If you want to get a Section 30 order, you first have to be serious about holding a referendum without one

My interest was caught by Peter A Bell's blogpost the other day about Green MSP Ross Greer's comments on Indyref 2, and not for the first time I find myself half-agreeing with Peter and half-disagreeing.  I certainly agree that Greer, in arguing that a Section 30 order is essential before a referendum can go ahead, is a siren voice who could potentially lead us onto the rocks - not ideologically or philosophically, but simply in strategic terms.  Greer suggests that we should forget all about holding a referendum without Westminster's consent and instead concentrate on "creating the political leverage to get the Section 30 order we need" - but the obvious point he's overlooked is that embarking on a process that could lead to a non-Westminster-approved referendum is in itself the sort of leverage that could actually produce a Section 30 order.  It's arguably very unlikely that anything else would even be capable of creating sufficient leverage (with the possible exception of an early general election in which the SNP make net gains - but of course the triggering of an early election is not in the gift of anyone on the pro-indy side).  There's no point in calling for the creation of leverage if in the same breath you're arguing that we should throw the best chance of leverage we have into the bin.

Greer says: "The idea of us being in a situation where we had to attempt independence with the absolute resistance of the UK government, I don’t think, would make independence actually possible."  Does he not understand that this stance, if maintained, would give the UK government a very simple method by which they can make independence "impossible"?  All they'd have to do is just keep saying "no" to a referendum.  Job done.  Scotland would have no leverage at all.

Think back to the first indyref.  Why did the UK government grant a Section 30 order for that one?  They didn't do it out of  the goodness of their hearts, that's for sure.  They did it because the SNP initially took the view that a Section 30 order wasn't needed and were talking seriously about going ahead without one.  That was dangerous for the UK government, who risked losing any say over the format of the vote (for example whether there would be a Devo Max option), and also risked being faced with a dilemma over whether to take legal action to stop the referendum - which might or might not have succeeded, but would have been politically damaging either way.  A credible threat of an "unapproved" referendum would generate a similar set of risks for London now.

In many ways, the strategic logic is similar to that of the Continuity Bill.  The Scottish Government would much prefer a deal with London to protect devolution, but paradoxically by preparing the ground for exploiting a no-deal scenario, you make a deal far more likely to happen.  But of course there's always just a chance that London will still prove intransigent, in which case you have to fall back on the Continuity Bill - in that sense it's an each-way bet.  Perhaps that's what scares people about using the same tactic to extract a Section 30 order - if it didn't work, we'd actually have to press ahead with an "unapproved" referendum.  But would that really be so awful?  If a referendum bill was passed without a Section 30 order and the Supreme Court subsequently upheld it, it would become the law of the land and the "fears" of a unionist boycott would probably recede.  If the Supreme Court didn't uphold it, the vote wouldn't happen anyway, but at least we'd then have political and legal clarity which would lead us inexorably towards using a Holyrood election to seek an outright mandate for independence.

Greer raises a specific concern about unionist-controlled local authorities refusing to cooperate with a referendum held without a Section 30 order.  I'm obviously not a legal expert, so I'm willing to be corrected on this, but it seems intuitively likely that there are ways to deal with that problem.  It's surely of some significance that powers over local government are devolved to Scotland.

Incidentally, I'd also suggest it's rather important that Labour and the Liberal Democrats (with the eccentric exception of Mike Rumbles) have created a precedent by voting in favour of the Continuity Bill, in spite of the Presiding Officer's opinion that it exceeds the parliament's powers.  That will make it harder for either party to credibly argue that the SNP are doing something terribly wrong by passing a referendum bill over which there is some legal doubt.  I don't say that in any sort of triumphalist "gotcha" way - I think Labour and the Lib Dems have done absolutely the right thing over the Continuity Bill, and they may even have done it for the right reasons.  But it's created new facts on the ground, just the same.

Where I part company with Peter A Bell is his belief that Greer's flawed thinking on strategy is symptomatic of a major difference in approach between the Greens and the SNP.  In reality, Greer's views are shared by some senior people in the SNP, while some take the opposite view, and others are somewhere in between.  I've no idea which camp Nicola Sturgeon is in, and unless Peter has some sort of inside knowledge, I think he's in danger of projecting his own beliefs onto her.  This isn't first and foremost an SNP v Green problem - there's an internal SNP debate on strategy that needs to be won.

*  *  *

If you're an SNP supporter in the Penicuik ward, don't forget to vote in the local by-election today.  The SNP won the popular vote in the ward last year, but this is exactly the sort of place where Labour have prospered in recent months, so it could be a tight contest and every vote is important.  (The Tories are in with a serious chance as well.)

The logic is inescapable: the UK government must pull England out of the World Cup

I'm fairly agnostic on the claims that Theresa May has made about Russian state involvement in the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter. I find it entirely plausible that Russia might have sufficient disregard for human rights and international law to do something like that, but by the same token the events leading up to the Iraq War should serve as a handy reminder to us all that Western governments are highly skilled at taking advantage of narratives that seem plausible to their citizens, regardless of whether they are actually true or not. What I do know for sure is that the British establishment, all the way from Nick Robinson down to David Leask, have recently been taking an absolutist stance on anything that might give succour to the Putin regime. Remember Robinson saying that it didn't actually matter that the Alex Salmond Show would be free of pro-Putin propaganda, because the existence of the show was still lending credibility to propaganda elsewhere on the same channel?

Well, if RT is an instrument of Russian soft power, the same is true a hundred times over of Russia's forthcoming hosting of the World Cup. England's participation in the tournament would in effect be a genuflection towards that soft power before a global audience of billions, and yet we're told that the UK government's belief that the Russian state has just attempted murder on British soil will not be an obstacle to that happening. Only practical concerns about safety would lead to the team's withdrawal. Is that position remotely sustainable? I don't think it is. My guess is that some sort of sophistry about "the need to keep sport and politics separate" will eventually be used as an excuse for England taking part, because self-serving Tory politicians are too scared of disappointing the large football-mad section of the electorate. If that proves to be right, we'd better not hear any more hypocritical and sanctimonious tripe about how a 30-minute weekly TV show on an Ofcom-licensed channel is somehow undermining Western civilisation.  Amazing, isn't it, how when there's some sort of political cost, all these fine principles suddenly go flying out of the window?

*  *  *

I caught the early part of the Continuity Bill debate in the Scottish Parliament this afternoon, and I was tickled by the apparent belief of Adam "IT'S THE LAW!!!!" Tomkins that we should all be reassured that the UK government's amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill will "allow" - but not require - London to seek agreement with the devolved administrations before establishing common UK frameworks that affect devolved matters.  Apparently it's some sort of spectacular breakthrough that the UK government isn't legislating to forbid itself to talk to Nicola Sturgeon.

Even more disingenuous is that Tomkins claims to believe that frameworks should be agreed, not imposed, and yet refuses to acknowledge that such a stance is irreconcilable with his support for Westminster legislation that enables imposition.  The bottom line is that Tomkins and his colleagues think that if the Scottish government fail to reach an agreement with London on a framework after negotiating in good faith, London should be entirely free to impose a framework.  That is simply not consistent with the devolution settlement as it has existed since 1999.

*  *  *

Of the many abusive trolls that pollute Scottish political Twitter, Labour's Ian Smart is undoubtedly the one that has enjoyed most exposure as a TV pundit.  This was his 'thoughtful contribution to the debate' on the Continuity Bill the other day -

"Because no-one in 1998 anticipated us ever leaving the EU, always and never are both apposite. Question for SNP remains why they are best exercised on a supra national basis or by Holyrood alone but not by any intermediate arrangement? Difficult to see an answer beyond Anglophobia."

Given that Smart should undoubtedly have been long since expelled from Labour for the use of abusive and racist language, it's perhaps a mistake to take anything he says too seriously.  Nevertheless, I'll bite, because the answer to his question is actually pretty straightforward.

First, it's obviously not the case that the SNP support the status quo in Scotland's relationship with the EU.  They want those powers to remain at a supranational level, but for Scotland to have a vote on them by means of direct representation in EU institutions, which we currently lack.  In some areas, of course, that would mean having an outright veto, and in others it would be possible to stop unwanted things happening by forming part of a blocking minority.

Second, it's not even the case that the SNP are opposed to the powers being exercised at a 'supranational' UK level after Brexit.  But what Smart doesn't seem to understand is that "UK-wide" and "London-imposed" do not mean the same thing.  It is perfectly possible for there to be UK-wide frameworks that have been voluntarily thrashed out between the different governments in the UK.  Just as would happen if Scotland was independent within the EU, the SNP wants post-Brexit Scotland to pool sovereignty as an active participant whose agreement for decisions is required.  The only difference is that independence is not necessary for that to happen in the post-Brexit scenario - the existing devolved settlement, under which anything not explicitly reserved to Westminster is automatically devolved, should already guarantee it.  Alas, it looks as if that settlement isn't worth the paper the Scotland Act was written on.

The Parable of the Reasonable Tory Thieves

Tories:  Hey, Scotland!  We're going to have to break into your house soon and steal 111 items.  Don't worry, we'll only be taking what we need, and you'll still have plenty.  Next Tuesday suit you?

Scotland:  This is absolutely outrageous.  Stealing is totally unacceptable in a civilised society.   Please keep your hands off our possessions.

Tories:  OK, OK, maybe 111 is a bit excessive.  We'll only steal 25.  So, next Tuesday?

Scotland:  It is not acceptable for you to steal anything at all.

Tories:  Come on, be reasonable.  We're offering you a very substantial compromise.

Scotland:  We're sorry, but if you don't stop talking about breaking into our house and stealing our possessions, we'll have no option but to reinforce the locks on our doors, and to install advanced anti-intruder devices.

Adam Tomkins:  Reinforcing the locks on your doors simply because someone is threatening to steal from you is an unnecessary, ill-thought-through, incoherent and provocative step.  Scotland must stop sulking, fling its doors wide open, and rejoice at every item that is generously left behind by the benevolent intruders.

London's legal challenge to the Continuity Bill perfectly illustrates how "The Vow" was betrayed

Something suddenly crystallised in my mind the other day when I saw a tweet stating that the UK government were going to court in a bid to grab powers back from the Scottish Parliament.  Of course strictly speaking that isn't what's happening (or what's seemingly just about to happen) - the legal challenge to the Continuity Bill will be based on the technical argument that the Scottish Parliament doesn't currently have the legal right to depart from EU law, and won't have until the day after Britain leaves the European Union.  Theoretically, if the UK government win the challenge, all the Scottish government would have to do is wait until immediately after Brexit, and they would then be perfectly free to introduce exactly the same Continuity Bill without legal impediment.  But the snag, as we all know, is that by then Westminster's EU Withdrawal Bill will have been passed, and the Scottish Parliament will have been stripped of some of its current powers and thus will no longer be able to pass the Continuity Bill in its current form.  To all intents and purposes, then, the legal challenge may as well be a bid to destroy the devolution settlement, because if the Supreme Court doesn't uphold the Continuity Act, the Scottish Parliament will be left utterly defenceless in the face of a power-grab.  (The only remaining hope would be a blocking move in the House of Lords.)

And yet...do you remember something?  A major strand of the Smith process which followed on from "The Vow" in 2014 was about supposedly putting the Sewel Convention on a statutory footing.  The convention, among other things, forbids the UK government from removing powers from Holyrood without consent.  If that principle had been meaningfully written into law as promised, it would have been possible for the Scottish Government to go to the Supreme Court to block the power-grab.  Instead, the British government are somehow able to go to the Supreme Court in an attempt to effectively enable the power-grab.  It's utterly grotesque - and that's what betrayal looks like.