JEEZO. One minute you’re complaining that there’s no plan to map out a route to independence, the next you’re drowning in them.
No sooner had John Swinney outlined his view than a group within the SNP began agitating for their own plan.
Then Liberation Scotland dispatched former diplomat Craig Murray to Manhattan to persuade the UN to recognise Scotland as a “colony” with the ultimate aim of allowing it to declare its independence. And in a thought-provoking article in The National, the founder of the pro-independence think tank Common Weal, Robin McAlpine, put forward the case for yet another route.
READ MORE: John Swinney is appealing for five more years of managing devolution
Even Scotland’s most esteemed pollster has thrown in his tuppenceworth on the tactic most likely to work.
It’s also gratifying to see the debate unfurling in detail in the pages of The National, which these days is doing a brilliant job of demonstrating exactly why it is so vital that at least one newspaper in Scotland provides an alternative to the cosy media consensus.
The National has consistently lobbied for a stronger, more human response to the genocide in Gaza; its recent brilliant front page on Donald Trump’s visit to Scotland properly reflected most of the country’s reaction; and without The National, the different strands of opinion within the movement on how to achieve independence would go virtually unnoticed.
Each of the plans so far discussed have a different focus but pretty much fall into two distinct camps.
One puts its faith in the political process to deliver another referendum in which a yes vote would confer legitimacy on a demand for independence.
The other is basically in favour of Scotland taking the power to seize independence into its own hands.
Each of the plans contain flaws which undermine their effectiveness.
Swinney obviously hoped his recent announcement would put the party and the wider movement together in agreement, but his optimism has so far been unjustified.
He argues that a referendum is the only legitimate way to seal the deal and there is a precedent for persuading Westminster to put that referendum into action. The 2014 vote was “allowed” after Scotland returned an SNP majority at Holyrood, despite a voting system expressly designed to make that result almost impossible.
READ MORE: 'Words are not enough': Ross Greer urges action on Scottish Israel boycott plan
Swinney insists that if Scotland returns an SNP majority in next year’s Scottish election, Westminster would be duty-bound to respond favourably to a demand for indyref2.
The obvious fly in the ointment is that there has been a pro-indy majority at Holyrood at every Scottish election since 2014 – and every plea for another referendum has been summarily rebuffed.
To add insult to injury, there had been – until 2024 – a majority of SNP MPs in every UK General Election since 2014.
Their high point was winning 56 seats in Scotland – all but three – in 2015. But even four years later, in 2019, they won 48 of the 59 seats.
The prospect of a second independence referendum moved no closer. In fact, the UK Government has consistently refused even to take the SNP seriously, often to the point of downright rudeness.
The prospect of the SNP replicating the only Scottish Holyrood majority – in 2011 – next year is generally regarded as highly unlikely. But even if it did, why would Westminster regard an SNP majority as an irresistible mandate for indyref2 when it has dismissed pro-indy majorities at every Scottish election since 2014?
Nor would the democratic argument finally win widespread international support or put pressure on Westminster. Donald Trump for one has already suggested there should not be another referendum for between 50 and 75 years.
Murray has reported a warm response to his “decolonisation” trip to America, but it will take more than kind words in the background to change Westminster’s mind.
You can certainly see Swinney’s appeal for an SNP majority as good for the party’s electoral performance, but not necessarily good for the prospects of winning independence.
But is the alternative plan – so far supported by 43 SNP branches – likely to be better? It argues that list votes at the 2026 election should be considered a de facto independence referendum, with ballots for pro-independence parties and Unionist parties representing Yes and No votes respectively.
But simply designating it as such does not make it so. If Westminster continues to ignore a pro-indy majority at Scottish elections, why would it accept this suggestion as legitimate? What would we do if it refused? Even the most yes-supportive opinion polls are not conclusive enough to suggest widespread support for a unilateral declaration of independence.
John Curtice is one of those who views the possibility of an SNP majority in the 2026 election as very slim … but that doesn’t necessarily mean a pro-indy majority is useless.
If one of the Unionist parties needs the support of independence parties they might offer up a second referendum as part of a deal.
Of course, that is a possibility but neither Labour nor the Tories – and certainly not Reform UK – have ever suggested there are circumstances under which they would support a referendum. In fact they have expressly ruled it out.
However, let’s remember that Keir Starmer is not exactly a stranger to the idea of a U-turn.
The very idea of holding another referendum has been challenged by McAlpine, whose recent National article argued that referenda have not been used by most countries seeking independence. The process generally starts when independence is already supported by a substantial majority of the population.
“Support for independence is not the outcome of a process, the process is the outcome of support for independence,” McAlpine writes. He’s promised to reveal his ideas for doing that in another article next week.
This is a well-argued case but it does not take into account the fact that the referendum campaign in 2014 did substantially move the dial towards Yes. So the process itself can, and indeed has, increased support. It just didn’t do so enough to win.
So where does all this leave us?
I’d think it unlikely that the SNP will kick out the strategy endorsed by Swinney. It would be a blow which the First Minister might not survive. Losing a First Minister so soon after his deputy Kate Forbes has announced her departure would be little short of a disaster for their election prospects.
Of course, we have heard this before. Many times. The trouble is that it has to involve more than a half-hearted, box-ticking effort. Even when the SNP appointed a minister for independence, their main contribution was to produce a series of publications on the different aspects of independence.
READ MORE: Plans to deliver on the SNP's 'Promise' are a muddle. They won't do
It’s hard to gauge their impact but I think it’s fair to say they didn’t capture the public’s imagination.
A campaign to build public support for independence will need new thinking, new ideas and new faces to recapture the energy of 2014. I’ve written before about the difficulties involved in running the country at the same time as campaigning for independence. There is no time to wait to balance those different tasks.
Next year’s election result by itself won’t bring about independence. Only Scottish people can do that. We need to motivate them to care enough to do so – and we need to see that work starting immediately.
Share