It recently became clear that the Tories' intention to use photo ID as a vote-rigging exercise was becoming even more blatant, with a list of 'acceptable ID' including items that are only used by older people, and excluding items that are only or predominantly used by younger people. The main purpose of this is to benefit the Tories at the expense of Labour, but of course it also has a major side-effect on any electoral battle over independence - which is overwhelmingly supported by younger people but overwhelmingly opposed by older people. It's surely a no-brainer that we should avoid walking needlessly into such an obvious trap, and that for any plebiscite vote we should use an election where this considerable new disadvantage will not apply.
To sum up, here is a list of the disadvantages of using a Westminster election as a plebiscite vote:
1) Voter ID rules will be in force, which will see potentially large numbers of pro-independence young voters turned away from the polling stations.
2) People aged 16 and 17, who are assumed to be predominantly pro-independence, will be barred from voting.
3) EU citizens, who are assumed to have swung heavily from No to Yes as a result of Brexit, will be barred from voting (with the exception of Irish, Cypriot and Maltese citizens, who qualify due to their countries being former London colonies).
4) The pro-independence message risks being lost in the noise of the wider battle for power at Westminster between the Tories and Labour.
5) The novelty of the prospect of the first Labour government for fourteen years could entice some independence supporters to move back to Labour from the SNP at the worst possible moment.
6) Based on precedents from 2017 and 2019, it's likely that at least some TV leaders' debates will be broadcast without featuring a single pro-independence (or even Scottish) voice.
7) The election will be conducted by first-past-the-post, which creates a vote-splitting minefield if smaller pro-indy parties insist on putting up candidates directly against the SNP.
And on the other hand, here is a list of the disadvantages of using a snap Holyrood election instead:
1) Voters might not like being asked to vote in an 'unnecessary' early election.
And that's it. I don't in any way dispute that the above is a factor that needs to be considered, but the idea that it outweighs all of the massive disadvantages of using a Westminster election is, I think, pretty hard to sustain. If the Supreme Court ruling goes the wrong way tomorrow, it would be the ideal moment for Nicola Sturgeon to announce that, on reflection, she has decided to use a snap Holyrood election in 2023 as a de facto referendum on independence.
* * *
Make no mistake - tomorrow will be one of the most important days in Scottish history. If it unfolds in the way we think it will, it's the day we'll discover that the UK is a prison rather than a voluntary union, and that Scotland is essentially a colony which lacks any means of even expressing a democratic wish to govern itself without 'permission' from London. The BBC and other components of the unionist media will, naturally, be hellbent on downplaying the significance of the moment by portraying the ruling as a dry, routine, administrative matter, so it's up to us to make it as hard as possible to pass unnoticed. If you are able to do so, I strongly urge you to attend one of the protests tomorrow.
* * *
There are plenty of other specific criticisms of BBC Scotland in The National and other pro-indy media that are completely ignored by the BBC. The obvious suspicion is that generally the BBC think they have no credible defence and this is a rare exception.https://t.co/I4m8W80Rw2
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 22, 2022
* * *
If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue, donations are welcome HERE.
The information in that ERS piece is properly shocking.
ReplyDeleteI will apply for a postal and just hand it in to the polling station on the day.
ReplyDeleteTrouble is: the court judgement is coming much earlier than anticipated. It’s very likely they have taken the easy way out and dismissed the case on procedural grounds, as they did for Keatings.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thenational.scot/politics/23136893.yes-no-maybe--supreme-court-ruling-will-play/
We’ll know soon enough, and I’ll be at Holyrood in any case, but my money’s on a Maybe from the court and the ball back with Nicola to pass the damn bill before the court will reconsider it.
Even with haste, that blows 2023 off the calendar and we’re tumbling into Starmergeddon by the time we have something for the Scottish people to have their say upon. An all too plausibly ideal scenario to walk back the whole plebiscite election concept, as many of us have already said.
There should have been a hell of a lot more wood behind this arrow from the start.
I'm far from convinced it's going to be a Maybe. I think a flat rejection is by far the most likely outcome. But if by any chance it's a Maybe, that would actually be a good result - logically it would force Nicola Sturgeon to somehow pass a Referendum Bill, even if that means a new Lord Advocate, or a sudden U-turn from Dorothy Bain. I can't see how Ms Sturgeon can just do nothing having come this far.
DeleteI’m not a pathological Sturgeon hater, like some bathers, as I respect just how much she’s come to dominate Scottish politics and become the face of our nation. “She had a great pandemic” as the media might say; which remains the high tide line for Indy polling. But there’s no denying just how skilled she is at sitting resolutely still for independence. If she fires the starting gun for anything tomorrow, I’ll be delighted and dazzled. It’s so contrary to everything she’s done for years now that I’d be astonished. It wouldn’t even compute. Don’t make me get my hopes up!
DeleteLike so many of us, I’ve been waiting for Nicola to take us forward since Brexit night in 2016. All this waiting—with dismally poor messaging to her own footsoldiers—is what’s made us so cranky and disunited. Tomorrow is “Judgement Day” as the (serially premature) National is saying. But the judgement is hers.
If ever The National should take off their paywall, it should be the link James lists in "If you are able to do so, I strongly urge you to 'link - attend one of the protests -' tomorrow". So short sighted
ReplyDeleteSorry, I forgot about the paywall problem. If anyone has a link to a list of protest events that isn't behind a paywall, let me know.
DeleteTimeforscotland dot scot has a list of events
DeleteYou’re complete right James. If Nicola goes for a pleb on the general she’s lost the plot. But if she does change to the Scottish election that’s actually the best case scenario. Even better than if we had said Scot Election In the first place. Start out talking about the general to look more ‘legit’ in the eyes of the media, but now we must change as they are rigging the vote against the working class. That’s a powerful message.
ReplyDeleteLet’s just hope she sees sense.
I hope this doesn't come across as too "ackchyually", but elections to Holyrood are "general elections" just as much as elections to Westminster are. For some reason it's become widespread to use the term only for WM, which makes Scottish elections seem a bit "pretendy".
DeleteSturgeon has been asking for a mandate for a referendum over many elections. She got it on many occasions. But now she says she was asking the Scottish electorate to approve doing something she did not know was legal or not. She even argued against The UK Supreme Court making such a judgement in the Martin Keating case that could have given her clarity years ago. She also appointed a Lord Advocate to her cabinet that thought it was illegal to have a referendum but the same Lord Advocate was happy to get rid of jury trials for sex offender cases.
ReplyDeleteThe actions of a serious independence leader. I think not.
We are on the road to nowhere
A couple of other disadvantages of using a Scottish election spring to mind. If the SNP stand on a single-issue independence ticket, and win most seats but without a popular majority, the government would have been elected without a mandate for any actual policies. Would we have to have another, non-plebiscite, election immediately afterwards, or what?
ReplyDeleteAlso, it could produce an ambiguous result if Yes gets a majority on the constituency vote but not on the list, or vice versa.
While your argument that Holyrood elections should now be the vehicle for independence it ignores the fact that the supreme Court ruling effectively means that only Westminster and Westminster alone has the power to grant or even consider granting Scotland independence, therefore only by making a vote for Westminster representation a plebiscite on independence will Scotland be able to claim the mandate for independence under this ruling although in reality that still depends on the whim of the English Government
ReplyDelete