Which of the criticisms of the SNP's new strategy on independence are fair, and which are unfair?

Not for the first time in my life, I find myself roughly equidistant between Sturgeon loyalists and the First Minister's most trenchant critics in the wake of her big announcement.  That's probably the most realistic and sensible place to be, but it's not always the most comfortable, because there aren't all that many people here with me.   For days, the comments section of this blog has been full of suggestions that nothing has really changed and that the Scottish Government are continuing to act in bad faith by kicking the independence can ever-further down the road.  So I thought it might be an idea to sort through those criticisms and separate out the ones that are well-founded from the ones that seem to be nothing more than unjust knee-jerk reactions.

"Angus Robertson's comment that independence will be 'the key issue' in the SNP campaign for the 2024 election suggests that the notion of a plebiscite election is a confidence trick - SNP supporters will be duped into thinking they're fighting a de facto referendum while the unionist media will hear nothing more than a vague Independence Is Quite A Nice Idea Isn't It."

I must admit I was concerned when I heard the phraseology Angus Robertson was using in media interviews.  However, Nicola Sturgeon is the leader of the SNP, not Angus Robertson, and her own language has been absolutely unmistakeable.  See, for example, her tweet reacting to Boris Johnson's refusal to grant a Section 30 order - 

Just received this from Johnson (one of his last acts as PM?). To be clear, Scotland will have the opportunity to choose independence - I hope in a referendum on 19 October 2023 but, if not, through a general election. Scottish democracy will not be a prisoner of this or any PM. pic.twitter.com/EAgIVvEuoc

— Nicola Sturgeon (@NicolaSturgeon) July 6, 2022

There's no real space for creative ambiguity in those words - she's suggesting that if a referendum isn't possible, Scotland will be able to choose independence in the general election in exactly the same way that it would have been able to do in a referendum.  So I don't think we need to worry about tricksy language at this stage.  What might be a more reasonable concern is Ms Sturgeon's long track record of repeatedly going back on her word on independence strategy, so it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that she could use crystal-clear language now but not actually follow through on it when the time comes.  However, she surely must realise that the patience of many SNP stalwarts would be pushed beyond breaking-point if she did that, possibly triggering a wave of resignations from the party and perhaps defections to Alba.  So there's a huge incentive for her not to backtrack this time.

"Sturgeon is conning people into thinking there will be a referendum in October 2023!"

To me this is a really odd criticism to still be making, because the whole point of her announcement was to finally drop the pretence that there will definitely be a referendum next year.  The pretence was certainly there before the announcement, and we were absolutely right to call it out for the absurdity that it was, but it's not there anymore.  What we were really criticising her for was not having a credible backstop in the event that a referendum is struck down by the Supreme Court, but she's now introduced a credible backstop in the form of a plebiscite election in 2024.  So until and unless she goes back on her word, I think we should just give credit where credit's due and acknowledge that she's finally done exactly what we've been asking her to do for years.

"Sturgeon has needlessly given the unionists a massive Christmas present by setting the target for victory in a plebiscite election far too high.  She should be saying we only need a majority of seats, not a majority of votes."

I'm not sure that stacks up.  If there's a battle for hearts and minds on the question of whether Scotland can become an independent country on the basis of 35% or 40% of the vote (enough to win a majority of seats under first-past-the-post), or whether 50% should be required, it's obvious that the public will side with the unionists on that point - as indeed will other countries.  The pro-independence camp would be left looking a bit dodgy, as if we were trying to swindle our way to our goal without a proper mandate.  So it's probably best to make a virtue out of necessity by voluntarily acknowledging from the outset that only a majority of votes will do.  Arguably we could fudge the issue for the time being by saying "winning the election" would constitute a mandate without specifying what "winning" means.  But I'm not sure that would be sustainable as the election approaches.

"Sturgeon has undermined the independence cause by failing to appoint a Lord Advocate who is prepared to unequivocally state that a referendum is legal without a Section 30 order."

That is absolutely fair comment.  It would have been perfectly possible to find a potential Lord Advocate with a favourable interpretation of the legal position, and it seems almost negligent that this didn't happen.  There are only really two possibilities: either a) Nicola Sturgeon was trying to sabotage her own chances of delivering her promise of an independence referendum, or b) she had priorities other than independence at the forefront of her mind when she appointed Dorothy Bain, and simply didn't consider the consequences of what she was doing.  I'm fairly sure the answer is b), but that's more than bad enough.  If I was in Ms Sturgeon's shoes, I'd be tempted to rectify the error by hurriedly installing a new Lord Advocate - there would be a hit to be taken as a result of doing that, but in the long run it would probably be worth it.

"The SNP will make a Yes vote harder to achieve by insisting upon a much less broadly-based campaign than in 2014, with Alba and lots of other 'undesirables' left out in the cold completely."

I can't disagree with that, and it's a dreadful indictment of the intolerance of the modern SNP (and indeed of the modern Scottish Green Party).  But that doesn't get the rest of us off the hook.  If the Yes campaign is deeply flawed, we will have to get wholeheartedly behind that deeply flawed campaign and make very, very sure that it wins in spite of itself.  Independence comes before everything else.  As I've said before, I'll quite happily kneel in front of a statue bearing the inscription "FIONA ROBERTSON, MOTHER OF THE NATION", just so long as Scotland is an independent country by then.  Who gives a monkey's where the credit goes after we achieve our objective?

*  *  *

We've already seen since Nicola Sturgeon's announcement that the overwhelmingly unionist mainstream media are attempting a 'shock and awe' campaign to try to kill off independence - and the misuse of polling is playing a key part in that.  If you'd like to balance things out with polling commissioned by a pro-independence outlet and which asks the questions we want to see asked, one way of doing that would be to help Scot Goes Pop's fundraising drive - see details below.

Direct payments via Paypal - my Paypal email address is:   jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Scot Goes Pop General Fundraiser 

Scot Goes Pop Polling Fundraiser 

If you prefer a bank transfer, please message me for details using the contact email address which can be found in the sidebar of the blog (desktop version only), or on my Twitter profile.

The clincher was Pincher

Please disregard any scurrilous rumours that I may have stolen the title of this blogpost from a rather splendid rhyme used by the chair of the Alba Party last night.

One of the really annoying things about the last couple of days is that every time I have an idea for a blogpost, it's overtaken by events by the time I get round to writing it.  But to hell with it this time, I'm just going to write the post I had in mind before Boris Johnson resigned, even though it's entirely academic now.  There was speculation yesterday that the one way Johnson might have been able to circumvent the fact that he had clearly lost the confidence of the overwhelming majority of the Tory parliamentary party was by dissolving parliament and calling a general election before MPs had a chance to oust him.  You can see the attraction from a selfish point of view - if, as seems highly likely, he had lost the general election, he'd have been no worse off than he otherwise would have been, but if he somehow had gained a renewed mandate from the public, it would then have been impossible for MPs to move against him.  

But would the Queen have granted a dissolution in these extraordinary circumstances?  There's one really interesting precedent which hasn't been mentioned much because it happened outside the UK.  In 2008, there was a constitutional crisis in Canada, which has a Westminster-style system of government, with the Governor-General performing the Queen's functions.  The Conservatives emerged from a federal election as the largest single party, but without a majority.  The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation idiotically kept announcing on their results programme that a "Conservative minority government has been elected" - an entirely meaningless concept, and sure enough the three main opposition parties swiftly concluded a coalition deal to oust the Tories.  But the Tory Prime Minister Stephen Harper had a cunning wheeze. He knew that if he could prevent a no confidence vote in his government from taking place for a few weeks, there was a decent chance that the Liberals would change leader and withdraw from the proposed coalition.  So he went to the Governor-General and requested an extended and entirely needless prorogation of parliament.  As in the UK, it was theorised that dissolution and prorogation is one of the few genuine powers that the monarch or Governor-General holds, and that there was a real chance that such a cynical request from the PM would be rejected, especially as there was no parliamentary majority for it.  

But it wasn't. The Governor-General took advice and clearly concluded it was constitutionally unthinkable to resist the Prime Minister's wishes.  Harper's brazen plan came off exactly as intended - parliament was prorogued, a no confidence vote was averted, the Liberals changed leader and withdrew from the coalition, and Tory minority rule trundled on.  So perhaps Boris Johnson would have got away with a dissolution request - although he would have gone down in infamy (or even more infamy) if he'd attempted that tactic.

One interesting thing now is how Boris Johnson will fare in the historical rankings of Prime Ministers - because although his premiership fell apart in even more catastrophic manner than Theresa May's, he did (unlike her) achieve the goal of "getting Brexit done".  He's a bit like Edward Heath - a short-term Prime Minister who nevertheless did something huge and with lasting consequences during that short term. In the case of Johnson those consequences will be heavily negative, but nevertheless Brexit was what he was elected to do, so his place in the rankings will presumably have to take some account of that.

*  *  *

We've already seen since Nicola Sturgeon's announcement that the overwhelmingly unionist mainstream media are attempting a 'shock and awe' campaign to try to kill off independence - and the misuse of polling is playing a key part in that.  If you'd like to balance things out with polling commissioned by a pro-independence outlet and which asks the questions we want to see asked, one way of doing that would be to help Scot Goes Pop's fundraising drive - see details below.

Direct payments via Paypal - my Paypal email address is:   jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Scot Goes Pop General Fundraiser 

Scot Goes Pop Polling Fundraiser 

If you prefer a bank transfer, please message me for details using the contact email address which can be found in the sidebar of the blog (desktop version only), or on my Twitter profile.

The Boris butterfly effect: what are the SNP's options in the unlikely event of a snap general election?

From our point of view, the million dollar question is what difference the wave of resignations from the Tory government will make to the Yes campaign in either a 2023 independence referendum, or a plebiscite election in 2024.  I think it's fair to say that Boris Johnson is probably now toast.  Prime Ministers have sometimes held on in unlikely circumstances - John Major, for example, seemed to be on the way out on numerous occasions, but somehow saw out his full five-year term between 1992 and 1997.  That can be partly explained by a few random twists of fate, most notably the sudden death of John Smith in 1994, which effectively took the heat off Major for a few crucial months by producing a totally unexpected vacancy at the top of the Labour party.  And it may well be that only a big and unforeseen event can save Johnson now - but would even that be enough? After all, even Major didn't see his Chancellor resign in a deliberate attempt to unseat him.  The better comparison is with the resignations of Nigel Lawson in 1989 and Geoffrey Howe in 1990, which did manage to bring down Mrs Thatcher - although admittedly there was no sense of inevitability about the success of that tactic until the final hours.  

If Johnson does go, the pro-independence campaign will arguably lose its biggest asset - but the equation is no longer as simple as it was once was.  The ideal scenario from a strategic point of view was to have Johnson wildly popular (or at least reasonably popular) south of the border but totally loathed north of the border.  We used to have exactly that, but no longer - he's loathed everywhere.  That's potentially a problem for us, because if - hypothetically - Johnson were to remain in harness until the general election, it might start to appear certain that a Labour government is on its way, which would make it harder for us to continue framing the choice as a straight one between independence and Tory rule.  So there may actually be certain advantages in Johnson being replaced, as long as his successor isn't popular in Scotland (which seems unlikely, but you never know).

The other issue is whether a new leader will cut and run by calling a snap election before the Supreme Court has had a chance to consider the legality of a 2023 independence referendum, thus disrupting the SNP's plans.  I still think that's unlikely - the fate of both Gordon Brown and Theresa May will be cautionary tales for any new Prime Minister about what can happen if you even flirt with a needless election.  And, in any case, it would only be a realistic option if there's a big bounce for the Tories after a leadership ballot, which is by no means certain.

If a snap election does occur, the SNP will have a finite number of options, which are as follows:

1) Go ahead and use the snap election as a plebiscite election.  This would go against their instincts because they want a Supreme Court defeat to justify the plebiscite election tactic.

2) Indicate that they will instead engineer an early Holyrood election to ensure a plebiscite election in 2024.  Before the usual suspects turn up with the usual refrain "they can't do that without a supermajority", it would actually be pretty easy - if the Scottish Government resign, there would be no viable alternative government without the participation of the Greens, so an early election would inevitably follow. Again, this would be against Nicola Sturgeon's ultra-cautious instincts, though.

3) Indicate that they will instead use the scheduled 2026 Scottish Parliament election as a plebiscite election.  This would cause huge discontent within the independence movement, which has been led to expect a vote on independence by 2024 at the latest.  It wouldn't be hard to imagine defections from the SNP to Alba in this scenario.

4) Indicate that they will instead use the scheduled 2027 Westminster general election (that would be the scheduled date if there's a snap election soon) as a plebiscite.  This would cause the same problem as option 3), but with bells on.

My guess is this is all academic, though - I still expect the general election to take place in 2024 (probably May 2024).

*  *  *

We've already seen since Nicola Sturgeon's announcement that the overwhelmingly unionist mainstream media are attempting a 'shock and awe' campaign to try to kill off independence - and the misuse of polling is playing a key part in that.  If you'd like to balance things out with polling commissioned by a pro-independence outlet and which asks the questions we want to see asked, one way of doing that would be to help Scot Goes Pop's fundraising drive - see details below.

Direct payments via Paypal - my Paypal email address is:   jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Scot Goes Pop General Fundraiser 

Scot Goes Pop Polling Fundraiser 

If you prefer a bank transfer, please message me for details using the contact email address which can be found in the sidebar of the blog (desktop version only), or on my Twitter profile.

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.

James epitomises the 'hope over experience' ideal in his post. Anyone with an interest in Scottish politics knows that Sturgeon's NuSNP will always put party before country. They will say anything to maximise their number of MPs and, once in, will continue as loyal colonialists.

— John Bell (@Jigger639) July 2, 2022

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.