Tuesday, June 28, 2022

The practical implications of using the 2024 general election as a de facto independence referendum

There's one caveat that needs to be placed on my two previous posts from earlier today, which relates to the fact that the referendum legislation the Scottish Government are referring to the Supreme Court specifies that the question would be exactly the same one that was asked in 2014, ie. 'Should Scotland be an independent country?"  Since the outset of devolution in 1999, it's been widely felt that a referendum held without Westminster's consent would have the best chance of being legal if it asked a more indirect question about whether the Scottish Government should open independence negotiations with Westminster.  The fact that Nicola Sturgeon is very deliberately spurning that tactic makes it look as if she's actually trying to maximise the chances of the Supreme Court rejecting the legislation.  I would be incredibly cynical about that if she hadn't so firmly committed herself to the Plan B of a plebiscitary election in 2024.  Nevertheless, it's legitimate to ask questions about why the SNP leadership now seem to actively prefer a plebiscitary election to a legal referendum, given that they've spent several years lecturing us that a legal referendum is the only viable way of achieving independence.

The explanation is, as ever, likely to be bound up in the SNP's own partisan interests, and I'm wondering if they fear a Scottish Labour surge at the general election if it looks like Starmer could become Prime Minister.  They may have calculated that turning the election into a de facto referendum is the best way of ensuring that Yes supporters don't drift off to Labour.  It resolves the 'Cat Boyd Paradox', ie. the problem of left-wing Yes supporters who seem to sincerely believe that voting Labour at a general election is not irreconcilable with their backing for indy.

I've always said that there are dangers in using a Westminster election, rather than a Holyrood election, as a de facto referendum, because it's harder to control the narrative - we have a London dominated media that will always tell us UK elections are about UK-wide issues.  That may explain why pro-indy parties in combination won an absolute majority in the Holyrood list vote last year, but not at the Westminster election in 2019.  But let's accentuate the positive - there has been one occasion in the past when Yes parties won more than 50% of the vote at a Westminster election, so that shows it can be done in theory.  It happened in 2015 in the very special post-indyref atmosphere, and it may well be that a plebiscitary election is a potential way of recreating that atmosphere.

I would imagine it's also occurred to the SNP that even if Yes parties fall short of a popular vote majority, they can still win a majority of seats with the help of first-past-the post.  That would allow them to muddy the waters with a 'contested mandate'.  The biggest threat to a majority in terms of seats would be a formal unionist electoral pact - but I just can't see that happening, because it would be tantamount to a unionist concession that the election is functioning as an independence referendum.

One obvious practical issue is what the non-SNP pro-indy parties will do at the 2024 election.  The SNP are in coalition with the Greens, so those two parties will undoubtedly have already nailed things down between them.  I hope to goodness there's no electoral pact allowing the Greens a clear run in one or two constituencies, because there are plenty of people who would vote SNP but would never vote Green. From a popular vote perspective, we can't afford to squander those votes.  

As far as my own party Alba are concerned, we're all still processing today's announcement, but it's pretty much inconceivable that we would do anything to impede a serious attempt by the SNP to secure an outright independence mandate - exactly what we've been begging them to do from the start.  So I would imagine we'd end up backing the SNP in the vast majority of constituencies.  The only real question mark would be over the two constituencies in which Alba currently have the incumbent MPs.  There will be considerable thought on the latter point, I'm sure, but I'm very confident that any decision will be taken with the best interests of the independence cause in mind, rather than the partisan interests of the Alba Party.

14 comments:

  1. What happens if the Westminster election is held before Oct 2023?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Supreme Court ruling will be long before then.

      Delete
    2. Good point. What if the Supreme Court says you can but the question needs to be less direct e.g. ‘should the Scottish government engage in cessation talks with the UK government?’

      Delete
    3. The Supreme Court will bounce it straight back to ScotGov (which they KNOW, or if they don't then they're incompetent) on the basis that they can't make a ruling on speculative legislation.

      Common sense really - how can a court make a ruling on legislation which hasn't even been written yet?

      That'll take up the rest of 2022.

      By the time ScotGov have actually published the proposed legislation and the Supreme Court accepts the case it'll be early 2023 - far too late to organise any referendum in October 2023..

      Johnson will go for an early election - he won't have any choice as even the spineless tory party will have got rid of him by 2024.

      So that'll be it until 2027/2028 as the SNP appear to have ruled out using the Holyrood elections as a plebiscite - which would have been a far better solution as its not FPTP.

      She's played you all for fools again.

      Delete
  2. How long will it take the so-called supreme court to come to a decision?

    ReplyDelete
  3. It would have been useful if Sturgeon had put a bit more meat on the bones of the plebiscitary part - it was mentioned but not hugely in detail. Obviously it's some way down the line if it ever comes to pass, but it was a significant statement to give to not really follow up on it properly

    On Holyrood versus Westminster for the location there's pros and cons of both. For WM the main con to me is that it wouldn't be a wider Yes movement campaign, it would ultimately be a campaign led for and run by the SNP, for the SNP. At Holyrood there would have been much more scope to make it about multiple pro-indy parties. The pro would be as you say in just FPTP terms winning an election comfortably in pure seat terms is much easier.

    I'd be surprised if the SNP explicitly set out what the terms of "victory" in a plebiscite would be. And why would you? If the SNP won 57 out of 59 seats on, say, an average of 47% of the vote (just purely hypothetical) on a manifesto of purely and solely independence, that'd seem a pretty convincing victory, even if it didn't break the 50% of all votes threshold. Majority of seats as the benchmark and then anything beyond that as a bonus.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that using a UKGE does have its advantages. It probably mobilises both Welsh and Irish nationalists into the debate, and this makes the Union and how the UK is governed as the central issue.

    If the Union is the central issue then that forces both the tories and Labour Party to engage with their vision for the future. In the case of Labour they'd be forced to define federalism and this I suspect would be attacked by the Tories, who are now an English nationalist party (as they are accused by John Major, Chris Patton and others). From a Tory perspective they too would have their divisions on the Union. These would be those who thought that the Irish, Welsh and Scots are sponging subsidy junkies who need cast off to allow England a free Brexit, and those who would seek to shut down the upstart provinces. Those Tories who were prepared to countenance a reformed Union would in fact be few. Remember also that more than half of Tories said that the end of the Union was a price worth paying for Brexit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well said, James. Unlike others you've been consistent on this throughout.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, based on the email I just got from the SNP, it's very much a "we're having a referendum and the campaign starts now" message.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As it will be known well before October 2023 whether a referendum will be held, I would have preferred the tactic of Sturgeon declaring her resignation as FM on (say) October 1st, prevent the election of a successor for 28 days and force a Holyrood election immediately. Thursday 30 November, St. Andrew’s Day would be perfect for a quick campaign before Westminster and their allies in broadcasting and the media can frame the narrative to their agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great post, James.

    ReplyDelete
  9. WHATS CHANGED

    1. Using a UK election to produce a vote for Scottish independence is now acceptable to Sturgeon. No mention of the validity of using a Holyrood election.

    2. The gold standard sec 30 is now just preferable but not essential.

    2. Sturgeon previously said there would be a referendum next Autumn but only if it is lawful. The main change is that she has passed the responsibility for deciding whether it goes ahead to the UK Supreme Court. The court created by that ultra Britnat, and by definition, liar, Tony Blair. So there is no guarantee of a referendum next year. The big if and but have been revealed. We do now have a provisional date and a provisional wording for the question. Note to the numpties, particularly Dr Jim, a date includes the year month and day.

    4. If a referendum is ruled out by Westminster's refusal of a sec30 and the UK Supreme Court says it is beyond the competence of the Scottish Parliament then Sturgeon promises that the next UK GE will be used as defacto referendum.

    In summary, there is no guarantee of anything just Sturgeon's promises. So Sturgeon did have a secret plan after all and Russell's plan clearly was mince. How much weight you put on this secret plan working will depend on each individual's personal view of how trustworthy they believe Sturgeon to be. Numpties will be like members of their own glee club, others will be more wary.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's all a facade. The Supreme Court will support Westminster and Sturgeon has already sold the game by talking about 'illegal' referenda, so no indyref in 2023. No attempt to force an early Holyrood pleb election either (why not?). So it's on to a Westminster pleb election in 2024 and five years of drawn-out negotiations (remember Brexit) to repeal the union and that's assuming we win in the first place. Another five years of 'nationalist' mps filling their snouts at the Westminster trough while we all grow old and die. Once in a generation right enough!

      Delete
  10. Another excellent article James! May I recommend to some of those making earlier comments on James’s blog the one by Craig Murray “Don’t Look Back in Anger” who has more reason than probably anyone else to distrust Nicola Sturgeon et al.

    ReplyDelete