SOMETIMES it feels as if we are stuck going nowhere.
Last year, the UK Supreme Court put a block on the Scottish Government’s plans for a second independence referendum, holding that no authority to hold such a referendum exists under the Scotland Act.
Since then, there has been a scramble to find some other way of signalling the will of the Scottish people. Mainly the question has been whether to use a Holyrood or Westminster election as a trigger for independence.
It is perfectly legitimate to use a parliamentary majority as a way of indicating a mandate for independence. In many of the countries leaving London rule, no independence referendum was held. A pro-independence majority in the devolved legislature was enough. The British Government respected that mandate and acted accordingly.
Also, there are times when a single issue can dominate an entire election campaign, and the result of an election can deliver a clear message on that one issue.
However, the plan to use an election as a de facto referendum (“plebiscitary election” is more accurate) faces several problems. The first is that it relies on the premise that everyone who supports independence will vote SNP, and that the SNP vote is therefore a reliable proxy for the pro-independence vote.
We know that is not the case. There are SNP voters who are lukewarm on independence, but who believe they do a reasonably good job of running a devolved government. These people may be lost in such a vote. The timing is unfortunate. The SNP have been in government for a long time, which inevitably causes cracks to appear in their base of support.
Conversely, there are supporters of independence who have never supported the SNP, or who have become disillusioned with the party – and we cannot guarantee that these votes will rally to the call.
Moreover, the bounce in support for independence following the disastrous premiership of Liz Truss appears not to have been consolidated: people were open, and listening and ready to be convinced of the case for independence as the fragility of the UK’s institutions were starkly revealed, but we took the conversation into other areas and lost their interest.
As tactics go, it seems like a risky one.
The second problem is that the mandate that comes from having a pro-independence majority – not just in Holyrood or Westminster but in both Parliaments – has been in existence for a while. It has never been used. Why should it be different this time?
Perhaps these difficulties could be overcome if all the pro-independence parties could come together and put up one candidate in each constituency (for Westminster). They would stand not as SNP, Alba or Green candidates, but just as “pro-independence” candidates, on a common, minimum, manifesto which puts the demand for independence at its core. That would require maturity and a willingness to put differences aside for a greater cause.
The third problem is international recognition. If the UK Government does not respect the outcome of such a plebiscitary election, there can be no expectation that the international community will do so. Appeals to the United Nations will not get us anywhere.
The status of Scotland is a constitutional problem and needs a constitutional solution. We cannot rely on international law. We must rely on constitutional law. In a country without a written constitution, that means we must rely on changing legislation.
That way – through legislative reform – is proposed by Neale Hanvey MP, the Alba Party member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. Together with several other members, both Alba and SNP, Hanvey has introduced the Scotland (Self-Determination) Bill. This bill amends the Scotland Act to provide for an independence referendum to be held by the Scottish Parliament.
If passed, Scotland would then be in a position similar to Northern Ireland, with a right to a referendum enshrined by law. With an agreed and legitimate path to a referendum and to independence laid out, this would smooth negotiations with the British Government and make international recognition easier to achieve.
The challenge then is how to get the UK Parliament to pass that law. This is where the consolidated bloc for independence comes in. A pro-independence majority at the next Westminster election should not claim to be a mandate for independence, but rather – and more modestly – a mandate for the enactment of the Scotland (Self-Determination) Bill.
That should be the condition for engagement in any coalition or confidence-and-supply arrangement. More than that. Every speech, every question, should make that one single demand. Deafen and overwhelm them with it, day and night, until they concede.
Even better, unity around that bill need not be limited to the pro-independence camp. Every political party in Scotland, even if opposed to independence, should support the bill – if it is a democratic party and if it endorses (as Labour and the LibDems do) the Claim of Right.
Judith Reid from Chain of Freedom across Scotland is our next guest on the TNT show. Join us on Wednesday at 7pm on IndyLive
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel