Scottish politics - Independence and the Supreme Court judgment.

Following the Supreme Court judgment (that the Scottish government could not run it’s own independence referendum) there have been wild celebrations from unionists - as if they had defeated the struggle for Scottish independence in a single blow. I think they are badly mistaken in that. I mean, what do they expect independence supporters to do? Simply say “well, that’s it then - we may as well forget about this”. I very much doubt it - and this Supreme Court judgment might well have increased support for Scotland breaking away from the UK as it becomes clearer that our union of equals, with any country free to leave if it wants to, is nothing but a huge lie. It has also exposed the democratic deficit that the SNP has long complained about.
In addition to that I suspect that Nicola Sturgeon might be quite happy about the judgment. I suspect that even she doubted if October 2023 was the right time to go for it - what with COVID still with us (to some extent), the war in Ukraine and inflation all in the forefront of our minds. I suspect that all of those would persuade sufficient numbers that now was not the right time to take such a momentous step such as independence. All of those things may be behind us by October ‘23 - but maybe not, and if not, a YES vote might have been less likely. I further suspect that the more impatient in the SNP, and wider YES movement, forced Sturgeon into this move - just to keep these complainers at bay. It was felt by the impatient that she was not doing enough to progress the movement. In addition to that, both Sturgeon and the SNP had previously stated that they didn’t want to go for IndyRef2 until the opinion polls were showing a consistent support for independence at between 55% and 60% - which is certainly not the current position (although that may now have changed a bit).

Sturgeon’s plan is now to turn the next general election in Scotland into a de facto referendum on independence. The details of this have still to be determined at a special conference next year. The idea makes sense (given that Westminster is blocking the referendum route) and, given the lack of influence the SNP MP’s have at Westminster, there is nothing to lose (apart from losing momentum in the drive for independence if the plan fails badly). I say ‘lack of influence’ because even if the SNP had held every Scottish seat they would have been unable to influence policy with such a huge Tory majority - something that Scotland might be subject to on a regular basis. The only times this might not be the case would be under a Labour government which needed Scottish seats before it could gain a working majority.
My concern about this plan is that Sturgeon has indicated that voting SNP at the next general election would immediately give a mandate to demand that negotiations on independence were opened with the UK government. I suspect, even if the SNP win over 50% of the vote, that the UK government would continue to ignore the SNP and the voice of the people of Scotland, claiming that this was not voted for via a legally approved referendum.
I also doubt that this stance would bring about the over 50% needed. I suspect that there are enough Union supporters who accept that the SNP do have the mandate for IndyRef2 - but don’t want independence. That being the case they might well not vote SNP when they might have if the SNP policy was more like; vote SNP to indicate that you demand the right to select Scotland’s way forward via a new independence referendum. If this is once again rejected we will then, and only then, seek to open independence negotiations immediately. Such a line might keep the largest number possible willing to vote SNP, just this one, special time, while going straight for independence could well reduce the required level of support needed (despite the fact that Westminster is likely to ignore this, too).

What we also need to keep in mind is that the Labour Party currently looks the most likely to form the next UK government. The current Tory government will (I expect) continue to refuse IndyRef2 - but, despite what it says, a UK Labour government might feel that, for the sake of democracy, it has to allow one - especially if the YES side achieve over 50% of the vote. The main problem here is that Labour might well need support from Scotland to achieve government and they would lose that majority the day Scotland becomes independent. However, there may be grounds for agreement here. Negotiations to separate Scotland from England could well take between two and four years so an agreement to hold IndyRef2 two years after the next general election would take up the whole of that parliament - and Labour would hope to have 1) started to develop a federal system which would persuade many Scots that staying within the UK is a better option and 2) prove to the citizens of England that it is able to govern the whole of the UK in a manner they approve of, which is more right wing than the majority of people in Scotland normally vote for (and, therefore, getting chucked out of power after just one term becomes much less likely). Of course, if Labour do win the next general election outright, or maybe with the help of only the Lib-Dems, then needing support from Scottish seats might no longer be vital (so letting Scotland separate might be the easiest way to resolve this ongoing problem for Westminster). One also has to believe, regardless of what Starmer and Sarwar currently say, that the Labour Party is more honourable than the Tory Party and will accept the democratic choice of the people of Scotland and allow a new referendum to go ahead - even if it feels forced not to agree to this until say, the second or third year of it’s first term in office. This would, as already said, ensure that it had a full five years to prove it’s case for governing the UK and fixing (or at least starting to fix) the democratic deficit which has led to the Scottish independence movement growing so strong.   


But, all that aside, what are the unionists, particularly the political leaders and bastions of the establishment, saying? They are saying “of course the Union is a union of equals and any country that is a member of it is free to leave if the majority of it’s citizens choose to do so. This, however, must be indicated via a legal referendum - but we are not going to allow you to hold that referendum and the law says you can’t hold one without our consent”. What kind of open democratic choice is that? Catch 22 comes to mind - you can do 1 but only if 2 first but, by the way, you can’t do 2 because we won’t let you!
The SNP argue that they already have a mandate from the Scottish people for a new referendum - but the unionists refuse to accept this. They argue that despite the number of SNP seats won in Westminster and Holyrood elections, less than 50% voted for independence and referendum supporting parties (including the Scottish Greens and Alba). This is a twisted argument! In all other circumstances the party winning the most seats, within the chosen electoral system, gets to carry out it’s manifesto - but this only seems to count if your manifesto does not include holding a Scottish independence referendum. I could understand this stance if the SNP were claiming the right to immediately start independence negotiations - but they aren’t: they are simply seeking to hold a new independence referendum to see if, following Brexit, the people of Scotland still wish to remain a part of the UK (as per the 2014 vote) or go for independence instead.
Keep in mind that Johnson ploughed ahead with Brexit despite having a smaller percentage of the vote than the SNP - but that seems to have been OK and within the rules for the UK!? Some would argue that the 2016 Brexit referendum gave him the mandate to do so - but the people of the UK voted to leave the EU, they did not vote for the hard Brexit Johnson took us down (and for which we are now paying the price). That was indeed the type of Brexit some wanted but many, like myself, actually wanted a softer Brexit similar to joining EFTA. So, Johnson ploughed ahead with what he wanted without the support of over 50% of the UK’s population. Fine for a Westminster party to pull us out of the EU under those circumstances but not fine for the SNP to seek only a new referendum? The twisted workings of Westminster are, indeed, twisted and biased. As the SNP deputy leader, Angus Robertson, has said, the unionists are refusing to allow IndyRef2 simply because they very much fear they will lose it and the UK, as we know it, will come to an end. But the struggle for independence will not just go away because of the Supreme Court judgment - and the more the unionists refuse democracy then the greater the support for independence, not just a new referendum, will grow.
Perhaps if the unionists spent less time trying to thwart IndyRef2 and more time trying to understand why so many Scots want independence, then do something about what they learn, then they might be able to reorganise how the UK functions by turning it into a more balanced and fairer federal system?

In conclusion. As long as the YES side win a majority in the de facto referendum (come general election) then that final objection to allowing a new referendum will be removed as it would no longer be possible for the unionists to claim that the people of Scotland do not want another referendum. It does not need to be a vote for immediate independence negotiations, as a Tory government is going to ignore even that: just a vote for a new referendum will suffice - and that will remove the final, totally unfair, objection that the unionists continually trot out to refuse allowing one. They will be left with no excuse to continue to refuse. That is the value of the de facto referendum plan: To remove this final objection to having a normal and legal referendum. But, I would argue, immediately seeking independence negotiations could well make achieving over 50% all the more difficult - especially since an incoming Labour Party might feel forced to grant a section 30 order if the YES side win over 50% of the vote for a new referendum, only. Having said all that, the best option would be a section 30 order and a legally held referendum - but when the powers that be decide to cheat then an alternative way needs to be found.