A political storm is brewing within the Scottish National Party as a former cabinet minister, Alex Neil, levels serious accusations that the party altered its leadership nomination rules to insulate current leader John Swinney from a potential challenge. This alleged move has ignited a fierce debate, raising questions about internal party democracy and control.
Neil, a prominent critic of Swinney, publicly decried the reform as a deliberate attempt to protect the First Minister from a “rebel challenge.” He asserted that the changes, which significantly escalated the number of nominations required for a candidate to stand for the SNP leadership, were designed to stifle dissent and consolidate power within the party’s hierarchy.
The controversial rule change, enacted quietly in March following the party’s humbling defeat in last year’s general election, dramatically reshaped the landscape for aspiring leaders. Previously, a mere 100 nominations from 20 party branches sufficed. Now, under the new regulation, prospective candidates must secure endorsements from 2.5% of the total party membership across 20 branches, translating to approximately 1473 members given the latest reported figure of 58,940 members.
This substantial increase in nomination thresholds came amidst widespread calls for Swinney to reassess his position after the July election setback. Senior figures, including former SNP MP Douglas Chapman, had openly expressed concerns, with some attendees at a critical meeting giving the First Minister a tight two-week deadline to formulate a fresh strategy on Scottish independence or face a leadership challenge at the upcoming October conference.
Neil did not mince words, telling The Herald that he was “absolutely sure these rules changes were designed to protect Swinney from any realistic attempt to replace him.” He further lambasted the current state of affairs, asserting that the leadership now wields “total control over the party membership,” branding the new rule as “symbolic of the lack of viable democratic procedures within the party,” impacting party democracy.
The former health secretary linked these procedural shifts to a broader decline within Scottish politics for the SNP, highlighting a substantial loss of half its membership in recent years. He argued that this attrition, coupled with a perceived lack of robust internal democracy, has stripped the party of much of its “political mojo,” ultimately detrimental to the broader cause of Scottish independence.
Adding another layer to the internal discord, a rebel motion regarding independence has been put forward for the conference, directly contradicting Swinney’s approach. While the First Minister’s motion ties a second independence referendum to winning a majority of seats in the next election, the rebel motion proposes that a majority of list votes for pro-independence parties in 2026 should suffice to secure a mandate for negotiations.
In response to the growing criticism concerning political nominations, an SNP source vehemently denied that the rules were altered to protect Mr. Swinney or in reaction to any specific individual’s past decision to stand. An SNP spokeswoman further affirmed that the constitutional measures, including these changes, were overwhelmingly approved by the SNP conference in March, stemming from a governance review initiated in spring 2023.
