I wrote an immediate reaction to the news of Nicola Sturgeon's resignation on this blog yesterday, and have no reason to change my opinion since then. An elaborated version will be out in my column for The National today. That column will also spell out the economic issues that I think a new SNP leader should address because Sturgeon failed to do so. I highlight five, but I could have added more.
The cause of Scottish independence is, however, bigger than one party, and most definitely bigger than one party leader. Whatever Nicola Sturgeon's strengths and weaknesses were, and she clearly had both, she was not the pivot on which the whole independence debate turned. That issue revolves around the near enough 50% of people in Scotland who do not wish to be governed from England.
I am, of course, aware that opinion polls show that support for independence varies a little from time to time around this number. At this moment it is, and will inevitably be, down a bit. In a long-term campaign that is a matter of inconsequence. Precisely because Nicola Sturgeon was out of ideas as to what to do with regard to independence, to which her commitment was always in doubt, I expect numbers to increase in the longer term.
Meanwhile, Labour cannot apparently believe its luck, and there are those who are saying that its revival in Scotland is imminent. I would suggest a little caution on their part. Just because the Tories are in complete disarray in Westminster this does not mean that Labour will increase in popularity in Scotland, where confidence in them was shattered by 2015 and has shown no sign of being revived since then.
So what is the future for Scotland now? My first suggestion is that those who think that the independence debate will now be over are seriously mistaken. Once the shock of Sturgeon's resignation is embraced many in the SNP will be relieved at the opportunity that this provides for the debate to move on. Sturgeon correctly, even if implicitly, identified herself as an obstacle to this in her resignation speech.
Second, I suggest that support for independence will increase over time when it is realised that post-independence Scotland will not be dominated by a few political characters, like Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, but will instead be a thriving democracy in which differing opinions can be offered, be heard, and be chosen between.
Third, the timescale for delivery remains beyond the next year or two, as it always was once the Supreme Court ruled against the Scottish government'sclaim to have entitlement to run and independence referendum. So be it. The people of a country held against their will under the yoke of another that is acting as a colonial force will eventually prevail as it always has, and as it will in the case of Scotland.
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:
My shock at Nicola’s resignation has diminished but my desire for Independence grows even stronger. I argued that GR reform was a subject that would best be tackled after Independence, but also that it was entirely up to the Scottish Government to decide on. That stooshie does not negate all of the good she has done and the lasting favourable impression she has made at home and abroad. Few politicians are as willing as Nicola to answer their critics openly.
I can’t guess who will replace her. There are familiar names already being touted but, although I am not suggesting him as a candidate, Stephen Flynn was not even on my radar when he became SNP leader at WM, and what an impression he has made with his pithy, incisive questions. Maybe there is just the right one amongst our MSPs?
I hope so
Fair enough, but what you celebrated yesterday was a victory, however fleeting, of the British pigsty and its political and media values over the Scottish Parliament and Scottish democracy, because that really is what has happened here whatever you may think of Nicola Sturgeon’s policies.
I really do not agree
I’m sorry but the only good decision Nicola Sturgeon made was to hire excellent speech writers.
History will show her as nothing more than a Hilary Clinton tribute act.
Great at talking the talk but useless at walking the walk
Tbe real mystery is why her husband Peter Murrell, the power behind the throne, is being allowed free reign by the media to, presumably, continue his Machiavellian role unchallenged.
As PSR says ‘Hmmmm’
Well, however it turns out I wish Scotland the best and hope that what they wish for is something better than we’ve got here in England which can only be described as an absolute disgrace of a political system.
My feeling, highlighted by the Ferry Fiasco, which was perfectly avoidable, is that the SNP needs to concentrate on running a competent government first as that will then make an independent Scotland look like a more realistic possibility.
I was also taken by Andy Wightmans statement here
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23152603.andy-wightman-wont-back-indyref2-sustained-support-vote/
Mr Boxall,
The SNP spent its first ten years plus in Government carefully operating a cautious, low risk system of managerialist Government in order to demonstrate to the electorate that the SNP was electable. It worked very successfully as an electoral operation, but you can only do it so long before people realise you are just operating a closed system; a devolution system that familiarity demonstrates does not actually allow much of real economic substance to happen. So the results fall short in a crisis. More is inevitably expected. Devolution was not designed to deliver it. Repeat and rinse will not work.
Labour and Conservative think they can reap the electoral reward from electoral frustration; and run Holyrood on Spin (they have no track record in Government in Holyrood or Westminster to show they can do managerialism effectively); Spin is their functioning strategy, back by a media driven by a Conservative Press Agenda (hence Labour allows the Press to set the framework for their manifesto).
I’m trying hard to stay calm here, but I do want to point out a few things.
One: there are two battles going on regarding Scotland’s independence:
a) what Scotland should look like after independence
b) how to get No voters to change their minds and vote Yes
a) Debating about what Scotland should look like after independence is good, necessary, and is ongoing among those who voted YES and plan to vote YES again. We need to craft a written constitution for adoption after independence is settled. I agree with you about how desirable it is to have a new Scottish currency established from day one, and etc.
BUT
b) I think it’s important to recognise that the people who are intent on voting NO will not be moved by this post-indy debate—or even listen to it, except to oppose aspects of it that will be highlighted in the mainstream media—a media that is NOT our friend. The media will highlight anything they think will put voters off voting YES—and if that looks like failing, they will simply lie.
Some NO voters are motivated by personal hatred of the SNP (both party and its representatives) and all the SNP stands for, ever was and ever will be. This includes the Union-draped football supporters and ya ya’s whom the MSM is so fond of promoting. It’s frustrating to realise that nothing we say is going to change their minds.
Or they may have a genuine desire to retain the Union and the Monarchy, no matter how bad things get. We can win them over (and are winning them over) by pointing out how badly the Union is failing. They know something is failing, because businesses are failing all around them, they are receiving bills they are no longer able to pay, and have had to absorb all the losses stemming from Brexit, and have been watching the NHS go down the drain, the postal service being run down, and public services across the UK under threat of extinction, strikers being vilified for asking for simple cost of living raises and totally justified reasonable working conditions. These pro-Union folk will be open to persuasion. The SNP is making it clear that they want to keep what is good about British life …like an NHS free at point of use …and are planning to restore what used to work well before Thatcher got into power, like public-owned services and utilities. It’s what Labour should be doing, and isn’t. This goal is not away off the charts in terms of radical politics—despite the way the anti-indy MSM portrays it.
Many NO voters have a genuine fear of losing things that personally matter to them, like their money, pensions, standard of living (fears which are constantly fueled by MSM’s hysterical headlines.) Why do you think Alex Salmond chose ‘we will use the pound’ as the hill he was willing to die on, in 2014? He is not financially naieve, but he knew that saying ‘oh, by the way, we’re going to have a new Scottish currency from day one’ was NOT going to win votes. People didn’t vote NO because they wanted a new currency and weren’t being offered one! Maybe ask Alex himself, why he chose that stance. And yes, he didn’t get us over the line in 2014, but he did raise support for independence from around 25% to 45%, with around an 85% voter turnout. So he was on the right track, I reckon.
I would say that the present SNP stance—that we will keep the pound until independence is finalised, and THEN decide what currency to continue with—is a pretty sensible stance just now, if we want to keep (and gain) nervous voters who are frightened of losing monetary stability.
I am very sorry to see Nicola resign, but it’s not personally or politically sustainable to be the front-page target for every vicious media outlet in the land (and that includes The National at times) for a period of 8 years (like a two-term American president.)
She has also been doing the ‘day job’ of keeping her country alive and ticking over during one of the most difficult periods in living history—while at the same time tirelessly promoting independence, meeting ordinary people at every opportunity, working with whatever arises at Holyrood, and boosting Scotland’s reputation overseas. If anyone thinks that Robin McAlpine’s personal hatred of NIcola Sturgeon represents the opinion of the majority of Scotland’s indy supporters, they are not feeling the pulse of Scotland’s people accurately.
To even suggest that Nicola—a lifelong active member of the SNP at all levels—doesn’t really want independence is pretty low. But never mind. She’s just given her detractors the opportunity to wave THEIR magic wands and make independence happen in a single bound, before the UK government shuts down the Scottish parliament altogether. The ball is in their court now. Happy days.
I have discussed what happened in 2014 with Alex
He made it clear that his position then was a mistake
I think he’s right now
I think Sturgeon got it wrong
But I have never pretended to support any party in Scotland, or elsewhere. That’s not my role. I observe, watch, comment and seek to change debate based on that observation.
It was a mistake in 2014 over the currency, but the real mistake was not to allow a two question referendum. Salmond was never, ever going to win in 2014 (he gambled on independence not because that was the solution Scots wanted, but because the SNP Party demanded it – quite, quite different). The Scots would have taken Devo Max in a heartbeat. The only way to tackle independence with the cautious Scots is by capillary gradualism. The Union that matters to Scots (especially the most influential, by persuasion or action) is the Union with Sterling; everything else is easily resolved; Sterling is the heart of the matter, and it matters. Devo Max was always the next step. It still is.
The problem is, and remains ‘Party’; all of them. They are capable only of faction.
This is meant as a reply to John Warren.
There are two problems with seeking devo max/home rule.
Firstly, it seems it’s only the threat of independence that delivered the devolution we have. That took about 150 years if you start from the National Association for the Vindication of Scottish Rights (I like how the Victorians didn’t go for catchy titles).
Secondly, it seems the only devolution that will be conceded is anything that doesn’t matter to Westminster.
First, you have to carry the Scots; the problem is the status quo ante is in a very strong position, when the balance for or against remains close among the Scottish people. This is inevitable and doesn’t yield to mere repetition. Insufficient interest is taken in what will persuade the Scottish people, rather than what the members of political parties want; the members are never as representative of Scotland as they think they are. Party is Faction. I really do not know why this is so difficult to understand.
Once the Scottish people are sufficiently persuaded, you will be surprised how quickly the oppostion will wilt under the scrutiny. Sell what people are buying, not what you want to sell, if they do not want to buy – in sufficient numbers; I put it a little crudely, but this is a commercial society, so such methods should have traction.
Mr Scott,
The Union, as a driven, working imperial project was Scotland’s purpose (and creation) for three hundred years. There is little left of it but Sterling, but Sterling matters in a deeply commercial society; and in spite of the shattering ‘disruptive events’ you mention, you are finding out how resilient it is; and the Union will stoop as low as it has to, to defend itself. It has been doing this by fair means or foul for three hundred years.
It is not won by argument. Like ‘paradigm shifts’, it is won by generational change. The passing generation cannot face its own failure, has retreated into a doubtful, fantasised past, but is proving enduringly long lived.
The simplest way is to provide the Scottish people with the solutions they can believe in; step at a time. Devo Max. Define it properly, and offer it.
Again, this comment is a response to John Warren – I’m not sure how the thread works here.
Absolutely agree that you have to persuade the people first. There is no settled will at the moment one way or the other. An indy vote should be a confirmation of a settled will for independence. Some disruptive event has to happen. I had hoped that Brexit, dismantling devolution and the sinister direction the British state is taking would have been sufficient, but apparently not. Or perhaps these things just take a while to take effect.
This article gives a very insightful view of Nicola Sturgeon’s legacy and hints at the real reasons for her sudden departure.
https://www.conter.scot/2023/2/15/downfall-how-class-contradictions-ended-sturgeons-dismal-rule/