As most readers will know, I'm a member of the Alba Party's NEC, but I'm not going to be churlish about this - Nicola Sturgeon's statement today at last contained the clarity that we've been crying out for ever since the Brexit referendum six long years ago. She'll try to hold a legal referendum on 19th October 2023, and if the Supreme Court strikes that down, she'll use the 2024 Westminster election as a de facto referendum by seeking an outright mandate for independence and NOT seeking yet another pointless mandate for a referendum. Substantively, that's what I've been calling for her to do for a few years, and what I used the Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase polls to establish that there was, indeed, public support for.
I might quibble about some of the details - I'm not sure about the wisdom of the Scottish Government effectively challenging its own referendum in court, even if that's just a procedural device to expedite an inevitable legal process, and I would have preferred a snap Holyrood election to be used as a plebiscitary election, because a Westminster campaign could easily be overwhelmed by UK-wide issues. But none of us were going to get every single detail of what we wanted. What's important is that we at last have a credible guarantee of a vote on independence in either 2023 or 2024 at the absolute latest.
So I'm more than happy to say it: well done, Nicola. You delayed for far, far longer than you should have done - this should have happened before Brexit, not after, but you've done the right thing in the end.
How would the plebiscite election work...most votes or most seats. Then what happens?
ReplyDeleteCan only be on seats, its an FPTP election
DeleteWhy does it being an FPTP election mean it "can only be on seats"?
DeleteBecause MPs get elected to the British Parliament by winning the MOST votes in a constituency. This doesn't even need to be a majority of all votes cast, just the greatest number. It is NOT a proportional representation system where the popular vote plays a part in deciding who gets elected.
DeleteA GE plebiscite would be aimed at securing a moral mandate, not a legal one. If >50% of people vote against independence, then of course there is no such moral mandate.
DeleteSturgeon clarified it today. Its percentage of the vote. What she didn't clarify was is it percentage of the vote for only the SNP or SNP/ Greens or all parties with the same manifesto commitment. It beats me how after all these years these " loose ends are left hingin aboot". Deliberate or lazy incompetence? Evidence that the secret plan was only concocted in recent times?
DeleteSturgeon did clarify it ... by contradicting Swinney! He said seats, she said votes. Which begs the question - Did the FM and Deputy FM even discuss it before her announcement?
DeleteAnd is it votes only or votes PLUS seats?
In her speech she talked about securing a majority at the UK GE for "my party" so I guess this excludes Greens, Alba, ISP et al.
Well, seems like finally it is has been decided that the issue will be forced one way or another and I am extremely happy about that.
ReplyDeleteI think it is the right thing for the SG to essentially ask the Supreme Court if it is within the Scottish Parliament's competence. And I think Sturgeon going beyond that and saying the SNP will fight the next Westminster GE on independence alone does go considerably further than what I expected.
My only real concern would be the timing of the next Westminster GE. If Boris decides, for example, that he wants a snap election later this year, then the SNP might well be stuffed - not knowing what the Supreme Court verdict is and on a timetable much earlier than its own intended for any "back-up" plebisicite election. Hopefully they've considered how they will position themselves if that happens.
But otherwise, this is what was needed. I think many will agree we could have got to this position years earlier if we wanted, but, nevertheless, we appear to be getting to where we should be.
Courts tend to do legal things and not intervene in politics if they can avoid it. I think the most likely outcome will be that the UK Supreme Court takes a similar position to that of the Canadian Supreme court when it was asked similar questions about Quebec see:
ReplyDeletehttps://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1643/index.do
The bit to look at is the final part of the judgement, para 148 onwards. Essentially, they say its a political decision not a legal one and, even if the parent state refuses to deal, independence can still come about through international recognition.
That's not going to be the outcome, because that's not the question the Supreme Court will be asked. They'll have to either block or give the green light to a specific piece of proposed legislation. I suppose there's a chance they might say it'll be legal with certain modifications, but that would be tantamount to a green light anyway.
DeleteThe conclusion reached by the Canadian Supreme Court wasn’t one of the three questions it was asked either
DeleteIt's just not a remotely comparable situation. The Canadian Supreme Court wasn't being asked about an imminently planned referendum. On this occasion, there'll have to be a clear-cut "yes" or "no", or a clear-cut "yes, with these specified modifications".
DeleteAs I am not a member of Alba or any political party I am happy to be the churlish ( realistic) one.
ReplyDeleteAll I heard was promises from a politician I have learned not to trust.
There is no date set in law for a referendum and there is no set date for the next UK GE. If the court says no then 19/10/2023 does not happen. Indeed if Johnston gets the boot soon and a new PM comes in and decides on an early UK GE it could potentially happen prior to any UK Supreme Court decision. What then? Wait till the next UK GE if the court says no.
The absolutely essential gold standard that Sturgeon once said was the only way has now been chucked in the bin.
Using an election which was also deemed to be not appropriate has now also been binned. The 2019 UK GE could have been used. The Scottish Parliament election in 2021 could have been used.
A UK court telling the people of Scotland whether it has the right to hold a referendum. Hardly the claim of right - more (to use nasty numpty Dr Jim's word) prostrating yourself before Westminster. English laws and English courts should have no say over Scottish rights to determine who governs us.
All of this approach could have happened years ago. Why now?
My trust in Sturgeon and her gang is not so easily regained.
"Indeed if Johnston gets the boot soon and a new PM comes in and decides on an early UK GE it could potentially happen prior to any UK Supreme Court decision."
DeleteThat's possible but so improbable that I'm not going to worry about it. Johnson may well be dislodged but it'll take a while, and even then it's doubtful a snap election would be held.
It's more probable than the current lot of MPs in Westminster voting for a sec 30 gold standard and that's the improbable scenario that Sturgeon, Blackford and the big dug have been punting for years.
DeleteBut she has said that if there were another referendum happening in October the same flawed franchise(local govt. franchise) would be used again.
ReplyDeleteGood! That's the correct franchise.
DeleteWGD nasty numpty Dr Jim forecast Sturgeon's speech would say this:-
ReplyDelete" If I were a betting man this is where I would put my money on Nicola Sturgeons legal argument that UN law must ultimately * trump * *English*
law as England is not a signatory to UN law and only the UK is so how is Scotland represented within a state (the UK) if that state is acting outwith its legal remit
I'm also betting that she has a big dod of a legal document saying so"
Now any normal reasonable person listening to Sturgeon's speech would rightly say none of Jimbo's forecast was in her speech. So I would give Jimbo zero out of ten for his forecast.
However, Jimbo gave himself seven out of ten. " Well, the FM chose the blackmail route so I can only give myself 7 out of 10.. " and that's why I call them numpties.
If it comes to a plebiscite election in 2024, will Alba and Scottish Greens step aside?
ReplyDeleteIf Yes parties get more than 50% of the vote they'll almost certainly win a majority of seats anyway.
DeleteIt should be vote for any pro-indy party. It will be based on popular vote, not seats. We've had >50% pro indy before, so it's doable.
DeleteIt won't be based on seats. It'll be based on popular vote. So a vote for any pro-indy party is a vote for YES. This is most fair and most likely to win. We've had >50% before for pro indy parties.
Delete