Jonathon Shafi: To put indy back on the table, let's talk about power

It was organised by Conter and initiated by Dr James Foley, author of numerous books on Scottish independence and leader of the Endure project.

As The National’s editor Laura Webster wrote yesterday, the hall was packed to capacity, with more than 200 people in attendance. Speakers included the likes of Costas Lapavitsas and Professor David McCrone alongside a range of academics, economists and campaigners.

READ MORE: How artists and creators helped to shape the 2014 Yes campaign

Sessions went into detail on Scotland’s role in the world, nationalism, geopolitics and economics. John Curtice gave an animated seminar on public attitudes in Scotland too.

The event was designed to address the situation critically: This was not a rally for reminiscing the halcyon days of 2014. Far less was this an attempt to launch a new independence campaign. Instead, the purpose was to carry out a serious post-mortem of the referendum and its aftermath.

Having written extensive critiques of the SNP leadership, and more generally about the structural difficulties the remnants of the independence movement face, a very fair question is put in response. It is one which could have been posed to the conference organisers too. What is your solution?

There are two answers to this, in my estimation. First, and most obvious, is that we cannot hope to solve the problems in front of us if we are asking the wrong questions, or burying heads in the sand about the material reality we inhabit.

In other words, critical analysis is in and of itself intrinsic to moving the discussion as a whole forward. The second, and more difficult response, is that there is no solution available in the foreseeable future. That is to say, there is no scheme we can easily concoct that could tangibly alter the existing circumstances to the degree required for it to be credibly labelled “the solution.”

The SNP leadership say that the case must be won among the Scottish people, in order to raise the support for independence. But their prospectus is shoddy, and even they must privately concede that they are not ready to lead the formation of a new state, despite having had 10 years to iron out the glaring programmatic inconsistencies in the official case.

Moreover, this is a party in a phase of decline, and is hardly best placed to lead the charge at this point in history. Then, you have Alex Salmond’s approach, which appears to be to turn the 2026 Scottish elections into a mechanism through which the electorate can express their support for Scottish autonomy.

READ MORE: The Wee Blue Book: 'Conspiracy theories' or Yes campaign's secret weapon?

Should they do so, “that will be the mandate for independence,” Salmond argues. That, it seems to me, has more to do with building a platform for, and momentum behind, Alba, given the next Holyrood ballot is make or break for the fledgling party.

Either way, there is a recognition that the referendum route is closed, for the time being. During a spirited debate at the weekend’s conference, I asked the audience if they believed an independence referendum was on the cards over the next decade. A couple of people put their hands up in a packed auditorium.

Across the movement, and indeed across Scottish society, very few believe this is a likely scenario. It would take the permission of the UK Government, precipitated by a strong pro-independence majority in Holyrood, combined with irreverent leadership and a mobilised population.

So let’s not be whimsical. The referendum, as experienced in 2014, is not coming back.

But let’s also briefly travel back to that period, and remember what was so special about it. Those years were not defined by a dry debate about constitutional preferences.

The referendum, and the Yes campaign, became a lightning rod for a wider set of issues, ranging from foreign policy to austerity.

This movement was, notably, less about national identity and more about class issues and democracy. People, many for the first time, felt a real sense of political agency over their future.

For once, that it was possible to strike back and for their actions to be truly meaningful. Especially in areas which have been marginalised and known for lower voter turnouts. Unlike an election, where parties compete around a fairly narrow consensus, this was something far more era-defining, and orders of magnitude more disruptive to the status quo. It is that feeling, that energy, that we need back in Scotland.

READ MORE: The rise of the blogs: How the referendum changed media habits

My contention, and disagreement and debate on this is more than welcome, is that these energies will not be reanimated through the national question in the years ahead. Just as they have not been for some time now.

Other venues and issues will need to be taken up with dynamic and popular campaigns constructed around them. We need big initiatives of poverty, land, ownership and much else.

People with different views on independence, or indeed with diverging theories as to how independence might be achieved, can come together in the here and now to assert extra-parliamentary strategies which can make an impact on a Scottish Parliament which is clearly out of ideas. That can rekindle the kind of self-organisation and grassroots politics we saw in 2014.

The independence cause cannot be rebuilt with the existing forces and leadership it has at its disposal. But a revitalisation of class and social movement politics can open up new discussions about power, who has it, and who doesn’t.

Crucially, this approach can arrest the slide to passivity, demoralisation and deepening alienation from all politics. This, even if you disagree with the overall thrust of the argument, would be time well spent.