THEY didn’t know what had hit them.
That was the review of one photographer, who was standing outside the Scottish Parliament building on Tuesday, of the opposition’s response to the First Minister’s major indyref2 announcement today.
It seems unlikely Labour or the Scottish Tories felt prepared enough to deal with the Government’s plans for a second vote.
In an unusually lively Holyrood – one hack remarked it was the busiest they’d seen since before the pandemic – Sturgeon put forward a serious case for a second referendum – and how Scotland will get there.
SNP politicians washing their hands in the bogs near the debating chamber remarked to each other it was “a big day” – quite the understatement. The First Minister has outlined the independence movement’s battle strategy.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson responds as Nicola Sturgeon sets indyref2 date
While remaining “open” to negotiations around a Section 30 order – which Westminster is certain to reject – Sturgeon announced the publication of a new bill legislating for a second referendum.
In the meantime, the Lord Advocate has referred the legislation to the Supreme Court – drawing the UK Government into a legal battle with Holyrood it isn’t certain to win.
And, should the Supreme Court restrain the Scottish Government from a second referendum, this would prove the Union was not “a partnership of equals”, said Sturgeon, who said in this event the next General Election would be fought as a “de-facto” independence referendum.
But the opposition had little of use to say. Their prepared lines of attack failed to address key parts of the statement.
Scotty Tory leader Douglas Ross attempted a jibe about a “possibly illegal” referendum – but even to the Unionist die-hards it won’t have landed.
The purpose of the court case, thought to be settled later this year, is to settle questions around competence and legality outside of the party political sphere.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon's five steps to an independence referendum explained
Ross attempted to paint the supposed walk-out of members of the public in the viewing gallery as evidence of the public’s weariness of a second referendum.
Given that the Scottish Daily Express reported last week that Unionist Twitter was abuzz with plans to do so, it looks less like an expression of the public mood than a stunt by fringe elements of the debate. That’s if it even happened.
Eyewitnesses loitering outside the building told The National they hadn’t noticed any great outpouring of people as the First Minister took to her feet. And protesters were noticeably absent.
“Even the cops were surprised there was no-one protesting,” said one source.
Anas Sarwar, leader of Scottish Labour, conceded it was “important to establish the legal basis of a referendum”, but fell back onto arguments so tired even he seemed bored of giving them that “now is not the time”.
But the time is now, countered Sturgeon, citing the examples of Brexit, Tory austerity and the urgent cost of living crisis.
She said: “What I am not willing to do, what I will never do is allow Scottish democracy to be a prisoner of Boris Johnson or any prime minister.”
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel