Sunday, July 3, 2022

Persuading the SNP leadership of the need for a Plan B is a triumph for the independence movement - we now need to park our cynicism and make this work

I've been astonished by some of the reactions on social media to the prospect of a plebiscite election in 2024 - and when I say 'astonished', I don't just mean that I disagree with the reactions, I mean that I'm genuinely surprised.  For years we've been begging the SNP leadership to commit themselves to a credible Plan B in the event of an ongoing rejection of a Section 30 order, but I was very, very sceptical that we'd ever be able to persuade them to do that.  If you'd asked me two weeks ago whether I thought Nicola Sturgeon would unambiguously commit herself to using the 2024 Westminster election as a de facto plebiscite if a consultative referendum in 2023 was blocked, I'd have said that was very unlikely.

Having got so much of what we wanted, against all the odds, I'd have thought we would then have all fallen over ourselves to smooth the path towards a plebiscite election (should the Supreme Court ruling go the wrong way).  Instead, there's been endless chatter on Twitter about using a plebiscite election to take on the SNP and to have as many pro-independence parties and candidates standing against each other as humanly possible.  With all due respect to the otherwise sensible people saying this stuff, it's absolutely bats**t crazy.  As the Alba Party leader Alex Salmond has made clear in his statement, the objective has to be for us all to unite behind a single pro-independence candidate in each constituency.  The first-past-the-post voting system will punish us heavily if we don't - a factor which is more important in a plebiscite election, not less so.

I think what's probably going on here is that some people have become so alienated from the SNP that they're finding it emotionally impossible to imagine being required to vote SNP to deliver independence.  So they're casting around for plausible-sounding reasons why it would somehow be helpful to have multiple pro-indy parties directly battling against each other in a plebiscite election - but, of course, it really, really wouldn't be.  One common argument is that seats don't matter this time - all we need is 50% + 1 in the popular vote, and it therefore doesn't matter if we lose seats by splitting the Yes vote.  By having multiple Yes parties to choose from, it is said, we would actually boost the combined vote for Yes parties, because there are supposedly people who would never vote SNP, but would vote Alba or Green.

Well, there are two answers to that.  Firstly, seats do matter.  We can undermine a mandate on the popular vote by needlessly throwing seats away, and we can buttress the mandate by maximising the number of pro-indy seats.  But more importantly, the idea that you increase the pro-indy vote by having multiple candidates to choose from is completely misconceived, because it looks at the problem from the wrong way round.  A single-issue election means exactly what it says - the objective is to convert voters to independence, to get them excited about it, and then to direct them to the option on the ballot paper that will deliver it, whether that be a Yes alliance, or the SNP on their own, or whatever.  If you try to squeeze out an extra 0.5% here or there by saying (for example) "here's an independence option for people who dislike Sturgeon's neoliberalism", it's fool's gold because you're undermining the clarity of the single issue message.

I'm not going to rehearse this point endlessly, though - there's no need to, because I'm actually pretty confident that common sense will prevail and we'll all be getting behind a single slate of candidates in any plebiscite election.  As I've said a few times, the trickiest part of the equation will probably be the two constituencies where Alba have the incumbent MPs.  Common sense would suggest that the SNP should give the incumbents a clear run (as the Liberal Democrats did with the remaining SDP MPs at the 1992 general election), but we know that the SNP have long since abandoned common sense and reason in their attitudes to the Alba Party.  However, even in those two constituencies, I believe the problem will somehow resolve itself, even if it's not yet clear how.  There's a tremendous incentive for the independence movement to clear the path towards victory.

The above is typical of the more negative reactions to my blogpost yesterday.  "It doesn't matter what the SNP have committed themselves to, we can't trust anything they say, this is just a way of getting Pete Wishart another five years at Westminster to do sod all".  Well, frankly, if we're quite as cynical as that, what was the point of pressuring the SNP to adopt this new strategy?  We might as well have just packed up and gone home several years ago, because although the pressure can come from the grassroots and other parties, it's only the SNP leadership who can actually deliver what we want, and we've known that all along.  If we were ever going to achieve our objective, we were always bound to arrive at this moment where a leap of faith is required.  Yes, the SNP could just pocket a mandate at a plebiscite election and do nothing much with it apart from Mr Wishart getting even more comfy in his slippers.  But if you think about it, exactly the same could be true of a consultative referendum.  The important thing is that we've finally persuaded the SNP to decouple the problem of legally securing a mandate for independence from the problem of legally securing independence itself.  We now have a golden opportunity to secure the mandate, and we need to make damn sure we actually do that.  If we succeed, it's possible we may subsequently need to hold the SNP's feet to the fire as far as using the mandate is concerned - but that's a battle for the future.  First things first.

17 comments:

  1. Now the Wee Alba Book Tour poster for the event in Melrose has been mass reported to Facebook and suspended.
    You know, that's a pity because I hoped Skier would attend to confirm his biographical details.
    But he would have needed not to be caught short as The Toilet Inspectors would have been in attendance. And they wouldn't have stood for his dribble.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does show that these people have no intention of working with the wider yes movement despite James' appeal to reason. How have we come to this? I despair.

      Delete
  2. James, I commented yesterday that Westminster seats were irrelevant because once independent we are done with Westminster. With hindsight I can see how that comment would have been misinterpreted and might have contributed to the necessity of your post above. What I meant was that as an Alba member, I felt safe voting SNP in a plebiscite since winning the seat would hopefully be irrelevant and the SNP incumbent would soon be giving it up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nice one James. It's now time to fight for, and build, a proper United Front for independence.
    Our local model is to encourage as many pro indy groups as possible to have side by side tables on our town centre, stall events. On Saturday we started with two or three - YES and SNP tables with a tee shirt representling English Scots for YES.
    As momentum builds we hope to involve for example, Women, Alba, Greens etc etc. This will show our diverse, democratic strength and put down a marker for the active, multiparty, new democracy that it is our aim to establish in the new Scotland.
    Reject self defeating political sectarianism - unity in action for our legitimate, national self determination !

    ReplyDelete
  4. Seems like a good summary to me James, thanks.
    Intrigued to know if we are committed to the 50%+1 voting requirement already? Is that generally accepted? I was very happy with the idea of majority of seats.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think there's a general acceptance that we can't become independent if most people in Scotland don't want it.

      Delete
  5. Why are certain members of the SNP and Greens so against Alba? Surely we all need to unite now? To not like the party is one thing, but to go out of one's way to thwart, even destroy, is quite another. Its time the high head yins in the SNP and Greens put a stop to this vindictive, foot shooting nonsense and graciously accept the olive branch? Hopefully they are not behind this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I will never be conned by a Sturgeon led SNP again. NEVER! They are not going to fight for Scotland. They are only interested in keeping Power.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As an ex-SNP member of over 40 years, now joined Alba, I can understand the cynicism towards the SNP's motives. I share it.

    However, if we do get either an IndyRef or a plebiscite election, and lost, and I felt I had not done everything in my power to secure success, I would never be able to forgive myself.

    If that means being used cynically by the SNP for their own purposes, again, then I'm big enough to withstand that. That would be their betrayal, not mine!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SNP will fragment after independence, no political party will be the same. Even the Tories will be different. Independence is the goal, it all changes after that.

      Delete
  8. Can we have a uk election now and call it a plebiscitary referendum? Bit troubled by the idea of suddenly having a uk election and us letting the opportunity go by…

    ReplyDelete
  9. The improbability of a new PM calling a UK GE before the UK Supreme Court ruling is looking less improbable at this moment.

    However, the more important info for Scottish independence is what is said in the Lord Advocates letter to the UK Supreme court. First of all the Lord Advocate gives the impression she would not deem the Scottish Parliament as having the power to hold a referendum on Independence. Secondly, and more importantly, the Lord Advocate also says the Scottish Government does not believe it has the power to dissolve the Union.

    So even if a yes vote is obtained either through a UK Supreme Court approved referendum or through a UK GE the Scottish Government believe it is impotent to actually end the Union.

    Also the UK Gov can at any time pass a law that makes any actions of the Scottish Government unlawful. So trying to obtain independence by adhering to the law of the country wanting to hold you in bondage is not wanting to obtain independence.

    In summary, this lot in charge of the SNP are impotent full stop. A bunch of bloody devolutionalists that will never deliver independence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have not been able to read the Lord Advocate's letter but this is worrying. Every move they make seems to surrender our autonomy.

      Delete
  10. It looks like NS will need a Plan C now, James. One can but hope that the current events unfolding have been factored in and tested already. If not, were in trouble. We want a proper reaction, Nicola, not another soundbite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see how it makes enough difference to justify "we're in trouble", unless there's a snap election, which is still a long shot.

      Delete
  11. There's nothing new in the Lord Advocate's letter that wasn't already known, it's only the media repackaging the same news to their union advantage and hoping folk will fall for it as some kind of disaster, which it isn't

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous - as the party of Scottish independence the SNP are the disaster.

      Delete