OK! It could be that the previous reluctance to allow this debate was down to a certain excess of zeal on the part of certain officials. It may be that they were a bit over-protective of the party line. It could be that, chastened by criticism of their behaviour, these individuals have relented in a bid to put matters right. That is possible. Isn't it?
The people decide! The people considering Plan B must first decide who is referred to by the "self-" in "self-determination".
If Plan A can work, then why are its proponents completely unable to explain how it will work? If the Section 30 process is a viable route to independence then it should be possible to describe each step in that process. Those steps should individually be credible and in aggregate lead to a free and … Continue reading The viability test
Why ask if 'Plan B' might be a panacea anyway? Has anybody claimed that it might have the power to cure all ills? Come to that, has anybody claimed that it might be the "solution to all our indy woes"? Or that it could "break the constitutional stand off and get us swiftly and easily to independence"? Who has described 'Plan B' in such terms? When? Where?
To even allow the legitimacy of the Section 30 process is to compromise the sovereignty of Scotland's people. As one of those people I do not accept this. I do not consent to it. I will not tolerate it.
So long as the Scottish Government is committed to the Section 30 process Boris Johnson has all the power. This is not news. Some of us have been saying it for years. We warned that the Section 30 process is a trap. Nobody listened.
I do not strongly object to the amendment being thrown out for precisely the same reasons as I accepted the initial 'Plan B' resolution being rejected. It just isn't a very good plan.
Unlike many other SNP members and a good number of my fellow Yes activists, I was perfectly content that the MacNeil/McEleny 'Plan B' resolution was rejected.
What, for me, was most disappointing about the MacNeil-McEleny resolution was the fact that it didn't address the issue of urgency.
Nobody should doubt that Angus MacNeil and Chris McEleny acted with the best of intentions and the worthiest of motives. But if party members deserve to be respected so too do the procedures adopted and approved by the membership.