WHAT happens after the votes are all counted in Thursday’s Holyrood election? Recent polls have seen a narrowing of support for the SNP, but what did folk expect? Polls almost always narrow for the lead party in the final weeks of a contest.

Nothing in the final polling suggests that the pro-indy camp will suffer a defeat. If the SNP vote is drifting downwards, this is compensated by the Green vote edging upwards. Meanwhile, the Alba vote is in a territory the pollsters can’t measure with reliability. Conclusion: there will be a pro-independence majority of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament by the end of the week.

People are getting undergarments in a twist regarding the fabled “supermajority” for independence. I take a pragmatic stance on this. Surely the aim of the pro-indy camp is to maximise the number of MSPs supporting Scottish self-determination? But is it a legitimate tactic if it marginalises non-indy voters on a technicality? The trouble with this argument is that it fails to take into account the fact the ruling Westminster elite has rigged both the UK and Holyrood voting systems in favour of the status quo.

The incompetent, corrupt Boris Johnson administration won near absolute power in 2019 with only 42.6% of the vote share – less than the SNP’s 46.5% at the last Holyrood contest. As for the Scottish Parliament system of voting, this was deliberately contrived to block an SNP majority, and not to facilitate the Scottish electorate exercising its legitimate sovereignty.

Our only recourse, as a nation under duress, is to express that sovereignty to the best of our ability given the rigged nature of the voting system. Since we are most likely to see a pro-indy majority of some kind after Thursday, the central question is what to do with it?

As I understand the SNP’s position, it is to wait until the pandemic emergency is over, then legislate the date for a second indy referendum. The FM expects this will provoke the Conservative government into taking legal action to block such a referendum. The Supreme Court will either give a thumbs up to indyref2 or side with Boris.

I see several serious flaws with this. First, it delays any referendum till after the pandemic has been dealt with. The logical inference here is that gaining independence is irrelevant to solving the single biggest social and economic crisis we have endured since the Second World War. Then why do we need independence in the first place?

Instead, the FM has opted to delay a second referendum to some vague point in the new electoral cycle. But what happens if there is a fourth wave of the virus, triggered by some imported new variant? No such dithering stopped the Americans holding a presidential election in the middle of the pandemic to oust Trump. Result: a newly elected Joe Biden has just announced a multi-trillion-dollar programme to reboot the US economy.

READ MORE: Holyrood set for SNP majority and Alex Salmond return, new poll predicts

Suppose we eventually get to the point where the FM is prepared to legislate for another referendum.

The last thing she intends is a Catalan-style unilateral vote. She fully intends to goad the UK Government into legal trench warfare through the courts. I can see the potential gains in tempting Boris into making the inevitable public gaffes, and winning international diplomatic support. What I can’t see is any eventual success.

Even if the SNP won a court victory (doubtful), Westminster will simply legislate to block the referendum or to take control of it. And the protracted delay involved in the court process will put the referendum back till after the next Holyrood election. Finally, whatever happens, the Tories are going to “game” a fresh referendum by imposing new rules such as the necessity for a blocking majority (55%?) or multiple questions (including federalism).

IS there any alternative route to independence? Let me begin by saying that I agree with the FM that there is no alternative to a protracted, political tussle with Westminster. However, this political contest can’t be won without in some way involving the independence movement itself, as the FM appears to believe.

Grassroots criticisms of Nicola’s leadership in recent years focus on her apparent unwillingness to mobilise the movement itself to campaign. And campaign door-to-door we must, if we are to win the 60% for indy we probably need for a smooth transition. Winning support for independence is not synonymous with the FM’s popularity ratings. It is about galvanising the Scottish people into believing in themselves.

Which is why grassroots indy organisations such as All Under One Banner, Now Scotland and Common Weal, plus the plethora of new internet broadcasting channels which serve the independence movement, are vital elements in building campaign momentum. Indeed, we need to expand grassroots, non-party organisations such as Now Scotland in order to compensate for the inertia (or, at least, the unremitting parliamentary focus) of the SNP. For only the grassroots appear to be focused on assembling and disseminating the boiler-plate arguments that actually win ordinary Scots to independence.

Which brings us back to the supermajority theory. This has little to do with persuading an unpersuadable Boris and co. Rather, it has everything to do with showing Scottish voters they really can affect the status quo.

Regrettably, the average turnout in Holyrood elections hovers around 50%. This suggests that many Scots, particularly in the poorer communities, know full well that voting changes little or nothing in their lives. They see devolution as a comfort blanket for the middle class rather than an agency of radical transformation. And they might

be right.

Things were different in the 2014 referendum when hundreds of thousands of non-voters turned out in what they saw as a decisive ballot that really would change lives – if we had secured independence. The movement needs to engender that sort of popular excitement again. The project of achieving a supermajority for independence by ousting time-serving Unionist MSPs is one way of rekindling the excitement of 2014. We need to persuade folk that tactical voting is a weapon that can transform Holyrood from a sedate, middle-class talking shop to a platform for radical change.

In truth, the Unionists have neutered Holyrood. No wonder half of Scotland’s electorate respond by not voting. It need not be that way. By winning a supermajority – lending wasted SNP list votes to other pro-indy parties – we can elect a Parliament that represents the interests of the sovereign Scottish people by next Saturday, when the count finishes.

A Parliament that can confront Westminster with a mandate and a united determination to open immediate independence negotiations. We can then put the result of those negotiations to a referendum safe in the knowledge the electorate will have all the information needed to make a proper decision.

And if Westminster then refuses to negotiate? That’s a very different proposition from refusing a Section 30 or taking the SNP government to court over the technicalities of the Scotland Act. Before the court of global public opinion Boris will be refusing to accept the sovereign right of the Scottish people – through their elected Parliament – to negotiate self-determination. Game on.