Read on Twitter
Okay, I am ill and tired so what I have done is written a letter people can copy, paste & adapt & send to the NEC & to Nicola Sturgeon for response, via the main SNP email: [email protected]. Here is the letter I just wrote up with the main issues as I understand them:
I am a member of x branch of the SNP, and I am writing to ask that you take action to reverse the decision taken by the NEC to impose a resignation requirement on MPs wishing to stand at next year's Holyrood election, if selected as the local candidate. Firstly, the NEC cannot>
>justify this vote on constitutional grounds, because the vote breached the standing orders of the NEC. Nor can this decision be justified on the grounds of costs, when the NEC has not prevented current councillors from standing - even though this will also trigger costly >
>by-elections - and when it has also not allowed MPs the option of raising funds themselves to help cover the costs of by-elections (which was an option considered by the NEC). There is no parity, fairness or necessity here, and the decision has worked to also restrict the >
>ability of female politicians to run as Holyrood candidates (and in the case of Joanna Cherry this has ensured that two prominent male former SNP politicians will instead be fighting for Edinburgh Central selection) as well as restricting who branches can select to represent >
>them.
If a politician wishes to stand as their branch’s candidate and would win support from the majority of branch members, why should the NEC be able to stand in the way of both the candidate and the branch, as it effectively has with this decision? How is this not a show >
If a politician wishes to stand as their branch’s candidate and would win support from the majority of branch members, why should the NEC be able to stand in the way of both the candidate and the branch, as it effectively has with this decision? How is this not a show >
>of contempt for SNP members and indeed for constituents? How does this lead to the best outcomes for the party’s representation? There is simply no cogent justification for any of it in a party that is meant to be democratic, fair and pro-equality.
The NEC and the party >
The NEC and the party >
>leadership also can’t at all justify expecting MPs wishing to stand for the Holyrood election to have to fire all their staff during a pandemic; an outcome that should be unacceptable in a social democratic party, and that would be completely unnecessary if the MP standing >
>for election at Holyrood ended up losing, and that would be entirely avoidable if this decision is reversed.
It is also clearly a conflict of interest to allow NEC members who wish to stand for next year's election to be able to vote on the selection process criteria. There >
It is also clearly a conflict of interest to allow NEC members who wish to stand for next year's election to be able to vote on the selection process criteria. There >
>should be a requirement that NEC members recuse themselves from such votes if they wish to stand themselves; to fail to do this is to allow conflicts of interest that can easily lead to corruption.
I would contend that the majority of the membership does not find any of the >
I would contend that the majority of the membership does not find any of the >
>above remotely acceptable, and that this is already very clear.
I am also concerned that the NEC reportedly voted by a majority to prevent Joanna Cherry from being able to run for re-election in last year's Westminster election, and were only routed in this attempt to deny the>
I am also concerned that the NEC reportedly voted by a majority to prevent Joanna Cherry from being able to run for re-election in last year's Westminster election, and were only routed in this attempt to deny the>
>party one of its best, most successful and popular politicians, because the NEC constitution prevented it. Again, I would contend that the majority of the membership would not have supported preventing Joanna Cherry from running in her seat in 2019, and indeed it was her local >
> branch who asked her to run to become the Edinburgh Central SNP candidate for 2021, such is her party support.
It seems eminently clear that the NEC is not making decisions in the interests of the party or indeed of its members. It is also clear that the NEC does not >
It seems eminently clear that the NEC is not making decisions in the interests of the party or indeed of its members. It is also clear that the NEC does not >
>properly conduct itself, does not understand the party's constitution, has been somewhat captured by those whose interests are in many ways at odds with those of the party and its members, and is extremely vulnerable to corruption regarding elections. It is also a body that has>
>no real accountability due to the lack of transparency as regards its composition and decision making. Therefore, I am asking that you not only reverse the unconstitutional, discriminatory, unnecessary and contemptuous decision requiring MPs to resign before the results of the >
>2021 Holyrood election, but that you also ensure the following regarding the NEC:
1) That the full party membership is able to vote in the NEC elections. It is simply unfair and unrepresentative that only those members who are privileged enough to be able to attend conference >
1) That the full party membership is able to vote in the NEC elections. It is simply unfair and unrepresentative that only those members who are privileged enough to be able to attend conference >
>can vote on this. Even if there are ways to allow remote voting of those selected to attend conference, this would still not be representative or fair as regards the full membership. The whole party should get a say in who sits on the party’s decision-making body; this body >
>should be *of the party*.
2) That the list of members of the NEC be published in full.
3) That the minutes of meetings and a voting record for each member is made available to party members. There is no justification for the lack of transparency regarding how this body makes >
2) That the list of members of the NEC be published in full.
3) That the minutes of meetings and a voting record for each member is made available to party members. There is no justification for the lack of transparency regarding how this body makes >
>decisions and who is responsible for them. We expect no less from politicians.
4) That a clear complaints process is urgently provided by the NEC.
I look forward to your response, and trust it will take account of all the points made here and address them directly and fully.
4) That a clear complaints process is urgently provided by the NEC.
I look forward to your response, and trust it will take account of all the points made here and address them directly and fully.
