SINCE the close of the SNP National Conference, the independence movement has been awash with activity. Hardly a week passes without meetings of the great and the good, the greater and the better and the greatest and the best. Announcements of major events, learned papers and initiatives constantly drip from social media platforms, and everyone who is anyone pontificates on what our new nation state should be. I’ve counted four plans for separate national conventions.
There’s only one problem: we’re not there yet. All these folk don’t seem to be bothered. They’ve given up on 2026 and are now setting their sights on the next UK General Election, with Theresa May’s “Now is not the time” ringing in their ears.
From eminent academics, we have witnessed disdain for the “Scotland is a colony” initiatives. John Swinney’s “precedent” argument was being given the same treatment until November 17, when, according to the headline in The National, “Swinney’s indy strategy has merit”. I must be dim, but the meat of the article said no such thing. There is nothing re-assuring in Professor Aileen McHarg’s reported comments. How do you prevent a contested proposal between parliaments from reaching the UK Supreme Court? The answer is, you can’t!
READ MORE: 'Witch hunt': Your Party at war over expulsions as Zarah Sultana boycotts event
Given the almost universal criticism of John Swinney’s proposal, and the demolition job on it at a recent lunch for business supporters of independence, the cynic would be forgiven for thinking that the FM phoned Professor McHarg in desperation to say something to soften the blow.
Professor Adam Tomkins came up with a novel statement-of-the-obvious when he suggested that we will know the settled will of the Scottish people when we know. That could be staying in the UK or not or something between the two. It’s a collective feeling when a significant majority, be they nationalists or unionists, share a similar view sustained over an indeterminate period. How very British, which is reminiscent of the way in which past Tory leaders would emerge without a vote.
I’m a little more than intrigued that in all these deliberations. not once had dissolution of the Union been mentioned, far less considered, despite around one third of the delegates at SNP conference warming to that proposal as a means of ending the Union with or without the consent of the Westminster Government and Parliament.
Nor was there any questioning on the building blocks essential to become independent, nor the wider examination of commercial and other elements in international state recognition beyond the terms under which the UN would provide international recognition. Admittedly, these are huge subjects which require more than a short session but without a thorough and exhaustive examination of the power of the UN, its institutions and members, its relevance and waning influence and international commercial power and geopolitics, throwaway generalisations are worthless.
The future of the UN and its relevance is actively questioned as a new World Order appears to be inching forward. Highly respected statedmen like Alex Stubbs, president of Finland, openly call for the reform of the United Nations and the Security Council. Dissolution of our Union provides an opportunity to a plethora of members states which hold no loyalty to the UK which just happened to be a permanent member of an increasingly marginalised council.
Would that the SNP MPs elected post-2014 had been allocated a state each to create dossiers of politicians, commercial and social opinion formers, national interests and red lines, potential paybacks for historic misdeeds, as well as civil contracts with Scottish businesses, individuals and institutions. Such knowledge would be far more in point than what can be learned from Spain, Canada, etc. in the threats to their unity. Would Stephen Gethins reassure us that these dossiers exist? If not, what were these MPs doing to prepare us for independence?
So, within a short month, the political and academic Scottish establishment has marched us along a path to a cul-de-sac, hopeful that one day a Westminster government will respect our feelings, do the decent thing and move the Section 30 bollard. Is this progress?
There is a dangerous pattern emerging. While the “Please, sir? brigade” puts us in our place, those who dream of a new Scotland talk and talk and talk. There is so much talking going on that the doing has been ignored, to the extent that we are collectively in danger of talking ourselves out of independence.
Apart from some “Duracell Bunnies” who naturally revel in the prospect of climbing the greasy pole in Holyrood, the weekly photographs of local campaign teams don’t speak of mass activism or inspiration. They speak of the return of an SNP devolved administration by a less than motivated electorate. What does the SNP leadership do if the turnout is less than 60%? What collective feeling will that demonstrate? How long will the greasy pole exist?
Meanwhile, at the coalface, all the challenges our people face – poverty, unemployment, de-industrialisation, continued austerity, a mounting fiscal challenge and an energy hammer blow to our quality of life – are urgent, so we are told. Yet if our leaders were really concerned about any of these injustices, they would offer and provide urgent solutions. If our leaders want a sceptical population to buy into solutions, they must involve our people in the delivery of the solutions too and not just promote independence tomorrow when they lack the self confidence to deliver. In the world of the SNP leadership, tomorrow never comes, but that’s a secret.
Delivering independence can be quick, as the promoters of the plebiscite election showed. It won’t be perfect because nothing political ever is, but it would be adequate to deliver Dissolution Day and the infant years beyond, after which the Scottish people could take all the time they want to create and reform our society socially, economically, globally, environmentally, even politically as the challenges of future generations and centuries are confronted.
Some serious people were and still are prepared to do the work in an Independence Delivery Unit to chart the path, address the most urgent needs and put in place the building blocks to end this Union. Dissolution is the answer to this constant melange of self doubt and talk-but-don’t-do independence which has overtaken most of the movement.
If our leadership fails to deliver, it won’t be long before the people see through their lack of credibility, and the retribution will start on May 7, 2026 as the Farage stormtroopers advance.
Graeme McCormick
Arden
Share