SNP and Labour must take care when dealing with rebels like these – Steve Cardownie

The Capital’s ­coalition, having successfully negotiated its 2020/21 Budget through the council, now has an anxious few months ahead of it. Whilst not exactly racked by division, there are obvious strains and tensions that will have to be addressed, not least of which will be what to do with Labour councillor Gordon Munro and, more importantly, SNP councillor and Lord Provost Frank Ross, both of whom failed to support the administration’s budget proposals.

Councillors are expected to follow the group line no matter which group they belong to (apart from Epic) and no one is fooled into believing that that is not the case with groups which do not have a group whip, such as the Greens.

This is a group which shamelessly voted en-bloc to deny the independent councillors who make up Epic representation on committees as they would lose a place as a consequence. Moral integrity sacrificed on the altar of political expediency!

So, following the ‘party line’ is important if there is to be some order when determining council policy, rather than the prospect of the abject chaos which would ensue if ­everyone voted as individuals. Parties get elected, and councillors get elected, as members of their respective parties and are expected to vote as such.

In all my 29 years as a councillor, no independent candidate was ever elected to the City of Edinburgh Council and that is still the case today, which underlines the importance of a political group’s attitude to discipline and the adherence of its members to it.

The current two cases, however, are not as simple as they look. By abstaining on the Budget motion vote, both councillors were all too aware that such actions would have political consequences but they were nevertheless prepared to do so.

Councillor Munro has frequently aired his disquiet about having to ­support a budget to which he is fundamentally opposed and this view will no doubt find favour with many grassroots Labour Party members. Bearing this in mind the Labour group whip may be required to ca’ canny if she is not to stir up a hornet’s nest when determining what ‘punishment’ should be meted out to Gordon.

The Lord Provost’s case is also not clear cut and the SNP group may find itself in a mess of its own making if it is not careful. It is reported that Frank did not support the Budget motion as monies had not been earmarked for the restoration of Corstorphine Community Centre, which lies in his ward, and which he says local activists had been led to believe was forthcoming.

Given that he held the view that the administration had reneged on a promise, he felt that he had no choice but to demonstrate his discontent by not standing to vote for the budget. In this case if the SNP group has had cause to previously take action against a member for defying the whip, it will have to be careful that it does not impose a sanction which is greater than that meted out in that case, as I am sure that precedent will be cited if it is not. Frank is also unlikely to be happy to be singled out because of his position, where he could argue that his actions were motivated by his role as a concerned ward councillor rather than as Lord Provost.

A potentially embarrasing internal row in a lead-up to a council by-election in Craigentinny/Duddingston would be a distraction that the party could do without and whilst not crucial to the outcome, surely should be avoided if possible.

It will be interesting to see what prevails – in both cases!