A GREAT deal of confusion has been injected into the route to independence discussion by both the terminology used and a lack of understanding of some of the basics ... multiplied, of course, by more than a pinch of wishful thinking and understandable but unhelpful frustration.
The special conference resolutions suggested for March have not helped.
If we had never used the terms “de facto referendum” and “plebiscite election”, we might have legitimately suggested that every future election either at Holyrood OR Westminster could be used to gauge support for a new referendum by delivering a MAJORITY OF VOTES for independence-supporting parties with very clear manifesto commitments to use such a MAJORITY OF VOTES as unequivocal and demonstrable proof that a new referendum is what the electorate actually want.
Unfortunately, we are now probably beyond this because we have suggested that an electoral event other than a Westminster-approved referendum will be considered to produce an actionable outcome. That is, a clear MAJORITY OF VOTES for independence parties would grant the winning group the authority to act as a body legally capable of negotiating with Westminster as an equal partner with respect to a negotiated answer to the constitutional question.
READ MORE: Stephen Flynn to speak at major Glasgow rally against UK anti-strike bill
This being the case means that while there is likely to be an argument over the meaning of an outcome of the next Westminster General Election, it is absolutely impossible to infer any such meaning for the outcome of a Holyrood election.
Even if all 125,000 members of the SNP support the alternative route, i.e. using the Holyrood 2026 election as a “de facto referendum”, this represents the views of no more than 3% of the Scottish electorate. The other 97% of the electorate have a legally derived right to use the Holyrood election to appoint the group of MSPs who will manage the devolved powers. The winning party/s are obliged to govern the devolved functions and no single party resolution can change this, no matter how passionately the desire is expressed. To change the meaning of a vote for a Holyrood election would require a change to the devolution settlement which cannot happen without Westminster approval ... and the Supreme Court ruling makes it abundantly clear that this simply is not going to happen.
You could dissolve the Holyrood parliament monthly if you wished and whichever group was re-elected monthly would still carry the principal responsibility to manage the devolved powers, and there is absolutely no way of disaggregating the meaning of votes cast to show whether said vote was in support of independence or for a continuation of devolution as it stands.
As made clear by the Supreme Court ruling, the Holyrood parliament is a construct of a Westminster Act of Parliament. It is not a sovereign body. If it were, the SNP could disband. So let’s not assume that Holyrood can ever be the main route to independence.
A Westminster General Election is, however, entirely different. The SNP will never become the party of government for the whole UK.
Its MPs may choose to support a progressive government via a “supply and confidence” arrangement either formally or informally – or on an issue-by-issue basis – but SNP candidates will never be elected on the basis that they will hold an executive function.
They are elected – as, indeed, all Westminster MPs are – to represent the best interests of their constituents. It is easily arguable therefore that they would be doing exactly this by negotiating an independence settlement. It is thus entirely legitimate for the party (as distinct from the Holyrood Government) to make clear that their only manifesto commitment is the quest for independence.
The desire for an alternative to using the 2024 General Election, and perhaps every General Election, as the next step is incredibly difficult to understand.
There will be those who believe that the cause is lost without the support of 16 and 17-year-old or Europeans voters but this is just completely wrong-headed. To give some perspective, there are some 284,000 15 to 19-year-olds in Scotland against 713,000 who are 70 or older, whose votes are just as important.
We simply cannot assume that such a momentous change to the governance of the country can be sneaked over the line without the consensus of those who lose the argument based on cherry-picking the voting group. That’s what Westminster would attempt to do.
Frankly, if we are not able to convince the majority of Scots that self-government is better than the level of self-serving incompetence we have witnessed over the past 50 years … we don’t deserve to win. Time to decide is March 23. After that, the discussion is behind us – time for campaigning action.
Gus McSkimming
North Ayrshire
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here