USING the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections as a proxy referendum is a bad idea. While I can understand the thought process members have taken to come to their decision, it is not an option that will benefit the independence movement.
On Saturday it was reported in The National that the wording of an alternative route to independence had been agreed between the SNP’s national secretary and Plan B architects – to be debated at the party conference next month.
The motion states: “Conference calls on the Scottish Government to establish the legal competence of the Scottish Parliament holding a referendum on Scottish independence without the approval of the UK Parliament.
READ MORE: We need a majority of pro-indy votes, not just a majority of pro-indy seats
“Conference instructs that if a referendum on Scotland’s future is denied by the UK Government and the competence to hold a consultative referendum is not established, then the manifesto for the 2021 Scottish Parliamentary elections shall state that the election of a pro-independence majority of seats, in the absence of a referendum, shall be a mandate from the people of Scotland to commence independence negotiations with the UK Government.”
Many of us saw the House of Commons Liaison Committee earlier this month where Angus MacNeil MP repeatedly questioned the Prime Minister over a Section 30 request from the Scottish Government. The response was obviously farcical, with Johnson at one point referring to a generation having not passed “to his understanding of human biology”, whatever that may mean.
It was obvious the PM would avoid the question, much as it was obvious that if pushed, he would bluster nonsense that would ultimately amount to a no. Johnson pronounced himself “Minister for the Union”, a job title without any responsibilities, but a statement of his intent – he is not going to simply say yes under normal circumstances.
READ MORE: Johnson and co will be pleased to see us distracted by ‘Plan B’
However, that does not mean the independence movement should turn to any extraordinary method in order to achieve independence. It is not without its pitfalls.
Firstly, it conflates the issues of Scottish independence and elections. If you want an answer to a question, that question needs to be asked directly. Elections are about multiple issues and people will not necessarily vote in the same way.
We had a similar debate in the 2019 General Election within the People’s Vote campaign, that the election could be used as a proxy People’s Vote since the government were not willing to grant another referendum. More people voted for pro-People’s Vote parties than those supporting Brexit. However, with the Conservative majority Brexit happened anyway.
What matters is pulling the leavers of power, or getting people to pull that lever from political pressure, as happened with the 2014 and 2016 referendums. You can win the moral fight in an election, but you won’t win the war.
READ MORE: SNP conference motion on Plan B for Scottish independence has wording agreed
Secondly, how would the result of such a vote be interpretated by an international audience in terms of legitimacy? Fabian Zuleeg of the European Policy Centre wrote last year in his policy brief titled “The EU’s Scottish Question” that “To alleviate the concerns of those countries with domestic secessionist movements, the separation of Scotland from the UK must be strictly constitutional, and fully accepted by the UK Government. This would also ensure that the principle of reciprocal non-interference in each other’s constitutional affairs could be maintained.”
Holding a proxy election/referendum hybrid would not be accepted by the UK Government and could also harm Scotland’s international credibility before we’ve even started. This could impact our potential path to EU membership, cause those on the fence to second-guess a Yes/SNP vote if it would lead to international controversy, and ultimately set us back rather than take us forward.
The only caveat I would add to this would be that with decisions the UK Government has taken that led it to be held in contempt of parliament, the illegal prorogation and the most recent admission to break international law, they have lost a severe amount of international credibility. Is Scotland to trust this government, given its history, to actually deliver a Section 30 if it was a valid request?
So where does that leave us? Scotland with a pro-independence majority and a Westminster government that will repeatedly deny any attempts at a Section 30. To coin a phrase from Michael Gray, we continue down a path of radical gradualism. While I agree it is time to start thinking outside the box for solutions, we need to be aware of where we want an independent Scotland to go, what our obligations would be to the international community, and ensure legitimacy as an independent country.
This is why, given the chance, I will be voting against the motion.
Jonathan Spink
London
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