A personal statement on the Alba leadership's bizarre and unconstitutional decision to remove me from a directly elected party role

First, some context.  Almost as soon as I started participating in Alba internal elections in 2021, I received representations from members urging me to push for democratisation of the party, in particular a fully elected NEC.  To be frank, I don't think I did enough to argue for that type of reform during my year on the NEC (2021-22), partly because it was a very new experience for me and I was slightly overawed at meetings (and I probably wasn't alone in that).  But I was determined to make up for that last year, and so I made one member, one vote for NEC elections the centrepiece of my pitch for the Membership Support Convener election. I very nearly won that election - I narrowly topped the first round vote, and lost the second round vote to Daniel Jack (who I gathered was largely opposed to reform) by a margin of just 50.5% to 49.5%.

All was not lost, though. Because of the total chaos that engulfed the NEC elections last year, a special constitution review group was set up to consider issues such as democratisation.  It was far from perfect - only four of the eight members were to be elected, with the other four appointed by the NEC itself (which arguably has a vested interest against reform), and even the four elected members were not to be elected by the membership as a whole, but by the small selectorate of the National Council. Nevertheless, the outcome of that election in January was exciting, with three of the four successful candidates, of which I was one, being pro-reform. We didn't necessarily agree with each other on the exact nature of the reforms we wanted, and we were always going to be outnumbered by the four NEC appointees, but nevertheless we had a powerful moral mandate which we were optimistic would bear at least some fruit.

That mandate has now been subverted and turned upside down.  The candidate who topped the poll was within a few weeks effectively forced out of the party by some of the most disgraceful behaviour I've ever witnessed - but I didn't blog about what happened (except in the vaguest terms to try to alert people to the fact that something was terribly amiss), precisely because I do take the confidentiality rules seriously and I do abide by them.

Without that person it was always going to be a much more uphill struggle, but I thought back to my regrets about being too passive on the NEC, and I was determined this time I was going to stick to my guns and speak up for what I believe in and what I was elected to push for.  If I can blow my own trumpet just a bit, I really do feel I went the extra mile.  I was subjected to mockery and pretty blatant bullying attempts, and it would have been very easy to just roll over and go with the flow and say "OK, OK, Alba is already as democratic as it needs to be", but I did not do that.  Why not?  Well, because my aim was not to please the leadership and get a plum spot on the Holyrood list, but instead to actually meet the group's remit and try to make Alba fit for purpose.  I was almost in a state of shock after some of the meetings, that's how difficult they were, but I kept plugging away.

My reward for doing that has been to be informed by Chris McEleny this evening that I have been removed from my elected position as a member of the constitution review group.  I have since checked and I am reliably informed by someone with legal expertise that this action is completely unconstitutional - ie. there is quite simply no provision in the Alba constitution for overturning an election result and removing an elected member of a committee or group.  This therefore appears to be yet another example of the NEC making up the rules as they go on, following on from episodes in which office bearers have stepped down and been replaced by hand-picked appointees, even though the constitution clearly states that the runner-up in the relevant office bearer election should automatically fill the role.  Not to mention, of course, the notorious "dossier" incident at last year's conference in which the original ballots to elect the office bearers were unilaterally nullified by the leadership after they had already taken place. No-one knows whether that was because the "wrong" people were deemed to have won - but if that was the case, internal party democracy would clearly be a sham.  My own unconstitutional ousting from a directly elected position does little to dispel that depressing suspicion.

The nominal reason given for my removal is almost an irrelevance, because it has nothing to do with the real reason, but for what it's worth the excuse given is a breach of confidentiality.  I am extremely confident I am guilty of no such breach.  Helpfully, because the alleged breach presumably took place on this blog or on Twitter, people can make up their own minds as to whether I have done anything that would justify this extraordinary sanction.  What I actually did was write a blogpost or two discussing the general issues relating to the constitution review, which was an entirely appropriate thing to do because we are constantly told that Alba is a "member led party" and that members will make the final decisions.  However, I made very sure I did not disclose details of the group's meetings.

Three out of the four elected group members were elected on a pro-reform ticket.  Only one of those three now remains.  The consequence is obvious: there will be no reform.  Party members have had no say whatsoever on this cynical overturning of their democratic choice.  What I would say to Alba members is this: your "member-led party" is being stolen from you, right in front of your eyes, and if you're going to get it back you'll need to fight for it.  If you trust the people in control to do the right thing by you, you're going to be very badly let down, as you already have been time and again.

There has been a concerted effort in recent months by leading Alba figures to weave a "stab in the back" mythology in order to blame all of Alba's ills on a "wee gang" of "malcontents" who have left the party.  I'm breaching no confidentiality rules in saying that Shannon Donoghue, Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh and others have tried to get that embarrassing playground narrative going, because they have done so entirely openly and on the record.  Well, let me make this clear, guys: you can bully me, mock me, belittle me, find fault with my nose or whatever, but unlike others before me, I will not be leaving, no matter what the provocation.  Unless you come up with a pretext for expelling me (and that would not surprise me in the slightest), I will be going precisely nowhere.  I will be fighting to have this wrong put right and to ensure Alba's internal democracy is upheld.  I will probably fail, but by God I'm going to try, and I urge all Alba members of good conscience to join me.