Very, very long-term readers of this blog may recall that several years ago I used to be a columnist for a couple of UK-wide news websites, and without naming names or specifying which site it was, I've got this vivid recollection of sending in my column the day after one of Nicola Sturgeon's landslide election triumphs. Whoever was on duty wrote back and said: "Thanks James - and congratulations. I just wish we in England could have escaped from Conservative rule in the same way." The point was that he just took it as read that because the SNP had such an overwhelming mandate, they would be pushing forward towards independence as promised. The idea that what you do with mandates is collect them, and then twiddle your thumbs for a few years and let them expire, is a good deal more odd than some people on the 'delay' wing of the SNP would have us believe.
So I have no time whatever for the utterly predictable suggestion of Stewart McDonald, former MP for Glasgow South and the SNP's leading enthusiast for British militarism, that Thursday's defeat means the time is now ripe for yet another "pause" on independence. How many would this make now? Five? Six? He has reacted to just about every previous victory by calling for delay, so he's got very little credibility in now saying that the reaction to defeat should be exactly the same. It was always obvious, and I can remember writing posts on this blog pointing this out years ago, that if you let mandate after mandate expire while waiting for the "perfect moment" that will never actually arise, eventually your luck is going to run out and voters will stop giving you a mandate, either because they can see you were never serious about delivering or because they get tired of you for another reason. Anyone on the gradualist wing who didn't foresee that their own tactics would guarantee that a defeat like the one on Thursday would happen before independence did was guilty of astounding political naivety or self-deception.
In one sense, though, the SNP have been fortunate, because when the defeat eventually came it was at Westminster, where they were in opposition, rather than at Holyrood, where they are in power. They are still a party of government today every bit as much as they were on Wednesday. They still have the ball at their feet and there is absolutely nothing to stop them moving ahead with a de facto referendum in 2026. They promised in 2016 that the changed circumstances of Brexit meant that Scotland would definitely be given a choice on independence. Ian Blackford boomed every week that Scotland's voice MUST and WILL be heard. Well, eight years on that still hasn't happened and it's about bloody time that it did. Frankly, the excuses have run out. Covid wasn't a valid excuse because by the time that happened in 2020 they had already let mandates from 2016 and 2017 run out. The loss of twenty seats in 2017 wasn't a valid excuse because that still left them with a practically identical type of mandate to the one Labour won in Scotland on Thursday - one that the SNP themselves seem to be in awe of. If they're so impressed by Labour's mandate, why on earth weren't they impressed by their own mandate in 2017 and why in God's name didn't they make use of it?
I'm not remotely swayed by the argument that you can no longer use a Holyrood election as a de facto referendum in circumstances where there is no longer a pro-independence majority among Scottish MPs at Westminster. In fact, if you think about it for more than a few seconds that argument falls apart completely, because we've been told that the reason the 2021 Holyrood election no longer provides a mandate is because it has since been superseded by a more recent mandate for Labour. It therefore inevitably follows that if you win a pro-independence majority at the 2026 election, that supersedes what happened on Thursday and then becomes the operative mandate.
And what happens, you might ask, if the UK Government then turns around and says they're not going to respect that mandate until and unless there is also a pro-independence majority among Scottish MPs once again? In that case, you then fight the 2028 or 2029 general election on a simple message to independence supporters: "Are you going to stand for your democratic decision being ignored?" You might actually win the general election that way, and what's more, it might be the only way in which it's even possible to win the general election. I'm actually pretty optimistic about the SNP's chances in Holyrood 2026, but I'm not at all optimistic about their chances of winning Westminster 2028/9 if they try to do it against the odds on bread-and-butter issues when everyone knows they can't form a government in London. The "stop the Tories" pitch from Labour would still work - unless it was a special sort of election in which the SNP were seeking to seal the deal after a de facto triumph in 2026.
As for any suggestion that Thursday's defeat means that 2026 is not a suitable time to be trying to win a majority for independence, frankly that's complete rubbish. Electoral politics is a pendulum and often the best chance to prosper is on the rebound, because a new situation has been created and voters are looking at you afresh. Think back to 2015 when the Scottish Tories suffered their lowest ever share of the vote. Was that their worst possible moment to try to mount a major comeback? No, it turned out to be their ideal opportunity, and they made huge unexpected gains in the elections of both 2016 and 2017.
As I said in my article in The National today, it's perfectly conceivable that the SNP could remain the largest party at Holyrood in 2026 with a dull managerial campaign that takes advantage of the fact that John Swinney and/or Kate Forbes are seen as more competent than Anas Sarwar. But I think that would be a narrow result and there might well be a unionist majority in the parliament, possibly leading to Sarwar becoming First Minister from second place with Tory support. So even from the point of view of the gradualist wing's bottom line (ie. staying in power), aiming higher and trying to win a majority for independence actually makes perfect strategic sense. Otherwise it's just managed decline which has only one destination sooner or later: the opposition benches.
The words "de facto referendum" mean different things to different people, so let me be clear about what I mean by them - I'm talking about an election in which the SNP and other pro-indy parties state in their manifestos that a majority for them would constitute an outright mandate for independence (and not for a referendum, which is a concept that some people seem incapable of wrapping their heads around). It wouldn't necessarily have to be a single-issue manifesto and nor would it be a one-off event you couldn't afford to risk - if you didn't get the mandate in one election you could then try again five years later.
I agree. It's a very simple and proven idea. People know they are voting for independence, not for the party. It also allows disgruntled yes voters to lend their vote to the SNP.
ReplyDeleteStewart McDonald is a plonker and no loss. To be brutal, with the benefit of it having happened anyway whatever we tried to do, many of them are no loss except to themselves.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious, based on the title of this blog post can you understand the rationale behind those indy supporters who weren't swayed to vote for the SNP in the General Election?
ReplyDeleteYou rightly say that we've been on pause for the last ten years but it felt like we were being asked to vote to remain on pause for the next 5 as if the SNP had somehow won there wasn't any indication that anything would have changed.
But this result (if common sense prevails) could be the shock that the SNP needed to put in the necessary work & reforms required to ensure that the 2026 election isn't wasted.
No, I don't "understand the rationale", and what's more that rationale is obviously bogus. By helping the unionists win, you've created the very environment in which McDonald and others will try to make the case for abandoning independence and becoming Scotland's equivalent of the Coalition Avenir Québec, which poses as "nationalist" while opposing independence. Others will argue strongly against McDonald and hopefully that argument can be won, but this situation is sub-optimal to put it mildly.
DeleteSince we have former SNP MPs now calling for independence to be abandoned doesn't that indicate that their hearts weren't really in it in the first place?
DeleteIf Stewart McDonald was re-elected knowing what you know now would you have confidence that he would have progressed the cause of independence as an MP?
As I made clear explicitly before the election, and I used McDonald's name when doing so, I did not believe he is a genuine independence supporter but I did not believe that mattered in electoral terms. If he lost his seat, that would be used by the media to say that Scotland had rejected independence. If he retained his seat, that would be seen as an indication that Scotland had voted to keep the flame alive.
DeleteCan you understand though those who feel it does matter whether or not the person they vote for actually supports independence?
DeleteThat knowing the person you elect shares the same values and will do all that they can to support the cause. Then having to live with them as your local MP for 5 years... no one is motivated to vote for a fraud.
"Can you understand though those who feel it does matter whether or not the person they vote for actually supports independence?"
Delete"Feelings" are a good deal less important than avoiding an election result that sets back the independence cause.
But that's not how elections work. Voters need to trust and believe in their representatives.
DeleteGenuine commitment to independence from our MPs was essential to keep supporters engaged and motivated. Your argument was destined to fail on the grassroots level.
"But that's not how elections work"
DeleteI'm sorry but it is. People in East Renfrewshire were not really voting for Blair McDougall. They knew not what they did. They were just voting Labour regardless of candidate.
Anon @9.57. We nationalists didn’t vote SNP on Thursday BECAUSE the SNP failed to make the vote a de facto one.
DeleteIf the SNP fully commit to 2026 being the de facto question, then it’s inevitable yes voters will band together once again, and highly likely the SNP will deliver a winning, unequivocal mandate for independence.
Now ask yourself, even in spite of last weeks catastrophic loss, can you really envisage the SNP taking independence seriously and focusing on 2026 for that vote?! I hope so but I won’t hold my breath…
James, supposing the SNP won 30 seats last week. In fact, let’s say 45 having fought off any notable advance from Labour. What would’ve been their next move? What was/is the plan for indyref2?
DeleteThey’re fundamentally failing to advance the argument. They should be laying the ground work for constitutional transition, and writing a white paper that preempts project fear mark 2…
That simply is not the point. It was an emergency situation. If a plane is nosediving you don't shoot the pilot.
DeleteI'd shoot the pilot. If the pilot is pushing the control column forwards then damn right he's getting a bullet.
DeleteJust like the SNP who despite umpteen mandates, 56 out of 59 MPs, 50% of the popular vote, Brexit, Boris, Holyrood Govt. majorities etc. etc. etc. failed to move support for Indy by 1% in nearly a decade and instead concentrated on vanity projects for the dear leader.
Best not mention bottle recycling, ferries, highly protected marine conservation areas, GRR, and every other piece of incompetent legislation.
Oh yes, and someone mentioned something about not letting Scotland be dragged out the EU/Single Market against our will. Standing up for Scotland there for all to see...despite 56 out of 59 MPs at the time, (Could've been 59/59 and the result would've been the same).
Then the elephant in the room who has yet to have his day in court.
The most stunning thing about the result is that the SNP managed to poll 30% and get 9 MPs. If performance was anything to go by it should've been much less!
James, put it this way, if labour getting into power somehow cools the next half dozen Indy polls to 40-45% then you are correct - but I would argue the plane was going down anyway. The way things were with the SNP however, I think Labour are worth the gamble because they could shaft Scotland like the Tories have and push more towards ‘yes’.
DeleteGood strategy, however I fear that too many SNP personalities who have totally blown all credibility supporting daft policies will still be hanging around in 2026 looking to flood the lists. Thursday's clear out should make way for new blood.
ReplyDeleteI’m a SNP supporter since the early 70’s. It is clear to me the Scots elections must be a de facto referendum. Simple clear message. Young voters to be encouraged over returning to Europe and the rest.
ReplyDeleteI am a lifelong supporter of Independence being brought up in the shadow of Hampden I never understood as a child why we didn’t have our own country . The 1974 elections were a revelation that there was a party/movement actively campaigning for Independence I fear some of us voting for Unionist parties is a major mistake and will be a self fulfilling prophecy and we will see support for Independence drop very sad Friday possibly one of the worst day of my life
ReplyDeleteMemo to The National - drop Owen Jones, his opinions are pure drivel.
ReplyDeleteRemember Friday the 19th September 2014, when we all with no direction, no commands, nobody telling us what to do, we all got down to it with the plan of getting rid of all Unionist MPs in the 2015 GE?
ReplyDeleteAnd how on Friday May 8th 2015, only the dregs were left, one from each of the Unionist colonialist succubus parties?
Can we do the same or even better in 2026?
Time to dry the tears and get down to work. Take Holyrood by vote.
Bring it on!
#NoMoreUnionPoliticsIn2026
DeleteIt's funny after losing the referendum in 2014 I genuinely had the belief that we all needed to come together, make the union work and ensure promises made were kept...
DeleteThat lasted a couple of hours as literally the first thing David Cameron did in the speech the next morning was announce 'English Votes for English Laws'... It doesn't take much for a unionist politician to fuck up!
I think the SNP are done for the forseeable future and lack of any indy movement casts it into oblivion. That's the fault of indy supporters and SNP supporters. You couldn't figuere out the difference.
ReplyDeleteI have voted SNP at every Election since the 1970s but I find it unforgivable that people who didn’t have independence as their priority, were ever selected as candidates .
ReplyDeleteI’ll continue to vote SNP as there is no realistic alternative but independence has to be top of the agenda . I hope people like MacDonald are marginalised at the very least.
I think the SNP members sholdn't select any of the ex-MPs as candidates for 2026, or on the list. They had their chance, and they blew it. And the 9 SNP MPs can be ignored during the compaign. The Westminster lot, it seems to me, obstructed any attempt to make this election really about Indy apart from the manifesto itself. They got their just desserts.
Delete#NotToMinceWords
I think Robin McAlpine has it right:
DeletePut simply, the SNP lacks talent among its elected cohort at Holyrood and it is seen as having a talent deficit. This isn't entirely fair, but nor is it entirely unfair. The party desperately needs to regenerate itself at this moment and I'm unconvinced it has the personnel to do that.
I therefore believe that the SNP should, as of now, take an "open selection" approach to every Holyrood seat. The party needs both a significant injection of new talent and to be seen to create a decisive break with the recent past.
I would tell every constituency that they should behave like they have no incumbent candidate for Holyrood in 2026 and go on a headhunting search to find the very best, very most talented, very most able person that can be found to contest every seat in the country. That could be the sitting MSP, or it could be a (now)-former MP, or it could be someone from inside the party – or it could be a process of recruiting someone really great into the party.
Think of it like a football team – individually the players won't get all that much better than they currently are, so you need a transfer window. I fear the SNP may only have one remaining window before things get even worse.
Finally, to achieve any of this or anything like it, the membership must regain control of the party. The people who led the Sturgeon era are the same people who led the Humza Yousaf era and are the same people who led the SNP to this electoral catastrophe. I do not believe that they can be allowed to try to lead the party out of it, but nor to I believe they will step aside voluntarily.
It is the top-down SNP that led to this moment; it is a bottom-up SNP which has the best chance of escaping it.
In reality we know that the leadership will screen out anyone with talent because they would see them as a potential threat to their cabal's cosy position and will gerrymander the lists again to put their friends at the top regardless of how the members vote.
DeleteThe continuity leadership and the group around them need removed before any progress can be made.
We need the Alba members to return to the fold to help make that happen. There are more of them than the amount Humza won by. Their absence is what is keeping the continuity leadership in place.
Alba members don't believe that the SNP can be reformed though. Many of them tried before leaving the SNP. What happened after that NEC "Good Guys" campaign was the final straw.
DeleteIt would take a lot of convincing to make them believe that the SNP can now be changed from within.
Anon at 4.23 am: It doesn't seem consistent to suggest that members of a party formed to replace a corrupt and compromised party should help the latter by rejoining it -- while also taking the blame for its electoral failure. Also, those who say Alba is dead (it's not clear whether that's your own view) can't then say it's capable of defeating the continuity leadership from within; the Alba members assigned this task are the same people with the same views and the same capacities whatever their role. 'Changing the party from within' didn't work for socialists within the Labour Party, which suggests that it's not a sound strategy.
DeleteAs you point out (encouragingly) Alba membership outweighs Humza's support, so why write off our potential as a new party, because of the entirely predictable failure to win seats in its own name at a first attempt? In the recently published pre-election Alba manifesto, Salmond's introduction tacitly anticipates that failure by looking towards 2026. This approach has more potential than a return by members of a fresh party, because of one failure in the face of heavy odds, to a party which has repeatedly failed (both pragmatically and morally) despite being in a position of power and strong support.
I urge fellow Alba members to work towards building and improving the party in the pursuit of independence and social justice, rather than draggletailing back to the severely compromised SNP.
So it turns out there are currently 57 Unionist MSPs at Holyrood, a genuine Heinz. And I guess what we are looking for in 2026, regardless of like or dislike of the SNP as there are other parties, is this:
ReplyDeleteFifty-seven unionists keeping Scotland down
One fell off and sulked off back to town
The FM called the doctor and the doctor said
"No more Unionists keeping Scotland down!"
Fifty-six unionists keeping Scotland down ...
Fifty-five ...
One little unionist keeping Scotland down
Sarwar fell off and sulked off back to town
The doctor called the FM and the FM said
"No more Unionists keeping Scotland down!"
Sounds good to me.
If we manage to obtain the mandate you envisage in 2026 James, what then?
ReplyDeleteHave you read the blogpost in full? I think that'll answer your question.
DeleteI have and my question is still what next? You have got your mandate, and it’s not just a mandate to have a referendum. We are still not Independent, no matter what some may claim. What next?
DeleteI'm a bit exasperated by this because I went out of my way to address the "what next" question in the blogpost and yet you're pretending that I didn't. My guess is that you didn't like the answer but don't pretend it isn't there.
DeleteThe obvious answer is a UDI.
DeleteThat will keep the faithful happy but will be ignored by everyone else and probably laughed at internationally…but you guys carry on if it makes you feel empowered.
I think that is their continued purpose in life. To divert, subvert and support the unionists. They are not interested in potential solutions other than continuing with the failed union to Scotlands and its people’s detriment.
ReplyDeleteI think that the main silver lining on last Thursday is that we now have an opportunity to be less 'party centric' in our approach.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we need to concentrate more of our thoughts and efforts on non party independence groups building up two things:
* the number of people who see the logic of, and need for, independence;
* the additional constitutional, legal and direct action strategies that we are going to need, over and above a democratic mandate, in the face of the UK's anti democratic attitude to self determination in Scotland.
Our support for any given political party in future elections should be entirely dependent on the commitment of that party to advancing our struggle - no more blank cheques for parasitic careerists.
I would support this fully
DeleteA lot of food for thought by Tommy Sheppard in the National:
ReplyDeletehttps://archive.is/bpiku
One or two of his old Labour obsessions like the Lords - who cares - they're gone with Indy anyway? But worth a thought apart from that.
The hereditary peers will be abolished now.
DeleteI'll believe that when I see it.
DeleteThanks for that link. TS being candid on his first thoughts on why they lost. I found it very hard to knock any of them and hope that he will be going around the other defeated candidates to get a collective view. It might just be wishful thinking on my part but my impression is that he's being very critical of the leadership over the last 3-4y in that article. I hope that he has said these things internally before.
DeleteThen we've got Ian Blackford saying people like Joanna Cherry are just "bitter" and only John Swinney is capable of turning things around.
DeleteBlackford is a fraud, lining his own pockets at every opportunity, all the while masquerading as a humble crofter.
DeleteYou’re the fraud and britnat. Are you really ifs in drag?
DeleteAnon at 4.42pm - not me at 1.48pm. You are a right tosser and a troll.
DeleteThe polls haven't moved above 50%, which is why there's no point pushing the issue right now.
ReplyDeleteWe need to exploit the demographics. The younger generations are pro independence and the older generations are fiercely anti independence. Younger generations don't get out and vote, so while the elections are being lost by pro indy parties, it's not the time for a referendum.
It’s not as simple as that.
DeleteSNP government needs to show its capable of governing for the benefit to f people here - especially in terms of jobs & economic development. And no more fiascos like the ferries.
Need to build on firm foundations. That’s what Salmond did for Indyref 1, growing the Yea vote by a third and nearly winning the vote.
The "glacial demographic inevitability" argument is dangerously delusional and has been debunked umpteen times.
DeleteWhen was the biggest movement in the polls towards Yes?
DeleteYou don't wait around until polls are consistently above 50 or 60% before starting a campaign, you win people over to your side during a campaign when it's an active issue and the electorate believes that there's a realistic possibility of it actually happening.
The last mandate we gave the SNP for an indyref was unequivocal. The difference between that election and this one is that this time around we all know the SNP's plan for when Westminster says no. And that plan is to do nothing and ask again in another 5 years, permanently parking Indy in a cul-de-sac while people like Stewart "His Majesty's Government" McDonald try to normalise that situation by writing articles in the National about how Westminster is sovereign and, sorry, but we just have to accept that. And while his buddies like Alyn "get behind gender reform or leave the SNP (fair enough, Alyn, I did, along with 60,000 others)" Smith and Toni "winning a de facto referendum wouldn't actually be a win, but a mandate to ask for a section 30" Giugliano try to solidify their position that a de facto ref would NOT be legitimate (I think Giugliano actually said the press would need to agree to it's legitimacy), thereby nullifying it as a strategy. And all the while in the background they're telling the press we really need 60% support rather than 50%. Nobody is going to reward the SNP for doing unionist's work for them (McDonald now saying the SNP should back off from Indy), while also having to tolerate deeply unpopular policies such as gender reform, the hate-crime bill, juryless trials. If they took up Alba's indy policy, they'll win at Holyrood. Otherwise, we know what's coming. And part of me wonders if that's what McDonald wanted all along. Because it's hard to credit anyone (except John McTernan of course) with being so politically clueless.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. These are the people the SNP need to marginalise if it is to be taken seriously as an independence seeking party.
DeleteAnon at 11.37am - these are the bad faith actors in the SNP I have referred to in the past.
DeleteAnon 11.37 Spot on. If the SNP back off independence (again) why would anyone vote for them?
DeleteThe chances of independence being achieved through the utter nonsense of a “de facto” referendum are considerably less than an actual sighting of Nessie by a German tourist.
ReplyDeleteKC - you have used this Line far too often - boring Britnat crap. Nae imagination.
DeleteAh, afternoon IFS, have you got over Thursday’s shocker?
DeleteHow did it go In East Renfrewshire?
296 votes
DeleteNot so good☹️
DeleteI have been promoting a de facto referendum on SGP since 2020 yet SNP/WGD numpties have been calling me a Unionist all these years. Strange world these numpties inhabit. They think doing NOTHING about independence and it will magically appear like a gradualist says it will.
ReplyDeleteThe HarryPotter Independence Strategy.
Yes and that includes yesindyref2 who now seems to have his penny dropped. You are only years behind me yesindyref2.
A one item manifesto would make Count Binface look serious.
DeleteIt wouldn’t be a ‘one item manifesto’, it would be a clear message that a vote for the SNP is an endorsement of support for independence. (Alongside a manifesto).
DeleteSturgeon undermined the party when she said yes to the question on whether unionists should vote for her. She should’ve said ‘Our route to independence is via demonstrable support of our party that stand for constitutional change’.
'It wouldn’t be a ‘one item manifesto’,???? It would have to be. Without anything but 'independence'. Nothing but that.
DeleteHere's what the SNP punts for independence: https://www.gov.scot/publications/building-new-scotland-justice-independent-scotland/
ReplyDeleteIt's extrodinarily dull and apparently there are 13 of them. If that's anything to go by it makes John Swinney sound interesting.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately for the SNP the prospect of the most boing man in the world resigning would probably involve someone as popular as stuffing walnuts into your orifices.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what the right route is, I genuinely do not. However, I'll tell you something. Stewart Mcdonald is a literally a plant for the British state. Has wee coffee breaks with gchq. I wonder how he'll be recompense now?
ReplyDeleteThe Scotsman is the appropriate home.