with any other party, but making ad hoc deals to secure a majority on specific votes with any party or group of MPs it could secure

enter into a confidence and supply arrangement with a party or parties to offer committed support on agreed issues

form a coalition government with one or more parties and form a cabinet that included ministers appointed from those parties

It would however be a mistake to think that this would all instantly be Ed Miliband’s choice to make. As Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary involved in the 2010 untidy and acrimonious negotiations that led to the Cameron/Clegg Coalition, has pointed out on Sky News, things were not as straightforward in 2010, and are unlikely to be straightforward after May 7th 2015.

But if it is Miliband’s choice, and he chooses a deal rather than minority government, and if the logic of that deal centres on a new and impressive bloc of SNP MPs, what deal might he choose – confidence and supply or coalition ?

If I were in his shoes, and I wanted to neuter the SNP influence in Westminster, I would unhesitatingly choose coalition.

Why?

Well, for a number of reasons.

1. I would invoke the spirit and the words of Lyndon Johnson when faced with having J.Edgar Hoover in or out of his government – “I’d rather have them inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.”

2. Having the SNP in government, in cabinet – and with cabinet responsibility -could be presented as de facto acceptance of the finality of the 2014 independence referendum outcome and embracing the Union.

3. If the SNP broke ranks in coalition, and breached joint cabinet responsibility for a policy decision or action, they could be presented as deeply irresponsible and unfit for government.

4. In Miliband’s position, I would rely on the seductive influences of ministerial office, the status and perks, and the illusion of acting on an international stage to blunt the edge of the SNP’s ambitions for Scotland and damage their reputation and electoral standing with their core constituency.

In a nutshell, if I were Ed Miliband I would do to the SNP what Cameron has done to the LibDems – reduce them to an object of contempt and an electoral rump of a party.

In contrast, governing UK as a minority government would be a far more risky enterprise than governing Scotland in a devolved Parliament was for Alex Salmond 2007-2011, and a confidence and supply deal would place him in the mode of supplicant every time a significant vote arose and crucially, at every budget.

SNP CHOICE?

The SNP’s current position – as I understand it – is that they hope for a Labour win with no overall majority, and a subsequent confidence and supply deal. If - as many thought – Stewart Hosie was flying a cautious kite for coalition, then it is for the SNP to justify such a course of action.

But can they – and more importantly – will they?

The SNP could argue that it cannot commit to what it would and wouldn’t do until the result of GE2015 is known. That is true up to a point, and the SNP - and Alex Salmond’s - legendary pragmatism card would be played. It takes two to tango, and this tango might include more than two, and shift towards a threesome - or a foursome reel.

However, the SNP has found no problem in specifically excluding any kind of a deal with the Tories or UKIP in stating its forward intentions for GE2015. There is nothing that I can see that stops them precluding a coalition with Labour either, but pursuing a confidence and supply deal.

My guess is that the SNP ministers, MSPs and the Parliamentary candidates have their brief by now on how to play this at the hustings and with the media, and it will be a stonewalling response – “impossible to say at this stage, situation will have to be evaluated after May 7th, wouldn’t want to tie the party’s hands, too much at stake …” etc.

The fate of Craig Murray over a vetting question will not have escaped the candidates, and I would guess they’ll be right on message on this hot potato. Not one will say they’re opposed on principle to a coalition.

Is this the right approach? Only the electorate can answer that. I’m opposed to a coalition, but even the SNP publicly stating they fully intended to pursue one wouldn’t stop me voting SNP on 7th May. But I’d be worried if they did, and I believe there are some former Labour voters who shifted painfully to the SNP, with many reservations and much personal agony, who might react differently.

As I said in a tweet on the day Stewart Hosie appeared to raise the coalition question – I want SNP arses on the green benches post-May 7th, but I don’t want them on the front benches of the Westminster Parliament we campaigned so hard to get out of.

The People’s choice –an ideal that fails against reality of Party?

JOHN ADAMS:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This,  in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

GEORGE WASHINGTON:

the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

POLITICAL PARTIES

The Founding Fathers of America were uneasy about them. Democracies the world over are stuck with them, for better or worse. Political theorists argue endlessly about them. PPE graduates talk glibly about them. What in hell are they?

Wikipedia offers general definitions -

WIKIPEDIA

A political party is an organization of people which seeks to achieve goals common to its members through the acquisition and exercise of political power.

A political party platform or platform is a list of the values and actions which are supported by a political party or individual candidate, in order to appeal to the general public, for the ultimate purpose of garnering the general public's support and votes about complicated topics or issues.

So there we have it. Simples? No - there’s an inconvenient reality for political parties, democracy.

In turn, political parties are an inconvenient reality for democracies.

How to get to the heart of the complex questions surrounding democracy and the role of political parties? A few simple ideas – all relating to Westminster elections.

1. Our UK democracy allows the citizen to vote for a candidate for the Westminster Parliament. Any citizen qualified by law (not by party!) may stand for Parliament.

2. A candidate may elect to stand under a political party label – if that party agrees – or stand as an independent. If the candidate stands under a party label, the party is identified on the ballot paper.

3. Political parties must have processes to identify potential candidates, nominate them for assessment, assess them, and decide if they are to be adopted as a prospective Parliamentary candidate.

Let’s pause here and look at the implication of the above three facts -

Democracy depends on named individual citizens being elected to represent defined constituencies. The voter gets therefore to choose between the candidates presented on the ballot paper – but not to choose which candidates are on the ballot paper in the first place.

Whether a candidate appears on the ballot paper is determined by one of two scenarios -

his or her decision to stand as an independent candidate in a parliamentary constituency.

A political party’s decision to allow them to stand – after evaluation and assessment - as the sole candidate for that party in that constituency.

In the first scenario, a citizen offers himself/herself for election by secret ballot to his/her fellow citizens.

In the second scenario, the voter is offered a candidate chosen by a political party.

The voter is both cases may evaluate the candidate against his/her own criteria by the means available – the candidate’s individual background, qualifications, experience, values, principles and objectives as offered by the candidate and by personal research.

In the second case – the candidate has also been approved by the political party’s selection process.

One might characterises this as being offered a meal cooked by the person offering it, or by a meal offered by a well-know restaurant chain – a unique meal or a branded meal. In the first case, knowledge of the individual is vital. In the second case, the reputation of the brand is crucial.

This brings us sharply up against the role of party in politics.

Imagine a Westminster Parliament convening for the first time comprised of nothing but independents – candidates who offered themselves to the electorate without the involvement of any party machine. 650 individuals, expected to collectively govern a United(?) Kingdom comprising four bits – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - but elected by a much smaller group (their constituents).

A crucial decision has to be made immediately – say a decision to go to war, or refrain.

They could debate at once – if they could agree the terms of reference and when to start the debate.  Such a debate would make PMQs look like a Sunday school picnic.

They could then move to a vote – providing they could agree when the debate had ended. A truly democratic decision would be then be made, if the enemy had not yet launched their attack.

Let’s say they approved the war.

A whole set of new decisions would have to be voted on after lengthy debate. By that time, the United Kingdom would have either been overrun by the enemy or obliterated – or taken over by a military coup by impatient generals.

An extreme scenario – but a real possibility. The point is that, even in the absence of immediate crises,  such a Parliament would speedily have itself organised into factions of similar mind and rapidly thereafter into political parties.

Party is inevitable in democratic politics if anything is to be done – unless, as Frances Fukuyama points out, a fully functioning and powerful bureaucratic and military state under a rule of law was already in place before democracy ever emerged, and the elected representatives were either content to let it run things pro-tem – or were afraid to challenge it.

So, practically, nothing gets done without party, and a party - or parties - able to command a majority on key issues in a vote, i.e. to form a government.

What has all this got to do with recent events in and around Holyrood?

THE SNP and CANDIDATE SELECTION PROCEDURES

By the 2007 election, the SNP was a tightly-disciplined machine with a modest membership, significantly the creation of Alex Salmond and his key supporters and advisers.

But – a personal view – its candidate selection process for Westminster elections and in local council elections often produced abysmal results, notably in Glasgow. Some selections (no, I won’t be specific!) were only explicable by either rewarding of loyal time-servers, or seriously deficient selection processes – or perhaps even a lack of suitable candidates.

But despite these failings, the party machine in Scotland delivered - in Holyrood - two terms of government (second on a landslide 2011 victory), negotiated a legal referendum, and took Scotland to the brink of independence. These were formidable achievements by any standard.

The post-indyref events are even more astonishing – the fivefold membership growth, successive positive polls, the resurgence of the YES spirit, a vibrant, popular and respected new First Minister and the humbling of the opposition parties.

It was immediately evident that the spectacular growth in SNP membership post-indyref would offer huge opportunities to the Party, but also pose challenges. Nicola recognised this instantly, and responded rapidly by opening up the way for new members to offer themselves as candidates for the immediate challenge – GE2015 – and for Holyrood in 2016.

There can also be little doubt that this sent a chill down the spine of two categories of party members: long-serving,  worthy activists who had paid their dues to the party and aspired to candidate selection and the party favourites – talented activists, not necessarily long-standing members, who were being assiduously groomed for imminent stardom, many of whom had made their bones during the long referendum campaign.

It is probably fair to say of the second category that their backers were more than a little uneasy about the prospect of their protégés being challenged by the nouvelle vague.

THE TWO HURDLES

The process for vetting and selecting candidates (set out in full in the Appendix below) provides for -

A national register of approved potential parliamentary and local government candidates to be created and maintained by the SNP National Executive Committee

The individual SNP branch may only nominate, and its members select their parliamentary and local government candidates from this approved list.

So, before a candidate gets anywhere near the ballot paper and the electorate, he or she must leap two hurdles – a selection committee appointed by the National Executive, and then a vote of the constituency  branch members.

It is this first stage – and the appeal following it – that Craig Murray failed, and it is the conduct of the process and the alleged media briefings that he complains of, not the SNP’s right to vet him by such a process. His permanent blackballing as a candidate deserves closer examination.

Falkirk has been through all this relatively recently, with Jim Murphy and the Unite Union playing starring roles as competing villains  in the melodrama, with briefings and counter-briefings, against the flaming backdrop of the Grangemouth dispute.

Where do I stand on all of this?

For the record, if I had to choose between Craig Murray and Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (I don’t know who the other candidates are) I would choose choose Tasmina.

Do I see an alternative to such a party candidate vetting and selection process – two relatively undemocratic processes before the polling station and ultimate constituency voter choice?

No, I don’t, even though I don’t like the way it sometime operates.

Do I think the SNP is any better or any worse than any other party, any more or less democratic in such processes?

No, I don’t – I simply want them to observe the highest standards with such imperfect aspects of democracy.

Do I think Craig Murray has always acted wisely in his comments and blogs, both before and after the vetting process?

No, I don’t. I respect his moral courage, as a British career diplomat, in challenging the injustices of the system, and respect his stated principles, but I feel he has been injudicious in some statements.

But I don’t know who is to blame for the potentially damaging media coverage this debacle threatens, or who released the cat from the bag in the first place. I think the SNP needs to be more transparent - as a matter of urgency - on candidate vetting and selection, and more careful in their press contacts on such matters.

God knows, the electorate of Falkirk deserves better than this.

 

APPENDIX ONE – extract from SNP - Rules and Standing Orders

Rules on Vetting and Selection of Potential Parliamentary and Local  Government Candidates

1. Introduction
1.1 The Scottish National Party will encourage a diverse range of members, with a broad mix of skills, understanding and experience, to apply for consideration as potential parliamentary and local government candidates. The vetting or assessment of members for consideration as potential parliamentary and local government candidates will be carried out by the Candidate Assessment Panel appointed by the National Executive Committee (hereafter referred to as “the Panel”).

A national register of approved potential parliamentary and local government candidates will be created and maintained by the National Executive Committee, from which branches will be able to nominate and members select their parliamentary and local government candidates. At all times through this process, the principles and practice of ensuring equality of opportunity for all will be promoted.

2. Mainstreaming Equality of Opportunity

2.1 The National Executive Committee shall establish and maintain a strategy to deliver equality of opportunity throughout the party, including in the selection of candidates for local government and parliamentary elections. The equality strategy will focus primarily on increasing the representation of women, ethnic minority and disabled members throughout the party, and will aim to ensure the SNP fields a more balanced list of candidates in future. Support will be offered to branches and other local organisations to ensure equality of opportunity at grassroots level. The equality strategy will aim to recruit and retain more members from underrepresented groups; to encourage active participation by these members at all levels in the party; to increase the number of candidates drawn from underrepresented groups; and to monitor progress on achieving these aims. As part of the equality strategy, the National Executive Committee shall agree a plan for each election, which may include the use of specific mechanisms, such as hard targets or other measures to deliver a balanced list of candidates. Any specific mechanism will require the approval of National Council before being introduced. Vetting of Potential Candidates

3. Candidate Assessment Panel Candidate Assessment Panel

3.1 The remit, conduct and procedures of the Candidate Assessment Panel will be established and amended from time to time by the National Executive Committee.

3.2 The Panel will be responsible for organising Assessment Centres for vetting of potential candidates.

4. Assessment Criteria

4.1 The National Executive Committee will set down the assessment criteria for potential parliamentary and local government candidates. The Panel will undertake assessment of potential parliamentary and local government candidates in accordance with the National Executive Committee’s guidance. The Panel will make recommendations to the National Executive. The recommendation can only be to approve or not to approve a member as a potential parliamentary or local government candidate.

4.2 The National Executive Committee’s assessment criteria shall, on the advice of the Panel, ensure that there is no discrimination on the grounds of age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, disability and/or religious belief.

4.3 The Panel, following a decision to approve or not approve a member as a potential parliamentary or local government candidate, will produce a feedback report summarising individual performance, including justification for the decision and proposals for personal development, if required.

5. Code of Conduct

5.1 Each member who applies to be considered as a potential parliamentary or local government candidate is required to sign a code of conduct, which will govern their behaviour as an approved potential local government candidate.

5.2 Each member who applies to be considered as a potential parliamentary or local government candidate is required to sign the relevant SNP Group Standing Orders.

6. Approval of potential candidates

6.1 The National Executive Committee will accept the recommendations of the Panel unless two-thirds of all possible members of the National Executive Committee decide otherwise. The National Executive Committee can only approve or not approve the recommendation of the Panel.

6.2 Any member who has been approved by the National Executive Committee as a potential parliamentary candidate will automatically be considered as an approved potential local government candidate. The member is required to satisfy the Local Government Liaison Committee (or body with responsibility for council elections) that they are eligible for nomination as a council candidate in that local government area as the law currently stands.

7. Appeal

7.1 A member who has not been approved as a potential parliamentary or local government candidate may appeal to the National Executive Committee’s Election Appeals Committee in accordance with procedures approved by the National Executive Committee. The decision of the Election Appeals Committee is final.

8. Register Register of Approved Potential Candidates

8.1 The National Executive Committee shall establish and maintain a single Register of Approved Potential Parliamentary and Local Government Candidates, listing in said register whether members have been approved as potential candidates for local government, parliament or both. This register will be made available on the members section of the SNP website.

8.2 The Panel will review the register on an annual basis in accordance with procedures and guidance approved by the National Executive Committee.

9. Removal from the Register of Approved Potential Candidates

9.1 The National Executive Committee may remove a member approved as a potential parliamentary candidate from the Register of Approved Potential Parliamentary and Local Government Candidates on the recommendation of the Panel, on the grounds that the member has either:

i) breached the Code of Conduct of an Approved Potential Parliamentary or Local Government Candidate, and/or

ii) breached the Disciplinary Rules of the Party. 9.2 and their removal is the recommendation of either:

i) a Liaison Committee, with responsibility for a parliamentary election, resolution passed at a duly constituted Special meeting, or

ii) a Constituency Association (or Constituency Branch) resolution passed at a duly constituted Special meeting, and/or

iii) in the case of 9.1 ii), the National Secretary, following a report of the Disciplinary Committee.

9.3 The National Executive Committee may remove a member approved as a potential local government candidate from the Register of Approved Parliamentary and Local Government Candidates on the grounds on the recommendation of the Panel, on the grounds that the member has either:

i) breached the code of conduct of an approved potential local government candidate, and/or

ii) breached the disciplinary rules of the Party.

9.4 and their removal is the recommendation of either:

i) a branch resolution passed at a duly constituted Special meeting, or

ii) a Local Government Liaison Committee (or body with responsibility for council elections) resolution passed at a duly constituted Special meeting, and/or

iii) in the case of 9.3 ii), the National Secretary, following a report of the Disciplinary Committee.

9.5 There is no appeal against the decision of the National Executive Committee on removal of a member from the Register of Approved Potential Parliamentary or Local Government Candidates. A member may be eligible to re-apply for consideration as a potential parliamentary or local government candidate on the guidance of the Panel. Selection of Parliamentary Candidates

10. Number of Candidates per Constituency

10.1 The Organisation Convener will make a recommendation to the National Executive Committee on the number of parliamentary candidates that will be nominated by the Party in each constituency at a parliamentary election.

11. Responsibility for Selection of Parliamentary Candidates

11.1 Constituency Associations (or a Constituency Branch) will have responsibility for overseeing the selection of Scottish Parliamentary candidates subject to National Executive Committee approval of the selection and subject also to the role of Party Headquarters in overseeing postal ballots and related matters, and to the provision which the constitution makes for the National Secretary and Business Convener to select candidates in specified circumstances.

11.2 Liaison Committees for elections to the United Kingdom Parliament (or Constituency Associations which have been given responsibility for Westminster elections by the National Executive Committee) will have responsibility for overseeing the selection of United Kingdom Parliamentary candidates subject to National Executive Committee approval of the selection.

11.3 The National Executive Committee will have responsibility for the selection procedures for the European Parliamentary elections.

12. Timetable for Selection of Parliamentary Candidates

12.1 Each Constituency Association or Liaison Committee with responsibility for parliamentary elections will agree a timetable for the nomination of parliamentary candidate(s) for the constituency which they are responsible for, in accordance with any procedures approved by the National Executive Committee.

13. Nomination of Parliamentary Candidates

13.1 The procedure for nominations shall be as determined by the National Executive Committee.

 14. Selection of Parliamentary Candidates

14.1 Only members who reside and are on the Electoral Register in the electoral constituency can vote in the selection of a parliamentary candidate(s) in accordance with the procedures approved by the National Executive Committee.

14.2 Only members who have maintained their membership for thirteen months prior to a cut off date agreed by the National Executive Committee are entitled to vote in the selection for a parliamentary candidate.

14.3 All selections of parliamentary candidates will be carried out on the basis of one-member-one-vote using the principles of single transferable voting. Members will be made aware of the Scottish National Party’s commitment to equality of opportunity and the need to ensure a broad mix of parliamentarians are elected to represent the diverse communities of Scotland.

14.4 The National Secretary and Business Convener, in using their powers to select a parliamentary candidate in the circumstances specified in the Constitution, shall do so after consultation with the Constituency Association, Constituency Branch or Liaison Committee concerned or, in the case of selections of European Parliamentary candidates, with members of the National Executive Committee.

14.5 A ballot of all members in a constituency will not be required in the event that a candidate is unopposed for selection in a constituency. The NEC will make rules to cover selection procedure in these instances.

14.6 The National Executive Committee will have responsibility for the selection and ranking procedures for parliamentary regional lists.

14.6 The National Executive Committee shall bring forward additions and/or amendment(s) to these Rules in order to specify processes for ensuring a balanced list of candidates, particularly in regard to gender, for each parliamentary election.

15. Deselection of Parliamentary Candidates

15.1 A candidate for the Scottish or United Kingdom Parliament, whether in a constituency or on a party list, may be deselected by the National Executive Committee on a vote of two thirds of those present, if acting on the request of the Constituency Association or Liaison Committee concerned. The National Secretary may delegate the function of assessing such a request to a panel of National Executive Committee members, who will then report their findings to the National Executive Committee for decision.

15.2 A candidate for the European Parliament may be deselected by the National Executive Committee, by a two-thirds majority of those voting, if acting on the request of the National Secretary and Business Convener.

15.3 If a parliamentary candidate on a party list dies, resigns or is deselected as a list candidate, or becomes ineligible to be an SNP candidate, then any other candidates below him or her on the list each move up one place in the rankings.

Let’s make it a really Happy, Labour-free New Year in May 2015

A guid New Year tae ane an a’ when it comes – an’ mony may ye see!

Campaign for – and vote for – an independence-supporting party in GE2o15

**a YES party**

best wishes,

Peter

Sundry reflections

QUEEN STREET

The Scottish news is consumed by one awful event. There is little I can say that can add anything useful to sentiments already expressed or to the analysis and speculation on  events and causes of this terrible human tragedy, other than that it appears to be one of those horrific random events that periodically wreak such damage on the lives of people.

Like everyone else, I now feel guilt in pursuing mundane activities, especially at this time of year, while such grief afflicts others, yet I must. But my thought are with the bereaved.

READING

The referendum campaign consumed much of my energies over recent years, and I mean not just the official campaign, but the one that effectively started when a nationalist – and I use the word proudly with no equivocation – government was elected in 2007.

Along with thousands of Scots like me, my planned activities for this phase of my life – reading, writing and music - were sort of put on hold, or at least relegated to second place.

But now that things have calmed down, there’s more time and space, so I’ve made a 175-page dent in the intimidating 658 pages of Francis Fukuyama’s Political Order and Political Decay, and revisited old friends, including Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer, Robert Louis Stevenson’s Kidnapped (my all-time favourite book), Raymond Chandler’s short stories, American Popular Song by Alex Wilder and as bedtime reading, Alistair Cooke’s collected Letters from America.

(I also re-read The Ancient Order of Moridura periodically, but that’s a sort of masochistic vice.)

The Alistair Cooke collection I’m reading for the fourth time, and I find it infinitely rewarding. Cooke was born in 1908 in Salford, Manchester and died in 2004. The classic Anglo-American, his first Letter from America came in 1946, and he was a part of my life in his BBC broadcasts from my childhood up until his death. He chronicled all the great political events of the twentieth century, and his unique insights into America, American life and Americans were delivered in an inimitable prose style, carried by an inimitable voice in his broadcasts.

I’m back in 1956 with him at the moment, as he writes of the death of the grand old man of American letters, H.L. Mencken, the Sage of Baltimore. Apart from giving me another title for my re-reading list, his HLM: RIP essay came up with this strangely comforting quote on death from Mencken -

“… the dying man doesn’t struggle much, and he isn’t afraid. … he succumbs to a blest stupidity. His mind fogs. His will power vanishes. He submits decently. He scarcely gives a damn.”

I know not all deaths are like that, but only a man who had been close to death himself could have written that. It mirrors closely how I felt in the lead-up to my own cardiac arrest in 2010 and my subsequent six minutes of ‘death’ before resuscitation.

But here I am, almost five years on – five good years – and looking forward to Christmas, and New Year and the May general election, and an SNP landslide – and ultimately independence.