The latest betrayal of Alba members is the most shameful - it's game, set and match to Tasmina as the party's unelected Tyrant-Queen gets her way on the retention of the discredited pay-per-vote system - her ruthless and callous tactics to crush all dissent appear to have SUCCEEDED as rumours strongly suggest members will *NOT* be given the option of introducing a democratic one member, one vote system for NEC elections

Although the Alba leadership never admitted that the 2023 internal elections were rigged (quite the reverse, in fact - they maliciously expelled Colin Alexander from the party simply for raising questions about what had happened, and suspended Denise Somerville for supplying evidence of the vote-rigging), Alex Salmond did make a nod to members' concerns by sending out an email immediately afterwards promising that the newly-launched review of the party constitution would be able to consider the possibility of introducing one member, one vote for NEC elections.  At the time, I interpreted that as meaning that the leadership accepted that the pay-per-vote system for electing the NEC had been so thoroughly discredited that it was no longer tenable to even attempt to keep it going.  I assumed that they would never have built up expectations of one member, one vote unless that was actually going to happen.

I was completely wrong about that.  The leadership were in fact totally wedded to the pay-per-vote system, and the reason why can be summed up in three little words - "Tasmina", "Ahmed" and "Sheikh".  Without pay-per-vote, there would be no way of guaranteeing that Tas would continue to top the annual female ballot for the NEC, and it was only by topping the ballot that she could justify her ongoing unelected role as Party Chair.  The constitution review was just a classic "kick it into the long grass by setting up a commission" wheeze, with the intention of dropping all talk of one member, one vote after emotions had cooled a bit.

Whenever I'm asked about Alba these days, the most common question is "so why exactly were you expelled?", to which all I can respond with is "that's a very good question" or "your guess is as good as mine".  But of course there's a big distinction between the 'official' reason, which is impossible to pin down due to the risible vagueness of McEleny's disciplinary referral document, and the 'real' reason, which was almost certainly much more specific.

One plausible interpretation of that 'real' reason is that it was bound up with Tasmina's determination to keep the pay-per-vote scam going at all costs.  The Constitution Review Group set up in early 2024 was 50% appointed, 50% elected, and three of the four elected members were in favour of reform.  Those three were myself, Alan Harris and Mike Baldry. I've outlined in a previous blogpost how Tas menaced Alan, myself and Morgwn Davies with talk of disciplinary action on trumped-up charges in the spring of 2024, before quietly dropping those threats a few weeks later and announcing that she'd destroyed all of the relevant evidence.  Part of the idea was probably to see if one or more of us voluntarily resigned to avoid the hassle and stress of a possible disciplinary process.  Alan Harris did indeed resign from Alba within a day or two of the threats being issued, although I must stress that his stated reasons for leaving had nothing to do with Tasmina's stunt.

Alan's departure reduced the number of reformers on the Constitution Review Group from three to two, exactly as Tas had presumably hoped.  But with the group's chair Hamish Vernal saying he wanted a consensus report, Mike Baldry and I still had some leverage between us. Although the meetings of the group were fractious and unpleasant affairs, we ultimately managed to convince Hamish that on important matters where there was no consensus on the group (such as one member, one vote), Alba members should be allowed to choose between the majority option and the minority option.  That would have allowed members to make a straight choice between one member, one vote, and the status quo of pay-per-vote, at the party conference later this month.

However, after the compromise with Hamish had been agreed, I was of course unceremoniously expelled from the party.  It's reasonable to wonder whether the reason for that, or part of the reason, was to reduce Mike Baldry to a minority of one and make it impossible for him to hold the line on what had already been agreed.

My worst fears on that front seem to have been confirmed.  I'm told there was a marathon five-hour meeting of the Constitution Review Group over the weekend to decide on a final proposed constitutional text to put to conference.  The sheer length of the meeting is a strong indication that what had already been agreed was not being adhered to and that everything was back up for grabs.  It must have been almost impossible for Mike Baldry to keep the minority options in play, not only because he had been whittled down to a minority of one, but also because the anti-reform members of the group include Chris Cullen and his immature fiancée Shannon Donoghue, who are part of the so-called "Corri Nostra" and are thus close allies of Tasmina.

What I'm hearing, and admittedly I'm getting this from a second-hand source but a very confident one, is that the meeting decided that Alba members will no longer be given the option of introducing one member, one vote, and will instead be presented with a fait accompli of the discredited pay-per-vote system being retained indefinitely.  To put it mildly, the optics of this are absolutely catastrophic, coming just 48 hours after Craig Murray provided dramatic new information about how the 2023 NEC elections had been stitched up.  As you'd expect in any tinpot dictatorship, the Alba leadership have not taken the opportunity to tackle the massive problems that have been identified, but have instead doubled down to ensure that the fun of vote-rigging can continue into infinity.

Serious questions have now got to be asked of Hamish Vernal, who promised me to my face that minority options like one member, one vote would be put to the Alba membership, but who then played a role in getting me expelled, and subsequently seems to have cynically used that expulsion as an excuse to block reform totally.  So much for Alba as a "member-led party".  Members don't even get to express a view on whether they want democracy.

As I said only yesterday, without democratisation Alba will wither and perish.  People may be willing to put up with authoritarian tendencies in a large party of power and consequence, but the tolerance levels for the Il Duce principle in a small party are very limited indeed.  Members who find they have no say in the party's direction or how it is run will just keep drifting away, and all you'll be left with is a small number of clapping seals.  A narrow sect of that sort is of going to be of no interest or use to the Scottish voting public.

*  *  *

Meanwhile, Shannon Donoghue has yet again breached Alba's social media policy (specifically the part barring the targeting of individuals) with the tweet below.  So will she now face disciplinary action?  Och, don't be silly.  She's in the Corri Nostra, she's the daughter of the General Secretary.  The rules are for the oiks.

The issue you have when you surround yourself with snakes is there is always a bigger one willing to turn. 🐍

Some people will only love you as much as they can use you. In this case, Craig you help the narrative. Shame they didn’t think that about you last year.#Receipts 💥 https://t.co/zxkxsDI2bo pic.twitter.com/xlIR3gONpz

— Shannon Donoghue (@shannon_talks_) March 2, 2025

*  *  *

Denise Findlay has a new post on her blog about how Alex Salmond pressurised her to withdraw her candidacy for Organisation Convener in 2023 - you can read it HERE.