Wednesday, November 23, 2022

Thoughts on Nicola Sturgeon's statement: the strong reaffirmation that an election will now be used as a referendum was excellent, but it remains very hard to understand why she isn't considering using a snap Holyrood election

I've just watched Nicola Sturgeon's statement in response to the Supreme Court verdict. I was waiting to be either outraged or extremely heartened, but in the end I was neither.  It was the quintessential curate's egg of a statement - very good in parts, but with some puzzling and worrying elements.  The good in it was that she reiterated that she planned using an election as a "de facto referendum" with the "intent of achieving independence" - that's actually a much, much stronger form of words than Angus Robertson's virtually meaningless "independence will be the key issue in the election".  (Obviously I have no idea what is going on at the top of the SNP, but one possible explanation is that there's a rift between Ms Sturgeon and Mr Robertson on the issue of a plebiscite election, with Mr Robertson not being sold on the plan - that would be consistent with him bizarrely negating the entire concept in his remarks to France 24 a few weeks ago.)

I was a bit troubled by Ms Sturgeon's announcement that there would now be an intensive campaign on the issue of democracy rather than independence itself.  It's not that I don't think the issue of democracy is vitally important or that I'm not outraged that the Supreme Court have admitted that the UK is not a voluntary union - it's just that I worry that 'a campaign for democracy' potentially sounds very much like the tired, failed old strategy of saying "this is totally unsustainable, of course Theresa May/Boris Johnson/Liz Truss/Rishi Sunak will have to give us a Section 30 if we get yet another mandate - this time (for no immediately apparent reason) it's going to be completely different".  But in fairness to her she went on to make clear that Scotland needed independence because it's now been established that we can't have democracy as part of the UK.  So if she's just talking about a campaign for democracy as a component part of a campaign to win a majority for independence in a plebiscite election, I have no great objection to that.

But of course the real problem with what she said is that she's sticking to her insistence that the next Westminster election, rather than an early Holyrood election, has to be the plebiscite election - in spite of all the obvious disadvantages of doing it that way (16 and 17 year olds can't vote, EU citizens can't vote, photo ID rules will disenfranchise pro-indy voters disproportionately, pro-independence voices will be totally excluded from TV leaders' debates, etc, etc).  There was a key exchange with the BBC's James Cook in which he put to her that some of her own supporters are concerned that 50%+ of the vote will not to be attainable at the election because voters will not perceive it as a real vote on independence, and her response was that if you recognise political reality, you have to understand that you can't have independence without a majority of people voting for it.  

Now, I actually agree with her on that.  And it's not a statement of the obvious for me to say so, because it means I disagree with the official position of my own party (Alba), which insists - for reasons I greatly struggle with - that a majority of seats won on a minority of the vote should be sufficient.  But it was still rather disingenuous of her to make that point in response to Cook's question, because the concern of her internal critics is not that 50%+ for independence is not achievable in itself, but instead that it may not be achievable in the specific arena of a Westminster election, where the independence issue will be totally swamped by media coverage of the Tory v Labour battle for power in London.  The point that the critics are making is that we should be seeking a mandate in the home fixture of an early Holyrood election, not the away fixture of a Westminster election. 

I can only think of three possible reasons why she is so hellbent on using a Westminster election, and none of them are great.  Firstly, she emphasised that she wanted to use the earliest "scheduled election", so it may simply be that her notorious over-caution is preventing her from even considering the obvious option of a non-scheduled Holyrood election.  Secondly, she could be worried about the danger of losing the pro-independence majority at Holyrood if a plebiscite election goes particularly badly - but, if so, that's an obvious nonsense, because there's no point in having a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament if we don't use it to maximise the chances of achieving independence itself.  And thirdly, she could have in mind that the next Westminster election is shaping up to be particularly tricky for the SNP, and that galvanising the independence movement behind her in a plebiscite election is the best way of holding SNP seats against the Labour tide.  If it's party advantage rather than the independence cause she has in mind, that really would be unforgivable.  But I hope that's not the case, and I hope to be reassured it's not the case as this process unfolds.

One thing we did learn is that there will be a special SNP conference early next year to discuss the precise terms of the plebiscite election, and I very much hope thoughtful delegates will at least try to put a switch to using a snap Holyrood election on the agenda.  This has to be about what's best for Scotland and the cause of independence, not about party interest.

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue, donations are welcome HERE.

29 comments:

  1. NS will be unlikely to go for a Holyrood plebiscitary election, as it would give Alba a cast iron argument for voting for them on the list to ensure a Nationalist majority. She would argue, that would "muddy the waters" for achieving a clear Independence mandate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would there be more of a "cast iron" reason to vote for Alba on the list in a plebiscite election, where it's votes than count, than in a normal one where it's about seats?

      Delete
  2. I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong. Never thought the supremes had the stones to tell it to us straight. Quite impressed with them, in fact, doing so quickly and in unanimity just to rub it in. No surrender to the seps!

    Honestly thought they’d drag this out till Christmas to keep us muted, or throw us the confusion of a Maybe: try again.

    He ball is definitely in Nicola’s court now. Keenly important to her and us will be Indy polling showing any movement in our direction. Lots of us like to say that a No ruling today would convince more Scots to our cause, but that remains to be demonstrated. People have their head and heart reasons to oppose independence as well. The numbers should be fascinating.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Agree with all the points you made yesterday on the rationale for a Holyrood GE plebiscite rather than a UK GE plebiscite. They're all unarguable and I know that many others feel the same way, and have done for some time. I only differ on the timing, other than to say Oct 2023 is still achievable - in fact only achievable - through a Holyrood route. We'll see what happens at the special conference of course, but this route simply has to be on the table.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sturgeon first mooted an independence refrerendum in 2017. She had plenty time to establish the legality or not of a non sec 30 Referendum . Six years later her one achievement on independence is to establish the Scottish gov cannae hold one without Englands permission.

    So the way forward is a UK GE de facto referendum that stacks the deck against a yes vote and discriminates against EU citizens, 16/17 year olds and anyone who cannae afford photo ID. What a brilliant result Sturgeon.
    Is this what is called being a successful independence leader in Scotland. Sturgeon has had plenty of time to sort out the details of how this would work - where is it?

    Sturgeon is a complete time waster and a modern day Toom Tabard.

    We are on the road to nowhere with this so called leadership.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think that a Westminster election is the better choice for a de fact referendum. If we use Holyrood then the accusation of forgetting to do the day job will be levelled at the Scottish government. Also what happens if we have a positive result ( more than 50% of votes cast)? In a Holyrood election we will the same mandate as today and a country to run. In a Westminster election we can refuse to take part or disrupt the parliament.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymite, the day job is supposed to be Scottish independence. Blackford could have disrupted Westminster today.

      Delete
    2. Her job is not convince you to vote for independence, it is to convince the majority of Scotland. Allowing Scotland to descend into a Northern Ireland type farce with no functioning government would not help that aim at all.

      Delete
    3. More anonymite nonsense. How does MPs leaving Westminster stop a devolved government in Edinburgh from functioning?

      Delete
  6. For a woman who likes reflecting on things maybe it's time she took a good look in the mirror. Salmond has it right - a bad gamble that didn't pay off.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Blackford should have said today at PMQs that the whole situation is unacceptable and all Scotlands MPs should leave Westminster never to return unless a sec 30 is permanently granted for a referendum. MPs should then have left the chamber and packed their bags. Of course he didn't and he never will because he is a devolutionalist and therefore a Unionist.

    All talk and no action from the SNP.

    Stronger for Scotland it said when Sturgeon made her speech. The banners should have said INDEPENDENCE FOR SCOTLAND.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If the FM and the SNP do not do this by the so called legal book, English law will proscribe them as a terrorist organization and not a political party under their law, they've done it how many times before?
    Make no mistake, they're probably planning it now and they'll do it rather than allow this to go on getting worse for themselves
    Wales is now being dealt the same deal in their country as we speak

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymite - Sturgeon a terrorist - best laugh today. The only terror I see is some of her weirdo trans supporters.

      Delete
  9. There's no need to reflect on anything, she's had months to game the 3 possible outcomes of the case and she doesn't take any advice from anyone. She should have had the nodding-dogs walk out of Westminster and join her promised constitutional convention when the verdict was announced, as the verdict makes it clear that it's impossible for them to achieve ANYTHING whilst there.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As predicted the britnat media is having a great time doing down Scotland again. It won't be just the ditherers who'll be downhearted. Well done, Sturgeon. Really really well done.

    ReplyDelete
  11. His Majesty's Prison the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    Three inmates -Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland

    Scotland has two prison Governors - Alister Jack and Nicola Sturgeon.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh NuSNP are committed to Democracy that’ll make a change.
    By the 2016 Holyrood election, 32 out of 36 Scottish councils had established by-laws prohibiting election posters on council owned street furniture.
    The four “hold-out” councils continue to allow election posters on street furniture, proving that any perceived “littering” issue can be managed rather than resorting to prohibition. It’s no coincidence that all four councils are rural and are substantially populated by independent councillors, free from the admonishments of any party head office.
    Is the potential for a wee bit litter too high a price to pay for a vibrant, mass participation democracy? The answer from our permanent managerial class is apparently yes.
    To facilitate a successful campaign in the forthcoming Plebiscite election, I’d suggest all SNP controlled Cooncils immediately lift the prohibition on campaign material on public property. But that would be a bit of a moot point as they’re hardly any SNP Cooncils left. Baith votes SNP!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sturgeon knows fine well that the best chance of victory is at holyrood for reasons discussed at length by me, others and James yourself in a previous post the other day. She chooses not to as it's not in the interest of the SNP. It would require a yes alliance and that would involve granting legitimacy to Alba who could permanently challenge the SNP as a result.

    So, she avoids that and chooses the far poorer wm option knowing she can exclude Alba. She also doesn't explain how it will be a plebiscite (which it won't be).

    Victory is by no means guaranteed at holyrood even and after that the likely thorny issue of UDI will come into play as wm won't recognise it. Sturgeon and SNP calculate this as too much of a risk Vs devo power both to the SNP and to brand sturgeon (current popularity as given an easy ride by media and future career prospects dependent upon UK and western tacit endorsement)..but they need the indy vote to control devo power. so they pretend to go for indy (but only in a way that marginalises real yes alba)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Because... she doesn't want to lead it if it demands conflict - she's not up for a fight. She'll retire as leader in 2023? or whenever the trans thing is settled.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Westminster elections have more international and UK electorate attention.

    We should need neither , but we need both.

    Also feel Holyrood eleftion more likely to be boycotted by unionist voters. Needed for legitimacy.

    I don't discount Holyrood route but UKGEIndyref best way to go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aye legitimate another no vote. How exactly does that help?

      Delete
  16. This is the time for unity of the Yes movement.

    Alba SNP Green Labour for Indy whatever.

    Must put difference aside and back the vote. Back the plan or it's gone .

    I'm not impressee with Alba or anyone else blaming people at this crucial time or SNP/Greens name-calling. Call time on it for the cause.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The time for Neville Chamberlain behaviour by NS is long gone. We urgently need demonstrations at Bute House to hit her where it hurts, by re-inforcing her imposter syndrome feelings

    ReplyDelete
  18. It's long overdue that the SNP members told Sturgeon and her gang where to stick their carrots. But they won't. Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hello from the land down under

    Just found this site and have been having a looksee through it. I just do not see how you cometo the conclusion that it’s not a democracy.

    When the United Kingdom was established it was the joining of independent nations to become one nation each parliament was abolished and a United Kingdom Parliament established under a unitary system of government. Each of the nations are effectively the same as the state’s and territories of Australia.

    England if it wanted to can’t leave either no one is a colony, I find the argument quite strange

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be bloody ridiculous, of course England could leave any time it chose, it has 80%+ of the seats in parliament, it can overrule the other nations on anything and everything, and does so on an almost daily basis.

      Welcome to the moment when naive, homespun constitutional theorising hits the brick wall of blindingly obvious practical reality.

      I'm not at all clear about the Australian comparison you're trying to draw, by the way. Are you saying that Britain is the equivalent of one Australian state, or that Scotland is? If the latter, there's no comparison, because Australian states exist within a federal system and thus have a degree of sovereignty in their own right.

      And I'd have thought all Australian states should remember a thing or two about what it's like to be a London colony.

      Delete
  20. You missed perhaps the most obvious reason for choosing a Westminster election - that the result is less likely to be ignored in England than a Holyrood election, which they pay little attention to anyway.

    ReplyDelete