The SNP Votes to Quit X and Back a UK-Wide Ban — Who Pays for the Exit?

Scottish National Party delegates voted overwhelmingly at their Aberdeen conference on 17 October 2026 for a resolution supporting a UK-wide ban on X and urging the party, public bodies and Scottish institutions to stop using the platform. The SNP subsequently said it would review its own X use and report to its national executive. That is an important political decision, but not legislation: X was not banned in the United Kingdom by this conference vote, and a party resolution cannot shut down a privately operated network.

What the conference actually approved

The motion said public bodies should not use platforms that host harmful or abusive content. Delegate Erin Lux presented the case for leaving X, raising concerns about misinformation and the role of the platform's AI tools in generating or spreading abusive sexualised imagery. The wording reported by STV and the Independent includes condemnation of risks to public figures and children. These are claims advanced by delegates and embodied in party policy; an allegation concerning particular unlawful content must still be independently investigated and assessed according to relevant legal standards.

STV also reported the SNP's immediate procedural response: a review of party use and a report to the national executive committee. It did not announce that all Scottish Government agencies had deactivated their accounts or that the UK communications regulator had imposed a ban. The difference is basic but easy to lose amid headlines. Conference can direct or recommend party conduct; government bodies have their own duties; UK-wide restrictions require decisions through lawful institutions beyond the SNP conference hall.

Why John Swinney is accountable

John Swinney (opens in a new tab) is both Scotland's first minister and the SNP leader. That dual role makes the motion politically significant, but does not make him the sole author of its text or a legislator capable of banning X alone. His responsibility is to clarify what his party will actually do, what Scottish government communications policy will be and which alternatives citizens can rely on. If agencies stop posting at a familiar location, the government must make their new channels accessible, durable and clearly advertised.

The disagreement also reflects the substantial power of Elon Musk (opens in a new tab) and the companies behind X. A large privately controlled platform can determine the design of feeds, the incentives for sharing shocking content and the responses to user reports. Public authorities should not outsource access to vital information to one commercial channel. Yet abandoning a platform also means forfeiting the ability to reach people already there, including constituents who will not migrate to another service simply because a party requests it.

The objection from inside the SNP

Not every delegate favoured the ban. David Birkett, cited by STV, argued that X continued to have a large audience and that candidates, party organisations and elected representatives should be able to judge for themselves where communication was worthwhile. He specifically raised operational uses such as travel warnings for trains, ferries and roads. His comparisons of platform audience figures were debate claims, not independent audience metrics verified for this article. The underlying issue is valid: a public warning missed because of a platform transition could harm somebody even where withdrawal reduces exposure to abusive content.

The strongest case for the resolution is that governments should not drive citizens toward a service accused of failing to handle serious abuse. The strongest case against a ban is that citizens should retain access to lawful speech and familiar information channels, while platform problems are addressed through proportionate regulation and moderation. Withdrawal by a party is a different intervention from a legal prohibition applying to every UK resident. Conflating them obscures important speech-rights considerations in the digital censorship driver (opens in a new tab).

Could a government boycott work better than a ban?

There are multiple possible paths with different effects. The SNP could stop publishing non-urgent political posts, while government agencies maintain emergency notices until replacement channels reach a sufficient audience. Officials could post identical public updates on official websites, email systems, accessible feeds and several platforms. They could demand stronger compliance with existing rules while keeping public-service accounts. These are analytical options rather than decisions already adopted by the Scottish Government, and none should be reported as the outcome of the vote.

The risk of dependence on a single platform extends beyond X. If public announcements are readable only after registration, the state creates an access barrier. If an alternative network is too small to carry alerts, an apparently principled departure may have operational costs. The social-platform-dependence driver (opens in a new tab) describes that tension, while digital-platform power concentration (opens in a new tab) covers the underlying distribution of control. This is why the question is not simply whether a party should keep its profile active.

A UK-wide prohibition has a different legal scale

An enforceable UK ban would engage law, regulatory powers, proportionality and potentially judicial review. Scottish ministers cannot use an SNP conference motion to exercise powers reserved to UK-wide institutions. National political figures such as Andy Burnham (opens in a new tab) and Keir Starmer (opens in a new tab) have been relevant to wider British constitutional debates, but that does not make either an author of this resolution. Questions about whether Ofcom (opens in a new tab) could act under current legislation require specific regulator findings and are not resolved here by a party vote.

What happens next?

The SNP promised a review of its use of X, which creates a clear test: publish what will change, when, and how citizens will receive the same information without extra cost or loss of accessibility. Scottish Government departments, parliamentary authorities and transport operators should make their own communication decisions transparent. At the publication cutoff, the difference between conference aspiration and implemented action remained substantial. This new platform story is distinct from earlier reporting on Scottish devolution and the party's electoral strategy.

Questions people ask

Is the SNP leaving X?

The party voted for a policy urging withdrawal and promised a review; the reviewed reporting did not establish that all SNP accounts had already closed.

Does the SNP want to ban X in the UK?

Yes, conference backed a resolution supporting a UK-wide ban. It is a political position, not an enacted UK law.

Will the Scottish Government quit X?

The motion urged public bodies to leave, but whether and when the Scottish Government changes its account policy requires a separate governmental decision.