THE ALBA FILES, Part 4: read the full text of my written submission to the Constitution Review Group, setting out my proposals for democratisation of the party - a blueprint that was dangerous enough, it turned out, to get me expelled from Alba

I do still intend to publish the remaining three installments of the story of the "disciplinary" process I was subjected to by the Alba Party.  But as the root cause of my expulsion was the stand I took on the Constitution Review Group in favour of democratisation of the party, and as the report produced by that group will apparently be considered by Alba members at a National Assembly in only a few weeks' time (before a final vote at conference in March), it's probably a good moment to publish the written submission I made to the group just under a year ago, setting out my detailed proposals for democratic reform.

In retrospect, it seems that some leading Alba figures felt extremely threatened by the contents of my paper - which is really odd, given that they had the numbers to easily vote it down.  But it appears they felt threatened even by the presence of a persistent dissenting voice.

To give a little background to this document, the Constitution Review Group was set up in response to the outcry over the blatant rigging of Alba's 2023 internal elections.  The leadership obviously refused to admit that the rigging had occurred (quite the reverse, in fact - they instead started expelling and suspending people who publicly pointed out what had happened), however they did grudgingly accept that some people were unhappy with the party's constitution at it stood.  In an email to Alba members, Alex Salmond went out of his way to say that the new working group would be free to consider introducing one member, one vote for NEC elections - which you may recall I interpreted as meaning that the leadership had accepted that this change was inevitable, because I couldn't see why else they would risk mentioning it.  In retrospect, I was completely wrong about that.  It looks like the plan instead was to stuff the Constitution Review Group with leadership loyalists, so they could come back in a few months (after the anger about the vote-rigging had subsided a bit) and say "oh, we considered one member, one vote, but it turns out there was no appetite for it after all".

The group consisted of eight members, with four appointed by the leadership and four elected by National Council.  The four appointed members were Yvonne Ridley, Hamish Vernal, Robert Slavin and Daniel Jack, and all of them were firmly opposed to democratic reform.  (Yvonne Ridley was replaced by Suzanne Blackley after the second meeting, but that made no difference because Ms Blackley was also vehemently anti-reform.)  So that meant the only hope of the group recommending reform would be to get a clean sweep of reformers among the four elected members.  That almost happened but not quite.  The four elected members were Alan Harris, Mike Baldry, Chris Cullen and myself, with Mr Harris, Mr Baldry and myself being pro-reform (although we disagreed with each other on some of the details), and Mr Cullen being anti-reform.

So the leadership had an in-built 5-3 majority, and that played out within the very first minutes of the first meeting.  The reformers all voted for Alan Harris as chair, and the anti-reformers all voted for Hamish Vernal, with Mr Vernal winning by 5 votes to 3.  However, Mr Vernal then went out of his way to state that he wanted the group to produce a consensus report, and that he would consider it a "failure" if a minority report was produced. On the face of it, that offered grounds for optimism, because there was clearly no way that consensus could be achieved without some concessions being made to the substantial minority of reformers on the group.

It turns out that wasn't what Mr Vernal meant, though.  His idea was that there would be a straight majority vote on each individual proposal, and then the outcome of those votes would be put together to produce a report, which he expected us all to approve on the nod as a "consensus report".  I told him it was completely unrealistic to expect the reformers to vote in favour of a report that was bound to contain almost none of our proposals, and I pointed out he was making a minority report inevitable through his own actions.  (Again, I was being a bit naive there, because it turned out the leadership were keeping in reserve the option of expulsion to prevent me from even having the chance to produce a minority report!)

Eventually, after a lot of very difficult discussions, an uneasy compromise was reached.  Some of the proposed democratic reforms would be allowed to go forward to the members for a discussion and vote, but with the report making clear that the majority of the group were opposed to them.  There'll be a real moment of truth in a few weeks when we find out whether that compromise has been retained in spite of my expulsion.  If not, and if Alba members aren't even allowed to vote on things like one member, one vote, it'll be reasonable to conclude that part of the reason for my expulsion was to cynically overturn the compromise.

The most important of the proposals you'll see below were opposed by a 6-2 majority rather than 5-3, and the reason for that is Alan Harris resigned from the Alba Party altogether after the second meeting, due to his disgust at the procedural irregularities on the Disciplinary Committee and repeated breaches by the leadership of the existing constitution.  In a nightmare scenario, his replacement was the immature and rabidly anti-reform Shannon Donoghue, who nominally came in as an elected member of the group on a "lucky loser" basis.  That severely distorted the composition of the group and ensured that the arguments for democratic reform were met with a wall of total derision, and playground bullying from Ms Donoghue and Mr Cullen in particular.  (More about that in a future post.)

There is one interesting caveat, though, because one specific reform is likely to be strongly recommended by the group - and ironically that reform is an overhaul of the farcical disciplinary procedure which eventually resulted in my own expulsion from the party.  The reason that got through is because Hamish Vernal is a former convener of the Disciplinary Committee, and he saw disciplinary reform as both his baby and his legacy.  All of the anti-reformers magically fell into line with him on that point, setting up what could be a truly fascinating conflict between Mr Vernal and Chris McEleny.  Very much a case of the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object.

*  *  *

MY PROPOSALS FOR AMENDING ALBA'S CONSTITUTION

My first proposal is that Ordinary Members of the National Executive Committee should in future be elected by one member, one vote.  There is now a widespread view across the party that the current system which restricts voting rights to the 5% or so of members who pay extra to register for conference is profoundly undemocratic and open to abuse.  The NEC is effectively the party's governing body when conference is not in session, and thus all party members have a stake in its composition, and all members should have equal rights to determine that composition.

My second proposal is that the number of ordinary members of the NEC should be increased from eight to twelve, with six elected from each of the male-only and female-only ballots.  This would be a modest expansion that would increase the representativeness of the NEC and the range of voices heard in its deliberations.  As I understand it, the only real argument that has been advanced against this change is that people are better off spending their time chapping on doors rather than sitting on committees, which is not especially convincing given that the NEC typically meets for around two hours per month.  Taking just four more people out of circulation for just two hours per month is likely to have literally zero impact on the party's door-knocking potential.

My third proposal is that the constitution should require full and prompt publication of all internal election results, including the exact number of votes obtained by each candidate at each and every stage of the counting process.  There was rightly enormous concern last December that the result of the ballots for ordinary members of the NEC was unexpectedly kept secret (other than the names of those elected) from party members, and to a large extent was kept secret even from the candidates themselves.  Without transparency, democracy does not exist.  As we've now had a vivid demonstration that transparency cannot be guaranteed in the absence of a constitutional requirement, I would suggest that it has now become essential that the constitution does require the full and prompt publication of all internal election results.

My fourth proposal is that the procedure for selecting the Party Chair and the General Secretary should be changed.  After the Party Leader is elected at conference, he or she should nominate their preferred Party Chair and General Secretary, with those individuals then going forward to confirmatory online ballots of the whole party membership in which they can be either accepted or rejected.  If a nominee is rejected by the members, the Leader will then have the opportunity to submit a new nominee for a fresh confirmatory ballot.  Ideally, I believe the Party Chair and the General Secretary should be directly elected positions, but I presume the argument against that is the danger of dysfunction if the Party Leader finds himself at loggerheads with the holders of such key roles.  I would suggest my proposal squares the circle by ensuring that no Chair or General Secretary can be installed against the wishes of either the Leader or the party membership.  Given that the constitution confers upon the Chair and the General Secretary far more powers (including powers relating to the disciplining of individual party members) than it does upon other national office bearers, it seems somewhat perverse that those two individuals are currently subject to far less democratic accountability than other office bearers.  My proposal would at least go some way towards addressing that contradiction.

My fifth proposal is that the power to elect members of the Conferences Committee, Disciplinary Committee, Finance & Audit Committee and Appeals Committee should be removed from the National Council and transferred to the full party membership in the form of a one member, one vote online ballot.  This would put an end to the farcical situation we saw a few weeks ago where a party of several thousand members was only allowing a few dozen people to choose the composition of bodies as powerful as the Conferences Committee, and where candidates were mostly being elected on the basis of fewer than five votes on first preferences.  The only argument I've heard in favour of retaining election-by-delegate is that delegates may vote more wisely and knowledgably than other party members, which can't really be taken seriously given that it is obviously analogous to arguing against universal suffrage on the basis that the propertied classes, or men, understand the ways of the world better than the working classes or women.  We should be taking every opportunity to maximise internal democracy wherever possible, rather than dreaming up unconvincing arguments for standing in the way of it.  Given the importance and powers of the elected committees, it's vital that there is a clear chain of democratic accountability back to the members.  The election-by-delegate system simply does not provide that, because in the real world delegates are selected by only a tiny and potentially wildly unrepresentative minority of the members of each LACU.

My sixth proposal follows on from the fifth, in that it would allow all members of each LACU to select the delegates who will represent them at National Council via an online ballot conducted by one member, one vote.  This proposal becomes particularly vital if one member, one vote for committee elections is rejected.  I've heard it suggested that if members can't be bothered to attend LACU meetings, they shouldn't have any right to a say in selecting delegates.  That is, frankly, an insulting argument that takes no account of the practical barriers that prevents many members from attending LACU meetings, especially if in-person meetings are insisted upon by the local executive.  In any case, the idea that people need to 'earn' their right to vote through work or effort is an antiquated one that belongs in the 19th Century.  The technology exists to allow all members to easily participate, if they wish to do so, in a ballot selecting delegates for National Council, and that technology should be utilised.

My seventh proposal is that the Appeals Committee should be able to select its own convener.  I actually think there's a strong case that all committees should be able to do this, but the case is strongest of all for the Appeals Committee, which must act and be seen to act as independently as possible from both the NEC and the Disciplinary Committee.

My eighth proposal is that the Disciplinary Committee should be renamed the Conduct Committee (another appropriate option would be the Complaints Committee).  The new convener of the Disciplinary Committee feels that the current name is almost "Stalinist", and I certainly think it is forbidding enough to put off potential new party members who don't want to join an organisation that will subject them to school-style or military-style discipline.

Below are suggested amendments to the constitution needed to give effect to the above proposals (although this is probably not an exhaustive list) - 

The first sentence of 4.4 in the 'Party Campaign Structure' section should be amended to read - 

"4.4 The LACUs shall, by means of an online one member, one vote ballot, elect two representatives to be delegates at National Council."

5.1 in the 'National Conference' section should be amended to read- 

"5.1 National Conference shall be the supreme governing body of the Party, and shall be responsible for:

(a) determining ALBA Party policy;

(b) announcing the result of direct elections from the party membership of the national office bearers of: Leader; Depute Leader; Women’s Convener; Equalities Convener; Local Government Convener; Member Support Convener; Organisation Convener;

(c) announcing the result of direct elections from the party membership of 12 ordinary members of the National Executive Committee (NEC) from two sex-based lists (6 from each);

(d) ensuring the prompt publication and communication to all party members of the full results of the elections for national office bearers and ordinary members of the National Executive Committee, including the exact number of votes obtained by each candidate at every stage of the transferable vote counting process."

6.1 in the section 'National Council' should be amended to read - 

"6.1 National Council shall be composed of:

(a) Two delegates from each LACU, who must be elected on a one member, one vote basis in an online ballot open to all party members belonging to that LACU;

(b) Party Office bearers and ordinary members of the NEC;

(c) Two delegates from each Affiliated Organisation;

(d) All ALBA Members of Parliament;

(e) One ALBA Party councillor member of each Scottish local authority"

The existing 6.5 in the 'National Council' section should be replaced with the following - 

"6.5 National Council shall be responsible for announcing the results of direct ballots from the party membership to confirm or reject the Party Leader's annual nominations for the positions of Party Chair and General Secretary, and the results of direct elections from the party membership of the following:

(a) Six Members of the Party’s Conferences committee

(b) Six Members of the Party’s Conduct Committee

(c) Six Members of the Party’s Appeals Committee

(d) Four Members of the Party’s Finance and Audit Committee (FAC)

6.6 National Council shall be responsible for ensuring the prompt publication and communication to all party members of the full results of the ballots to confirm or reject the Leader's nominations for Party Chair and General Secretary, and the full results of elections for members of the Conferences Committee, Conduct Committee, Appeals Committee and Finance and Audit Committee, including the exact number of votes obtained by each candidate at every stage of the transferable vote counting process."

7.1 (f) and 7.1 (g) in the 'National Executive Committee' section, ie. "(f) Approving the Party Leaders Appointment of Party General Secretary; (g) Approving the Party Leaders nomination of Party Chair at the First Meeting of the NEC after National Conference each year" should be entirely deleted, meaning that (h) and (i) would become (f) and (g) respectively.

7.2 (b) in the 'National Executive Committee' section should be amended to read - 

"(b) Twelve ordinary members directly elected by party members;"

8.3 in the section 'National Office Bearers' should be amended to read - 

"8.3 The National Office Bearers shall perform functions as set out in the National Office Bearers' Job Descriptions (Annex D). The Party Chair, nominated by the Party Leader after National Conference and confirmed by direct ballot of party members, will chair all national meetings of the Alba Party in person or by nominating another National Office Bearer or NEC member."

11.3 in the section 'Code of Conduct' should be amended to read - 

"11.3 A Conduct Committee of 6 members directly elected annually by the party membership and 2 members appointed by the NEC shall be established in order to hear complaints and take disciplinary action, where it considers necessary, against members of the Party. The NEC appointments, including Convener, to the Conduct Committee shall be decided by the NEC in its first meeting after National Conference;"

11.4 in the section 'Code of Conduct' should be amended to read - 

"11.4 An Appeals Committee shall be directly elected annually by the party membership.  As soon as practical after being elected, it shall meet to elect its Convener. No member of the NEC may be a member of the Appeals Committee;"

(submitted 15th February 2024)