My friend Angus Brendan MacNeil, who is SNP MP for the Na h-Eileanan an Iar (the Western Isles) and chair of the House of Commons International Trade Committee, has had an article published by Politics Home that is going to open up debate in Scotland on the direction of independence campaigning. As Politics Home says of the piece :
In a direct challenge to the First Minister's authority, Angus MacNeil urged the Scottish Government to explore "all options" for securing independence, including holding a Catalonia-style wildcat poll on leaving the UK.
His dramatic intervention comes after Ms Sturgeon's latest request for the Scottish Parliament to have the legal power - known as a Section 30 order - to call a second ballot was rejected by Boris Johnson.
As they also note:
I am aware that Angus' view will not appeal to all in the SNP. Most especially it will not appeal to those around Nicola Sturgeon. Angus is breaking the almost unwritten rule of SNP politics of 'no dissent'. But there is dissent in the SNP now. And the dissent is over Sturgeon's view that the route to Scottish independence has to be along a path set by England.
I have already discussed the fact that this is not necessary. Scotland can become independent, as a matter of fact, without English consent. International law says so. After all, if it did not almost no one would ever have achieved independence from English domination, from the USA onwards. In other words, Sturgeon is choosing a very narrow view of what legal means here. In effect she's defining it is as UK law when that is precisely what Scotland does not want to be bound by.
But there's another dimension to this as well. It's forgotten just how much Brexit changes this. I rather strongly suspect that Alex Salmond had no choice but go down the UK approved referendum route in 2014 precisely because the UK was then a member of the EU, and he knew that meant two things. The first was that the EU exists to support its existing members: all clubs do. So they would not accept any Scottish departure from the UK without English / rUK consent. And so, secondly, they would not let Scotland back into the EU if they had left without that consent. So Salmond had to get a Westminster approved referendum.
But all that has changed. The UK is no longer in the EU. The EU is not worried about UK national unity anymore. It's simply not its issue. And some members are even quite seen to see it broken. In that case the EU will be more than happy to let Scotland back in now on the basis of international law, and that does not, as I have noted, require that the rest of the UK approve the departure.
Put simply then, what constrained Salmond to require Westminster approval should no longer constrain Sturgeon. She is simply wrong to say it does. All that was is no more in this context: everything has changed. Except, it seems, Nicola Sturgeon's view on seeking to please London.
This does not mean Scotland should be reckless. Far from it. Robin MacAlpine has set out an excellent logic for going forward. But as Angus MacNeil has said:
If we discount doing nothing bar shouting how unfair it all is, all the options open have surely to be considered.
I sense a bumpy ride for Scottish independence for all sorts of reasons over coming months. But this divide is the biggest one of all. And the split seems to be between those very comfortable with governing from Holyrood, and wanting to stay in power there, and those who want to drive Scotland forward.
I suspect the progressives will win. The reason is easy to identify. All that splits the SNP from much of Labour is their promotion of independence. On policy, or at least rhetoric, they are remarkably alike. Labour has been wiped out in Scotland. The SNP has been ascendant. But the moment it forgets independence is its reason for being then it will go into decline. That is what those who are saying Sturgeon is failing them sense to be the case. And based on pure political analysis alone, it looks like they have to be right.
This one will run, and run.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Good article Richard, and interesting as always to hear your view on the current situation (stagnancy…?). I need to consider it further though before commenting (or not). I can’t believe you didn’t see my own opinion on the benefits of a wildcat referendum though!
https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/2020/02/11/in-favour-of-a-wildcat-referendum/
I didn’t receive resounding calls of support for it though – yet. 😉
I am finite
For which I apologise!
Yor time will come
😀
There are certain events and political situations that are ultimately untenable and the passage of time shows how the tensions and strains eventually reach a breaking point. Examples include the apartheid regime in South Africa, the progressive move towards a unified Ireland and ultimately the Israel/Palestine conflict which will eventually be resolved differently from the Trump deal of the century. Until the resolution event conflict ensues.
The question ultimately is at what speed can and will these resolutions happen. Many revolutionaries want instant gratification based on the obvious view that the outcome is inevitable and so why should it not happen immediately. Others see that such moves can lead to violent struggle and seek to use existing state mechanisms to push the agenda forward without creating political instability and chaos.
In the end it is a combination of these two positions that over time lead to the inevitable outcome. Sometimes this trend can take decades or even longer.
There needs to be a Sturgeon figure to promote one view. If not her then someone else would appear to carry that message. Similarly there will be the revolutionary counterpoint to progress by agreement which is needed so that the message does not stagnate.
Scotland could force a break but will the powers of reaction create enough friction to mean that move initially fails. Most electorates are still largely 50:50 on major issues and if the revolution fails a political crisis ensues and a country is caught in stagnation and obsession in a single issue. (see Brexit-In fact has Brexit been resolved, probably not).
Scotland needs both positions and an increasing and verifiable level of public support to force a break and it can only do this using both methods of persuasion. One for the revolutionaries and one to pull through the less assertive members of the electorate.
I suspect Ms. Sturgeon is trying to maintain “steady as she goes” until the brouhaha surrounding Alex Salmond’s trial dies down. It’s a tactical delay in pursuit of the long-term strategy. I always believed Alex Salmond’s objective was Devo Max within the UK, but with the UK in the EU. Brexit has changed the strategy and the objective. And the tactics have to be modified in response to factors beyond the SNP’s control. The focus between now and the next Scottish election has to be on the delivery of good governance. I’ll continue to echo Parnell: no man has the right to set a boundary on the march of a nation.
I think Salmond wanted more than that
You may be right. He had to campaign for the whole hog. Seeking to secure “the freedom to achieve freedom” attracts the visceral animosity of the purists. Irish history provides an object lesson with the killing of Michael Collins and its aftermath.
However, the SNP has time on its side – but only if it continues to deliver good governance with maximum use of the non-reserved powers it has. It won over a million votes in the 2016 Scottish Parliament election and just shy of a million in the UK 2017 election, but got close to 1.25 million in the UK 2019 election. However, it got close to 1.5 million in the UK 2015 election. And that has to be its target in next year’s Scottish Parliament election. Then it will have a thoroughly reinforced mandate to go for Indyref2 and ignore London’s refusal to consent to it.
Yes I think Angus is right. I think the FM’s legal background is showing through. The law grinds very slow and very fine, as the saying goes. However law, or at least UK law, has little if anything to do with Scottish independence. Richard has his issues with the Isle of Man, but the Manx government and their Manx lawyers have always seen it as their job to circumvent UK law whenever it was supposedly preventing the island from doing something. There is a funny story my dad was slightly involved with when Harold Wilson was a bit short of the readies in the late 1960s (as Westminster usually is!). So he said the Isle of Man should pay for defence, which did not go down very well when the defence review had just closed RAF Jurby and all Navy / Army / Coastguard presence in the island. So Tynwald said in that case perhaps they should have an international tended and maybe the USSR would have a more competitive offer. The demand for cash was abruptly shelved, though it came back in the 1980s.
Unfortunately the Scottish civil service (and thus all the lawyers) are employed by and answerable to the head of the Home Civil Service in London. So I suspect most would not want to rock the boat in case it affects career prospects, etc. So from what I have heard there tends to be a very cautious ‘we are not allowed to do that, Minister’ approach. So add that on to a very legalistic and cautious approach from the SNP leadership and you end up in the current position of lots of talk but little action.
As others have said nowhere of any significance got to leave the empire by asking nicely. As things stand the price to Johnson of saying ‘No’ is zero and indeed I suspect it is actually popular in England. So until he is made to pay a price he will continue to say ‘No’. I don’t know what you could do, but e.g. withdraw co-operation for the COP26 summit and tell Police Scotland and Glasow they are not allowed to spend any money on it. Would seem fair to me – why should we pay for it if Boris says Scotland is to be excluded?
Except COP 26 is good for Glasgow….
And the news is London is trying to take it back already as a result
“I rather strongly suspect that Alex Salmond had no choice but go down the UK approved referendum route in 2014 precisely because the UK was then a member of the EU”.
On a narrow reading that may be true, but on a wider reading, I have always considered that Alex Salmond had no choice in having a referndum at all in 2014 – even though he would know he was almost certainly going to lose it. He had to call it, because it was non-negotiable with his own bedrock supporters. It was their insistence.
The real surprise that caught everybody out, including David Cameron was that the SNP nearly won it. Nobody saw that coming. What would be surmised as 30%-35% support turned into 45%; even with Project Fear and late, panic UK grand-scale propaganda, the referendum still almost delivered a Yes majority. That changed everything. Brexit has changed everything a lot more; and it is not over yet. I understand the impatience, but I doubt it is needful.
Boris Johnson may have won the election ‘big’, but he is ‘on the ropes’, barely conscious – and we are only in Round 1.
Worth reading Robin MacAlpine – he may agree with you
John, on Salmond having no choice in having a referendum, I remember it as he was being constantly heckled about it after the SNP won their first majority in the Scottish Parliament, but it was by all the unionist politicians and media, not his own supporters. No one else seems to remember it this way, for some reason, but I distinctly remember the constant cajoling of ‘he doesn’t the have the nerve’ . He certainly rose to the occasion.
The support for independence rose to above 50% close to the actual referendum, in opinion polling, at which point all stops were pulled out, purdah broken, warnings of an asteroid strike directly on Scotland, swathes of English MPs visiting etc, so support fell to 45%. I’m sure we can expect much worse next time. If there is a next time. There are other lawful routes where people can choose a positive future – the 2019 covenant for example – we just won’t get the fascinating debates. It really was a remarkable time, 2014, with so many ordinary people actively engaged.
The history of independence of Kosovo is I think to route for the Scots to follow. Craig Murray has an excellent piece on it.
We also need to factor in the maverick Johnson – like Trump he is unpredictable, narcissistic and has nothing to lose by trashing Scotland, emasculating devolution and funding directly, something his Scottish MP,s have advocated and then basking in the glory.
NS seems devoid of ideas on this and Ifear the chance will soon be gone.
Was wondering, if (hypothetically) Scotland became independent, what would become of the economy of the remainder of the U.K.? Are there any reports or studies on such a situation?
Not that I know of
MacNeil and MacAlpine’s route will certainly appeal to people who are already fixed on having an independent Scotland. We’re fed up waiting! Let’s get it NOW! Sturgeon is wasting time, too comfortable in her role, is a coward, is devious with some nefarious hidden agenda, she has delusions of grandeur, bla bla.
Instead, consider what effect an immediate ‘wildcat’ referendum would have on the people–who make up around half of the Scottish voters at the moment–who are undecided and/or do NOT support independence? Keeping in mind how the MSM, which most of these people buy or watch, would play this.
We cannot afford another No result. Especially one based on media lies and disinformation. One that would paint the SNP as acting ‘outside the law.’
The old adage: never interrupt your opponents when they are screwing up certainly applies here.
The longer this Brexit fiasco continues–the more time Boris has to threaten NHS selloff, trade off the interests of Scottish fishermen, render the situation impossible for Scottish farmers to get the migrant help they need to get their crops harvested, undermine the supply chain for Scottish businesses, etc–the more No/Leave voters will see the benefits–the necessity–for Scotland becoming an independent nation and rejoining the EU as a full member state.
Nicola is right. Speaking as an SNP activist who did street stalls with the public in the runup to the December 12th election–in a traditionally ex-Labour area that used to have the doughty, now feather-and ermine-bedecked George Robertson as its MP, I can assure you, there are a huge slew of people still seeking an excuse to vote against the SNP. And against independence. I didn’t encounter a single person who said they wanted independence but were mad at the SNP because we didn’t have it yet. Instead, I encountered a discouraging number of people who said they wouldn’t vote for independence OR the SNP ‘in a million years.’
We won on 12 December, with an increased majority from last time, but the win was far from a landslide–and in a first-past-the-post system, that’s not quite enough to assume overall victory for independence. And our slogan was to stop Brexit (if possible) and to give Scotland a chance to ‘choose.’ It wasn’t necessarily a vote for independence. It was a step in the right direction, but it was a step, not an outright victory.
If we did a wildcat referendum just now, I don’t think we’d win it–mainly because of the way the MSM would play it. Or if we won, it would be with a narrow margin …which is not enough to ensure a solid start to an independent Scotland. However, there are many who are ready to be persuaded. Many ‘don’t knows’ stopped at our table to get information. So we still need to do the persuading.
Ask every person you know–how is Brexit is going to affect you? What will happen to your business? What will happen to your business if others around you fail? What is going to happen to our restaurants if there is an interruption of the supply chain to the EU’s food sector, followed by a doubling of food prices? And etc. This is the sobering discussion we should be having, which will sway people to voting for independence as the ONLY way to get back into the EU and the customs and economic union.
Independence supporters would do well, right now, to stop sniping at the SNP because it doesn’t have a magic wand–and can’t even control the WEATHER, for heaven’s sake!–and spend time converting No voters to solid support for independence. We have the best tool available just now, which we didn’t have back in 2014. That’s Brexit.
Concentrate on the damage Brexit is going to do to the UK as well as Scotland. Instead of pointing out flaws in the SNP and undermining confidence in them, maybe spend a bit more time pointing out flaws in Brexit–and individualising these flaws by pointing out to doubters how Brexit is going to hurt them? Allow the SNP to get the independence programme set up–which I have every confidence they are doing, including already strengthening our ties with Europe (see Nicola’s visit to Europe last week.) The EU is now making it clear they are much on our side in this struggle–which they could not do while the UK was still a member state.
Once we have a clear, solid majority of Scots who are eager to vote for independence, THEN we can do the ‘wildcat’ thing if need be. It will happen, and it will happen soon …but it hasn’t happened yet. The worst thing you can do in a fight is fire your single-shot weapon at an enemy that isn’t within range yet.
I agree that the UK leaving the EU certainly does free the EU’s hands, in terms of supporting Scotland …perhaps even in the upcoming trade talks? Let’s give this the space it needs to get underway. We are already out of the EU, despite the SNP’s best efforts to Remain, so stopping Brexit is no longer an issue. The focus is now …how do we get back? And why should we try? Let’s work on that, instead of fulminating about Nicola Sturgeon?
The reason Nicola is under constant, unremitting attack from unionist MSM is not because she’s a bad leader and bad for independence. It’s because she’s a good one. They know it. And to stop independence from happening, they need to bring her down.