My thoughts on the proposed SNP rule change which would make it almost impossible to challenge an incumbent leader

I've been specifically asked by a couple of people what I think about the proposed SNP rule change that would make it much, much harder to challenge for the leadership than it has been until now, and whether I think it would make the SNP even more unreformable than Alba.  Let me say at the outset that as a newly rejoined member of the SNP, I am extremely dismayed at the proposal and I hope it is roundly rejected when the time comes.  It speaks to quite an unfortunate mindset if people have been looking at Graeme McCormick's potential challenge to John Swinney last year (which never even happened in the end, let's remember), and instead of thinking "oh, isn't this wonderful, democracy working exactly as it should, even an obscure rank-and-file member can challenge the most powerful man in the party, and then it becomes a battle of ideas", you actually think "OH NO, WE CAN'T BE HAVING THIS, HOW CAN WE STOP IT, NEVER AGAIN!!!!"

However, the direct answer to the question "would this make the SNP even worse than Alba?" is a very firm "no", because Alba got in ahead of the SNP with a rule that has an almost identical effect.  The hurdle that anyone would need to clear to challenge for the Alba leadership is already exceptionally high.  A few months ago, I spoke to a former Alba national office bearer, who pointed out to me that to stand for the leadership or depute leadership, you not only need a very high number of nominations, but you also need those nominations to be drawn from a higher number of Alba LACUs (branches) than are currently even in existence.  So on a literal reading of the rule, it is actually impossible to challenge for the Alba leadership.  Now, doubtless the rule will be creatively "interpreted" to allow leading figures like Kenny MacAskill and Ash Regan to stand, but I very much doubt McEleny would ever have allowed a rank-and-file member (a Graeme McCormick equivalent) to benefit from any creative interpretations to challenge Alex Salmond when he was incumbent leader.  Indeed, McEleny carefully ensured that the annual leader and depute leader elections were not advertised to members in the same way as other office bearer elections, so if you'd wanted to even get as far as receiving a nomination form, you'd have needed to kick up a fuss and demanded your rights.

Which usually gets you precisely nowhere with McEleny.  At that stage he just ignores your emails, and if you point out to anyone else what he's doing, he just innocently pretends never to have received the emails.  If you then say that's not a credible statement, you start receiving dark hints that "not accepting the General Secretary is acting in good faith" is potentially a serious disciplinary matter that could result in your suspension or expulsion.  I have direct experience of an incident of that sort from early 2024 - for further details, watch out for future installments of "THE ALBA FILES", with the working titles 'The Conduct of Christopher' and 'You've Got Mail! (Yes, it's Tas again.)'.

As far as Stuart Campbell's article on the proposed SNP rule change is concerned, I do actually agree with some of it (a rarity for me since the MAGA Unionist era at Wings began), but it has to be said that the silence from him on the identical snuffing out of Alba's internal democracy has been absolutely deafening - and he can't plead ignorance, because I gather a number of former Alba NEC members asked to write guest posts for Wings about the rigging of the 2023 internal elections, and he either refused or ignored them.  His self-styled commitment to "fearless investigative journalism" is extraordinarily one-sided.  Rather akin to journalism in the Mail or the Telegraph, it only exists in service to his own political agenda - which at the moment is to destroy the SNP by artificially making them look much worse than Alba or the unionist parties.

Let's also not forget that when Mr Campbell was planning his own Wings Party, he made clear that it would be what I dubbed an "Il Duce party" - meaning that he would automatically be leader for life without an election.