A former commenter on this blog from way back in the 2014 indyref period got in touch with a question a few days ago, and I've been so busy that I haven't responded to him yet - but it's an interesting and important question, so I thought I might as well turn my answer into a blogpost.
"Suppose Mr. Swinney really does win 65 or more seats (no longer a laughing matter). What if Mr. Starmer does not perform his usual U-turn?
What if he does not feel he can win a referendum? I'm thinking of possible successors who could fight a referendum, but the only one I can even see fighting indyref2 with any confidence is Andy Burnham.
What do you think is Mr. Swinney's plan?"
The first thing I should stress here is that I still regard a single-party SNP overall majority as a long-shot, simply because the AMS voting system is designed to produce hung parliaments, and it does that job very effectively. Unless the SNP's list vote recovers massively to 2011-style levels, the route to a majority essentially consists of winning 65 out of 73 constituency seats, and even though those seats are elected by the first-past-the-post element of AMS, it's still very unusual for first-past-the-post to produce quite such an extreme result. In the last hundred years, it's only happened once in a UK general election, when Ramsay MacDonald's Tory-dominated 'National Government' took 90.1% of the seats. That's the feat the SNP will have to emulate to hit John Swinney's target.
Nevertheless, when I was at the SNP campaign conference a couple of weeks ago, a number of senior figures did sound genuinely confident of a majority, and of course they have access to canvassing data. There are three possible explanations: a) it's a bluff, b) it's wishful thinking, or c) there might just be something in it. So purely hypothetically, let's imagine it's c) and work through what would happen if the SNP win a majority.
Would Keir Starmer immediately agree to a referendum? No, although of course his own days as Prime Minister might be numbered by then anyway.
Would any successor to Keir Starmer immediately agree to a referendum? No, unless it's someone we haven't given serious consideration to yet. Personally I would welcome Angela Rayner, Ed Miliband or Andy Burnham taking over, simply because they would probably represent a slight shift to the left, but I would expect all of them to be just as intransigent on the constitutional issue (especially Rayner, who seems almost robotic in her thinking).
Does that mean electing an SNP majority is pointless? Definitely not, because John Swinney has made so many promises about the effect of a majority that he would have to try to deliver - and that is the real value of the exercise, because no First Minister is actually powerless in the face of Westminster intransigence, unless they make themselves powerless by being too passive, which has been the recurring problem since the summer of 2017. Judging from the very few clues that were dropped last October, it sounds like a judicial review might be sought of any Westminster refusal to grant a Section 30 order - I can't see that going anywhere, but by the same token I can't see SNP members just accepting John Swinney saying "oh our application has been rejected, never mind, at least we tried". There would have to be a follow-up with a Plan B, which is where the legendary 'secret plan' kicks in, although by definition we don't know what that is.
The simplest option is the one that Believe in Scotland have proposed, which is to finally bring this matter to a head by using the Westminster election of 2028 or 2029 as a de facto referendum on independence. However, although Believe in Scotland are SNP allies and have close organisational links with the party, we know that John Swinney and other leading SNP figures like Stephen Flynn seem to be viscerally opposed to the whole concept of a de facto referendum. Maybe they would reconsider if other options closed off and they needed to show SNP members they were taking their mandate seriously. Or maybe they would be able to devise an imaginative alternative way of using the Westminster election to advance the cause.
One thing is for sure: if the SNP can win back their majority of Scottish seats at Westminster, they would have potential leverage to bring the UK government to the negotiating table as long as they are bold enough to use it. They could engage in parliamentary disruption tactics (which remember even the moderate John Smith did as Labour leader in the mid-1990s), or they could boycott the Commons for a period of time. The latter would create a genuine constitutional crisis: it wouldn't be considered sustainable for the bulk of one of the constituent nations of 'Our Pweshus Union' to go unrepresented in the national parliament for any prolonged period.
Again, Mr Swinney is so instinctively cautious that it's hard to imagine him going down that road, but the value of giving the SNP a mandate in May is that it opens these possibilities up and a conversation can at least be had about them.
On a semi-related point, I may actually have been proved wrong about something I said two years ago, although as with the French Revolution it's still too early to tell. I repeatedly said back then that losing the SNP majority at Westminster would be an unmitigated calamity, because it would lose us the main legacy of the 2014 referendum and we'd never get it back. Once Labour were the dominant party once again, there would be a sense of normal service being resumed and the SNP would thereafter only be able to compete in Holyrood elections.
That doesn't seem to be the case at all, and there's a real chance that Labour's 2024 victory will end up looking like a meaningless one-off. The real normal service will be resumed in 2028 or 2029 when the SNP return to dominance, the 2014 legacy will turn out to be assured, and that will be a massive psychological shock to the Scottish Labour Party. They thought they had established in 2024 that independence supporters would always sell themselves cheap by going back to Labour without any constitutional concessions whatsoever, but that was a mirage. There might eventually be some long-overdue soul-searching about what it will actually take for Labour to build bridges with their Yes-supporting former voters - and the two obvious potential answers to that question would be either a) greater flexibility on a referendum, or b) a significantly enhanced devolution package.
* * *
My latest constituency profiles for The National are Edinburgh Southern, Ettrick, Roxburgh & Berwickshire and Falkirk East & Linlithgow.
* * *
a) you can donate by card HERE
b) you can make a direct PayPal donation to my PayPal email address, which is: jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk
c) you can make a donation by bank transfer - for the necessary details, please drop me a line at my contact email address, which is: icehouse.250@gmail.com
* * *
Over the last few months, I've been building up the Scot Goes Pop channel on YouTube - you can check it out HERE, and don't forget to subscribe.
SNP MPs boycotting Westminster would be manna from heaven from Westminster and the BBC. Start with headlines claiming that SNP politicians are taking money for doing nothing. SNP responsible for……fill in the blanks yourself. Naive to think a boycott would be anything other than disastrous. A policy of daily disruption, always with the message that it’s in Scotland’s interests, and for its protection. Even that may not be enough. Who is going to get our message over. the BBC? The scummy press?
ReplyDeleteProbably the most fundamental problem over the last decade has been that the leadership have run in fear from every single workable option because of hysterical worries, such as the one you have just outlined, about how absolutely anything we might actually do would be "manna from heaven for Westminster". Do you have an alternative route-map to independence? If so, fine. But if not, reflect carefully on your basic outlook. There comes a point where a political movement has to make the weather, rather than constantly run for shelter from the rain.
DeleteSinn Fein didn't engage at Westminster and strangely got no where when in fact on a hung parliament they could have influence
DeleteAnon at 9.54am - you mean like the sort of influence the 56 SNP MPs out of 59 Scottish MPs had - NONE.
Delete“ they could have influence” says anon. What sort of person wants influence in England’s parliament? Answer a Britnat.
Scotland is England’s colony. The MPs from Scotland are only there to prop up the false image that Scotland is not a colony of England.
ifs - no influence not change. A bit like you.
DeleteThe anon troll at 12.29am posts gibberish. You should have stayed awake during classes at school.
DeleteIfS, Atlas is party for you !
DeleteThe Borders constituencies are such hard nuts to hope to crack although SNP and Yes activist locals have been working their socks off down there for young John Redpath, SNP candidate for Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire and ex SNP MP Calum Kerr as Holyrood MSP candidate for Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale. The Tory vote is always expected to hold up but the local Tories are showing a wee tad of nerves because of the local interest in Reform. There were a lot of Brexit supporters in the Borders and it's amazing and frustrating how many are hooked on immigration narratives. All the usual rural issues run deep and as Michael Moore, when he was Lib-Dem Secy of State for Scotland down there during the 2014 referendum used to say - Borderers like to get on with doing things themselves. All the anti-independence voters just rolled up in their 4x4s to vote No No No. I don't know if the late Mr Salmond's sister Gail Hendry got much support for the now extinct Alba in the Borders and if she and the past Alba members will now be canvassing for ATLAS. Not sure if that will 'go' down there. John Redpath is a good lad and Calum Kerr was excellent - just couldn't flatten the Tories. Hopefully there will a miracle of hope for the SNP down there this time but it's a big fingers crossed just cannae tell situation.
ReplyDeleteAnon at 1.05 am ..... Why do you keep saying "down there"? Are you in the Arctic?
DeleteAnon at 2.59 pm ..... Why do you have a problem with someone saying "down there" about the Borders? Are you in Barcelona?
DeleteSurely John Swinney himself now has a bedrock of self confidence after a couple of years of solid leadership. Two years ago the SNP was a basket case. Swinney has quietly sidelined the disastrous gender noncense, stopped the almost daily bad headlines and returned the party to the slick, disciplined machine it used to be.
ReplyDeleteA majority would still be a surprise but from where we were when he took over it would be truly miraculous.
So, sitting back after the election, offering no further trouble to British rule, and back to business as usual is enough for you?
DeleteAnd you think Yessers voting Labour sell themselves short?
Neil Parkway writes as if Swinney is some new kid on the block. He was a major figure during the last 11 years of failure, scandal, chaos and betrayal. Swinney specialised then and still does today in covering up wrongdoing.
DeleteHe is working his time until he gets his nice pension and will walk away just like Sturgeon, Yousaf and Forbes. Of course none of them can match Wishart for filling his slippers.
The answer in 2021 was a de facto referendum. The answer in 2026 was a de facto referendum. Both to get a >50% vote for independence.
As even posters like Keaton can see, if the SNP get a majority of MSPs but on only , say, 42% of the vote then a demand for a referendum or independence will be laughed at by Westminster.
Peter A Bell has most of what's needed, apart from his very first point further down on his page: "Reject the Section 30 process: stop asking Westminster for independence" which is NOT in line with NSGT (Non-Self-Governing Territory) rationale, where the UK State would be expected to respect full self-determination for Scotland - and indeed report on it annually.
ReplyDeletehttps://manifestoforindependence.scot/
I would replace that 1st point of 6 of Bell's with something like:
1. Firmly request an emergency legislative change to the Scotland Act to permanently devolve the right to determine our constitutional future status at any and all times, and take any and all steps needed to test the will of the People of Scotland and then negotiate and implement that will without undue delay.
2. If within 30 days there is no official answer, and I don't mean from some meaningless underling of the PM in passing, then reissue the request but with a 7 day expiry and the ultimatum that failing an affirmative the Scottish Parliament would (mostly in Bell's words):
"Assert Power over the Union. The Scottish parliament has a mandate from the people to assert power over the union, and will implement that mandate"
And of course after the 7 days and failing an affirmative, declare to the world's press that the Scottish Parliament will now exercise its mandate for full self-determination, empowered by the general election of 8th May 2026.
To do all that it would be better and perhaps necessary that Swinney and the SNP make it all very clear BEFORE the election. An overall majority would then empower them - and make it more likely to get that overall majority. Don't forget it was only in the last couple of weeks that Salmond was pinned down to stating a referendum would be held in the second half of the parliamentary term.
Does Swinney have the courage? Well, does he, punk?
Peter Bell-- you are a comedian.
DeleteWhy do people even mention Bell, he has sod all to do with independence? he's just an online moaner like IFS and the rest of their like
DeleteAnon at 5.33pm you are just an online troll like all the rest of the online trolls.
DeleteDebate here about what happens after the dust has settled on the election seems to assume that the SNP leadership is in favour of independence and will do everything possible to achieve it. Breaking news - that assumption is wildly incorrect.
ReplyDeleteis that ifs or baurheid calling?
DeleteTo April 4 @7.33 AM = re your comment on what will happen 'after the dust settles on the election' - you talk about making assumptions, but then make the assumption that the SNP is not for independence and that they are unlikely to do anything to progress the case for independence. That is you making an assumption based purely on your opinion of the SNP and how you narrowly frame what you feel is or isn't making progress to further the independence case ie we haven't achieved independence or had another referendum yet. So from that you deduce that the SNP are no longer interested in achieving independence - a deduction which shows that you take a very simplistic binary unrealistic view of what it will take to achieve either and you airbrush out all of the existing practical reasons why neither has as yet been achieved. There will be no dust settling after this election, which is why it is so important that people like Stephen Gethins and other ex Westminster SNP MPs who have the nitty gritty detailed knowledge of Scotland's position in relation to national and international memberships of necessary alliances, contractual and treaty ties to UKplc - need to get elected to Holyrood. Gethins especially unpicks all of the difficulties we would need to overcome and is always factually up to date on the pros and cons of how best to progress things. It would be hugely helpful to have the likes of Gethins in Holyrood and a refreshed SNP MSP intake will make a HUGE strengthening difference to enabling the Holyrood SNP MSPs to effect huge changes within the Holyrood parliament and within the SNP. Swinney needs to have these practically savvy experienced knowledgeable bods who are always internationally experienced and engaged with the detail of where Scotland actually sits in geopolitical terms and all of detail on how to plan to disengage with the Westminster governance system. This election is going to bring huge changes in how Holyrood works and the SNP have no intention of adopting any business as usual mindset. It's all going to be about transition and change - but the SNP need to get as near to a majority as can be achieved in order to have the clout to reform the parliament and enable it to be as nimble and 'new' as possible to be able to hold-off the anti-independence interventions made by the unionist MSPs. We need the SNP to hold Holyrood and have an SNP First Minister to effect changes which show they are working for ALL of Scotland - but bring in changes which do that AS WELL as make changes which will naturally for a clearer base to ease a transition towards independence. Competent governance is the pragmatic key to progress on independence and cross-party working with unionist MSPs to clearly improve things in Scotland will be the persuader to softening unionist MSPs die-hard anti independence stance. Unionist MSPs need to experience evidence of indisputable positive change for Scotland coming from the home turf of Holyrood - in order to make those unionist MSPs see living proof that things can be done Scotland style and see how damaging sticking to Westminster style actually is. SNP have no intention of sitting on perceived past habits. It's going to be all go - and the tropes about the alleged attraction of pensions and salaries is frequency scrambling nonsense. If Holyrood really was this mythical trough - thousands of opportunists would be queueing up to stand for Holyrood, whereas the reality is that simply does not happen any more. The work/life balance is notoriously rubbish for well-being as well as the remuneration being considered crap by discerning onlookers who may in the past have had aspirations - but now view it as far far too difficult a life option.
Delete3.27am demonstrates that AI can work 24/7 but it hasn’t mastered the use of a paragraph.
DeleteAnon at 7.33am says “ Breaking news” - hardly. Many people including myself have been saying that for many years and been proven correct. 19/10/23 SAVE THE DATE no ifs no buts.
DeleteAnon at 12.31pm - the kindness thing I can say about this poster is - what a complete numpty.
On the Believe in Scotland march, I was asking around for people's views on this: the ultimate "strategy" question that's dogged us for years now.
ReplyDeleteThe SNP activists were in an interesting mood. Like everyone else, they were both anxious and upbeat. People know what's coming: Prime Minister Farage in 3 years at the latest. Everyone knows the stakes. But what we don't have is the passion of 2014 that we can do this, even when the clock is running out.
We need an event—a referendum, or failing that an election—to focus minds and sort this out for once and for all. That event should have been *this* election. So what now? What happens when Rayner or Burnham (after a whole summer of Labour Party leadership contest shenanigans, wall to wall, finally…) says No?
Prime Minister Farage is by no means an inevitability. Extrapolating the best fit curves on the Wiki page, Westminster voting intention, gives the Tories, RefUK, Greens and Labour converging at around 20% of the vote in early 2027. The LibDems would lag at around 12%, but they have the benefits of regional concentration of support. The result in terms of seats (according to the Electoral Calculus model) would be a hung parliament. That’s to be expected where you have four parties on about a fifth of the popular vote each, and two parties (LibDems & SNP) with a disproportionately large number of seats resultant from regional concentration.
DeleteExtrapolating from the polling curves, Alba was due to cross the psychologically significant 100% mark last year or so.
DeleteFarage has the BBC in his sails. Who's going to beat him? Died Tories? Deid Labour? A new bout of Cleggmania?
Farage is the ticking clock. We should use his repugnant ascendancy as our rationale to take extraordinary measures and seize the initiative to winning independence.
Or the last MSPs elected to the last Scottish parliament can just turn out the lights. So long as he respects their pensions, it's all right?
Given the extreme bias of the media which operates in Scotland, the last thing pro-independence parties should fight for, is a referendum.
ReplyDeleteThey should declare in their manifesto's that a majority in Holyrood, allied to a period of pro-independence polling (polling in N Ireland has been granted constitutional significance) would allow for a declaration of independence.
Let the game begin!!!!
Challenging the refusal of a Section 30 is not going to work.
ReplyDeleteControl of the order paper is a power given to governments by parliament. As a consequence, governments have control over the introduction of bills. Governments cannot be compelled to introduce bills to parliament (and parliament cannot be compelled to vote for them).
There was a crowdfunder a few years ago to get a decision on Holyrood's competence (Martin Keating?). It started out as a crowdfunder to compel UK gov to introduce a S30 to parliament but because this idea is daft as a brush, it quickly morphed into something else.
Can I say to the labour party their incessant PR blogs online are more likely to annoy folk than encourage them. Who is paying for all this ? you billionaire donors? Still I still remember last labour in power, they dismantled Argyll and Clyde Health board to form great glasgow, they were programmed to close Hairmyres, Monkland, Vale of Leven Hospitals, Got rid of many maternity hospitals. THe NHS is not safe with Labour.
ReplyDeleteKC: A creative attempt, but I still spotted it was you. You're wasting your time, you know - even when I don't spot you, Nessie tips me the wink.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the reason that we have the endless repetition of mutually denounced, and then childishly abused, arguments on the method of achieving independence after the coming election is that there isn't one ?
ReplyDeleteNo party has made any sustained effort to help our people to understand that the British ruling class regards the UK as a unitary state - all else is smokescreen and flummery.
We need a majority but it isn't a solution on its own. When self determination is denied despite one we need widespread understanding that we will have to disengage from the UK in the face of refusal to accept our right to do so.
I think that we are probably laughed at for expecting to be able to 'get out from under' without having built strong support for the means required.