Fiona Bruce claimed in her position as Question Time host on Thursday night that the 2014 independence referendum result had settled the issue for "twenty or thirty years". That is an outrageous comment that once again demonstrates that the BBC, as the state broadcaster of the United Kingdom, is institutionally incapable of reporting on the Scottish independence debate objectively or impartially. The BBC would actually do its viewers a much greater service if it would just drop the preposterous pretence of neutrality and instead openly own its unrelenting hostility to the principle of Scotland choosing its own governments. If you're hellbent on being Fox News, then be Fox News, but for pity's sake be honest about it so that the people in Scotland who are legally compelled by the United Kingdom government to fund you, on pain of court action and possible imprisonment, know exactly where they stand.
What Bruce was praying in aid, of course, was Alex Salmond's occasional statements in the run-up to 2014 that independence referendums were only likely to be held once in a generation. However, there are numerous problems for her and others who go down that road -
* Whenever he made the "generation" comment, Salmond always went out of his way to stress that he was merely expressing a "personal view". Check every interview in which the comment was made and you'll find exactly the same disclaimer. In other words it wasn't a statement of SNP policy or even of the Scottish Government's position, and it wasn't intended to bind his successors as First Minister or SNP leader. Indeed, he frequently made the point that it would be democratically impossible for him to bind his successors.
* If it had been the view of the Scottish Government and the UK Government that the 2014 referendum was supposed to settle the issue for a defined period of time, as Bruce alleges, that would have been set out in the Edinburgh Agreement between the two governments or in the legislation paving the way for the referendum. Bruce will search in vain for any such undertaking.
* It's extremely odd for Bruce and her fellow British Nationalist commentators to suggest that the
losing side in a referendum gets to determine the meaning of the result. Even if she genuinely thinks that Alex Salmond promised that the result would settle the matter for a generation (which he didn't), politicians are generally only held to their promises if they
win the vote. Salmond instead lost the vote "decisively" (the BBC used that word so often on 19th September 2014 that it was obvious an edict had gone out from on high), so what the hell does it matter what he said during the campaign? It's the promises made
by the No side that determine the meaning of the result - and No campaigners did not promise 'once in a generation'. They instead promised "The Vow", a near-federal system, continued membership of the European Union, HS2 in Scotland, economic stability, and no Boris Johnson in Downing Street. That's what No voters were voting in favour of, and as all of these promises and more were broken, it's scarcely unnatural that many people who now realise they were voting on a false prospectus wish to revisit their decision, and fully expect not to be denied that inalienable democratic right. (They certainly don't expect to be denied that right on the ludicrous basis that "the losing side in the referendum, you know, the side you voted against, made comments that we think should be interpreted as a promise that you will not be allowed to change your mind".)
* Perhaps most importantly, Salmond did not actually leave scope for people like Bruce to use their imaginations and define the highly ambiguous term "a generation" in any way that they pleased. He was absolutely explicit by what he meant and provided examples. Those examples were: a) the eighteen-year gap between the 1979 and 1997 devolution referendums in Scotland and Wales, b) the seventeen-year gap between the 1997 devolution referendum and the 2014 independence referendum, and c) the fifteen-year gap between the 1980 and 1995 sovereignty referendums in Quebec.
Twelve years have already passed since 2014, and crucially, John Swinney is not proposing a second indyref this year - 2028 is generally cited as his target date, by which time fourteen years will have passed. That's almost identical to the fifteen-year gap in Quebec offered by Salmond as one of the key examples of what he meant by "a generation".
Sorry, Fiona, but your favourite little get-out clause has already passed its sell-by date. "Once in a generation", RIP.
* Salmond always went out of his way when he made the 'once in a generation' comment to stress that he was merely expressing a "personal view". Check every interview in which he made the comment and you'll find exactly the same disclaimer. He made clear that he wasn't intending to bind his successors and that it was democratically impossible for him to do so.
