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