According to the Herald, the SNP's NEC will on Saturday consider the following options for "fleshing out" Nicola Sturgeon's plan for a de facto independence referendum -
1) Use the next Westminster election, expected next year, as a de facto independence referendum.
2) Use the next scheduled Holyrood election as a de facto independence referendum - which would mean waiting until 2026, a full decade after Scotland learned in 2016 it was to be dragged out of the EU against its will.
3) Bring about an early Holyrood election well before 2026, and use that as a de facto independence referendum.
4) Use the next Westminster election "to campaign on the issue of Scotland's right to choose how it is governed".
You'll probably have spotted the odd one out here. Options 1-3 all genuinely flesh out the de facto referendum plan, while option 4 does a screeching U-turn on the plan, abandons it completely, and thus betrays an independence movement which had been given a cast-iron promise that a credible Plan B was in place to cover the danger that the Supreme Court would rule against the Scottish Government. To state the obvious, using an election to "campaign on Scotland's right to choose" is not a de facto independence referendum, and it's not a remotely credible Plan B because it's already been tried umpteen times and it's proved to be utterly ineffective. Let's just recap on the previous occasions it's been attempted...
* In 2016, the SNP won a Holyrood election on a manifesto stating that Scotland should have the right to hold a second independence referendum in the event of Brexit. Westminster ignored this mandate.
* In 2017, the SNP won a Westminster election on a manifesto stating that a majority of seats would complete a "triple-lock mandate" for an independence referendum. Westminster ignored this mandate.
* In 2019, the SNP won a Westminster election with dramatic seat gains on a manifesto promising to press ahead with an independence referendum. Westminster ignored this mandate.
* In 2021, the SNP won a Holyrood election on a manifesto making a dual commitment to a referendum and to Scotland's right to choose (the main slogan was "Scotland's Future is Scotland's Choice, and nobody else's"). Westminster ignored this mandate.
Literally the only difference with these previous occasions is that if we seek another mandate for a referendum or for the right to choose, we no longer have the threat up our sleeves that the rejection of a Section 30 order might just lead to a consultative referendum without the UK Government's consent. So this time the UK Government would be even more relaxed and unconcerned about ignoring the mandate.
And yet in spite of our unprecedented lack of leverage, the proponents of Option 4 expect us to believe, for some unspecified reason, that it'll be fifth time lucky. So either Einstein had a point, or these people know perfectly well that they are punting a dud option that would be a dead end for the independence cause, and moreover, that is exactly why they are so enthusiastic about it.
If the SNP NEC are foolish enough to scrap the de facto referendum plan by adopting Option 4, I suspect it would be one U-turn and one betrayal too many for a large number of SNP members and voters. The trust would be gone forever - not trust in the SNP as a party, but in the current leadership.
“People in Scotland have voted repeatedly in recent elections for a choice over their future. The UK Government should recognise and respect those democratic outcomes – just as they did in 2011 – and work with us to deliver on the mandate in the Scottish Parliament for a vote on independence.”
ReplyDeleteSo said Angus Robertson in today's National.
This after comments in recent weeks from Tony Giugliano and Mhairi Hunter saying a de facto referendum would lead to a Section 30 request.
So they are definitely punting the Begging Strategy.
I would add that where each time you said " Westminster ignored this mandate." the SNP also ignored this mandate.
ReplyDeleteToday in Holyrood Robertson had them chatting about whether or not they really really really want independence once again. Of course Holyrood had previously voted twice in the last parliament for Indyref2 to happen. Spoiler alert it didn't happen.
The SNP seem to have an inexhaustible supply of carrots.
A few of the WGD numpties have already started munching the new carrots. It may well be " one betrayal too many for a large number of SNP members and voters" but WGD numpties like Hamish and Grizebard will just accept it like the good little nicophants they are.
DeleteNo.4 isnae "fleshing out" it's butchery. Just considering it proves the SNP NEC is guilty of putting party before country.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the SNP upper echelons have a new faction - the 'Openly Abandon Any Pretence At Seeking Independence' faction. No doubt a bitter struggle will ensue with the 'Waffle Forever' faction. I'm sorry that I wasted so much money on subs to fill the pockets of these tacky careerist hacks.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what Lesley Riddoch, Paul Kavanagh thoughts are on option 4 or was it there idea.
ReplyDelete"If the SNP NEC are foolish enough to scrap the de facto referendum plan by adopting Option 4, I suspect it would be one U-turn and one betrayal too many for a large number of SNP members and voters. The trust would be gone forever - not trust in the SNP as a party, but in the current leadership."
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think people will distinguish party from leadership? And...why should they?
If the SNP NEC are foolish enough to scrap the de facto referendum plan by adopting Option 4, then it's the party carrying out the betrayal. It might come from the leadership, but ultimately it's still on the party as a whole.
Trying to distinguish the party from the leadership in that instance is in itself highly at risk of falling into the "just one more go" trap.
After years of parroting the SNP line that Westminster will cave in to Scottish demands for Indyref2 the big dug now says:- " They will never agree to a referendum that they are likely to lose." Well no shit Sherlock.
ReplyDeleteWhat a bunch of time wasters.
It's not all doom and gloom, you know, the big dug finishes his latest article with the morale boosting:- " Scotlands day will come." Pity the big dug cannae tell us when this day is.
What bunch of time wasters.
I'm sure you can tell us what day independence will happen and how you're going to go about it
DeleteIf all you've got is to throw stones then folk will just throw them back
Nothing you say is in the least helpful except to the unionist cause
Just another anonymous troll.
DeleteAnonymous - Unionist cause!!!!! - what Union you numpty - Scotland is a colony and Sturgeon is the Colonial Governor General. With pathetic characters like you about it will continue to be for longer than it needs to be. Are you Pension Pete Wishart.
DeleteWhat are you prepared to do?
DeletePamela Nash of Scotland in Dungeon claimed on Scotland Tonight that a UKGE de facto is invalid because people vote for a whole range of issues. Well if it was a de facto Holyrood election that was collapsed specifically for an independence vote then this argument is invalid. All will be clear on what is being voted on - Scottish independence - nothing else.
ReplyDeleteSame applies in any election as long as a party or parties running on that single issue get a majority of votes. If that happens, there's no ambiguity - people have voted for independence.
DeleteKeaton - Sturgeon got people to vote for a referendum election after election and didn't deliver. The worse was May 21 when she didn't say it might be illegal and then proved it was illegal. Sturgeon also betrayed her mentor and long time friend Salmond. I wouldn't trust her to help my granny cross the road.
DeleteI think option 4 is included so they can disregard it to pretend they are being serious using a wm de facto referendum..which in fact is still option 4 but is disguised as option 1. Given they will do nothing with it, he franchise is loaded against us as are the media then it will lose and even if it didn't they won't do anything.
ReplyDeleteUnless it's a holyrood yes alliance with committed real yes Alba involved on actual delivery then it's a loada rubbish..in the actual even of them winning it what will they do...bet ye dinnae get answers for at yin.
How can Alba be involved in Holyrood alliance when they can't get elected as MSPs ?
DeleteNawbag, they'll stand on the list minimum possibly more if SNP renege.
DeleteThey'd have a better chance of winning seats if mz nawbag and co didn't constantly slate their leader ably assisted by their friends at the BBC.
2 things : a) It's not the SNP's fault the Scots are swithering one way or the other ; b) the SNP has done very little to promote, never mind further, the cause of indy.
ReplyDeleteBlaming the SNP for the Brit sentiments of nearly 50% of the Scottish electorate is unfair - yet, had Salmond still been leader (and hadn't left the cause at the wrong moment only to return as a shadow), I imgine we wouldn't be on the cusp but rather in winning territory.
Mz S took power believing she was going to be a manager and she did well for a long time till the eventual favouritism etc. set in.
Mz S was never willing/interested in fighting for the indy cause - it's an idea written on paper for this lady - and now she's tired.
Mz S would happily take indy were it offered but won't move any mountains to get it.
The 4 options will have to be under another leader who is motivated with an SNP that isn't just an administration exercise.
FFS - the next REAL indy campaign (whenever that is) must be a sight more passionate than the last dispassionate snooze-fest that was the unmotivational campaign for IndyRef1.
BTW - take chage of the narrative, no more B.S. about fking currency and flying saucers from space etc., AND fk those people who refurbish and maintain nuke subs - If you want that job so much then off you go to England - they love nukes there.
If you don't control the narrative then you're playing the game as a loser.