Nicola Sturgeon does not have an independence plan. The
last one produced in 2018 is completely out of date and she hasn’t got another
one. The SNP hope to produce another before a future independence referendum if
and when it happens. But she will argue that the election to the Scottish Parliament
will give her a mandate for holding it even though she does not herself know
what independence would involve.
But if Nicola Sturgeon does not know what the plan is
for independence, how can the Scottish voters know either? Sturgeon either
refuses or is unable to answer various questions about independence. The
practical questions such as EU membership, currency, border and Scotland’s share
of the national debt are unanswered. But this means that every single voter who
choses the SNP does not know what he is voting for. Logically the Scottish
electorate cannot give informed consent to a referendum on Scottish independence,
because it has not been informed about it. But without informed consent there
can be no question of a mandate for a policy.
An election is about setting out before the electorate
not just a wish list, but a detailed policy, which is then tested by debate.
But there has been no debate about the SNP’s plan for independence because it
doesn’t have one. For instance, the SNP plan when it arrives might say that an
independent Scotland would join the Euro. If Scottish voters now knew this,
they might reject the idea of an independence referendum. This means that the
SNP cannot claim a mandate for a policy that might be rejected if only the
voters knew about it. The SNP cannot therefore claim a mandate at all.
Let’s imagine that the SNP comes up with a new plan. It
is not possible to imagine that Nicola Sturgeon would publicly state, I’m sorry
fellow Scottish nationalists, but given our new plan I have decided that for
the moment independence is a bad idea. Likewise, many SNP voters want
independence come what may, no matter what it involves.
But the SNP has put forward various policies in its
manifesto which will depend on various economic circumstances not least that
Scotland will continue to receive funding from the Treasury. If it turned out
that a future SNP independence plan would involve no free bicycles, but instead
spending cuts, it would have deceived the Scottish electorate by attempting to
bribe it with free bicycles for the sake of obtaining an independence
referendum that would involve walking rather than riding a bike. If SNP manifesto
promises are contingent on Scotland remaining a part of the UK, it cannot
logically use them to justify an independence referendum which would mean it
would break them. Deceit gives you a mandate for nothing whatsoever.
The Scottish Conservatives have rather foolishly been
arguing that we need to vote Conservative in order to prevent the SNP having a
mandate for independence. The problem with this argument is that the Scottish
Conservatives would be obliged to say that the SNP have obtained a mandate under
certain circumstances. Mr Ross may calculate that his party will gain a few
seats if only Pro UK people believe that voting Conservative will prevent an
SNP mandate, but what if it doesn’t work? He would be left with the position either
of saying to Boris Johnson, you must grant a referendum, or saying he didn’t
really mean it. But this would merely make him look both foolish and insincere.
And for what? The SNP are likely to form
the next Scottish Government either by itself or in coalition. It will make
very little difference if there are two or three more Conservative MSPs. But
the Conservative electoral strategy will have undermined the UK Government’s
argument that now is not the time for a second referendum.
What does Mr Ross think would give the SNP a mandate?
It cannot be that he thinks a pro independence majority at Holyrood would justify
it, because that is almost certainly going to happen and under no reasonable
circumstance could the Conservatives prevent it. If instead he thinks that the SNP
should have a mandate if it wins an overall majority of seats, it is hard to
see the difference. Why should a bill that requires the help of the Greens or Alba
be ignored while one that requires only SNP MSP votes be so decisive that it
gives the SNP a mandate? The Greens and Alba also have made manifesto commitments
to hold an independence referendum. Does Mr Ross think some MSPs are more equal
than others, or that coalitions don’t have mandates to do anything? Worse Mr
Ross has no idea if the SNP will gain an overall majority of seats. So, he is
betting the future of the UK in order to gain two or three extra Conservative seats.
Mr Ross selleth his birthright for a mess of votes and the salaries of his
friends.
It cannot be that the UK is risked every time there is
an election. No country can long endure under those circumstance. But what then
would give the SNP a mandate to hold an independence referendum? This is to
look at the matter in the wrong way. The Scottish Parliament can only decide
devolved matters. It cannot therefore have a policy about a reserved matter
such as independence. There can therefore no more be a mandate for an independence
referendum than there can be a referendum for annexing the Faeroe Islands. Such
issues are simply outside the competence of the devolved parliament the
Scottish electorate voted for in 1997 and 2014. We chose at these times to
reject having a parliament that could decide issues of foreign policy and the
constitution.
Does this mean that there is no democratic route to independence
for the SNP? It would be possible to argue that this is the case and that there
is no democratic right to secession. I would argue for this view. The
referendum in 2014 was simply a mistake. It fuelled Scottish nationalism. Moreover,
David Cameron who had neither a Conservative majority nor a manifesto commitment
to granting a Scottish independence referendum, had no right to risk the
breakup of the UK which we had fought to maintain for three centuries because
Alex Salmond happened to win an overall majority in a Scottish Parliament
election. No other European country would take such a risk, nor would the United
States nor would Japan. He should have simply told Alex Salmond, the UK is one
nation, indivisible, if you want independence you will have to win a revolution.
Good luck.
But many Scots and many people in Britain generally do
not share this view. They think that there ought to be a democratic route for
Scotland to secede. But that route cannot be that the SNP wins an election to
the Scottish Parliament either on its own or in conjunction with other parties.
The reason for this is a Scottish Parliament election can only grant a mandate
on devolved issues, because we voted for a devolved parliament in 1997 and
2014. This is the answer to Nicola Sturgeon’s question about having a second
go. It is logical and irrefutable.
But many Scots and British people in general will say
this is undemocratic. We alone think our country can be broken up by a vote.
But what then might constitute a democratic mandate for secession. Firstly,
there would have to be clarity not merely about the SNP’s plan for independence,
but also the British Government’s response. Secondly it would have to be obvious
that the overwhelming majority of Scots both want independence and want a
second independence referendum. Opinion in Scotland about independence is
erratic and fluctuates wildly. It cannot be that a three-hundred-year-old
country is broken up because of a temporary change in opinion about how Nicola
Sturgeon has performed during the pandemic or whether you will get a free
bicycle.
For those who favour a democratic route to independence,
it might be argued that a sustained and constant measure of opinion showing at
least two thirds of Scots wanting independence would justify a second independence
referendum. Let polls and Scottish elections show that for a generation and you
can have another go. But you cannot reasonably claim a mandate for a referendum
when some polls show support for independence to be in the low forties and most
Scots don’t want a referendum anytime soon.
Some Scottish nationalists intend to respond to a
denial from Boris Johnson by going down the unofficial or illegal route. The
response to this ought to be to instantly cut all Treasury funding to Scotland.
This is especially the case when people like Alex Salmond say they don’t intend
to accept Scotland’s share of the national debt. Why should the UK Government
get itself into debt by giving money to people who don’t intend to pay it back?
Mr Ross should have argued that the SNP would not have
a mandate for an independence referendum even if it won all of the seats at
Holyrood. In fact, the only way the SNP could gain a mandate for independence
would be if it were able to form a Government at Westminster on a manifesto
commitment to independence. Only Westminster can grant permission. All else is a
mess of thinking.
The task is to make achieving independence as hard as
possible for the SNP. Ideally it should be impossible. The folly is that the Scottish
Conservatives while pretending to be Pro UK are actually undermining the
argument. Don’t make the future of the UK depend on a Scottish Parliament
election when your party polls in the low twenties. It may be in the interest
of the Scottish Conservatives, but it is not in the interest of the UK.
