John Swinney: Rebel independence plan will not work
But it is at odds with Mr Swinney's plan, which contends that a mandate is only achievable if the SNP wins a majority of seats at Holyrood.
READ MORE:
Asked by STV in an interview on Monday night about the grassroots proposal, Mr Swinney said: "I don't agree with it and I don't think it will work."
The rebel resolution was blocked by the SNP's conferences committee from the party's draft agenda for the annual conference to take place in Aberdeen in October.
Members now intend to summit an amendment to Mr Swinney's resolution.
The conferences committee will decide after September 5 whether to accept the amendment for debate.
Asked about whether it should be heard, Mr Swinney said: "It will be up to the conferences committee to decide."
He was asked if he would be prepare to debate the grassroots plan, Mr Swinney replied: "Of course I would be. I am a democrat. I lead a democratic political party and I have debated many important choices with my party over time.
"But I don't think it will work because we had that in 2016 and 2021 and it didn't break the log jam and the issue is having a route which results in Scotland becoming independent....If Scotland is to become independent there has to be domestic and international legitimacy for an independent Scotland. We had that in 2014 because all the rules were agreed."
The rebel resolution, which argues this threshold should be lowered and include votes cast for Alba and the Scottish Greens, was proposed by members in Oban and Lorn, Tweeddale, and Helensburgh.
The group submitted the following motion for approval by the SNP's conference committee: 'Conference instructs the Party to prioritise obtaining a mandate from the sovereign Scottish people to deliver independence. This will be possible by achieving a majority of the popular vote on the sum of the Independence Supporting Parties' List Votes in the 2026 Scottish parliamentary election."
After the rebel resolution failed to make it on the party's draft agenda for the party's conference, one activist, who supported the proposal, told The Herald:"I am absolutely seething. I have never known a resolution with so much backing which has been so unceremoniously put to the side."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
UN case will determine who is entitled to call an indy referendum
However, Campbell seems to be under the illusion that either Westminster or the United Nations (UN) will grant us independence when in reality neither will for different reasons. In the case of Westminster, they lose territory, people, revenue and power, so they will never grant us the right to hold another referendum or grant us independence even if the polls were at 100% in favour. As such, we need a way forward to hold a legal referendum that Westminster can't do anything about. READ MORE: Every plan to achieve indy must be subject to the test of practicality With the UN, they act as a final court in international matters of decolonisation. As with any court, it is up to the petitioner to prove the case and by the same standard, for others to disprove the case. That can take a few years to reach a final decision. If we win, it doesn't mean that we automatically get independence, it means that the legal position of who can call an independence referendum changes from Westminster to Holyrood and it also means that the majority of UN members will back our claim if we become independent. It also means that whomever is in power in Holyrood at any time can call an independence referendum at a time of their choosing. In other words, Westminster can't veto a future referendum or tell us how many years we have to wait before the next one, and we can hold as many as we need to get the majority we need. I would say that's to our benefit. Yes, Campbell is correct in that we need to do a lot more to shift figures towards a large majority, but is it wasting the time of the UN to appeal to them for help when we have been at stalemate for the last 11 years and can't find a way forward, and the Westminster position is that we are subservient to them? After all, independence is the ultimate goal and that's a long-term solution and not a chant during a march with some flag-waving thrown in as well, no matter how enjoyable the marches are. READ MORE: Octopus Energy steps in as SNP members call to pause Scottish renewable projects One problem we have at present is the laws around electioneering outwith an official referendum/election. That effectively prevents open debate of all the issues from both sides, and we know that the Unionists don't want to debate the matter anyway. If you can't openly debate the issue, then you can't persuade the electorate to come over to the side of independence, and you can't persuade them that your points are valid. As it stands, if certain facts and figures have not been published in the red-top newspapers or by the BBC, then Unionists don't want to know them and claim that we are making them up. It was that open debate in 2014 that made a lot of people move from No to Yes. We need to be careful how we take the independence movement forward. Campbell isn't the first to advocate a more forceful protest and I've done so in the past myself so I'm not totally against the idea. However, I'm 70 years old with just a basic pension. The poll tax and bridge tolls were a long time ago now, it's time for us older ones to hand over the baton to the more active and just as willing Scots who want independence. Alexander Potts Kilmarnock IN his letter 'One election outcome in 2026 could open up multiple routes to indy' (Aug 18), Alistair Potter writes: 'The first-past-the-post plural voting system awards the majority of seats to the largest minority. Scotland uses the identical voting system in the constituencies, and then uses a list system to allocate seats on a proportional basis, which also serves the dual purpose of preventing a party that has done well in the constituencies from winning an even bigger disproportionate share of seats.' The plurality formula (known as FPTP or relative majority method) requires that to be elected a candidate only has to achieve a simple majority of votes (the largest amount of votes). READ MORE: SNP must not act as bystanders in run-up to next year's election List seats for the Scottish Parliament elections are allocated to the party or individual which has the highest regional figure at an allocation, after any recalculation has been made as a result of the previous allocation, NOT on a proportional basis. The effect of voting on the list for 'any indy party that is NOT the SNP' would be that the democratic legitimacy ends with the allocation of the first list seat because of the d'Hondt method being used in CONJUNCTION with FPTP. The sum of successful list allocation quotients for that party would be more than 400% greater than the actual votes received. The combination of the numbers of constituency seats won and list seats allocated (62 + 35) would be extremely disproportionate to the share of the vote (for the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections that would have meant 75% of the seats with only very slightly more than 50% of the vote). Scottish saying: Facts are chiels that winna ding – facts cannot lie. Michael Follon Glenrothes IT is refreshing to have a candidate for the Scottish Greens leadership stressing an environmental issue, in this case climate change ('I may be electoral risk but Greens need to focus on climate leadership', Aug 19). It makes a change from gender and other distractions. Remember, the Greens evolved from the Ecology Party, whose very name stressed environmental priority. Recognising the imminence of global population overshoot, they had a policy commitment to a birth rate well below the replacement rate (2.1 kids per woman). Some 25 years ago, however, that was airbrushed out of the 'Policy Reference Document' at a time when the gender brigade were taking over the party. READ MORE: Scottish Greens need to 'broaden appeal' outside middle class voters Sir David Attenborough has said there is no environmental problem which would not be eased through a lower population. Will the Greens take his message on board, especially now that even Scotland is in population overshoot as measured by our bio-capacity? George Morton Rosyth
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Could Scotland challenge hotels housing asylum seekers? Legal insights
On Tuesday, the High Court granted a temporary injunction to Epping Forest District Council, blocking refugees from being allowed to stay at a former hotel. The ruling blocks asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in the Essex town, and current residents must be removed by September 12. While the court ruling that asylum seekers be removed from a hotel in Epping, Essex was won by the council against the hotel over the breach of planning rules, Reform UK and far-right protesters are taking the injunction as a "victory" for them. READ MORE: 'Emboldened' far-right advertise Perth asylum seeker hotel protest Nigel Farage has stated that the Epping community "stood up bravely, despite being slandered as far-right, and have won". He has further called for peaceful protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers "across Britain" to put pressure on local authorities. Questions are being asked on what the implications of the ruling are for Scotland, and whether Scottish councils could take similar action. Nick McKerrell, senior lecturer in law at Glasgow Caledonian University, told The National that his view was that Scotland is unlikely to see councils block hotels housing asylum seekers, despite the potentially landmark ruling in Essex. What happened in the Epping ruling? The ruling from Mr Justice Eyre is significant but framed in "quite a specific way in the framework of English planning law", McKerrell explained. "Essentially the argument of Epping Council is that the hotel, by housing asylum seekers, is no longer acting as a hotel therefore it is in breach of the planning permission that was granted to allow it to operate in such a way. 'In legal terms, the council are arguing there is a change of use but not only that there has been a 'material' change of use – which means the change is so significant that it requires a new planning permission application if it wants to house asylum seekers." READ MORE: 'This rhetoric leads to firebombs': Humza Yousaf issues warning over asylum debate McKerrell added that a significant point was that the court did not make a ruling on whether they agreed with the council's position. The interim injunction (a court order banning behaviour – an interdict in Scots Law) is about the use of the hotel until a resolutions at a later hearing. "So he is saying that he will not make a ruling on whether the hotel is breaching planning law but it is saying that because of the broader issues raised it should not operate as a location for asylum seekers in the interim." Ultimately in his ruling on Tuesday, the judge conceded that "housing destitute asylum seekers is an important public policy," McKerrell summarised, "but there is also a public interest in ensuring that planning control is followed within local authorities which are ultimately responsible for it." Could Scotland challenge hotels housing asylum seekers? The judge in the Epping Forest case was keen to emphasise that his decision was very 'fact sensitive' so could not be seen as a precedent, McKerrell stressed. "He actually outlined a number of different contradictory decisions in the English courts on whether using hotels to house asylum seekers is a 'material' difference from operating 'usually' as a hotel. Scotland also has its own planning laws. 'Here it would require a local authority to challenge a hotel for breaching planning law. Scots planning law uses similar terms to those argued in the English court over change of 'material use'. Generally though that would be difficult in this context given councils in Scotland generally have been involved in discussions with the Home Office and contractors to agree to bring asylum seekers into the local area." He added: "A group that was angered by asylum seekers being housed for example as seen in Falkirk at the weekend would not be able to raise such an action." 'In England the numbers of asylum seekers are much greater and enter into direct contracts with the hotels which may not involve the council as can be seen in Epping where the District Council brought the action'. How many asylum seekers in the UK in 2025? The most recent Home Office data showed there were 32,345 asylum seekers being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March. This was down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079. New figures – published among the usual quarterly immigration data release – are expected on Thursday, showing numbers in hotels at the end of June. Figures for hotels published by the Home Office date back to December 2022 and showed numbers hit a peak at the end of September 2023 when there were 56,042 asylum seekers in hotels. How many hotels are in use for asylum seekers? It is thought there were more than 400 asylum hotels open in summer 2023. Labour said this has since been reduced to fewer than 210.
Western Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Western Telegraph
Former Salmond staffer rejects Sturgeon claims in book as ‘obviously false'
Geoff Aberdein, who worked for Mr Salmond when he was first minister, hit out at Ms Sturgeon, saying: 'I was brought up that you didn't speak ill of the dead. 'But I think if you're going to speak ill of the dead, at least make your claims accurate.' Former first minister Nicola Sturgeon with her memoir, Frankly, which was published last week (Jane Barlow/PA) He told the Holyrood Sources podcast that Mr Salmond's widow Moira was 'particularly upset and frustrated at a lot of what has been said' about her late husband, who died suddenly in October 2024. Mr Aberdein continued: 'I think it was important to set out and correct the record not just because Alex is not in position to defend himself, but for myself as well and the series of other officials and civil servants that have contacted me.' Claims that Mr Salmond was the person who leaked the story of the sexual harassment allegations against him are 'obviously false', Mr Aberdein insisted. He said that when his former boss took the phone call to say the story about the allegations was being published by the Daily Record he was actually meeting lawyers to 'draft a legal summons to prevent Nicola Sturgeon's Government from making the allegations public'. Mr Aberdeen said: 'To suggest Alex was simultaneously leaking documents deeply damaging to his reputation whilst at the same time paying lawyers a lot of money to get a court order to prevent publication of the same material is just utterly absurd.' Mr Salmond went on to be acquitted of all the charges against him in a court case in 2020. Mr Aberdein also dismissed claims by Ms Sturgeon that Mr Salmond 'didn't read' the white paper on independence which had been produced by the Scottish government in the run up to the 2014 referendum. In her recently published memoir, Frankly, Ms Sturgeon spoke out about her 'cold fury' with her former leader over his 'abdication of responsibility' on the key document. Mr Aberdein – who said he would not be reading the book – accepted that his former boss 'delegated the responsibility for drafting the white paper to Nicola Sturgeon'. Mr Aberdein said he wanted to 'correct the record' following comments made about his former boss, Alex Salmond (Andrew Milligan/PA) However he insisted: 'To suggest, as I think was the purpose of this story, that he wasn't engaged in the process of a prospectus for independence is utterly nonsense. The former Salmond chief of staff also rejected claims that Mr Salmond was 'apparently against same-sex marriage' – saying that this was 'demonstrably false'. Mr Aberdein told the podcast Mr Salmond had 'declared his personal support for gay marriage for the first time' in a newspaper article in April 2011. And he added that while the SNP election manifesto that year had pledged to consult on the issue Mr Salmond 'chose to come out… excuse the pun, the turn of phrase, ahead of that result, to say that he personally supported it.' With the SNP having won the 2011 Holyrood election, Mr Aberdein recalled 'being in the room with advisors, civil servants and indeed ministers about how we would go about reassuring different sections of our society about that legislation, particularly religious leaders and other civic leaders'. He also made the 'obvious point' that 'if Alex Salmond didn't want legislation to be progressed, he was the first minister of a majority SNP government, it wouldn't have been progressed'. Mr Aberdeen said: 'The point falls down on that alone.'
