UKIP Anti Democratic?

There is a points at which, even if you support an organisation, it becomes necessary to speak out because only from such criticism will the organisation realise that its behaviour is unacceptable. Following information I have received since the Euro Elections regarding UKIP in Scotland, I now must speak out.

In a democracy there are certain standards we must expect of any political party, and one is these is that the party itself is democratic. Because if it doesn’t respect democracy within the party, then it will not respect in society in general.

As such as the former energy spokesman for UKIP Scotland, I feel compelled to express my concerns regarding UKIP as I am increasingly alarmed by the party’s attitude to Scottish democracy.

As was widely reported, six months ago the Scottish UKIP leader Lord Monckton was summarily sacked and the Scottish chairman Mike Scott-Hayward forced to resign. Their crime? Planning to hold an EGM to explain to Scottish party members why they had stood down from the MEP list in Scotland. The fact UKIP would not justify the way they handled David Coburn’s selection (the present Scottish MEP) to their own members at this EGM was damning enough for me to leave the party.

Officially, Misty Thackeray then became acting Chairman until the AGM which was due to be held before the Euro Elections. Much to many members disgust that AGM never took place. I now hear it has been put off until “after the independence referendum”. That means the election of a replacement Scottish Chairman, which should have been urgent, will be delayed for almost a year and there is still no confirmed date so it could be longer.

Even for the Vice Chairman Misty Thackeray to have continued this long without the endorsement of members is unacceptable for a political party in a democracy. But it is worse! We now hear in the Scotsman that the Vice Chairman is not in fact running the party. Instead the new MEP, David Coburn ‘was “sort of running it”.

So it is the persons whose own selection onto the UKIP MEP list was so contentious that the old Chairman resigned who has now taken over the party and is refusing to have the AGM. But surely as the first elected representative in Scotland, Coburn would be more than eager to receive the acclaim of his party members at an AGM?

Things must be really dire in UKIP Scotland if Coburn, who should expect to be showered in glory, is so fearful of democracy that he dare not face the Scottish members at an AGM.

And he has the same contempt for democracy generally. Being London based, I doubt Coburn even has a vote in our referendum and from press reports, he clearly knows little of Scotland since devolution. He would best be quiet. But no! Unlike any of the No Campaign, Coburn has stormed in to say that if Scots vote yes for independence, he will not accept it. The Euro-elections show this is no idle threat. UKIP could easily be part of the next UK government in 2015 and if Coburn removed the only Scottish Tory MP he could be their Scottish minister able carry out his threat to reverse the democratically expressed wishes of the Scottish people.

And how will he do this? If UKIP Scotland is anything to go by, he will summarily dismiss the elected representatives, cancel elections and take over the government.



Filed under Scottish Politics

62 responses to “UKIP Anti Democratic?

  1. M Tucker

    If a party leader in Scotland has been awol for the best part of two years and has contributed very little in that time to actually lead the party and on his return he is unable to put the needs of the party before his own ego – then it is quite right to sack him. He should have been sacked much earlier like the start of 2012 given his performance.

    The same goes for a former Chairman who also put self before party and was unable to hold committee meeting let alone chair them and left the party here in poor shape for Euro elections and appointed too many spokesmen yet denied them the means of doing their job.

    The same goes for the other MEP candidates who threw their toys out of the pram because they lost the vote. They put the interests of the party and its members at risk with their childish behaviour. UKIP Scotland is in much better shape without being handicapped by these crusty old colonels.
    The current team has done extremely well to deliver an MEP given the enormous mess that they inherited from “the Muppets”

    I was at the rally in Edinburgh and both Misty and david Coburn were given a heroes welcome alongside Nigel by those who attended at least 120. At the end of day Misty and David have delivered electoral success, something that the Muppets have failed to do and would have failed again


    • If Monckton was to be sacked for lack of action, the time to have done it was when he was as you say “AWOL”, and not as it happened when he had set up an office in Edinburgh to help the party at a time all the members were concerned about the MEP selection.

      As for the Chairman, I understand they were asking for the powers so that they could chair the meetings effectively.

      The proper time and place to have dealt with those concerns was at the EGM.

      Now not only has the EGM but the AGM has also been cancelled.


      • M Tucker

        Monckton should have done that in 2011 and not 2013!!!!. By the time of the second coming of the Lord it was all too little too late he had lost the authority of most of the committee. I had already mentioned this situation to some people high on the totem pole nationally before his return and so did many others. Remember he was appointed too and not elected therefore he had NO mandate other than what Nigel Farage gave him. He has only himself to blame for losing it. I do feel sorry for the former Chairman who was stuck in no mans land due to the inactions of the former leader but that’s life sometimes maybe he should have led.

        Given the mess created by the Colonels and the mission critical nature of the euro elections and the need to get an MEP, a few good men needed to take things by the scruff of the neck and lead which has got us an MEP – which is a game changer – otherwise we faced political oblivion and i for one was not going to let these silly old duffers deprive me of my right to elected representation as a result of their ineptitude.

        Once we get the referendum out the way. Once done we’ll will have an AGM.


      • rob

        Office? Edinburgh? Ohhh you mean Christopher s spare room in his flat. No Agm has been cancelled cause non has been called. Egm is old hat nonsense the party have moved on from squabbling babies that spat their dummy out and delivered ukip Scotland first mep it’s time you did as well.


  2. Rob and Tucker, your argument backfires because you are just underlining the undemocratic way UKIP operates.

    I repeat, if any party is to operate in a democracy, then it must have democratic internal procedures. UKIP clearly does not and the fact that Monckton was appointed as “dictator” in Scotland and was not only absent but by your own assertions was not effective and was then summarily dismissed by UKIP in England and another dictator (Coburn) appointed just underlines the point that the members in Scotland have no say over what happens, that appointments are now made by your “absentee landlords” in England.

    And then for you to assert this is OK makes it very clear that the whole attitude within UKIP is anti-democratic.


  3. M Tucker

    UKIP Scotland does not claim to be a separate Scottish Party it its a regional branch of the main UK party. The appointment of Monckton as “leader” and the failure to manage him was clearly a mistake made by Nigel that he has no doubt learned from. The elevation of David Coburn from lead candidate to MEP (and probably seen as de facto leader in Scotland) is a case of so far, so good!. We certainly don’t need an elected leader in Scotland really until we have an not just an MEP, but a few a MSPs, MPs and councillors etc. David Coburn topped the MEP selection vote and was therefore selected as by the Scottish membership. LIke wise a certain Lord was rejected by the Scottish membership – perhaps had he attended the 2012 and 2013 spring gatherings he might have been able to raise his profile.

    Certain injured parties no doubt with book signing and lecture tours to promote were not happy and tried to use an existing dispute with another party to get a rerun and then all resigned and then tried use an EGM to save their own bacon and self select themselves and risk splitting the party.They are really a pathetic bunch.Well we have heard it all before from this lot like “UKIP in Scotland is wiped out!!” “Coburn is not electable as he is not authentically Scottish and i am boyo! and i’m the only gay in village boyo……” NUFF SAID!!!!

    The truth is that UKIP in Scotland goes from strength to strength without them. That lot were never much much good…..


    • So Scotland is just a region – it needs no elected officials – and again you highlight the point that if UKIP were in power in England it would go against the democratic wishes of the Scottish people – because as far as I can tell from your remarks “democracy is not important”.

      And that attitude is as relevant to Scottish democracy as it is to democracy within UKIP Scotland.

      Or should I put it this way: “if you can’t win elections fairly within your own party – how are you going to FAIRLY win elections within Scotland?”

      I don’t believe you would even try – just cancel the elections and roll in the tanks.


      • M Tucker

        In terms of how UKIP is presently organised Scotland is counted a “region” with the UK same as Wales and NI. This based mainly as a result of how the EU views the MEP seats. This is not a perfect arrangement or definition but it describes the organisational unit as it is now, not how a pseudo SNP supporter’s utopian vision. As the party grows and spreads its appeal in Scotland and wins more representation (esp at Holyrood) it will have to develop a stronger Scottish identity and focus – something that in all fairness an English Lord, a South African Colonel and Welsh windbag pulp commando book author would be very much incapable of doing.

        So far under the new regime UKIP in Scotland has won approval from Scottish Democracy by return its first of many elected representatives – which is a big F*** YOU! to the Muppets and their friends in the SNP!!


  4. May I remind you what AGM means: “ANNUAL general meeting”.

    That doesn’t mean … once every few years and only then if we think it’s a good idea and members will not be nasty to us.

    It means Annual.

    And if you didn’t like the “muppets” running the show, then as a member, like everyone else in a democratic organisation you have a once every year chance to vote out one set of muppets and bring in another.

    And the idea that the installed Scottish dictatorship which has so little confidence in getting support from its own supporters that it cancels its own elections could ever be successful nationally in elections (without rigging the election) is just daft.

    Prove to me you have the support of your own members – then I might just believe you can win over the general public.


  5. M Tucker

    GIven the fact that the Scottish party was dysfunctional for most of 2013, and barely functioning from in 2011 and 2012 because of the actions (or should i say the inactions) of a few people, the UK party had to put the Scottish regional branch into special measures in order to deal with the problem at hand and get results. If they had not done so various people including you would be castigating them for a lack of leadership and oversight. The result is that we have managed to get the MEP that the Scottish public wanted to give us. Job done. Once we get the referendum out of the way we can return to normality.

    An MEP in the hand in worth millions of AGM’s and EGMs in the Bush.
    The vast majority of members understand that this the reality.


    • How soon after election in England will UKIP put Scotland in “special measures”?


      • M Tucker

        The UK party wants grown up children in Scotland, Wales and NI that can pull there own weight and not ask mummy and daddy for money, unlike the childish behaviour of the crusty old colonels.

        By electing an MEP UKIP Scotland joins Wales as being a grown up child who has now left school but is now at University. In four or five years UKIP Scotland will have earned its degree and graduated and can go out into the real world.


  6. “The UK party wants grown up children in Scotland, Wales and NI”

    What a patronising comment!

    I was in Edinburgh and saw how Farage sidelined and ignored Mike Scott-Hayward. And what did Farage do? He got himself publicity in England but like you he was so patronising to the Scots that we in Scotland ended up having to pick up Farage’s shite after the flying visit.

    And what is more the idea UKIP did anything to help us in Scotland is bollocks. I tried to get UKIP in England interested in the devolved area of Energy – but they just were not interested in Scottish politics. Despite sending every press release down to England – the courtesy was never returned and it was pointless being a UKIP spokesman when UKIP (in England) wasn’t speaking to me.

    It was very clear that UKIP Scotland was being ignored, under-resourced, not being listened to about the different politics here and generally treated with contempt and left to rot … at least UNTIL SCOTLAND WAS CONVENIENT FOR ENGLAND – TO GET COBURN IN AS AN MEP.

    And how did they do it? In a Nazi style coop ousting all the old workers and basically destroying the party in Scotland, undoing all the hard work put in by people like Peter Adams to build up the party.

    As for Mike Scott-Hayward. It was very obvious he was being expected to pour far more money than he had – and was got rid of when he started asking for proper resources.

    And, not even a saint can chair meetings when they have no powers to control that meeting and there is a general atmosphere of rebellion engendered by the lack of interest & resources from UKIP England meant Scottish members ended up fighting each other rather than campaigning.


  7. neilfutureboy

    Misty sent this to me and several others. It was not marked confidential so it isn’t. It seems to put off the annual general meeting and thus any role for Scottish members in their own party to the indefinite future – minimum 2015 after all candidates have been selected.

    Incidentally I cannot see why having been a “colonel” or any senior army officer should automatically exclude one from a command. Perhaps someone could tell me?

    I personally believe that it is vital for UKIP in Scotland, where we are faced with a Holyrood of which the southern leaders have no experience, to be able to make decisions on policy in that entity, for ourselves, and speedily. I also think that the Scottish members should not be excluded from that process. The reason why the other parties have been hollowed out over the decades is that the leadership has treated members as nothing more than an audience. Why should anybody be a member of such a party. This is not something UKIP should learn from the career politicians.

    “As previously and repeatedly stated a routine AGM will be called when practicably possible in line with operational considerations.

    In case it has slipped anyones notice we have just elected an MEP in Scotland and are in the process of setting up the systems required to support this, comunications, media centre, staffing, offices etc.

    We are also now immediately into the Separation Referendum campaigning period, in which Ukip will play a major role with our own campaign, with a mere 16wks to save the Union that is clearly the number one priority.

    There is also the selection and training of candidates and target seats for Westminster 2015 to get underway, which is also a matter of some urgency.

    We must also complete the party and branch restructuring in Scotland before any AGM for it to be remotely relevent, can’t have an AGM with nothing to discuss.

    As to Neil’s points, the current ‘leadership’ as he terms or more accurately management team is both lawful and democratic having been agreed by the central party leadership, chairman and NEC. It must also be remembered the Scottish region remains in ‘special measures’.

    If there are any specific matters you feel require immediate attention I suggest you highlight them to me as chairman and I will address them as best I can at present and if relevent I can include them on the agenda for any future organisers meeting, or indeed an AGM though it is envisaged that agenda will be concerned purely with party progress.

    We will shortly be distributing a circular which will hopefully include the date , time and location of our next officers and organisers meeting – you must also appreciate security is now a major issue and such meetings are far more complex and costly to arrange and communicate.

    I repeat, we will of course have an AGM but for now we must focus on practical matters rather than become prisoners to process, date, time and location will be notified when possible.”


  8. Thanks Neil. This whole discussion is why parties have AGMs & EGMs, because otherwise the issues that could be nipped in the bud and resolved in private end up being openly discussed in public.


  9. M Tucker

    UKIP Scotland was always going cap in hand to the UK Party for election funds rather than sort out its own fundraising. This happened election after election. Sadly the crusty old colonels thought it was beneath them for sort out funding “a gentleman never dreams of asking his friends for money…..”. Individual branches down south have tens of thousands in the bank the most UKIP Scotland ever had was two grand. We had a Monckton appointed “Chief Fundraiser” who did not bring in a bean during his tenure. Misty, Davy and Kevin have sorted this out and we will be doing more of it. I am not saying that the party down south is blameless in this either for example Scotland not having NEC representation meant that Scottish elections were not planned properly.

    Mike Scott Hayward’s appointment of spokesman was a good idea but executed at the wrong time without sufficient thought or means. It was done partly to fill the void caused by Monckton not being here. That’s why you got burned in your role and why i had cold feet about mine. All that happened was it created a dozen people making policy on the hoof – no wonder why the policy unit down south did its best to keep its distance. What is needed is for a dedicated Scottish policy unit working in conjunction with down south.


    • Please don’t talk nonsense. I stopped being energy spokesman when I realised that I was being expected to fund myself to the tune of around £2000-£5000/year to do a full time job without pay.

      I would guess Mike Scott-Hayward was possibly being expected to contribute twice that amount and similarly Peter Adams.

      And what was UKIP’s thanks for all their contribution? To basically kick them in the balls and tell them to get lost as soon as one of Farages buddies from London thought they had a chance of being elected in Scotland.

      Anyone who now donates their time or money to the party and thinks they will get any say or thanks is a daft.

      UKIP first ignored, and then betrayed its Scottish members and the only people who would take that kind of BS in Scotland was crusty colonels.

      And now you are blaming them?


  10. M Tucker

    I did say “Mike Scott Hayward’s appointment of spokesman was a good idea but executed at the wrong time without sufficient thought or means”……that includes money…….

    The selection of the MEP had to be the best and most electable candidate and that was either David Coburn or Mike Scott Hayward at the end of the day and Coburn was the better of the two. No disrespect but the others didn’t really cut it and would not have held up to media scrutiny of interviews and debates. Monckton’s subsidy Junkies phrase would have been used to clobber him and UKIP, Macaskill sounded like a tory defector, Henke would just ended plugging his books and those at the bottom of list like McKeane or Durrance were just plain awful.

    Now we have an MEP the next target are MPs and MSPs.


    • I can summarise your whole argument this: “the end justifies the means”. So long as you think the right person got in – you don’t care how they got there. And, there isn’t a single dictator in history who didn’t agree with you.

      But the real truth is this: the reason there was such an appalling selection of candidates is that no politician in Scotland with any sense would join a party where they know every decision and every candidate is going to be chosen by people down in England.

      And no doubt Coburn will realise that if he wants to keep in with the UKIP hierarchy, he needs to ignore Scotland and Scottish issues when talking to UKIP.


  11. M Tucker

    Not quite the end justifies the means – more a case of not wanting a needless bloody civil war only to install a complete idiot as the number One candidate why run the risk???. Had there been a bloody EGM and had Coburn lost their would not have been any unity – the Muppets would have just started to fight amongst themselves for the spoils as the dream of being an MEP was the only thing binding them together. That is why they lost they are a disparate rag tag with no purpose being led by a charlatan.

    Now we have an MEP we can now fund the proper development of UKIP in Scotland. If Coburn wants to impress the bosses down south he needs to serve Scotland and that will deliver results.


    • Because if people genuinely feel consulted, then they tend to support someone irrespective of whether it was their personal choice.

      In contrast, if a candidate is foisted on people – they often reject the person even if they were their own choice.

      As for Coburn – He reminds me of very much of that knight in Braveheart who demands the “droite de senor” from Mrs Wallace. He knows who gave him his place in Scotland and who he needs to keep on side – and it wasn’t Scottish members.

      And as far as Farage is concerned, Coburn can do what he likes in Scotland, so long as it’s not an armed rebellion heading south.


    • neilfutureboy

      Wouldn’t agree that any of them is a “charlatan” – that seems unnecessary.

      The reason they “lost” is because the organisation was closed from outside.

      If the bosses down south want a successful UKIP in Scotland (rather than just us out of the way) they can certainly have it but not by driving out active members and telling the rest they are only there to cheer. With PR in Scotland and the absolute awfulness of all the rest of the political scene, we can be a major player in Holyrood, a Parliament which is unlikely to again have one party rule – but not as a branch station with members who have no role and no leave to decide anything without reference back.

      Mike is right that this is the sort of thing that could be settled by an AGM. I think you are being unfair with the “civil war” remark. Those fired did the minimum to show their dissatisfaction before the campaign – Monckton on STV even went out of his way to say Coburn was a good speaker and that this would be needed because STV/BBC would so heavily censor coverage. If it had been settled by EGM I see no reason to believe there would have been even that. Democracy is not just an optional extra – it works.


      • Unfortunately, if you leave people alone and expect them to “work out things for themselves” and raise their own funding get their own candidates etc. – you have to let them make mistakes and then let them deal with those mistakes because that is how you have to learn when being ignored.

        And it would have worked – except UKIP England saw Scotland as a way of getting one of their number elected.

        UKIP England wanted to have their cake and eat it – they wanted to ignore Scotland and leave us to struggle to make progress – and then when we made mistakes – they wanted to have total control and weren’t prepared to let us deal with the mistakes.

        If UKIP had left the decision about a leader to us in Scotland, then people would have had the hard choice between someone they wanted – and someone who was good for the party

        The EGM would have been tough, but the party would have come out a lot stronger and wiser and ready to fight for the chosen MEPs.

        Instead, they treated us like a bunch of naughty school children – took the decision away from us – and then wonder why everyone in UKIP Scotland behaves like naughty school children.


  12. M Tucker

    The conduct of the muppets during the MEP Process was a disgrace, firstly trying to disqualify Bismarck and then when that failed resigning and then failing to accept the outcome of the ballot of the membership when Coburn was chosen.

    If i was one of the candidates why top objectives would have been:

    1) UKIP Scotland must return a MEP
    2) I believe that i am the best man for the job.
    3) May the best man win.

    The Muppets top two objectives seem to be

    1) I believe that i am the best the man for the job
    2) If i don’t get it and i’ll ensure that UKIP Scotland fails to return an MEP.

    They created this mess. The only thing was they did not believe that there would be be people here able and willing to stand up to them. We proved that we don’t need them as they are next to useless.


    • And don’t you believe the EGM would have agreed with you?

      Apparently not – because if you believed the EGM would have agreed with you, then by your own admission you would have felt the end justified the means and would have supported the EGM.

      I didn’t leave UKIP because I disagreed with Coburn – I left because I was given no chance to agree with Coburn as a candidate Or to be more precise, the fact that the leadership did not want to face Scottish members very strongly suggests to me that they knew something was very wrong with the way coburn was selected.


  13. M Tucker

    Excuse me but an AGM or EGM would not have settled it.
    It would have divided the party and the end result would have been two sets of candidates on the ballot paper which would have divided the vote.
    We would not have an MEP if we had just left it to chance,
    Now we have an MEP we are in a much better position to develop the party in Scotland.


    • You obviously haven’t been to many AGMs! When you have people like this arguing, very quickly the ordinary members work out that those involved in the argument are all part of the awkward squad and often they all get booted out.

      Personally, I was going to attend the EGM, listen to what everyone had to say – and then unless there was a very good reason for their atrocious behaviour and they sorted out a compromise to save the party I was likely to vote with other members and I suspect that would have been to remove them all.

      Now, all I can say is that MSH believed he could justify his position to the EGM and the other side (including UKIP HQ) clearly didn’t believe they could.


  14. Oh dear. So many points to respond to and as usual all of them misinformed and nonsensical, I’ll try keeping it as brief as possible. Firstly we must scotch this narrative of UKIP Scotland V’s UKIP England, UKIP is unlike all of the other political party’s a uniquely whole of UK regional branch based structure so there is no separate party in Scotland as in fact there is not in Wales or Northern Ireland or indeed North West, South East or Midlands etc. Secondly there has been no lack of democracy or imposition of anything or anyone onto Scotland by England or London, the decision to cancel the December EGM was taken by the NEC which is a body democratically elected by the entire membership to manage the party, in the case of placing Scotland in ‘special measures’ that is precisely what they done. As for that EGM sorting things out dream on, It was a train wreck waiting to happen in full view of the media and would have not only split but destroyed us in Scotland, it was I and the Lanarkshire branch which initially called for that EGM and also I who called for ALL officers to voluntarily resign their positions as I did and trust in the membership to re-elect us but none of them had the confidence to do so, it was also clear from it’s calling the EGM would be an attempt by a certain someone and his cap doffers to breakaway from the main party structure and create a separate party in Scotland in pursuit of their own self interests as evidenced by the fact there were to be three speakers in favour of exactly this and only me as a lone speaker against – quite frankly that could never have been allowed to happen as it would destroy the entire party. Thirdly I and the new committee inherited a completely dysfunctional and paralysed operation at every level completely unprepared for the busiest period in our history with two major elections and a referendum looming not to mention being almost broke with only £450 in the bank, yes certain people contributed to past development but they also presided over disastrous decline. Now to the MEP candidates selection, this was also entirely democratic and the lead candidate David Coburn was elected by a majority of the Scottish membership, a wise decision given he has subsequently been elected as UKIP’s first Scottish MEP – in fact it was the childish antics of those who sought to bully other candidates out of the selection in pursuit of self interest which was un-democratic. Now I must come to the writer of this articles position that he was an ‘energy spokesman’ and expected to contribute thousands of pounds for the privilege and the assertion Mike Scott-Hayward and Peter Adams et al were expected to do likewise, the appointment of a whole host of spokesmen for everything from transport to toilet paper to form a ‘kitchen cabinet’ by a former leader was done without any consultation or authority as befits a mentality of divine right and it caused chaos, the writer himself attracted national media monstering in relation to homophobia [If the Herald had used that word I would have sued as it is a libel and untrue and so please do not repeat such nonsense. Even their own article made it clear that I supported the right of gays. What they did not say is that I thought the right of children to be protected by marriage should be our first conisderation ] within 24hrs of appointment, the media ended up in a position of having no idea who to talk to in Scotland and completely by-passed us and went straight to Gawain Towler at the London press office, as for being expected to self fund to the tune of thousands of pounds who exactly asked that of you ? – none of us have ever or will ever be asked to fund ourselves in that way and although like myself and many others within the party personal monies have been invested in our own election campaigns I can assure you MSH and PA or indeed his Lordship were never expected to put their hands in their own pockets for party business and in fact speaking personally were amongst the stingiest individuals I've ever encountered. The reality is UKIP Scotland only struggled as you put it because those in charge were stuck in a bygone age and simply didn't know how to succeed in the modern world and since the change of management team in December far from being 'wiped out' we have thrived, the membership is increasing daily and engaged as never before and supportive of the new direction, Scotland is now fully inter connected with the national party and our voice is not only being heard but prioritised, internal democracy has in fact increased with branch officers and local organisers now meeting regularly to debate and inform matters of importance which in turn go forward to regional committee meetings and any future AGM's etc – the comprehensive 'restructuring' programme about to roll out will professionalise and activate us and at long last connect the branches to the tree and tree to it's roots. Incidentally the party is NOT being RUN solely by David Coburn or for that matter myself but rather by a committee, the media do love the idea of a leader and of course by assumption as an elected MEP David is deemed to be the senior public face in Scotland. As for this seemingly hot potato of an AGM let's start by saying there are literally only a handful of people still calling for this to be held asap and the majority membership have told us they are happy to wait until it is convenient to do so, frankly I'm unsure as to what exactly it is these instant AGMers think it will achieve other than a rehash of the factionalised in-fighting which has already been resolved by cancelling the December EGM and will form no part of any future AGM, we must also have something to discuss debate and decide at any AGM and until we have at least started the restructuring programme I simply cannot see what that would be, as my e-mail to Neil as shared above clearly points out there are a number of more pressing practical matters to prioritise such as saving our Union and electioneering plus of course setting up systems in support of our newly elected MEP and we must not become prisoners to process for process sake, there also seems to be a reluctance on some peoples part to accept we are now in an entirely different position when it comes to arranging such meetings which will undoubtedly attract the violent rent-a-thug brigade so it is no longer a case of simply renting a room and posting the details, I make no apology for putting our members safety ahead of all else, given our clearly evidenced track record of unrivalled success neither I nor the other committee members Kevin and Donald have the slightest reservations about facing the membership and being re-elected and would happily hold an AGM tomorrow if it was possible and practical to do so – so for the record the routine 2014 AGM has not and will not be 'cancelled' but is merely 'delayed' due to operational prioritisation as allowed within the constitution and as an 'annual' requirement will most definitely be held within 2014. Meantime I suggest people stop whining and start winning by getting out of their armchairs and onto the streets as we need campaigners more than keyboard commandos.


    • Misty, despite all you have said, the simple fact is that if you had confidence that the members in Scotland would support you, you would have the ANNUAL general meeting.

      But as you put it, the party in Scotland is still deeply divided by your action:

      frankly I’m unsure as to what exactly it is these instant AGMers think it will achieve other than a rehash of the factionalised in-fighting which has already been resolved by cancelling the December EGM and will form no part of any future AGM,

      Unlike you and UKIP England, I can’t just tell you what to do. However my advice is this: if you want to unite the membership in Scotland you need a leadership in Scotland that they support and unless or until you have an AGM you will not get that.


  15. neilfutureboy

    Misty, first I must agree that I don’t think Mike’s job need have cost that much. My attitude is that people engaged in politics should approach it as taking about as much time and money as following a major football team.

    Heinlein once called politics “the only game for grown ups, the rest are for overgrown children” and I would go with that. I do not side with those who either do nothing and then complain about how dreadful our politics is, or those who join the NatLabCons as a career move.

    However I disagree with going back on the various promises of an AGM and with your admission here that even if, some year, we have it, it will not be allowed to discuss anything substantive. I cannot agree that that is democracy.

    On the issue of Scottish autonomy I believe it is vital not just on principle but as a practical way of allowing us to make policy for Holyrood and answer the other parties (eg Davidson’s recent reversal over her own “red line” and Brown’s call for a united Better Together position on further devolution).

    I am interested that you said the “EGM would be an attempt … to breakaway from the main party structure and create a separate party in Scotland” and that you were sure the membership, given the opportunity, would have voted for that. I prefer simple autonomy on matters relating to Holyrood and election of local leadership, which, since it is more moderate, would clearly, in your opinion, have the support of a yet larger majority.

    Whether David’s campaign was decisive is obviously impossible to be certain of. However it is worth noting that our 10.4% was getting in by the skin of our teeth and that, before the campaign started you quoted Prof John Curtiss as saying that UKIP had a very good chance of getting this MEP. However there is no substitute for victory and it is difficult to believe even the most successful campaign would have got us 2 MEPs.

    I would like to repeat that I believe, because we have the advantage of PR and the advantage of the other Scottish parties being clustered around a “consensus” that equates to Labour’s 1980s “loony left” with added commitment to fuel poverty, blackouts, and consequent permanent recession, we have the potential to do remarkably well in Holyrood. Not as well as the “70% support UKIP policy on immigration” our friends 😉 in the Herald said (& I mentioned in my Daily Mail letter) but certainly very well. But to do so we have to present a clear and popular policy alternative.

    I am very pleased to note that, with David’s taking the piss out of the Borg-like SNP’s monolithic obedience, he has endorsed open political debate. I tend to agree with John Redwood that it is not disunited parties that lose but parties that do not have good policies (he regularly presents such & I have to say they are much better than Cameron’s).

    With Nigel talking of 20-30 target seats he is clearly prepared for a long game. With a major presence of UKIP in Holyrood in 2016, willing to make a splash and (to quote Jack McConnell) “make economic growth our number one priority” I think UKIP in Scotland could provide an example that would be of immense value to the credibility of the party elsewhere. Lets do that – with room and a voice for all of us.


    • Neil, on the costs. Most of it was simply travel costs. As a simple example the cost of running an old car like ours is about £0.25/mile. So, just visiting the Chairman cost me personally around £40. If you are doing the job full time (as I was expecting to do), even keeping travel to a minimum I was expecting to have to meet the chairman and other people a few times a months. Add by-elections, electioneering and addressing various meetings, £40/week travel is a minimum which I estimated to be £2000-£5000.

      If I wasn’t prepared to spend that amount – given the infighting and bitching that was endemic in UKIP Scotland, I knew very quickly that people like Misty would be asking why I wasn’t doing the job properly.

      So, whilst I would have like to have helped the party – it was beyond any help I could give it.


  16. @Scottish Sceptic. Re travel expenses etc. I have spent literally thousands over the years of my activism and various branch officer and vice chairmanships etc, never expected a penny back as it rather goes with the ‘voluntary’ nature of the job. As to any ‘spokesman’ position becoming full time under the previous regime I’m afraid that rather goes against the reality of the overall position as it existed and you were probably misled in terms of expectation by those in charge who had no authority to make such promises in the first place and given they left office with only £450 in the Scotland account certainly no chance of funding anything let alone full time jobs..(though perhaps the mythical millionaires waiting in the wings would have filled the begging bowl in the absence of head office and lord forbid the thought of self sufficiency eh). By contrast we have just self funded an entire campaign and the Scotland account is still in the black, add the fact we now have an MEP and full time staffing is a probability not a pipe dream, plus our millionaires are real ones who have already donated and will continue to do so. This stuff really isn’t rocket science just plain old business nous.


    • Having campaigned on climate worldwide for many years without pay, I might have had the time but not the personal money to give to UKIP. Moreover, the offer to help UKIP came out of the blue, and I didn’t appreciate the huge cost of local campaigning in Scotland (you would think campaigning worldwide should cost more!)


  17. @Scottish Sceptic. We already have a united membership in Scotland fully supportive of the current committee or leadership or management team or whatever you choose to call those who have brought previously unattainable success..(I of course accept there are quite literally a handful of unhappy individuals who will never accept this but that is their issue to deal with and frankly they should consider their position if they intend to continue poisoning the well with old bile). As for the AGM..I ask yet again why on earth would we as the team who have delivered an MEP have any fear of it..? I also say yet again we would have it tomorrow if that was practicable but it simply is not – we will however as I have also said many times before have it as soon as practicably possible. I mean seriously is that really so hard to grasp..?!


  18. @Neil. There is no going back on any promises of an AGM, surely I have made that clear, it is merely a matter of practicality in relation to operational priorities, surely no-one thinks it is more important we prioritise a routine AGM over Sep-Ref campaigning or electioneering or establishing our MEP support systems..?! Oh and if anyone reckons we can do all that and fit in an AGM they are not living in the reality of trying to book rooms when every venue thinks several hundred rent-a-thugs will pitch up outside and also having to pay for said event which in our new positioning with added security and other requirements will now result in little change out of £1k, I know I said we are in the black but again surely everyone agrees funding campaigns must come first – we simply cannot afford to become prisoners to process. As to not being allowed to discuss anything substantive I’m unsure where exactly you arrive at that conclusion..? I have clearly stated one of the reasons it is better to delay a routine AGM is to allow for the comprehensive restructuring programme to get underway, this can’t really happen in any meaningful or democratic manner until we have first consulted the branch officers and local cluster organisers at their next meeting in mid-July, the plans for progress discussed at that meeting will in turn form the basis of what will undoubtedly be an extremely substantive AGM agenda. Of course if by disallowing discussion of anything substantive you actually mean not rehashing all the factionalism and in-fighting then I again remind you that was completely resolved by the NEC decision to cancel the December EGM and dissolve the dysfunctional committee so will not form any part of a future routine AGM which will instead focus on looking forward to positivity rather than harking back to negativity. Anyone thinking we should sit around at great expense and personal risk going over the fine detail of certain self interested individuals failed personal agendas and egotism is hardly working in the best interests of the party or indicative of the majority membership thinking and quite frankly should seriously consider their position as the rest of us have a future to build upon the incredible success of the past six months..people must now choose as we say in Glasgow to Get Oan or Get Aff the bus because with or without them it’s trundling on.


  19. M Tucker

    Define Irony?

    Being lectured on democracy and the importance of holding AGMs etc being followers of man who as ex leader of UKIP Scotland was unelected and could not be bothered to attend the last two AGMs. HO HO…….

    UKIP Scotland is now in much better shape then it has ever been thanks to leadership of David Coburn and Arthur Misty Thackeray.

    Lets face it the current exchange rate is 1 UKIP Scotland MEP = 200 AGMS

    Nuff said.


    • William

      I am appalled by what has been written here by people who clearly are allowed to vote and take their caveman attitudes to the box. Wouldn’t be surprised if the thugs at the Farage visits were not organised by them too. Hitler used all the same tactics.

      Will you either grow up or shut up. We live in a democracy where everybody has a say and has the right to have a say as long as it doesn’t harm another member of that democracy.

      Nobody in Scotland created the situation where Coburn was elected – that was all down to the hard work of Nigel and his team in England and is to their credit alone. I saw no banners speeches or discussions – all the Scottish organisation did was run around skulking in the shadows and for good reason – they are the epitome of racists. While I endorse practically everything that Nigel has done I know he has really only done it for England – the provinces carry no weight and as the Romans knew could be troublesome.

      Unfortunately the only reality I see is to vote yes in the referendum and put the SNP into disarray – you don’t really think that they can hold their ship together once they’ve won the election do you? A yes in the referendum also creates an interesting position with regard to the EU treaties which would need a major rewording and should be the catalyst for Labour, who’ll win the next election, to either put up or prove once again how treacherous they are. Even more interesting because they will have lost a load of Scottish MPs as Scotland gets independence – the Tories only lose one!! Milliband will have to run a referendum just to ensure he gets in again. And Scotland will be voting for MSP parties not just SNP and independence – I think the SNP as we know it now will not exist. Perhaps we can then have a Union of Convenience – a United Kingdom of federal states – a mini USA and who knows what might grow out of that. So many opportunities – but what’s the bet the reply is a negative lets keeping things as the are conservative naysayer.


      • William, you raise an interesting point about voting Yes – to leave the EU. Indeed, as I understood the legal position the Union of England and Scotland was legally between two equal partners (in law though hardly equal in practice).

        Like any union, no matter which partner leaves, the Union itself is dissolved. So in the same way a “divorced couple” cannot have one that is still “the marriage” and the other single, so legally if Scotland leaves the “marriage”, then it is just a simple matter of fact that England will also leave the marriage. And so if Scotland is only a member of the EU when in the Union – so England is only in the EU so long as the same union exists.

        One leaves – the other must leave – because the entity which was the “union” which joined the EU does not exist after it is dissolved.


  20. M Tucker

    I disagree. Had Coburn not been the candidate and we had the misfortune of being represented by either Monckton or Henke or some other non entity we would not have won a MEP – they would have been destroyed in the TV and radio debates and would have handled the media really poorly. That would have been game over for UKIP Scotland. May had that happened I would be the saddo with the blog……..

    Also Misty & David raised the necessary cash to fight the campaign which was a lot more than the piddling £450 in coppers that the Muppets stashed under the arm chair for a rainy day.

    So job done onward and upward


    • William

      Now we can see those that are trying to cover themselves in other peoples’ glory and continue caveman like bashing and the more literate and considerate pundit who sees an opportunity to get the goal we all seek.

      I’m not sure where the money was spent but I certainly didn’t see anything from UKIP apart from Nigel’s excellent debate with Clegg which would’ve got my vote on board if I hadn’t seen the shambles taking place over the last year with racist and backstabbing antics from the assigned Scottish leadership. I couldn’t vote for any party which tolerated such undemocratic behaviour and neither could I represent them to my friends – so disheartening:-(

      However as I said there is another way to dump the EU….

      Let’s do something positive rather than all this negative vibes:-)


  21. M Tucker

    William we won an MEP, yes some of was no doubt a reflection of success down south and some of was also due to good work of the party here…well the ones’s who did the work and didn’t throw their toys out the pram and scream mummy….that is!!!!

    The best thing is we have given the SNP and Yes Campaign a bloody nose


  22. M Tucker

    SNP can only blame themselves for putting up a complete non entity like Ian Hudghton and the god awful Tasminian Devil on the TV and Radio debates. They left the far more dangerous Alan Smyth on the bench


    • I never saw Tasmin, but Ian Hudghton was appalling. I couldn’t believe how inept he was.


      • M Tucker

        I had the honor to have researched and wrote a great hit piece of Tasmina and her murky fake charity and dubious political history that made the Sun and couple of other papers on the day of the election.


  23. M Tucker

    On subject of vote yes to leave the EU – you might get 12 to 18 months of it if you are lucky, both Salmond and Sturgeon have said No to a referendum on EU entry. Salmond is offering the EU Scotland’s oil and fishing to join the EU.


    • But won’t that be enough for people to start to notice how much better things are outside the EU. Also, the SNP (assuming it is them and we don’t have a sudden shift to right as I expect), would undoubtedly face a very early economic crisis. Unlike all the new countries who are net gainers from the EU – Scotland would be a net contributor so could the government afford to join the EU?

      Add to that the resistance from countries like Spain intending to silence their own separatist movements in Catalonia, and we could well be outside the EU long enough for us all to decide that we are much better out.

      If that happened, then Farage would have a very easy time convincing the English to follow us and no doubt a host of other countries would suddenly realise how much the EU costs and start down the same path, possibly leading to the breakup of the whole EU.


  24. neilfutureboy

    If we got a referendum on independence over the EU I am fairly confident Scotland would say no, despite the outrage of the ruling class. Because we have the fish and because we would lose the rebate, the case is even stronger here than down south.
    Mr Tucker’s claim that Monckton is a “non-entity” who would have been “destroyed” in debate is so OTT that he destroys any credibility. Monckton has an international reputation on climate debate whose videos have gone viral & is someone Salmond is actually scared of facing. Coburn was OK, except when he kept getting Tasmina’s name wrong and passing pointless remarks about how she used to be a Tory, which looked juvenile.

    .A rising tide lifts all boats and it was the tide, far more than anything in Scotland that got us in. That will not work for Holyrood – we will have to provide our policies own campaign.


  25. M Tucker

    Really the only person who might get something out of voting Yes in September’s referendum as a mechanism to temporarily leave the EU is an ageing anti EU NAT on his death bed who might be able to die peacefully in his morphine induced sleep knowing that Scotland is both out of the UK and EU. Anyone else in the real world is of little comfort.

    Monckton is a non entity – he finished way down the list in the MEP selection vote. Due to new membership since dec 2012, Most Scottish members have not heard of him or is links to UKIP Scotland and that is entirely his own fault for buggering off on a round the world trip rather than leading the party. Those that have are probably aware of his “Subsidy Junkies” statement and his gadd last year claiming that Salmond had been expelled from the Labour party that he made at the Donside count. Quite frankly he would have been destroyed in a 6 way panel debate on TV and Radio. Also the image of an English lord being the public face of UKIP Scotland would not have gone down well in some areas.


    • It is however an intriguing concept. The immediate response to voting yes would be to leave the EU whilst voting no would be to stay in. Yes we would have a madly pro-EU government, but we would actually leave the EU.

      At the very least we should discuss it. Indeed, imagine Kim Jung’s consternation if UKIP joined the “yes” campaign.


  26. M Tucker

    The problem we have in Scotland is that UKIP are not strong enough yet to lead the anti EU Charge in a Scottish only IN / OUT referendum in 2016. In 5 years time we might be – we need to aim for that.


    • I agree. However, it would be a mistake to just assume the political view in an independent Scotland would be the same as it is now.

      According to our argument, Scotland would be better outside the EU. That should mean that if Scotland left the EU as a result of independence, that we should very quickly start to see benefits.

      My hunch is that in an independent Scotland, because the economy would be such a big issue, all the socialists would get a huge shock as they found voters switching to right of centre parties. That might also create a strong anti-EU feeling in Scotland.

      Realistically, that swing might take 5-7 years. The question is whether Scotland would be kept out sufficiently long for anti-EU feeling to grow to prevent us rejoining.

      I honestly don’t konw.


  27. @Michael. If indeed that is your real name..? Your narrative sounds a bit close to the current mantra being touted by a certain Laird and his lackeys that DC’s election was somehow merely a ripple effect from down South which would have happened anyway whoever the lead candidate was and the UKIP Scotland team played absolutely no part. Frankly I’ve never heard such deluded nonsense in my life. Reality is there was of course a minor ripple effect due to the campaign being essentially UK wide but fact is Coburn himself and the current UKIP Scotland team are entirely responsible for electing a Scottish MEP. To suggest otherwise is to insult not only my team but also the entire membership..! You say you did not see a single banner etc, well you must be pretty short sighted to miss all the Scottish specific roadside billboards in every main arterial road, or the Scottish specific half page Ad’s in every newspaper, or the thousands of Scottish specific online graphics, not to mention the public meetings and action days conducted by the Scottish campaign team from Dumfries in the Borders to Inverness in the Highlands and every key town or city in between, or the daily newspaper articles and commentary, the numerous TV and radio appearances etc etc etc. Simple fact is UKIP Scotland for the first time in it’s history ran a professionally organised self funded Scottish specific campaign which resulted in securing an MEP – that I assure you was 100% down to the candidate and current team Scotland. If certain other prospective candidates and the previous leadership had been running it we would most certainly now be on here consoling ourselves as plucky losers and spinning whatever positive we could manage out of a minor percentage increase..! As for 2015 and 2016, well success breeds success and with the current team continuing to manage develop and professionalise the Scottish operation I’d say we’re in with a pretty good chance of further elected representatives.


    • William

      Misty I presume you just got another fact mixed up and are referring to me:-) Just because two people may come to the same conclusion does not make it right or wrong. It certainly doesn’t infer a conspiracy except to those dictators who fear for their positions. Just because you use the same tactics as Hitler doesn’t mean you have been conspiring with him 🙂

      As I said I saw no (that means zero) UKIP presence or advertising or meetings arranged (apart from the Farage visit which I attended) – perhaps you could give more details of what really happened rather than vague statements and triumphalist remarks.

      If you are really serious about getting the EU off our backs then as I said a yes vote would succeed with that – there is absolutely no chance of the main parties doing it otherwise since UKIP will bring the Conservatives down and the Labour MPs in Scotland will put them in power. Labour don’t care about Scotland they care about the MPs it guarantees them.

      Once the country has voted yes then we have the power to create a better Union of the Crowns – not one built on Scotland’s bankruptcy! All the MSPs will have been for election and Scotland will finally have a set of parties to whom Scotland’s interests come first and the SNP will be in the wilderness having achieved their aim – just like UKIP will be once we’re out of the EU.

      Think about it – if we’re such a burden to London surely they’d be happy to see us go – everybody is playing their cards close to their chests but I’m pretty sure that Scotland has things that will underpin a strong federal UK. That has to be in the best interests of all the kingdoms where they can pool resources for activities that benefit everyone. Think about it too – finally in England MPs will get to be the only ones voting on English affairs and we save on Scottich MPs salaries as well as MEPs – David could be out of the job sooner than he expected but wouldn’t that make him a happy man!


      • M Tucker

        William – the Euro Election were an example of modern electoral warfare this was a war that was fought on all sides in the skies using aerial power i.e. on TV and Radio and the papers etc and the Billboard ads. It was not fought with boots on the ground by any of the other parties in Scotland except the SNP – and despite their overwhelming superiority in that department it did not give them much of a strategic advantage if at all.

        UKIP Scotland showed in this campaign that it is as capable as any of the other parties of fighting a campaign in this particular theatre .


  28. It appears Misty, that despite my suggestions to hold an AGM as soon as practical, you intend to deny the membership in Scotland their right to have a say in their party.

    All the organisational theory says that if you deny people “ownership” in an organisation, then they get turned off, start squabbling, become demotivated etc. etc.

    However as you said a lot of that organisational theory is just “fluff”.

    I’ve never seen this theory put to the test in such an obvious way with such enthusiasm. So, it will be very interesting to see whether or not you or the social theories get proved right.

    I will watch with interest


    • M Tucker

      Mike “All the organisational theory says that if you deny people “ownership” in an organisation, then they get turned off, start squabbling, become demotivated etc. etc.” well that nicely sums up the Monckton & the Muppets mismanagement of UKIP Scotland down to a tee, so much so that they started to do it themselves!!!!!

      l have learned from ITIL and Change Management is not to make big changes in Systems and upgrades when they can impact business critical events. Such things need to be timed in order to minimise or eliminate risk. Having EGM or AGM ahead of the euro elections and the referendums is a case of risking business critical activities.


      • Your argument about not having EGMs when elections are approaching means the optimum time would be just after an election.

        You are just making a case that the AGM should have occured immediately after the MEP election – which as I said would be the time the new MEP was going to get overwhelming support from the members.

        This is why no one with an ounce of common sense believes this ferry-tale story about having to put of the AGM

        However, since we know you are just going to say everything is hunky dory, I suggest we leave this discussion there.


  29. M Tucker

    The AGM can be done straight after the referendum.


  30. neilfutureboy

    Misty many of those Scotland specific posters had pictures of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband but no Salmond.

    If you had said the success was a mixture of rising tide and Scottish organisation you might have had a case, but “100%” – come on.

    Your previous comment suggested you wished to see the loss of members. May I suggest that that is a short sighted view if the intent is to succeed within Scotland. If the intent is simply to ensure the Scottish party does nothing embarrassing while the rUK party gets on with it then it would be the right tactic but I personally do not think that is what the UK party want. As I have explained we have the very real possibility of not just some representation but a major share in Holyrood if we go for it because of PR and the political “consensus” here – and UKIP in Holyrood actually doing things would, in turn, raise the tide further across the UK.
    One problem with the go for Yes and we end up out of the EU is that the reason the SNP went for “independence in Europe” in the first place was to placate fears of going it alone. If, as I expect, separation led to an economic disaster the security blanket of the EU, however illusory, might look very attractive.
    Mr Tucker the stuff about Tasmina was good and in a truly free society would have been jumped on by all papers. However that does not affect whether David getting her name wrong was a good tactic.

    I note your call against “big changes in Systems and upgrades when they can impact business critical events” – is that not exactly what has been done & something the membership only held still for because they were promised a democratic AGM at the end of it.


    • M Tucker

      Neil. It was after all Monckton who was proposing to alter the relationship between UKIP in Scotland and the rest of UKIP at his hastily announced EGM last December primarily as a vehicle for gaining control of MEP selection list. Think about it,He had the best interests of UKIP in Scotland in mind he had two years and two normal AGMs to research why UKIP did so badly in the 2011 Holyrood elections, and write an action plan and draw up sensible proposals to put before both the NEC and the party in Scotland. That’s why certain people wanted an EGM or AGM to allow this act of madness. Had this gone ahead we would not have had an MEP now – the party in Scotland would have been split in two all for the sake of one man’s ego – shades of Kilroy. That is not democracy it is not just rank stupidity, it is suicide.

      This is what i mean about not wanting changes prior to mission critical events. Someone who wants to split the party to save his own skin a few months before the Euro elections really is not fit to lead the party and was quite rightfully sacked.

      If Monckton and his disciples want his own personality cult party he should at least do what Kilroy did an form Vanitas…………..


  31. Foxy Loxy

    We wants our AGM – and we wants it now!!!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s