MY recent interview with BBC’s Scotland Editor and in particular my views on the future for Scottish independence has elicited a robust number of comments from readers of The National.
I am grateful to the editor for allowing me some space to respond to them in general terms and also to clarify my own position which is not always possible in a brief television interview.
I begin by stating that I am not and never have been a member of the SNP.
I repeat also my well-rehearsed position over numerous media interviews in the past that 'I am a historian - the future is not my period’.
READ MORE: Tom Devine claims independence ‘dead for a generation’ after SNP turmoil
When asked about the future of Scottish independence by the BBC reporter, I responded as a citizen of Scotland who voted for independence in 2014 and gave my opinion with no more or less authority behind it based on my evaluation of recent events concerning the SNP and the Scottish Government.
Of course, equally, it would be naive for me not to accept that my prognosis was in part formed by over fifty years of study, research and reflection on the history of Scotland in comparative international contexts.
Others can judge whether that gives me any more authority than anyone else to consider meaningfully what might happen in future years to our nation.
Personally, I doubt it does since, as one of The National’s correspondents pointed out, ‘events, dear boy, events’, have and will continue to fatally undermine even the best-informed predictions of what is likely to happen even in the next few decades or so.
The point I was making to the BBC was not intended to suggest that the current opinion figures for independence of around 45% of Scottish voters would necessarily collapse soon.
Rather I was arguing that there is no chance whatsoever of a UK government of whatever political stripe granting a referendum on independence unless there is at least a sustained polling majority of over 60% in favour of that outcome in Scotland.
READ MORE: Tom Devine says the monarchy has 'zero relevance' to discussions on the Union
Achieving that threshold has proven impossible even during the recent years of very unpopular UK Conservative rule and is likely to be even more problematic, if as seems likely at present, the Labour Party wins the next General Election.
A proportion at least of Scottish voters who would vote for independence may well be driven mainly by a passionate desire to be rid of Tory hegemony once and for all.
The Conservatives last won a majority of Scottish seats in a General Election nearly eight decades ago and since then the country has remained moderately leftwing in political culture under both Labour and the SNP.
The threshold mentioned above can only be reached by winning over many more Scottish voters to the cause of independence. I am of the view that the chances of that happening any time soon are simply not within the realms of possibility.
There has been a slow burn but nevertheless a visible and steady alienation from non-SNP voters over Scottish Government policies on a long list of issues from ferries to health care and from the economy to education.
No devolved government can win support for more radical constitutional change other than by demonstrating competence in devolved administration.
This has not happened over the last decade or more. Attracting support from soft unionists to reach credible numbers to force a referendum is presently therefore nothing other than pie in the sky.
Recent media exposures of financial irregularities within the SNP may not result in criminal charges. Even so, perceptions of corruption, or to use the modern term ‘optics’, are bound to linger.
SNP members in their wisdom elected a "continuity candidate" in the leadership elections who had low poll popularity ratings among the Scottish public.
They therefore failed to go for a fresh start, a clear break with the past, and appoint a leader of manifest ability and the capacity to reach across the constitutional divisions in our country.
These reasons inter alia underpinned my responses in that BBC interview about the future prospects for Scottish independence.
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