I have a lot of concerns about what might emerge from the SNP's special conference, which we learned today will be held on 19th March. I'm worried about the vague language being used by senior SNP people to characterise the purpose of the event, which leaves open the possibility of it being used as part of the choreography for yet another climbdown. I'm troubled by the way in which comments made in recent months by the likes of Angus Robertson, Toni Giugliano and Mhairi Hunter are not even consistent with a plan for a de facto referendum, thus making the whole concept sound like a ruse.
However, I can't see the point of screaming blue murder about a betrayal that hasn't actually happened yet, and that may never happen. The conference itself will be the moment of truth. If whatever is decided ticks the boxes of a genuine plebiscite election, all of us need to get off the fence and get full-bloodedly behind the endeavour - and that includes the Alba Party, because we'll never forgive ourselves if we self-sabotage a golden opportunity to win our country's independence. If, on the other hand, there's another climbdown, we'll have no choice but to start looking ahead to doing independence the hard, slow way by challenging the SNP in 2026 and beyond. Make no mistake, that would be very much the second-best outcome, but we'd have nowhere else to go.
So what should be our red lines for the March conference? I know many people will be prioritising the replacement of a Westminster plebiscite election in 2024 with a snap Holyrood plebiscite election in 2023. I agree that would be overwhelmingly sensible, but it's not absolutely essential. The true bottom line is that the plebiscite election must happen, it must genuinely be a plebiscite election and not a con-trick, and it must happen within the timescale we've been led to expect. So in more concrete terms...
* The de facto referendum, regardless of whether it's Westminster or Holyrood, must take place by the end of 2024. There must be no delay until 2026 - which would be a whole decade after we learned Scotland was to be dragged out of the EU against its will.
* It must be absolutely crystal-clear that the mandate being sought in the election is for independence itself, not for an independence referendum.
* It must be crystal-clear that if a mandate for independence is secured, the UK government will be expected to negotiate an independence settlement without any need for a further referendum.
* There must be no repeat of the mistake of using language like "once in a generation" - in other words, we mustn't bind our own hands by saying there could be no repeat of a plebiscite election for a long period if we don't win on this attempt. That's not to say that we'd necessarily use every single scheduled election in the future as a plebiscite, but we must absolutely reserve the right to use whichever election we may deem appropriate. The whole beauty of switching back to using elections as the means of seeking independence is that no British Prime Minister can say at the end of a five-year term "now is not the time for an election", and it would thus be very stupid of us not to leave our options wide open.
It's always a relief to read your rational, fact-based analysis of events and situations. It's a lot less exciting than the hysterical catastrophe-mongering of some posters and for that reason yours is one of the blogs that is trusted and trustworthy. The drama queens who post their paranoias in the comments sections of sensible blogs add a bit of overwrought humour which is always good for a laugh. Thanks again.
ReplyDeletePretty much in agreement James. Worth pressing the Holyrood election option as the much better of the two - earlier potential date, wider franchise and 'ours' rather than the UK's.
ReplyDeleteI'd say it's a bit more than "worth pressing". UK will not accept the result. It will have to go for UN recognition. We don't throw away a massive electoral and media advantage....unless we're not serious about delivering independence
DeleteIt is very hard not to be totally cynical about Nicola Sturgeon and SNP motives in all of this. After all, it is not as though the don't have form in this regard over. Over the last 8 years there have been a myriad of excuses and ploys used for the can kicking. To paraphrase a few examples:
ReplyDelete“Let’s ask for a Gold Standard Section 30 power”
“Let’s have a reset”
“Let’s stop Brexit”
“Let’s wait till the fog of Brexit clears”
“Let’s wait till the terms of Brexit are known”
“Let’s hold a Scottish Constitutional Convention”
“Let’s wait till the Covid pandemic is over”
“Let’s defer to the UK Supreme Court”
“Let’s have a plebiscitary election”
“Let’s hold a special conference”
“Let’s amend the Scotland Act”.
I will be amazed if they opt for anything other then 'the next UK election' with some weasel words like 'all other things being equal' to give them the opt out clause to delay and defer at some stage further down the road.
In addition if the wording also makes the 'Independence vote' being conditional only on ballots cast for the SNP we really should conclude that the SNP are simply not serious about restoring Scotland's nation-state status.
Also:
DeleteLet's have a growth Commission.
Let's have a Citizens assembly.
Let's prepare some independence supporting papers.
Let's get yes polls regularly at 60%.
As you say Duncanio there have been a myriad of time wasting ploys and I am sure there are more that we have not listed and more we have not thought of yet to come in the future.
Also:
DeleteLet's have a Constitutional Convention ( promise made in Sturgeons Jan 2020 speech - never delivered).
The Convention is already on the list but I'll definitely add the others ... I'm sure by the time we get to March 2023 we'll have to make space for more.
DeleteYes Duncanio it is already on your excellent list. I just wanted to highlight how Sturgeon promised this Constitutional Convention - didn't deliver and now when she could deliver it she goes for an SNP only conference. It's all about control with Sturgeon. Nobody else in the yes movement is to get a look in.
DeleteThink as a pleb I'd defintely prefer holyrood 2026 over wm 2024.. given the much greater chance of defeat at wm, such reckless self interested SNP action could jeopardise UN recognition for a generation..and it's utterly naive to pretend that that's the only genuine game in town.
ReplyDeletethere's no chance of an early holyrood pleb so those are the only 2 real alternatives among the myriad of fake pleb alternatives.
The main problem I have with holyrood 2026 other then the delay and the economic problems etc is it gives troughers a free ride at wm again and then another 2 years to renege upon their 2026 commitment..(i.e fighting indy as the "main issue", asking for a section 30 if SNP win, no yes alliance -which sadly is a racing certainty).
A clean sweep for Yes? Now Panelbase has Yes in the lead 49 to 46 with rest undecided.
ReplyDeleteCorrection Yes 49 No 45 DK 6
ReplyDeleteThe same numpties who were adamant that a referendum was going to take place in the first half of this Holyrood term are now ecstatic that a conference is taking place next year. It's democracy in action they bleat. So one minute Sturgeon has a secret masterplan that she is keeping secret the next minute SNP members are having a say in what happens about achieving Scottish independence as its democratic. The rest of us independence supporters can take a hike or join the SNP they say. But they still want our votes don't they.
ReplyDeleteLiar Skier says:- " It is bemusing that non members of the SNP .......and Alba ( " These are our red lines that we've put together for you to adopt!") seem to think they get to decide SNP policy. I always thought parties decided their own policies."
Thicko Hamish100 says: - " SGP isn't a political party and the blogger is a former member of Alba's executive committee or something similar. Kelly forgets it was Salmond that said " one in a generation" in a throwaway comment. "
In summary, if you are not a member of the SNP your view does not count. But hey they want our votes. The SNP policy is shut up, do what we tell you and vote SNP or you are a Unionist. Is this what an independence movement should be?
It's touching that Skier and Hamish remain such devoted readers of Scot Goes Pop. I would like to apologise to them for my IMPUDENCE and IMPERTINENCE as a mere independence supporter in expressing views on the way forward. Evidently as a non-SNP member I am a lower form of life and I should know my place. In future I shall defer to winter sports enthusiasts with their fabled French wives and Irish passports. They, and they alone, will show us the one true path.
DeletePS. Hamish, the offer to debate me openly on the podcast still stands, if you can ever overcome your cowardice.
James, the cheeky numpty thicko Hamish says you are beneath him as he does not want to give you any credence as a 2% party representative.
DeleteAnd what sort of party representative is he?
DeleteThe answer to your question James - A standard nicophant more interested in SNP party success than Scotland being independent.
DeleteThe Bathtub Admiral who stupidly still has the same moniker yesindyref2 ( it ain't happening Admiral) calls you James a plonker. He says I am not telling you the truth about Hamish's post. The quote from Hamish is 100% accurate.
DeleteThe truth is that the liars reside on WGD and the big dug is the biggest of them.
My own definition of a "plonker" is someone who actually *expresses disappointment* when Stewart McDonald resigns.
DeleteThe quote from Hamish is so accurate I even included his typing error where he posted "one" instead of presumably "once" in a generation.
DeleteThe eternal SPAD, Toni Giuliano says there’s been a fifth poll with a Yes lead. Nowt on the front pages of the Sundays. What gives?
ReplyDeleteI agree there are good reasons for using a Holyrood election as a proxy referendum, primarily the franchise. However, the downside is it would be far easier (and arguably legitimate) for opposition parties to argue the election should be about the SG's record. Obviously, its not entirely possible for the SNP to control the narrative in a GE either, and there's of course more UK noise. Nonetheless, given the SC ruled WM is the locus for ruling on the constitution, a General Election is probably more appropriate, although way more difficult.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who joined the SNP in 1975 and continues to be a member we can't suffer any more delays. How many more young folk will look overseas to escape inward looking UK. we must fight for independence now or Scotland will not be worth saving
ReplyDeleteI couldn't care less anymore James. The SNP are like a broken record. Ask yourself this. They have had years to prepare for the inevitable SC decision. Yet they tell us they have to wait 5 months after the decision, to decide what they need to do, why? Because this leader and party are just seeing out time. Another 5 months to do sod all. And the winter crisis is another excuse in a long line of fables..
ReplyDeleteOpen your eyes James. I am not wasting anymore time listening to the SNP. I have better more important things to do.
Some of your comment is lifted almost word for word from a Stuart Campbell blogpost. I don't believe in the conspiracy theory that Campbell has been recruited to spread defeatism - but I would just note that he's behaving in pretty much exactly the way he would if that theory was true.
DeleteYup. Campbell really is a hindrance to indy now. 3 weeks ago Sturgeon mentioned other pro Indy groups in a wider movement. If this is true and the conference decides on a yes alliance moving forward and this includes Alba then I think Stu won’t know what to do. He’ll probably do one article saying is good (but late) then he’ll continue to spend most of his time complaining about the SNP and the trans issue.
ReplyDeleteMy tuppence worth on all this.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first heard the "dissolve Holyrood and force the defacto referendum that way idea", I thought yes that is a plan, however the more I've thought about it, the more I'm thinking it might be an unintended own goal?
The reason I say that is if we genuinely want to demonstrate to Westminster that Scotland has stuck two fingers up at it, we need to convince "soft no's/undecideds" to back the idea at the ballot box, and to me a forced dissolution of Holyrood could be portrayed (the Scottish media will certainly force this!) as a stunt that could turn enough voters off placing their X for an Independence supporting party, to see the 50%+1 requirement fall short.
There are dangers in waiting until UKGE in 2024 too, not least the potential loss of momentum we have now but I personally think that gives us the best chace of achieving that majority that will force whatever UKGov is elected to the negotiating table?
What is clear is that negotiation shouldn't be to agree a confirmatory Referendum, (that horse has bolted and Westminster sold the stable door!) but the terms of the end of the UK and our departure on our terms.
What is also clear is whatever emerges from SNP March conference needs to an unambigous clear direction, we use X election, we achieve clear majority of seats and vote share in excess of 50%, either SNP MPs are withdrawn from Westminster (or they never re-take their seats if it is following a UKGE) and that immediate contact is made with Westminster Government, this isn't a polite request for negotiation, get round the table the UK is over!
Anything less and I would agree the SNP has had its chance!
Robert - Westminster do what you call a stunt all the time. What you are advocating is letting the British media dictate how we carry out a de facto referendum. You conveniently ignore the fact that many people will be excluded from voting who live in Scotland. This has always been a main plank of the SNP's approach to the voting franchise on independence but it is now casually being binned as will all those who will not bother to vote due to not having the correct voter ID. Also 16/17 year olds and EU citizens will be excluded. The turnout will be lower and Britnats may be able to say more people voted no in 2014 than voted yes in ?
DeleteIFS - I may be giving the Scottish electorate too much credit here, but I suspect one of the reasons why Unionist parties are being deserted/rejected in increasing numbers is because they are fed up with the shenanigans of Westminster? That is why I think using a Westminster-esque stunt might blow up in our faces?
DeleteI did say that waiting for a UKGE had its dangers too and you are right that the disenfranchising of sections of the electorate is definitely one of them!
Turnout potential could be one too, however I would counter that with the 2014 turnout at an incredible 85% compared to the last UKGE at 68% and Holyrood’s 64%, one that I’m not convinced is completely valid. I keep hearing from Unionist bleaters “you can’t make it a one issue Election!”, which is rich considering the last GE was all about Boris “Getting Brexit done!”.
However, on balance I think UK GE rather than forced Holyrood one is the way to go, but if the latter is the call I’ll get behind it, at this stage of the game all that matters is the result 50%+1!
As for letting the Britnat media dictate the process, I agree with you on that per say, however, the simple fact is the overwhelmingly anti-Independence media is a factor however we proceed! Giving them that headline up front is IMHO counter productive? I suspect you’re not exactly the chair of the Nicola Sturgeon fan club? However, there are large chunks of the electorate (even those who wouldn’t normally vote SNP) who do like what they see/hear, that again in my opinion (whatever that is worth!?) is the way to go, yes the grassroots have a part to play but the figurehead of the campaign has to be known and believable, we have that in the First Minister, because we both know the UK “mafia” is going to throw everything, every dirty trick at us, I think she’s up to the task of turning that against them?!
Hold your nose if you have to, my gut feeling is once Scotland is Independent, the SNP as it currenly exists will be gone fairly quickly and we will have “new” parties from all spectrums of Scotland genuinely electable, choose yours, that’s democracy!
Robert, a reasoned case but not one I agree with. How many votes do you think Sturgeon is losing right now never mind in the near future with her GRR nonsense. Not the actions of a leader desperate to get independence.
DeleteI held my nose and voted SNP for the constituency in May 21. Why? - because I wanted her to get another mandate for a referendum that I knew she would not deliver on and perhaps numpties would finally wake up and realise what she is. Sadly the numpties now just say it is all part of her secret plan NOT to deliver a referendum. The devolutionist stench from Sturgeon and her gang is now so bad that no holding of a nose can get rid of it.
Robert, you seem unable to realise that by saying the SNP will be gone fairly quickly after independence is exactly why they do not want independence. Sturgeon and the SNP are now all about self interest.
So I'll leave you with a final thought - picture a UK GE de facto TV debate and the leaders are asked about say, Sturgeon's record on education, what is Sturgeon going to say I am only answering questions on Scottish independence.
If it's a Holyrood election called specifically for an independence referendum then that is what the debate should be about not Sturgeon's policies and performance. That is the SNP dictating the terms and timing of the debate.
Do you not think it is strange that after YEARS of saying the only way to independence is the gold standard we are now in this position. Do YOU think this is a secret plan? What happens if your trump card the 'believable' Sturgeon calls it a day between now and the next UK GE?
IFS - I'll be honest I don't know what the effect of the GRA bill will be in votes lost/won terms, will it be significant either way?
DeleteI'll also be honest in saying I am an SNP member, with that in mind, am I happy with the pace of progress towards what we all ultimately want, no.
However, this was never going to be a quick process, if we actually want to win whatever form the "vote" finally takes.
Ultimately, the people we need to convince of the case for Independence don't typically find themselves on blogs like this? I think we are all sold on the concept, disagreeing only about the pace and direction of how we get there?
So again, I think we have to demonstrate to the wider electorate competence and trustworthyness.
Simple fact we don't get to make the rules on all this, Supreme Court ruling proved that once and for all!
So I disagree with your "devolutionist stench" comment,
I think this has been about demonstrating the fact that whatever Scotland wants, Westminster doesn't give a sh1t and it smugly thinks there isn't anything we can do about it!
If we want to win and be recognised by the World, we have to show we played by the rules and they were rigged against us, so now the defacto election route is the only one left to us.
Getting 50%+1 is only the start, we need to get UK Gov to the table, and they won't be rushing to do that, without outside pressure?!
As for "SNP gone", I said as it currently exists, I'm sure there will still be one, but there are clearly competing factions in it now, the glue holding it "together" is Independence, Alba was the first to come off it, I suspect it won't be the last?
I will then judge the policies of all those parties and decide where my vote goes.
As for your TV debate scenario, I can't say you are wrong but let us be perfectly honest, this could be a Section 30 referendum, UK or Holyrood defacto election, the opposition to Independence will do all they can to keep this off questions on that and will want to ask as you suggest.
As for gold standard, if you want to be seen as credible to the undecided voter, you have to be seen to play the game, no matter how frustrating that pace is, could it have gone quicker, probably, but everything that's happened in the last few years has led us to the point where public opinion for the starting point would appear to be already over 50%?
To finish, I don't know definitively but I suspect that win or lose, only she knows probably, her last act as First Minister will be that referendum, maybe she'll stay for the negotiations post a Yes win but not beyond.
So I will be surprised if she calls it a day before that vote?
Merry Christmas!
Robert, a Merry Xmas to you as well. Sadly it won't be in an independent Scotland for a long time as I now realise that the majority of so called independence supporters in the SNP are like you - happy to wait for ever. Devolution = Unionism(colonialism) = SNP. Time wasters.
DeleteI can't agree with the omission in the red lines as non-critical of a WM plebescite election. It has a huge franchise and coverage disadvantage and would most likely lose. The media would give it little coverage and if and when it lost the UK would never shut up about it.
ReplyDeleteThis would jeopardise future UN recognition of Scotland from any subsequent proper electoral plebiscite as we'd lost two already (2014 and WM).
And UN recognition now is the only game in town. The UK will not accept the results of any electoral plebiscite which means we need to create the conditions most likely to provide recognition. These include:
1. Mass international lobbying on Scotland's plight.
2. Never shutting up about Scotland's energy potential given current energy crisis and climate emergency.
3. Targeting specific countries identifying whether they'd recognise Scotland. East Europe for instance might have concerns about NATO membrship for instance.
4. Highlighting our pro-European instincts. i.e. rejoin single market with a subsequent referendum on EO membership to soften up EU countries.
And crucially, acknowledging that countries who repeatedly lose plebiscites for independence have little chance of UN recognition if they finally win one marginally. So using the best place to maximise the franchise and media advantages. That MUST always be holyrood.
As stated in the blogpost, it would be sensible to use a Holyrood election. However, I cannot stress strongly enough that there will never be "UN recognition" without an agreed settlement with Westminster. So that reasoning is a dead end.
DeleteIt would "be sensible" is not the same as a red line. If you think we need a UK settlement that's pretty much tantamount to a UK veto. There won't be any WM acceptance (at least in the first instance) and it's naive in the extreme to suggest there will be.
DeleteWe only do a plebiscite that we can win else we give UK credibility when they ignore the result of any subsequent victory in the eyes of the international community.
The compromise position is a Yes Alliance at Holyrood 2026 not a WM plebiscite which will be drowned out by UK issues, has a disadvantaged franchise and has no clarity on what they'd do anyway.
We may have to do 2 or 3 iterations of this so it must only ever be with the franchise and media that advantages us and a wide Yes Alliance in part to put pressure on SNP who everyone who isn't a half wit expects to do nothing with any mandate they happen to fluke.
SNP want a WM franchise so they can exclude principally Albas they are the threat to them from the Real Yes side of the political spectrum. This is so they can dominate devolved unionist politics. By doing so they are hugely jeopardising independence and we should have no truck with it. That is the path to independence rather than the "dead end" accommodation of a WM plebiscite you propose.
Jeez, where to start? You accuse me of naivety and then say "UN recognition" without agreement from Westminster is achievable. Irony is dead. Then you refer to the "WM plebiscite you propose" - when I actually strongly support a Holyrood plebiscite and have written multiple lengthy blogposts explaining why. Evidently you missed them.
DeleteI am new to the blog but I will happily wager a tenner donation to SGPop (best I can manage) that the conference/SNP March 'get together' will not result in a coherent achievable plan or statement by the SNP with any substance, that will indicate a firm commitment to an actual referendum or plebiscite within 2 years. I'd even accept a 50/50 probability of an executable plan or a 50% Blackford bluster or BS estimate.
DeleteI cannot see any appetite in the SNP, to undertake the kinds of reform that might increase confidence more generally among the Scottish electorate that an SNP referendum vote would be a positive option. It's not just the likely marginal overall majority, it's the nose holding required for a great many of the established independence voters to vote for independence where the SNP remain as a major player in any post referendum Scotland,(Never mind the infuriated and hostile unionist contingent.A marginal if favourable result is likely to lead to political stasis and internecine factionalism. I am a confirmed. independence supporter who regards the SNP as 'unelectable' .