Battle lines being drawn by SNP members over key Alex Salmond policies
There are deep divisions among SNP colleagues over defence policy. Picture: Ian Rutherford
THE SNP is deeply divided over Alex Salmond’s defence policy, with more than half of grassroots members disagreeing with the First Minister’s plan to withdraw an independent Scotland from Nato.
The first ever comprehensive survey of the SNP’s membership has exposed a series of potentially damaging splits on policies such as defence, education and Salmond’s proposal that the Queen should remain head of state after separation.
The research – led by James Mitchell, professor of politics at Strathclyde University and involving 7,112 paid-up members - uncovered schisms within a party that has made strenuous efforts to appear as one on policy.
Since the SNP came to power in 2007, the leadership has exerted an iron grip on discipline – keeping differences of opinion under wraps so that the party can concentrate on its pursuit of independence.
The policy that generated the most consensus was the constitution, with 71.1 per cent agreeing that the SNP’s primary goal was independence and “all else should be secondary”, while 69.6 per cent took the view that when someone criticised Scotland it felt like a “personal insult”.
The research found that 52.7 per cent of SNP members believed membership of Nato was in Scotland’s strategic interests. Only 22.9 per cent signalled that they agreed with the SNP’s controversial policy, which is against Nato membership on the grounds of its pro-nuclear stance.
The SNP leadership’s insistence that Scotland should remove itself from Nato is seen as one of the party’s weakest policies by Salmond’s opponents, who believe it would be highly irresponsible to withdraw from the world’s most successful defence alliance.
In recent times, the SNP has maintained a united front on its Nato position in public. But in private, there are still figures at the top of the party who believe the Nato stance will be a referendum vote loser.
Last night shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said: “This is pretty embarrassing stuff for the SNP because it shows them completely out of touch with their own members.
“Being in Nato is important not just for our defences, but for Scotland’s manufacturing industries too and all the high-skilled jobs they support.”
A spokesman for the Conservative Party said: “Being a member of Nato gives Scotland a seat at the top table, but Alex Salmond does not see this as important to our security.”
The survey also found that 57 per cent of the sample, which represented more than a third of the total membership of almost 21,000, believed there was no place for the monarchy in a modern democracy.
Salmond’s position is that an independent Scotland would retain the Queen as head of state. Only 19.8 per cent thought there was a place for the monarchy.
On the controversial subject of education by religion, 64.4 per cent thought that separate Catholic schools should be phased out. The SNP has said that it is committed to denominational education.
Mitchell was helped in his research by Dr Lynn Bennie of Aberdeen University and Dr Rob Johns of the University of Essex. The work is to be published in the forthcoming book: The Scottish National Party: Transition To Power. Among the 7,112 members interviewed were senior SNP figures including Cabinet members.
Mitchell said: “The leadership are actually nervous of these issues, I suspect, or if they’re not nervous of them, they feel that these are issues members have strong views on. The Nato issue is a very interesting one.”
Derek Mackay, the SNP’s business convener, said: “Party policy is determined by the votes of ordinary members at our annual and spring conferences and at National Council meetings.
“People from all walks of life and social backgrounds are members of the SNP so it is hardly surprising there is a wide range of political thought amongst party membership. “However, the SNP is solidly united as we enter most exciting period of Scotland’s history.”
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond’s pledge to sign up 1m voters
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Sunday 27 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 279 comments to this article
Page 1 of 19
The Tin Man
Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 10:40 PMThe chances of the SNP expressing internal disagreement is zero. They are run by expensive marketing consultants. The backbench government MSPs could be replaced by fenceposts. We have gone from disparing about the quality of MSPs in 2000, be being inured about the fact that they may as well not exist, in 2012.
Ron Greer
Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 09:48 AM251 Phil C I don't invent these figures, they are real and have to be faced up to. Burying your head in the sand won't help.
Ron Greer
Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 09:43 AM253 Wind power is irrelevant whether you believe in AGW or not.
Ron Greer
Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 09:42 AMsorry for the double post, the first took so long to appear that I'd given up hope!
Ron Greer
Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 09:40 AM260-Phil C--It would not take Einstein's cat to work out that with Scotland's contribution to world anthropogenic CO2 being tiny to the point of irrelevance and wind, hydro and pump storage producing such small amounts of electricity, which is neither dependable or predictable, that the SNP renewables policy is just a farce. The fact that the UK one is little better is no saving grace.
Ron Greer
Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 09:35 AM260 Phil C.----It does not take Einstein's cat to work out that Scotland's contribution to world anthropogenic CO2 is so tiny, to the point irrelevance in fact, and wind turbines, hydro and pump storage produce so little predictable and dependable electricity, that the SNP's renewable policy will not affect climate change in any measurable way.
Anagach
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 08:06 PM272 feeminn1 The fact is London doesn't control Scotland at all. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well if the Olympics were held in Paris Scotland would not be paying £780m towards them, really from Scotland it does look like London has control of the money, and that is control. As for your arguement, it seems confused - are you saying its better to be run from Westminster and Brussels?, just Brussels ?, or just Westminster ?. The only option that does not seem to grab you is Edinburgh. Oh well maybe not enough flowers and pretty villages.
feeminn1
Monday, February 13, 2012 at 01:13 AMMy first partner was a Scotsman and he was lovely and very good in bed- well for a few years, then I traded him in for a Devonshire man with an education and money. I am not the most intelligent person on Earth (or anywhere near but I do have a view and a vote). I am however university educated, first I did law, and then practiced it for a while, and then I returned to do a degree in history. I was born to be a unionist. I never learnt how to spell as I am dyslexic (has you may have noticed) but my parents taught me I was British and had so much to be proud of. I have grown up believing it. I look at our history and am proud. I often travel overseas and have always said with pride, "I am British." The word British just rolls of the tongue. Yet I read the comments on here and it has caused an identity crisis for me. A Birmingham born Brit. Now I feel I don't want to share my identity with the people who call themselves SNP. It seems they have won me over to the idea of an independent Scotland. I have the urge to say, "Yes go, for God sakes go and take your 15th Century ideals with you." After all is an independent Scotland going into the future or back to the past? Only 7% of Scotland's law is made in London, 18% is made in Edinburgh and 75% by unelected persons in Brussels. Can you have an independent Scotland, England, France or anywhere else in a United States of Europe? The fact is London doesn't control Scotland at all, Europe does and Salmond wants Scotland in Europe. So this is the plan of a modern easy going English woman. Scotland gets independence, the Euro and tax rates set by Brussels. Pretty England, with its green fields, flowers and beautiful little villages, leaves the EU and becomes independent. - Scottish men are lovely, but this isn't a football game, it is about the future and security of our children. They deserve the best from us. Final questions (for today) does the SNP have bloggers on here who are commissioned to responded to comments? Is Alex Salmond the best Scotland has or are there better men and is Sturgeon really a sex symbol in the lands to the far North? Reading this it seems everyone in Scotland is a nationalist and opinion polls do not support that. Check the English dictionary under, nationalist-separatist.
Cynicus
Monday, February 13, 2012 at 12:39 AM270 The Tin Man Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 11:59 PM 266 Cynicus: The odds you will get on increasing the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere not resulting in higher temperatures on the surface of the planet will be very long, indeed, because you would have to refute quantitative chemical and physical facts that were ascertained 200 years ago. ================================================= These "quantitative chemical and physical facts that were ascertained 200 years ago" were done so on simple, closed systems e.g. sealed gas -jars. We are talking about compelx, open systems where other factors come into play feedbacks, forcings and the like.
The Tin Man
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 11:59 PM266 Cynicus: The odds you will get on increasing the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere not resulting in higher temperatures on the surface of the planet will be very long, indeed, because you would have to refute quantitative chemical and physical facts that were ascertained 200 years ago.
Richard Lionheart
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 11:54 PM#266 I must agree with you that massive investment in wind Power is a total folly. We do need other sources of energy production, but wind power is a drainhole down which our scarce economic resources are being poured at an astonishing rate. On the up side it is making a few "fortunate" people proufoundly rich at our expense.
The Tin Man
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 11:51 PM266 Cynicus: Global warming is what happens when basic scientific theory is applied to the atmosphere. It is similar to very few people sunbathing in Australia, because they will get skin cancer, due to basic scientific theory about the constitution of the atmosphere. Weirdly, it implies that Scotland will become colder due to the evolution of ocean currents, but I would be rather more concerned if I lived in Bangladesh.
Richard Lionheart
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 11:47 PM#255 Interesting statement. Without Co2 you would have to live on a different planet. Co2 is not a pollutant gas, it is an essential part of our eco system which is crucial to the support of human life. More than 90% of Co2 occurs naturally in our environment and it is no surprise that the remainder comes from human activity, which again is a natural effect of life. Everyone beliefs in climate change. It has occurred since the world began and will continue as long as the earth exists. Thinking that humans not producing Co2 will stop the climate from changing is futile. The human race has survived the changing climate over the millenia, because it has learned to adapt to the changes. Somehow the"master race" has decided that it has the power to do what it has no power to do, perhaps as a cover up for the mess made of our economies over which we do have total control. Science should be focused on what and where we need to adapt to the changing climate not on what we think we can do to stop it changing. End Green Anarchist Policies NOW = Save the Human race and the Planet.
Cynicus
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 11:41 PM253 The Tin Man Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 11:00 PM 251 Phil C: Windpower is only viable if you believe in global warming. If you don't believe in global warming, ==================================================== Even if the globe continues to warm (it hasn't since 1998 and won't for another 30 years, at least), windpower is NOT viable. It is one of the greatest follies in human history and Jowly Eck one of its foremost clowns,
Cynicus
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 11:36 PM"228. You seem to be unaware that onshore and offshore wind turbines are infrastructure."-#232, Wardog ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ And how does labelling them "infrastructure" negate their utter wastefulness and financially regressive nature. How does it assuage any guilt pangs we ought to feel about 15 biggest owners will between them receive almost £850 million in subsidies that are added on to household electricity bills-including those of fuel-poor pensioners? ==================================================== "They are a proven technology well capable of producing a large amount of energy." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ NO THEY ARE NOT. You mean 'electricity', not 'energy', As I write They are a producer of intermittent electricity that requires constant backup. But you saw that one coming, didn't you? ================================================= "No doubt very soon, the cost of fuel cell, hydrogen and other storage technologies will mature and the base load questions will be answered." ================================================= Who is the man of faith now? Let me get this straight: an already financially non-viable. subsidy junkie source of energy is one day, some day going to come good when storage technologies "mature," I have news for you. We already have these storage technoligies but no commercial operator will do the R & D. necessary to upscale them because they have no faith in wind energy's continued survival. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "----------- Both the Uk and Scottish Government's policies hang on European Directives on Energy Conservation and Carbon Emissions which are part of a wider global agreement " ================================================= That is true. Just as Canada's did until a fortnight ago when it junked its Kyoto commitments. It sees the writing on the wall following failure in Durban to reach new agreements. =================================================== " .......because the evidence for significant climate change is extremely strong ) ================================================= What evidence? If you are using CAGWer-speak for the now unfashionable 'global warming' term then you must know that there has been NONE since 1998. Furthermore, the corrupt bureaucrats of the IPCC are suppressing a report that says we can none for another 30 years. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The inconvenient truth is that this hypothesis is a busted flush. The smart political move would be to distance ourselves from it instead of enslaving ourselves to eco-fashion, Is Jowly Eck smart enough to move fast enough -or is he forever chained to the chariot wheels of this out of control, bankrupt hypothesis.
Page 1 of 19
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.