ANGUS MacNEIL breezes in with the air of a man who’s just been told his condition isn’t terminal. A few hours prior to our meeting he’d effectively self-suspended himself from the SNP’s Westminster group of MPs following a very public and poisonous embroilment with Brendan O’Hara, his Chief Whip.
He chooses his words carefully when describing Mr O’Hara whom others in the party have described to me as a poor man’s Malcolm Tucker … but without the charisma. After all, they’ve been political confreres for eight years and the MP for Na h-Eileanan ar lar has fond memories of their shared endeavours. But that was before he began coming the Jeremy Hunt (to paraphrase one of Mr MacNeil’s esteemed parliamentary colleagues).
His good humour stems from the dozens of messages of support already beginning to form a queue on his smartphone. Most are from constituency members and activists who reassure him he’s speaking for them too.
Already though, the SNP’s Matalan army of Wormtongues are slipping into ramming mode. The sly briefings have started. Mr MacNeil, according to party ‘sources’ had failed to pass vetting for the next Westminster election and this had been the real reason for his self-imposed sabbatical.
READ MORE: Angus MacNeil has SNP membership suspended
The previous week, Mhairi Black became the latest of a clutch of SNP MPs who have stated their intention not to stand for re-election. Ms Black had cited the “toxic” environment of Westminster as a major reason for her decision, describing it as “one of the most unhealthy workplaces that you could ever be in”.
Mr MacNeil is having none of that. “I don’t agree there’s a toxic environment here,” he says. “There are 6,000 people on the Westminster estate and the overwhelming majority of them are decent and hard-working. Those of us lucky enough to be here as MPs are very well-rewarded and our lives are made easier by the kindness and commitment of the Commons staff.
“Too many on my side don’t mix with their fellow MPs from other parties, yet these are the people we have to win over. Instead, we’re too ready to blame them and dismiss them as nasty people. The great majority of them, though, are certainly not like that.”
In a statement announcing his decision not to re-take the party whip, he’d said he’d only return if it’s clear “that the SNP are pursuing independence. At the moment, the SNP has become a brand name missing the key ingredient. The urgency for independence is absent.”
That was just for starters. He said that the Scottish Government was “utterly clueless about independence” when it went to the Supreme Court last year and still “utterly clueless” about it afterwards.
The Supreme Court had ruled that Holyrood didn’t have the legal competence to hold a referendum on independence without Westminster consent. Mr MacNeil, though, believes that the fine detail of their UK lordships’ judgment unwittingly provided scope for a de facto plebiscite, if only the SNP had the wit and backbone to exploit it.
READ MORE: Independence supporters must be honest about cost of radical change
“Paragraph 81 of the Supreme Court judgment effectively said it wasn’t so much that Holyrood couldn’t organise a referendum, but that it wouldn’t carry any immediate legal power.
“However, it indicated that if sufficient votes were collected in an electoral ballot box within a culture founded upon democracy that this could force the change in the constitution.
“That then means of course – by extrapolation – we can use elections. In my view the best way to proceed is to have a stand-alone Holyrood election that specifically calls for a referendum.”
Ah, yes, the de facto referendum that’s caused so much hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth within the SNP’s professional sector. By suggesting such a route five years ago Mr MacNeil and his former party colleague, Chris McEleny had been set upon by the SNP’s goon brigade, acting on instructions from higher up to chivvy them away from such an inconvenient stratagem.
Now, it’s back in vogue yet, he remains doubtful about the leadership’s stomach for the fight. “I’m in despair about our utter fear to do anything,” he says. “Humza Yousaf is saying it’s a majority of seats that’s required in a de facto referendum, but it’s not. A de facto referendum is won on votes not seats.
“Humza needs to be bold and say: ‘Look, I know a majority of the electorate have indicated a preference for independence and I also know a lot of people don’t like my party or what we’ve done in government. But regardless, I’m willing to put everything we’ve got on independence. It may damage us and end our political careers, but when you vote in this it will be a de facto referendum and afterwards you’ll have the chance to vote for which party you want to lead an independent nation’.”
READ MORE: Angus MacNeil: Nicola Sturgeon silenced colleagues on independence
Says Mr MacNeil, “Scotland needs independence more than it needs the SNP. And we need to lose this tired old narrative that the Tories won’t allow us. They’re not doing anything undemocratic: this is what they themselves were elected on. Instead we need to be much more creative."
He says that the SNP now have three options open to them. Do they seek independence via the next Westminster election? Do we waste another three years waiting for the next Holyrood election? Or do they create their own stand-alone event that would take the world by storm?
He also feels that Mr Yousaf needs to decouple from the Nicola Sturgeon era and the sooner the better. He’s withering about the former First Minister’s approach to independence which might be regarded as existing at the invisible-to-the-naked-eye end of glacial.
“After I’d written to Theresa May in 2018 asking her to agree to a referendum, I asked Nicola at a meeting of MSPs what her strategy was. It was an open meeting and a straightforward question.
“I recall her saying that she’d go to jail for independence but that we couldn’t do anything illegal. And I was thinking: ‘No-one’s asking you to do anything illegal or go to jail’.
"To which she replied, with a snigger: ‘I think a Brexit in 2019 would be unlikely anyway’. This, of course, was followed by dutiful sniggers from around the room.
“But it was becoming clear to me – and this was borne out in the course of the next two years – that she didn’t have a plan in place, no matter when Brexit happened, nor the nature of that Brexit. She hadn’t a plan anything.”
"You have to hand it to her, the power to make people feel small in front of other people is an impressive one. Others though, were in a terror of it.”
He recalls an online meeting last Spring when he’d asked the First Minister what she intended to do if the Supreme Court were to rule against Holyrood having a referendum without UK consent, which was very likely.
“She indicated that she had a number of ideas; that she was keeping them close to her chest and that we’d cross that bridge when we came to it. I said that this assumed there will be actual bridges to cross."
He describes Ms Sturgeon’s reaction to such cheek as like a rocket going off. “Well, Angus,” she had said, “we’re looking for credible ideas; not incredibly daft ideas.”
Said Mr MacNeil: “A few months later, she announced the Supreme Court plan in Parliament, having had absolutely no discussion about it.
“John Swinney (then deputy leader) had thought a de facto referendum would be based on seats, while she was basing it on votes. It showed that very little discussion had taken place. And that those who were doing most of the thinking about it were being kept out of those discussions."
Angus MacNeil is one of several party figures who have urged Humza Yousaf to leave the Sturgeon model of government behind. The First Minister is also coming under increasing pressure to leave the Scottish Greens behind with her. Their presence in government has resulted in a string of very costly political catastrophes.
“We need seriously to consider ditching them,” he says. “The first Alex Salmond administration between 2007 and 2011 achieved a great deal as a minority government. It required acute political acumen; keeping lines of communication open with other parties and respecting your opponents.
“The Greens have become very weighty baggage who are damaging the Government’s reputation and our ability to do competent business. I’ve suggested this to Humza in group meetings. His response has been that Holyrood is a lot more manageable than in the last parliament.”
His trenchant criticism of the party, as expected, has led to him being suspended officially once more. Yet, he seems sanguine about the flames of SNP righteousness licking about him. It’s nothing though, in comparison with the orchestrated onslaught endured by Kate Forbes during the party leadership election.
“She was targeted by people who, for the rest of the year, say how much they treasure diversity and freedom of conscience. All she did was explain the position of her church and her religion.
“Are we really saying that people of faith can’t hold high office unless they bow to a sort of state-approved version of their faith? That’s what they do in China and Russia.”
He wants to fight for the SNP at the next Westminster election, but is unperturbed at the prospect of standing as an independent. He knows too that if the SNP were to put up their own approved candidate it would virtually hand his seat to Scottish Labour.
“If they stand a candidate against me it would confirm they were more interested in vendettas and point-scoring than in promoting independence.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel