THE Scottish Government, seemingly stuck in neutral for so long following the UK Brexit vote in June, have within the past week been swiftly shifting up the gears in moving to a potential second referendum on Scottish independence.
The chances of such a vote happening within the next couple of years have quickly moved from possible to probable in recent weeks, with Nicola Sturgeon presenting a new draft Bill on the subject.
Be in no doubt, historians of the future may look on this as a significant moment in Scotland’s constitutional trajectory. It may also mark the beginning of the end for the SNP’s Independence in Europe strategy, first devised some three decades ago. This new draft Bill is designed to afford the Scottish Government the opportunity to re-visit the question of Scottish independence before the United Kingdom leaves the European Union in 2019.
It includes within it various issues of procedure such as the question on the ballot paper, extension of the franchise and no minimum turnout requirement. Public consultation on the Bill runs until early in the new year.
It is clear the SNP is seeking to build up a narrative around a referendum campaign of a Scottish Government seeking to protect Scotland’s interests by establishing a solution that allows it to continue to be part of the EU’s single market. That solution looks increasingly as if it will require a second referendum as Scotland’s interests will not be protected within a UK choosing a hard Brexit option.
The opposite unionist narrative is rhetoric surrounding an “unwanted referendum”, “no mandate”, “divisive nationalists”, “separatism” and driving apart the UK. Introspection and irony is, of course, not considered.
That said, the Scottish Government face numerous obstacles on this new path to independence.
First, the Bill would have to pass a vote in the Scottish Parliament. This looks like one of the easier obstacles given the SNP and Green collective majority.
Second, UK-EU Article 50 negotiations with the EU should be deemed as not catering for Scotland’s interests. Again, this looks likely as the Scottish Government will be acting as judge and jury and recent rhetoric from UK ministers has been distinctly non-conciliatory.
However, after these two stages things begin to look rather more awkward and potentially complicated.
The draft Bill suggests, “it would be expected” that Westminster’s permission would be sought and given for the vote.
The stance of both the UK Government and Parliament is, as yet, unknown. Indeed they may not be consistent.
This is a new Prime Minister, leading a new UK Government, with a slim majority, seeking to effect fundamental constitutional change. There are lots of unknown variables in that mix. At this stage, a consensual negotiation along the same lines of the conciliatory Salmond-Cameron 2012 Edinburgh Agreement looks unlikely.
Even if Section 30 (Scotland Act) consent is given by the UK Parliament, there is still the fundamental obstacle of the electorate in Scotland. Opinion polls post Brexit initially hinted at an upsurge in support for independence, but have settled in the 47 per cent for – 53 per cent against territory in recent months.
Academic research tends to point to a hardening of views on both sides (ie, there are fewer “don’t know” voters up for grabs this time). The economic and currency questions look even more challenging and complicated for the Yes side today than they did in 2014. Convincing a majority of the electorate in Scotland remains a challenge. After that there is also the small question of the mechanics of exactly how Scotland stays in or re-joins the EU as a member state.
The SNP launched its Independence in Europe slogan back in 1988. It signalled a new route and strategy of the party back then. Since then the European Union has been viewed and presented as an alternative to the UK Union.
In recent years momentum and events in the UK suggest the SNP’s strategy may be finally bearing some fruit, 30 years down the line.
Patience is a quality the SNP leadership have been preaching to some of its more impatient members since 2014. At least they can say they have practised what they preach.
Neil McGarvey: Leadership demonstrates virtue of patience in pursuit of ultimate goal
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here