I'm sure you'll all understand why I have to be cagey about my exact reasons for feeling moved to write this short blogpost, but I am becoming increasingly concerned - bordering on distressed - about the direction of travel of the Alba Party. Being "no worse than the SNP" just isn't going to cut it. In fact it would render the party pointless, because people don't defect from a large party to a small one unless they can be assured of a marked improvement. Alba does have very different policies from the SNP, but the SNP's woke, indy-lite authoritarianism is not necessarily any worse than a more radical indy authoritarianism.
This would be my prescription -
* Alba must be, as promised at its outset, member-led. The reality should match the words.
* Alba must be, as promised at its outset, the "best of Yes". It should not be a curated niche fraction of Yes.
* Alba should be a party in which members are free to speak their minds on social media.
* Alba should be a party in which members are free to blog, to write articles, and to speak to the media.
* Alba should not be a secret society in which the only freedom of speech permitted is behind closed doors.
* Alba should be a party in which members are free to criticise the leadership or even poke gentle fun at it.
And there endeth the lesson.
Will u cover today's Norstat group scotland wm poll?
ReplyDeleteDerek
I've been up to my neck today so I wasn't even aware of it. I'll take a look.
DeleteNo problem. Also has Holyrood and Indy qns and prompts for Alba.
DeleteDerek
Based on your blog it seems ALBA is not doing any of the above?
ReplyDeleteYou can't poke fun at Alex Salmond, nowadays he has no sense of humour about himself, try it and see what happens
ReplyDeleteI'm not a party political person, as I already knew but found out for real when like 100,000 others I joined the SNP after the Indy Ref for 3 years, but if you start a party with those qualities I'll consider joining it!
ReplyDeleteUnlike early 2021, Alba's officers know with absolute certainty that there are only eight list seats which the party can viably target in 2026. Anyone who is or wants to be one of those eight does not want to give the membership any power to select them and they're also keen to eliminate potential alternatives.
ReplyDeleteAs for the "direction of travel," it has been fucking clear since 2021, when the party's constitution was stitched up to prevent Salmond and his pals being challenged for the leadership roles. The way the party was launched prior to the election set that direction.
Endeth the lesson.
are these disagreements honestly about who's getting what seat?
Deletetalk about putting the cart before the horse.
One problem they had previously was some stoaters that were put forward as candidates. If it needs to be heavily curated at the fledgling stage, so be it. It's not likely to work anyway but at least let a strong team come together and decide who's most likely to win votes.
So you're saying the best way to get Alba to support trans people, is to join Alba?
ReplyDeleteYou love those transwomen don't you, Mike? Are you thinking of joining them? You've got the beard for it.
DeleteHighly recommended bonus track on Taylor Smith's fab Evermore album - It's Time to Go.
ReplyDelete"..… Sometimes, givin' up is the strong thing
Sometimes, to run is the brave thing
Sometimes, walkin' out is the one thing
That will find you the right thing
Sometimes, givin' up is the strong thing
Sometimes, to run is the brave thing
Sometimes, walkin' out is the one thing
That will find you the right thing
… That will find you the right thing
And you know in your soul
And you know in your soul
When it's time to go
… And, well, you know, you know, you know, you know
When it's time to go
So then you go and then you go
You just go"
Southside Ian
Of course but you do need to be singing from the same hymn sheet when canvassing public opinion. I think the place for substantial differences is open discussion behind closed doors and then a united front. People need to know clearly what policies are, backed by the leadership.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy is the bit when voters choose their reps based on those policies and if we don't like them don't vote for them or vote them out. You'd get nothing done if every policy decision is being checked by sub committee.
"I think the place for substantial differences is open discussion behind closed doors and then a united front."
DeleteThat's a prescription for a Cabinet or a Shadow Cabinet, not for a membership of several thousand people. You can't impose the principle of collective responsibility on 6000 people or whatever it is. Let's extend your logic a bit - what do you think you should happen to a member who does not "sing from the same hymn sheet"?
James is fully entitled to express his own opinions publicly, and we should be thankful for his honest insights, this blog and its open discussion board (that we are all using now).
DeleteSouthside Ian
Dolly the sheep. Baaaaa baaaaa.
DeleteYes, up to a point though. Hence the word "substantial". If an SNP member was going about saying "let's not do a referendum for 30 years", I'd expect that member to eventually be asked to leave.
DeleteThere is obviously a balance to be struck between members having space to debate issues openly and the public having a clear understanding of what a party's policies solidly are, its direction and the leadership being given responsibility/accountability for their policies. If it can be changed at a show of hands every five minutes that's not helpful and leaves any leadership in a difficult position. Leaders are more than figureheads, you expect them to make decision. Clearly, you don't want too much the other way either.
I actually do not agree that every policy and party direction should be made by 6000 members. While I agree there should be debate, once a policy has been agreed you're either with it or not, until the next Conference or whatever.
I'm not talking about gagging anybody, people can make their voices heard but there is obviously a balance to be struck, surely.
"If an SNP member was going about saying "let's not do a referendum for 30 years", I'd expect that member to eventually be asked to leave."
DeleteYou'd expect in vain, then, because actual SNP parliamentarians have essentially said that quite openly.
"I actually do not agree that every policy and party direction should be made by 6000 members."
So you think members should not get to set policy but should still be bound by policy and should not have any right to a public view on it. I think the word I'm looking for here is "Stalinist".
So you think leaders should be able to make decisions alongside a balance of member input?
DeleteSTALIN!!!
Nae bother pal. What a ridiculous response.
I don't think members should be gagged. Balance to be struck.
DeleteSTALIN!!
Alba isn't a kibbutz pal. No country has won its freedom by committee. Imagine if Bismark or Mandela had to defer every time to a million prussians or ANC members. It's obviously important they have a say, noone's denying that! But there needs to be a common endeavor and leaders need to be able to make decisions.
The Salmond of 2024 has no chance of 'winning our freedom', by committee or otherwise. He marked his own card when his bottle crashed in the face of the Rutherglen by-election, which was the golden opportunity for turning Alba into a real electoral contender.
DeleteYears of sniping (correctly) about the SNP shunning golden opportunities, letting the initiative pass them by. Yet when it came time to put his money where his mouth was, Salmond was to be found loudly soiling his famous tartan trews.
I suspect Salmond knows this. It would certainly explain why he has become so petty, insular, and thin-skinned ever since.
What are the views of the ALBA leadership though? Is the thought of the impending elections making them circle the wagons?
ReplyDeleteAdopt the policy of abstenyionism. SNP will then have to follow suit. The policy won't bring about independence by itself of course but it will definitely boost support for it.
ReplyDeleteNo evidence that this is the case. I would suggest people vote for a positive message rather than sit on the fence. SNP in practical terms do not have to follow any abstentionist policy that ALBA may or may not adopt. The question is whether ALBA members vote for it or follow their leader with no debate or discussion. For the latter I think ALBA will lose support to other groups or parties.
DeleteSNP will then have to follow suit.
DeleteI think I see a snag with this step
From the Herald:
ReplyDelete"Greens block Alex Salmond's Alba from Glasgow independence rally"
https://archive.is/QcaRi
If this is true I won't be going. Bad enough having Greer as a speaker, let alone the Greens dictating who goes and who doesn't.
I am not a member or supporter of Alba (or any party).
"Organisers of a pro-independence rally in Glasgow have told Alex Salmond’s Alba they cannot take part as the Scottish Greens “will not share a platform” with the former first minister’s party."
Fine, so the presumptious Greens can go feck off then.
“At that meeting they agreed Mr MacAskill would represent the party, but when they told Believe in Scotland founder Gordon Macintyre-Kemp, he replied to say they were “too late”.“
DeleteFrees up this Saturday and saves my legs. What a parcel of rogues.
This is the same factionalism that stops people going to AUOB rallies.
Independence is not a red line to the Greens but Alba is. Labour is not a red line to the Greens but Alba is. This is the party that Sturgeon took in to government with her because they agreed that rapists should be put in a women's prison.
DeleteA load of bampots who couldnae organise a pissup in a brewery. Now I wouldnae hold that against them if they weren't in government but what I do hold against them is, like the SNP, they are phoney independence supporters and parasites on the yes movement. Sturgeon's gang and the bampot Greens - fellow travellers.
We're almost as well packing it in. How did we get to such a level of contempt for each other, the UK state didn't even need to do anything really. We're at each other's throats. Divide and rule.
DeleteDiscussion was about ALBA and how it arrives at policy. Along comes YI2 and IFS to divert away from the debate on todays blog. Personally, I don't quote from the unionist Herald as its intention is to disrupt.
Delete@9:19 The internet is very good at warping perceptions. We've known since 2021 that Alba's support consists of approximately 3% of the voters backing Yes parties.
DeleteThe issue is this 3% seemed to contain a supermajority of pro-indy bloggers who just keep doubling down. Come on, it's simple maths. If you've been offering a "more radical" independence and voters don't take it, what does that tell you? That you weren't radical enough?
Then why are they going to Labour instead?
They're not going to Labour because they're any better, radical or orthodox. They're going to Labour because it looks like they might win the UK national election.
DeleteSome people get swept up in wanting to be on the winning side, and feeling for change. Certainly, we can't say it's for scrutinising policies, can we? They're aren't any!
Also, the tide has shifted by a around 10-15% of voters. This is a lot in a FPTP election. However, it's not like the SNP have lost all their vote to Labour. It's marginal gains.
Abhainn
Anon at 9.47am says: " Personally, I don't quote from the Unionist Herald" - who knows what you do or say you are just anon. When did you become the moderator of this blog?
Delete@11.42: I should have replied sooner, sorry. The thing some independence radicals overlook(or superficially notice only to lambast the SNP for it) is that part of the SNP's 2015 high water tide mark came from Scottish devolutionists who at that time regarded the SNP as the most powerful possible voice for devolution.
DeleteThis part of the electorate looked at what Labour was offering in the Smith Commission and said, "no thanks". However, Labour remains their natural political home as they are unlikely to ever roll back devolution.
That's why the push for independence in 2017 saw immediate gains by Labour and a push to protect devolution by opposing Brexit allowed the SNP to regain most of those in 2019.
You can't win over non-fanatics by being fanatical. Going hard on independence pushes devolutionist voters back to Labour. Independence has not won the people over yet.
Do we have a serious answer to this?
ReplyDeleteFirst steps to showing we do: banish Greens from our orbit for all eternity; & replace Yousaf with Forbes.
Southside Ian
Suspect if Alba was at 10% things might be different.
ReplyDeleteLet's face it, the SNP are a horror show and we still can't convince a fraction to vote Alba.
If I wanted to help Alba I'd be put off by the thinly veiled public criticisms. It doesn't look like a happy ship. I bet the disagreements are inane as well. It's a single issue party, make some campaign materials and campaign on the single issue.
EFTA
Defacto vote
Scottish Culture
Oil
Keep it simple before you can walk, deary me.
Anonymous,
DeleteThe driver for Alba was it was strong on independence. "Member led" means little to me. I've never heard of a political party with thousands of leaders.
I agree there should be members feeling able to criticise points in public if they disagree, though. Effectively, I would let the leadership make the big decisions and if they are found wanting, the membership should have processes to remove.
You then have a leadership policy platform decided by members.
That seems like the most efficient and accountable way to do things although I'm not expert.
Abhainn
"""Member led" means little to me. I've never heard of a political party with thousands of leaders."
DeleteSo you've never heard of a political party with internal democracy? If so, an extraordinary claim.
"Effectively, I would let the leadership make the big decisions and if they are found wanting, the membership should have processes to remove."
DeleteThe problem with this of course is that Alba's internal processes are so hilariously shambolic and clandestine, that the membership cannot readily have faith that there's a means to hold the leadership accountable when they are found wanting.
It's so bad that it's contributed to multiple prominent and devoted members leaving the party at this stage. And rather than Salmond recognising that issue and addressing it, it seems to have driven him to encircle himself even more closely with his praetorian guard of yes-men.
Anonymous,
DeleteThat may well be true. In which case, it needs fixed but the general model, I would posit, is sound.
Abhainn
Isn't the real issue as to how policy and issues are decided and by whom? Shouldn't the membership view be respected or is it the case they should just follow what a few folk have decided behind closed doors? This applies to all parties not just ALBA. The SNP has tended to dance around land reform issues for years whereas I believe SNP supporters want a more radical approach to remove the absentee landlords.
ReplyDeleteI think that is the question and i'm not sure what the answer is, truth be told.
DeleteI can see advantages of a mix of both without wanting to go into it in huge detail!
Land Reform is a huge issue, but in reality it can not be adequately dealt with until after independence. Until that happens, any meaningful legislation proposed by the Scottish government will be blocked by Westminster.
DeleteIt would seem from this that all is not well in the world of Alba.
ReplyDeleteI think the main questions about the Alaba Party are: Is Salmond shagging Tasmina? And when will they be able to pronounce the party name? Also, who the fuck are they?
ReplyDeleteI see little point in Alba anyway.
ReplyDeleteYou’re not the only one. It’s difficult to see them ever being anything other than a fringe party. Apparently there’s a pro Indy party by the name ISP too. All these parties are ever going to do is split the pro Indy vote.
DeleteIt ain’t going to happen in any political party led by AS. If Alba were ever going to be a power in the independence movement, it would have been obvious before now. Where as it is becoming more irrelevant as time goes by. I can understand people leaving a long established party if they are frustrated by the time they are taking to achieve their goals, but when members start leaving a party that is not even 5 years old, then that party is in serious trouble.
ReplyDeleteI think there is one person making doom comments here. I get the point being made but don't believe it's multiple peoole.
ReplyDeleteAlso people are allowed to have a political party and canvass for it, it's a democracy. Let people be. Whether Salmond is correct or not, I salute the efforts. I also salute Sturgeon. It's not easy going against the entire state and media. They get my hat tipped anyway.
Multiple postings are the bane of this site. People who are so unsure of their argument that they have to bolster it with variations on an 'I agree with...' theme to make it look like others support them.
Delete