Because the candidates are perhaps a little less well-known than would usually be the case, I had planned to take my time before making a final decision about who to vote for in the SNP depute leadership race. However, the three remaining candidates have now all expressed clear views on the timing of a second independence referendum. Unless those views change, I think the decision to vote for Chris McEleny has effectively been taken for me.
These are the positions of the candidates as I understand them -
Chris McEleny: There should be an independence referendum within the next eighteen months.
Julie Hepburn: We have a mandate for a referendum. But the timing of the referendum is not what members should be thinking about right now. We should trust Nicola Sturgeon to make the right decision.
Keith Brown: The SNP is not yet ready to fight an independence referendum, and we need to get ready before a referendum can be called.
Now, I know some people will argue that this contest should not even be about the timing of a referendum. Julie Hepburn's exhortation to "just trust Nicola" is superficially seductive. But here's the thing: although Nicola Sturgeon will ultimately be the person who makes the decision, she will do it after factoring in the views of other key players within the SNP. It would be perverse if the voice of the membership is the only voice that is not heard in that decision-making process. What "trust Nicola" really amounts to is saying that you'll be equally happy regardless of what is decided, and there can't be many of us who truly feel that way. Even if a decision goes against you, it's a lot easier to accept the outcome if you've had a chance to express your view and to be heard. This election is taking place at a time when the SNP is facing one of the biggest forks in the road in its history, and the idea that we should all just be ignoring that and choosing who to vote for based solely on other factors seems to me naive and unrealistic.
Some people will argue that Chris McEleny does not have a high enough profile to be depute leader. The reality is, though, that because the SNP's big beasts are all sitting this contest out, the role of depute is going to be very different from before, regardless of who wins. Keith Brown is the only parliamentarian standing, but even if he wins, he's plainly not going to suddenly become the second most important person within the SNP, and probably not the third or fourth most important either. The new role of the depute could be as a bridge between the leadership and the grass-roots, and Chris McEleny is arguably best-placed to fill that role.
"Preparation and persuasion, not obsessing over timing" is another seductive argument, but my huge concern is that all the best preparation and persuasion in the world will count for absolutely nothing if the referendum never actually takes place. That would be the risk we'd take if we flirt with allowing the mandate for a pre-2021 referendum to expire. In fairness, Keith Brown isn't adopting the Pete Wishart/Jim Sillars stance - nothing he has said would specifically preclude a pre-2021 referendum. However, it does seem to me that he is effectively ruling out a referendum in the spring of next year - if he's saying that the SNP is not ready now, it's hard to see how he'd be able to argue that everything had been turned around by the autumn, when the starting-gun for a vote in early 2019 would have to be fired. I don't think that taking any option off the table is helpful at this stage. At least Julie Hepburn appears to be genuinely neutral on timing (and her emphasis that "we have the mandate" perhaps points to the likelihood of a pre-2021 vote), so on that basis I'm currently minded to give her my second preference vote, behind Chris McEleny. I'll continue to keep an eye on what is said, though.
Remember that even if Keith Brown wins due to name-recognition, a strong showing for Chris McEleny would still send a powerful message to the leadership about members' views on the urgency of a referendum. So from that point of view I feel that a vote for McEleny is an each-way bet that is well worth taking.
I am going to have to go the opposite way on the first two mainly because I feel that the grassroots have been ignored by the high ups for too long and unless Julie goes from organiser to politician overnight I think she will build better communication with the grassroots and possibly even appoint someone to liaise with us on a regular basis so we do't have to keep fighting in the dark. Otherwise agreed.
ReplyDeleteMy problem was that Julie Hepburn's comment about 'just trust Nicola' didn't seem to me to show much respect for the grassroots. In effect, telling people their opinions are neither wanted nor needed did not seem at all respectful. But that was just my reaction.
DeleteWhy anonmous?
DeleteI have a question that relates to this: in the last 4 wide elections the " Tory side" has run roughshod over the spending limits. As all of these have been close, you would have to take the stupidly preposterous decision that high quality campaign materials and marketing and campaign workers all have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT to believe the result we are given. How exactly is the SNP going to win a referendum when the pro English side just spends til they win? Then 16 months later says " oopsy" but " sorry we won, where is my house of lords I.D. card, gotta get a pint there with J.K. and Andrew Loyd and every bbc host in history".?
ReplyDeleteI'm coming to much the same conclusion. As much as I respect Keith Brown, referendum timing and having someone closer to the membership swings things in favour of Chris McEleny.
ReplyDeleteMy problem with Chris is his calling for a "Scottish socialist republic". That may 'bridge' to some, but will alienate some in the centre left that might shift from NO to YES, many in the centre, and everybody on the right.
ReplyDeleteI'm of the left, I favour a republic - but I don't think we should be fighting the first Independent Holyrood election before we've won the referendum, and I don't think we can or should decide the political and economic shape of Scotland in advance.
Having done a search, what he actually appears to have said is "I am a socialist and I believe in an independent Scottish republic". That's a much more moderate aspiration than "Scottish socialist republic". I think there's a danger of getting sidetracked by that sort of thing anyway. The depute leader cannot declare a socialist republic even if he or she wants to. A victory or strong showing for Chris McEleny will primarily be seen as a vote for an early referendum.
DeleteWhat's the point of having a depute leader who just wants to leave decisions up to the leader?
ReplyDeleteWhat's the point of having a leader if they aren't in charge?
DeleteA Leader in the English tradition is very different from a leader in the Scottish tradition...the difference is much more than the case of the letter L used. If there are any doubts about the truth of my claim please look at the difference in Governance between the Church of Scotland and the Church of England.
DeleteFair enough on the wording, although the distinction, to me, is a rather fine one. The heart of my point is in the second para and it's anything but a side track - the current Achilles heel of the YES movement is the attempt to to define the economic and social nature of an independent Scotland in advance of a YES vote, turning the #indyref2 campaign into a party political hustings on which political 'vision' the new indy Scotland will embrace. But I do like his unequivocal stance on timing of indyref2. I'll think about it, James.
ReplyDeleteJust listened to knickerless gobbin aff about Syria. Does she ever come up for air, it is like an air raid siren.
ReplyDeleteFunnily enough folk might be inclined to say the same about you and this site, R2D2.
DeleteAre you alright, Glynis?
DeleteAre you sure you're alright, Glynis? You haven't glurted for a while. Let me know and I can get a nurse or doctor to call on you.
DeleteA nice young female nurse with good personal hygiene would do the trick, thanks.
DeleteState of this.
DeleteI feel inclined to vote 1. McEleny 2. Hepburn, but it is early days yet. We’ll see how they get on on the campaign trail. But all three are good candidates.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMcEleny keeps banging on about councils. Which is fair enough from a councillor, but not much help with the Indyref. Brown is busy being an MSP, and seems to be saying now is not the time. Which leaves Hepburn, who seems raring to go on Indyref2 campaigning, starting right now. As she says herself, what are we waiting for? Hepburn it is then.
ReplyDeleteHave to agree with you with the additional point that Julie H is the only one of the candidates who does not already have as heavy an existing work commitment as either Keith or Chris (who I supported last time) & who will not have "other responsibilities" to take care of..... She is also a "grass-rooter" who, having spent some time in HQ, will be well aware of the need for additional staffing in that area alone...
DeleteI'm puzzled by this idea that the workload of depute leader can't be combined with other responsibilities. Every depute leader since 1994 has been either an MEP, an MP or an MSP. The idea that all of a sudden the job can't even be combined with being a councillor seems a bit silly.
DeleteNot saying it can't be combined, but why have one person do two jobs while another does no job? Hepburn gave a rousing and convincing speech at conference, so she has the ability to connect with and inspire both party faithful and wider public. Plus, she can't be targeted at election time by British Nationalists seeking to "take down" an SNP "big beast".
DeleteNo disrespect to you though James! Excellent site - always well researched, a voice of reason. Thank you for all you do :)
Councils are rather important so I do not see that as 'banging on'. They can and often do make or break a gov't policy. Is talking about Holyrood also 'banging on'?
DeleteNot at all. In fact my other half is a councillor (SNP; not called Peterson). Just that there's almost nothing a councillor can do (whilst acting in that capacity) to persuade voters towards Yes, other than doing a good job as a councillor. So in terms of organising on the ground for Indyref2, councils are not the ideal place to look.
DeleteIn answer to a question further down about councillors' duties, they can be minimised down to part-time or done much better they are full time (for the same pay). The timetable is chaotic. Lots of meetings with your own group, meetings of committees you're on, and with council staff,as well as full council meets.Lots of heavy dossiers to plough trhough for these. Local press wanting comments, letters, columns; photocalls. Surgeries - two a year if you're a Tory, three a month SNP. Attend various memorial/opening/welcoming ceremonies.Travel to Edinburgh for COSLA meetings every two months or so. Endless community council meetings (evenings). Help lots of constituents with council housing issues/problem neighbours/wanting to share views. Support branch, MSP and MP. Liaise Trade Unions. Visit with/support community groups.
A couple of times a year something fun like an awards dinner. But no fancy expenses, and salary is poor (£16k basic). Oh, and local press is just as SNPbad, so prepare to be attacked non-stop.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse James....You obviously need reminding ...
ReplyDeleteWhat I said was "as heavy an existing work commitment "
No, I wasn't being "deliberately obtuse", I was making a perfectly reasonable point. Combining responsibilities is the norm for a depute leader.
DeleteBut this needs a person with this as there single responsibility... - no?
Deleteand, with such a large membership surely we can afford to spread the responsibilities..?
Delete"Combining responsibilities" didn't work to well before did it?
Sorry, in what sense did it "not work out too well before"? I repeat: every depute leader since 1994 has combined their responsibilities with being a parliamentarian. Are you saying the story of the last 24 years is one of unalloyed failure?
DeleteIt would be interesting to know the actual workload of politicians. We now have three tiers.
ReplyDeleteLocal councillors, MP'S and MSP'S. Thankfully we are getting rid of MEPs. I have only written once to an MP and twice to a councillor since getting the vote almost 50 years ago. Do we need all of them!
State of this.
DeleteI haven't decided yet.
ReplyDeleteChris brings energy to Indyref2 and as deputy leader would likely lead on that for the SNP.
Julie has identified a need to connect with the huge membership and ensure that the members play more of a role. This is something that needs doing. The sudden surge in membership in 2014/15 caught the SNP a little off guard and mechanisms were not in place to cope.
Keith brings experience and leadership skills, attributes that are valuable.
Will decide at some point before the vote but at this point I am still pondering.
There are only a few people in the SNP that I trust implicitly, and Julie's one of them, so she's getting my vote (and my campaigning time). She has been one of the people who has encouraged me ever since I joined - she has helped me craft resolutions, write speeches, figure out who to contact and how if I want to get results. She has told me since I started that it's important that the party hears from disabled people and that we're the best people to make those speeches and write those resolutions.
ReplyDeleteAlmost everyone I know who has been involved with the party at any level is voting for her - not because she's a big power player or because she's a well-known name, but because she put in the work for years, answering questions at all hours of the night and day with thoughtful, in-depth insight. She knows how the party works, what it needs to do better, and that the people are the best resource we have.
Fiona and Julie appear on Bake Aff. I really trust Julie. Vomit and defacation.
DeleteAgreed Fiona. I once sent her an email asking for guidance at 11pm. The phone rang ten minutes later - it was Julie, and the call lasted over an hour !
DeleteState of the troll and its weird coprophile scene.
DeleteI agree completely with what Fiona says above and I will also be voting for Julie Hepburn for the same reasons. As National Political Education Convener she worked like a Trojan, providing strategic, common sense advice to a countrywide network of activists. She was helpful and supportive at every turn, demonstrating impressive knowledge of party structures and procedures and how to use them to best advantage while campaigning. She led by example and, although I have respect for the other two candidates, I firmly believe Julie is definitely the best candidate in this election process.
ReplyDeleteCould I just give a small piece of advice to one or two people - if you want your comment to stay up, it's best not to make nasty personal remarks about me. I made a decision three years ago that it's much easier from the point of view of my own sanity to just delete comments like that, rather than the alternative - which is to defend myself and then potentially get into an exchange which wastes hours of my time.
ReplyDeleteIt's perfectly possible to express your own positive preference for Julie Hepburn without saying that I'm a "keyboard warrior" for supporting someone else. That sort of nonsense is just not necessary.
Julie for me. She has a proven track record of bringing members together and has the energy, party knowledge and skills to mobilize the huge membership to get us prepared for Indy ref. There is plenty of improvements needed to our HQ, communication, training e.g.and she can get us there. Banging on about timing of Indy2 is only touting for votes for those in the party who are impatient when timing will not be decided by any of the candidates. We need someone who would get their head down and work internally to get us over the line when it comes. Julie will listen and act on behalf of the members.
ReplyDelete"when timing will not be decided by any of the candidates"
DeleteThat spectacularly misses the entire point. No-one is suggesting the depute leader makes the decision about timing. But what is quite reasonably being pointed out is that members are free, if they wish, to use this election to send a message about timing. If that message is loud enough, it will be hard for the leadership to ignore. Members do not have to use the election in that way, but it will be a wasted opportunity if they don't, and one they may come to regret.
How does voting for one candidate over another indicate about your choice of timing ? You could prefer one candidate and still disagree about their thoughts on Scotref timing. Doesn’t equate.
ReplyDeleteFar better to look at the skills and attributes that each bring and decide who can do most in getting us prepared for the next vote when it comes.
Keith is an excellent candidate but I believe he has enough on his plate. Just saying that every previous DL has been an MP, MSP etc doesn’t mean it’s the right choice this time round. And Keith isn’t just an MSP he has a massive ministerial job that frankly I think he should be focusing on.
Chris hasn’t really explained how he will galvanise the masses nor does he have a history of that.
Julie has provided detailed ideas around how she intends to motivate the members and has demonstrated without doubt her commitment to the party and the cause of Independence. She is also someone who has gone above and beyond the call of duty for members on a long term basis.
Only one choice for me
"How does voting for one candidate over another indicate about your choice of timing ?"
DeleteBecause one candidate has expressed a view on timing and is asking people to vote for him on that specific basis. The answer to your question is so blindingly obvious that it feels a bit odd to be spelling it out, but I suppose sometimes the obvious does need to be said.
I think a point is continually missed in all the analysis I read about when the next referendum will be.
ReplyDeleteI'm 99% certain Nicola will call a referendum when the people are ready. The majority of comments, not just here, all hang on the SNP calling the date. We have it backwards. When we have street stalls every weekend lead by a Yes Alliance the SNP will fire the starting gun. They are waiting for the people to take the lead while the people are waiting for the SNP to take the lead. There will be an incontrovertible need for a referendum if its people lead. Let's remember not every Indy supporter is an SNP voter and it will be so easy for Naw to shoot a referendum down as an SNP vanity project. They won't have a leg to stand on if the people take the lead.
Marches won't cut it. I know its a feel good for the pro Indy folk, but if we want indyref we need to take to the streets to canvas & street stall to demonstrate Independence ISN'T just about the SNP.
I've no idea what exact criteria Nicola Sturgeon is using to decide the timing, but I'm fairly confident she won't be relying on the number of street stalls.
Delete