Like most other commentators among the media professionals, Lesley Riddoch seems to have been surprised by The National’s poll hinting at higher levels of support for UDI than they would have expected. Which speaks to me of just how completely the SNP’s orthodoxy has excluded alternative accounts of Scotland’s constitutional predicament and approaches to resolving it. Away from the independence industry, UDI or more precisely #ScottishUDI, has been part of the discourse for several years. It has increasingly penetrated the mainstream discourse around the constitutional issue as more and more people have come to realise certain truths that Scotland’s political elite would prefer were not known and, if known, were not discussed.

Truths such as the fact that there is no ‘legal and constitutional’ route to independence through the legal and constitutional framework which has developed under the influence of an imperative to preserve the Union. Or that Westminster has no legitimate role in the exercise by the people of Scotland of our right of self-determination.

Increasingly, people have been coming to the realisation that there is a very good reason for the British state’s propaganda apparatus working so hard to make UDI unthinkable. It’s because they don’t want us to think about UDI. They fear us thinking about UDI. Because thinking about UDI calmly and rationally, it becomes apparent that there is not nearly so much to fear as we have been led to believe.

One of the ways the British propaganda works is by lumping all unilateral declarations of independence under the single rubric of UDI and then burdening that term with myriad negative associations -- largely drawing on the ‘Rhodesia crisis’ of the mid-1960s. Were it not for the fact that it has been rendered unthinkable, people would quickly realise that there are no points of comparison whatsoever between a white supremacist insurrection in an African colony six decades ago and Scotland now.

To those who have succumbed to the British state’s propaganda, UDI is UDI. The fact that UDI can take different forms never enters their heads because it might only do so were they to think about it. And it’s unthinkable, right?

Wrong! In fact, it is not at all difficult to think about UDI. Your head will not explode. Large men in long black coats will not come banging on your door at some ungodly hour of the morning to drag you off for a wee holiday in a re-education camp.

If we assume we’re agreed on what independence is and that a declaration is just informing people, we are left with ‘unilateral’ as the only candidate for a contentious term. But are not all declarations of independence unilateral? After all, who can declare a nation newly independent other than the nation in question?

So, there is nothing inherently scary about UDI. And tarring all unilateral declarations of independence with the ‘Rhodesia’ brush is pathologically shallow-minded.

#ScottishUDI is a proposal for a form of unilateral declaration of independence which is tailored to Scotland’s unique circumstances. There is no reason why it should not be part of the discussion other than the fact that it doesn’t emanate from the SNP or any other part of the independence industry.

Lesley writes:

UDI is a Gordian knot solution – slicing through a complex problem instead of unravelling it. With 99.5% of the population on your side, it might work.

No, Lesley. UDI could be a Gordian knot solution. But it is not necessarily so. #ScottishUDI certainly isn’t. And it is ridiculous to impose a 99.5% threshold on any solution. UDI is highly unlikely to achieve that level of support in Scotland. But neither is any other way forward. Done cleverly, UDI can achieve enough support to be conclusive. Done cleverly, UDI can be part of what increases support for independence. Because, as Lesley also observes,

On the other hand, we cannot sit like this forever. It’s hard to let go of the independence dream, but it’s also hard for volunteers to stay in permanent readiness, relegating the rest of our lives to second and third place. Yet we know what will happen if we give up. Even though Reform UK are dented, they forever sit in the wings, ready to prey on despair.

Indeed, we cannot sit like this forever. Something has to happen.

Perhaps counterintuitively, those of us who take the constitutional issue seriously rather than treating it as a mere electioneering device may have reason to be grateful to John Swinney. The contrast between what he was promising (or ‘guaranteeing’) prior to this year’s Scottish general election and what has transpired since is stark enough as to have shaken the faith of at least some of the party faithful. People who might previously have been expected to shout down anyone who departed from the ‘official’ line are now asking questions. John Swinney may yet be the great eye-opener Scotland’s cause so desperately needs.

In characteristically robust style, Lesley finishes:

I’m sure this poll will be ignored by the SNP leadership. It shouldn’t be. It should be a kick up the arse.

Because we desperately need muscular, ambitious action.

Right on both counts, Lesley. Or is that three counts? Or four? Right on all counts, Lesley. The SNP will ignore the poll and also everyone who wants to talk about it. Like all thinking on the constitutional issue other than their own shrunken, shrivelled, outdated ideas, the poll will not be permitted entry to the party leadership’s bubble. We might hope that it would be a “kick up the arse” for the erstwhile ‘party of independence”. But that is a singularly well-padded and impervious arse. No new thinking has penetrated in at least twelve years. It seems vanishingly unlikely that the poll would even be considered in the higher echelons of the party.

Can there be any question that Scotland’s cause needs “muscular, ambitious action“? Happily, that is another base covered by #ScottishUDI.

My old friend, Mike Fenwick, and I agree on many things. One of them, I suspect, and something at least hinted at in his letter, is the route to independence via a proper constitutional referendum must run through the space between the strictures of local (UK) law and the fundamental principles of international law.

Our nominally pro-independence politicians have been lying to us for at least twelve years. It became obvious to some of us even before the 2014 referendum had played out that there is no such thing as a ‘legal and constitutional’ route to independence. That is why people such as Mike have spent the years since 2014 seeking effective ways of progressing Scotland’s cause, while those nominally pro-independence politicians have been content to sit in their very comfortable bubble, promising much, delivering nothing, and blaming Westminster for what is actually their own failure.

It is people like Mike Fenwick and a host of others who have been doing all the heavy lifting in finding a way to resolve the constitutional issue that ends happily for Scotland. The nominally pro-independence parties have done precisely nothing in this regard. I emphasise, nothing! While Mike and many others whose names will surely be known by those reading this have dedicated themselves wholly to developing our understanding of Scotland’s constitutional circumstances, the better to find a way of changing those circumstances, the politicians have done absolutely nothing. Don’t believe me? Ask to see their research! Let them pile their research on a table next to the pile of work done by Sara Salyers alone. The political parties will be justly shamed.

The SNP, in particular, hasn’t had a fresh thought on the constitutional issue since Alex Salmond’s time. They remain wedded to the now totally discredited Section 30 process while the thinking part of the independence movement left that behind a long time ago.

I know I am repeating myself here. It’s because I am so desperately aware of the need to acknowledge the abysmal failure of these nominally pro-independence politicians and parties and agree to a way to create a new party-political and parliamentary arm for the independence movement. What we have is not fit for purpose.

Right now, however, let’s take a moment to salute all bonnie fechters who have striven at the leading edge of Scotland’s cause for all these years without help or recognition from the political elite.

This is by way of a preemptive apology for what is likely to be some tardiness in responding to comments. Let’s just say that I find myself obliged to address some health issues with more vigour and tenacity than hitherto.

Basically, my new routine is to write less, sit at a computer less, get more exercise and consume less alcohol. There is no prize for guessing which of these I find the most onerous.

My aim always is to publish an article every day. This may not be possible while I fix some of the age-worn bits of my body. But I’ll try.

Peter A Bell

Regular readers of this blog who also delve into the comments (as you bloody well should, because there’s a lot of good stuff in there) may be aware that I have lately been talking about my totally unscientific gauging of the mood in the independence movement involving responses to my comments below-theline (BLT) on The National’s website.

This morning, I find a perfect example to illustrate the point I’m trying to make. It is a single response to one of my comments. The significant thing is that this response is from an individual whose responses to date have all been dismissive, if not abusive.

Bear with me, as making this point requires some generous quoting from the National article on which I was commenting. You’ll get the gist of that article from the headline — First independence poll of Burnham era predicts Scotland would leave UK.

My comment went as follows:

Any strategy that is critically dependent on factors which are not controlled doesn’t deserve to be called a strategy. It deserves to be called idiocy.

All this poll tells us that Scotland’s cause has made absolutely no progress in the past twelve years. We knew that already. Presumably, voters knew it as they voted. But they continued to vote for the party which is responsible for this failure. Pro-independence voted in large numbers for the SNP because there really was no alternative. No other party was offering a better strategy than the SNP. Being better than the SNP on the constitutional issue is very easy.

As I have observed on many occasions, these polls are pointless. It doesn’t matter if the poll indicates 55% support for independence, 65%, or 75%; without a genuine party of independence, nothing happens. We need a way to convert public support for independence into votes in a proper constitutional referendum. No existing party has a plan that will take us to that proper constitutional referendum.

First we take back our government, then we take back our parliament, then we take back our nation. That’s #ScottishUDI.

The response I refer to I’ve captured in a screenshot:

What is interesting about this is the fact that it comes from someone whose responses to me in the past have tended to be very negative. Something has happened in this individual’s mind. I would explain this as him beginning the process of decolonising his mind. This has not been prompted by me alone, I hasten to add. I suspect John Swinney must get a lot of credit. And maybe Andy Burnham. Thanks, guys!

I can’t leave you in suspense, not knowing how I reacted to what I want to see as the first buds of a new spring for Scotland’s independence movement. Before that, however, I would like to point out something that I think justifies the hope that this change of attitude is not confined to this individual. Look at the scores:

Even up to a week ago, that would typically have been reversed. I must reiterate that I am not pretending that this ‘method’ is in any sense scientific. Having said that, I would ask you to remember that I am someone who is perhaps extraordinarily immersed in the constitutional issue and the online discourse around it and who has been for around 15 years. When I say I have a feel for the mood in that part of the independence movement which is active online, that statement carries a bit more weight than it would normally deserve.

Now, to close, my reply to a question I would never have thought I’d get from the individual concerned.

Taking back our parliament is the second step. First, we must take back our government. Meaning, we must elect people who are committed to a process for restoring our independence, which the British state will inevitably say is illegal under local (British) law but which accords perfectly with international law.

At present, there is no politician or party in Scotland that is telling you the truth about Scotland’s constitutional situation, because telling you the truth would mean admitting that the only route to independence lies in the space between the strictures of local law and the fundamental principles of international law. They don’t want to tell you this because it would mean they can’t use independence as a device for getting your pro-independence vote without committing to action which is bold. Our politicians don’t do bold.

The other thing they’re not telling you is that before we can even begin the fight to restore Scotland’s independence, we must secure the means and opportunity to fully and freely exercise our right of self-determination. That’s why #ScottishUDI doesn’t promise independence. What it does promise is a proper constitutional referendum. After that, it’s up to the people.

I leave this for you to ponder upon. And, no doubt, comment.

I see in the Sunday National that the old ‘devo max’ idea has cropped up again (Could a written UK constitution help or hinder Scottish independence?). Why will this nonsense not die? I suppose we can take some comfort from the fact that at least it isn’t Gordon Brown making yet another of his ‘interventions’. He’s not ‘striding onto the stage’ or ‘emerging from the shadows’ to pontificate as if he were some kind of respected elder statesman rather than a has-been politician of no great repute.

Standing in for Gordon Brown on this occasion, we have an investment manager named David Kauders. My natural generosity of spirit bids me hope that being Gordon Brown’s understudy isn’t the peak of David’s career.

It seems David Kauders has written a book titled Reinventing Democracy: Improving British Political Governance, which includes a draft constitution for the UK. As luck would have it, his book appears at the same time as Andy Burnham is talking in vague terms about a written constitution for the UK.

Kauders told the Sunday National that a codified route to a referendum as part of a federal UK would stop “England from treating Scotland like a colony”.

I can see the frustration that the Scots meet dealing with the English establishment. If you look at the strategic problem of Scottish independence, Scotland is frustrated with England dictating, and most of those seem to be swept away if the UK became just a defence, foreign affairs, currency, and common standards Union. That leaves vast amounts of everything else to the nations.

Credit where it’s due! At least David Kauders is bold enough to recognise that England-as-Britain treats Scotland like a colony. I can’t imagine Gordon Brown saying such a thing. But he fails to see that the problem he is addressing in the title of his book isn’t “governance” but “British”. Kauders is looking for a non-destructive way of making the Union acceptable to the people of Scotland. Or, at least, the politically aware portion of Scotland’s population.

(I leave Wales and Northern Ireland out of this commentary because their constitutional circumstances are their own.)

Kauders is attempting to find a solution to the asymmetry of the Union, which is to be implemented by the party to the Union which benefits from the asymmetry. He is seeking a British solution to the problem of Britishness. He expects the British state to reform itself out of existence.

It is important to understand what the Union is, why it came into being, what it was intended to do, and what it still does. (I’ll leave the matter of how the Union came about to historians.)

England pretty much always regarded Scotland as an enemy. The attitude was mutual. England regarded Scotland as a weak point on its northern border, just as it regarded France to the east and Ireland to the west as both problematic states and potentially profitable territory. What the Union did — and what it still does — is give England and later England-as-Britain an overwhelming advantage in terms of the power relationship with Scotland. England already had military and economic superiority. It wanted political superiority so it could have the complete set.

England’s ruling elite worried that Scotland’s ruling elite would make choices that England’s ruling elite wouldn’t like. The obvious solution was either to ‘persuade’ Scotland’s ruling elite to make the choices that England’s ruling elite wanted or to remove from Scotland’s ruling elite the ability to make ‘inappropriate’ choices. So, they did both. The Union formalised the conquest and annexation of Scotland.

Never again would Scotland be able to make choices that England didn’t like. Decision-making was removed to London. The disparity between the number of English members of parliament and Scotland’s representation meant Scotland would always be outvoted. The Union was the ‘final solution’ to the problem of Scotland.

What David Kauders is looking to do is have the ruling elite of the British state relinquish the advantage that allows the British state to exist. How likely is that? Is it even possible?

All ‘devo max’ or a ‘federal’ arrangement can do is disguise the asymmetry created by the Union. It assumes that there is a form of devolution that is the equivalent of independence. He comes at the constitutional issue with a perspective which regards the UK having powers over defence, foreign affairs, currency, etc. as the ‘natural order’. He doesn’t and probably can’t see it from the Scottish perspective, which regards this as powers being withheld from Scotland. Which is the very nub of the problem. The problem is England-as-Britain being able to withhold powers from Scotland. His ‘solution’ doesn’t change this. His ‘solution’ preserves the characteristics of the Union which grate on Scottish constitutional sensibilities.

Gordon Brown and David Kauders alike think of the solution to the constitutional issue lying in what power England-as-Britain is prepared to give up. That’s not it! The solution lies in Scotland not being forced to give up any powers. Like any other nation, Scotland must be in a position to freely and fully choose the form of its association with another nation or group of nations.

A federal solution only works if every component part has precisely the same ability to choose what powers it sees fit to pool with other nations. A federal arrangement cannot emerge from an arrangement in which one component part can overrule all the others. A federal arrangement doesn’t arise from a singular entity breaking itself down into component parts. A federal arrangement is a coming together, not a breaking apart.

Only a colonised mind could regard ‘devo max’ as a compromise which might be acceptable to a nation seeking to put an end to being treated like a colony. Devolution is treating Scotland as a colony. Devolution presupposes a power relationship indistinguishable from that between coloniser and colonised.

The thing about ‘devo max’ is that it’s not independence. Devolution cannot become independence. They are two distinct conditions. If, like John Swinney, you are thinking in terms of devolution, then you are not thinking in terms of independence.

We should think of devolution as something we must bring to an end. Something we must kill rather than something we should nurture in the hope it grows up to be independence.

I haven’t posted an article for a couple of days. For which I apologise. My excuse is that I got involved in a below-the-line ‘discussion’ prompted by news that Wings Over Scotland blogger, Stu Campbell, had once again been dragged in by police for questioning after yet another malicious complaint laid against him by one of the most deranged members of the gender cult. It was not Campbell himself that I was defending against a pile-on of nasty bigots but his forensic journalism. The guy is an excellent investigative journalist skilled at gathering and presenting the facts. We could do with more like him.

To be honest, that wasn’t the only reason I didn’t publish anything yesterday. The truth is that there was nothing in the news that caught my attention. I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve been getting a very distinct impression of late that the independence industry is trying to divert my attention. The front page of the National’s website has been littered this past couple of days with articles about public transport — often featuring the SNP’s current golden boy, Stephen Flynn. It has been like a magician doing a flourish with his right hand so you won’t pay attention to what he’s doing with his left hand.

Don’t get me wrong! I recognise that public transport is an important issue. But there has been a distinctly frantic quality to the spate of SNP statements and Scottish Government press releases on the subject of late. Or maybe it’s just me and my somewhat single-minded — not to say monomanical — focus on the constitutional issue. I readily admit that I do tend to see everything through the lens of my Scottish nationalism. I don’t apologise for that. But it does mean that other matters can sometimes slip by me.

What strikes me at the moment is how little John Swinney has to say on the subject of Scotland’s cause. The term ‘back burner’ comes constantly to mind. We’ve seen it all before, of course. We’ve seen how independence rises to the top of the SNP’s agenda in the weeks prior to an election only to slide rapidly down again once the votes are counted and the self-styled ‘party of independence’ is safely returned to its cosy place in the bubble.

At the end of April, John Swinney set out what he promised his government would deliver in its first hundred days. There were promises about healthcare, housing, education, and more. On the constitutional issue he made two promises. Firstly, he undertook to have the Scottish Parliament immediately validate the British state’s veto over the will of Scotland’s people. That’s not how he described it, of course. But that is what it was. The British Prime Minister’s response was to send some lackey to tell John Swinney to fuck off. That’s not a verbatim account either. But it’s what it sounded like to my Scottish nationalist ears.

Swinney’s second promise on the constitutional issue was stated quite bluntly.

Within the first hundred days, we will publish the draft Referendum Bill.

By my reckoning, the first 100 days are up at the end of September. It’s probably a bit later if we count only sitting days. But I’ll leave that wee fiddle for John Swinney.

Where is the promised Referendum Bill? Why haven’t we heard any more about it? Surely a draft would have been published by now if it was going to be laid before parliament before the end of September. Maybe Swinney is planning on springing it as a surprise at the very last minute. Or maybe it’s never going to be mentioned again.

No doubt the First Minister will plead that a referendum Bill would be pointless since the British state has already used the veto he gave it. But we all knew the supplication for a Section 30 order would be curtly dismissed. So why promise a Referendum Bill? If the Bill is pointless, then so was the promise. Unless the only point was to rake in a few more votes from people gullible enough to believe Swinney when he said he could “guarantee” a referendum if the SNP was returned to power.

Incidentally, there really is a Scotland (Independence Referendum) Bill. But not at Holyrood. It is a Private Members’ Bill sponsored by Graham Leadbitter MP (SNP). This Bill is destined for the same bin that received a similar one sponsored by Neale Hanvey in November 2023, when he was an MP and Westminster leader of Alba Party, which then existed.

I seem to recall Ash Regan talking about “A Bill to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to transfer the power to legislate for a Scottish independence referendum to the Scottish Parliament; and for connected purposes”, as Mr Leadbitter’s Bill is titled. I don’t think that one even got as far as being drafted

It’s all performative. The vote in the Scottish Parliament for a Section 30 order was performative. Neale Hanvey’s Bill was performative. Graham Leadbitter’s Bill is performative. It’s all just ineffectual theatrics. The only thing anybody gets out of it is a reason to whine pathetically about Westminster ‘blocking democracy’.

It’s all deception and fakery. It’s all pretence. It’s all false. I’m not even sure this article is real.

Prior to the 2016 EU referendum, I devoted a great many words to warning that among the consequences of withdrawing from the European Union would be the possibility that the British state would use the opportunity this presented to constitutionally redefine the UK so as to lock Scotland into a ‘reformed’ Union. That didn’t happen. At least, not in the way I anticipated. But the warning may have been valid after all.

In Andy Burnham we have a British Prime Minister flying a kite about the creation of a written constitution for the UK. This should worry all who value Scotland’s identity as a nation distinct from England.

There cannot be a written constitution that doesn’t transform Scotland’s status within this newly defined UK. (I shall leave Wales and Northern Ireland out of this, as my focus is on the Union.)

The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the principle of popular sovereignty are totally incompatible and irreconcilable. They cannot coexist in a written constitution. The Union is only possible because there is no written constitution. In writing a constitution for the UK, one would be obliged to choose between the Crown in Parliament and the sovereignty of the people. Sovereignty is absolute and indivisible. There cannot be two sovereign authorities because to be sovereign is to be the ultimate political authority. All political authority is vested in and derives from the sovereign. There cannot be two ultimate authorities.

The Union gives England-as-Britain the power to impose a constitutional status on Scotland without reference to the people. You might think they would never do that. But I invite you to look at the things the British state has done and is doing and then try telling us they’d shy away from imposing on Scotland a written constitution in which the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is enshrined.

A written constitution would inevitably see the realisation of the Greater England project. It would be the final stage of England-as-Britain’s influence extending into Scotland.

A written constitution for the UK would all but certainly kill Scotland’s cause stone-dead. To imagine a written constitution for the UK would include a mechanism by which annexed territories could restore their independence is laughably naive.

If you are a supporter of Scotland’s cause and prone to bouts of depression, then you would be well-advised to steer well clear of Robin McAlpine’s column in the Sunday National. Because if his reading of the situation is correct, there is no possibility of Scotland’s independence being restored. At the risk of ruining this and all your subsequent Sundays, I shall quote the relevant parts of Robin’s doom-laden message.

Scotland cannot begin to consider ­being stuck in the Kosovo situation because our economy is too advanced. There is no ­half-independence for us, no bluffing it, no work-around. Which leaves one ­major ­question – how do we get other nation states to recognise us?

In asking this question, it is important to put away naïve sentiment: it doesn’t ­matter how much everyone “loves” Scotland, they will all want to see certain conditions met before they embrace us, and by far the ­biggest of those is that we are entering the world in a state of agreement with the ­nation state from which we are departing.

Drawing parallels between Scotland and Kosovo strikes me as rather foolish, for the same reason as I deprecate comparisons with Catalunya — the constitutional circumstances are far too unalike for such comparisons to be valid.

But let’s suppose Robin only mentions Kosovo to make his point about the importance of international recognition. There is no denying that Scotland would want more international recognition than Kosovo has so far achieved. But there is no way to guarantee that recognition would be forthcoming. Action that moves us towards independence cannot be conditional on international recognition for the very obvious reason that recognition comes after independence.

Kosovo declared independence knowing that it would not get full recognition. If we are taking Kosovo as an example, then what it tells us is that independence can be more important than full recognition.

All we can do is ensure that the process by which we restore our independence is impeccably democratic. We can never be certain of enough recognition to get UN membership. The best we can do is make sure that the way we restore our independence leaves no grounds for withholding recognition. Even then, we cannot be sure one or more nations won’t withhold recognition despite there being no procedural grounds for doing so. There may be political reasons. Which is the polite way of saying some nations might withhold recognition out of spite. Or out of a need to stay on good terms with one or more of the nations acting out of spite.

Robin takes the view that general recognition will be critically dependent on Scotland being “in a state of agreement“ with the UK. Essentially, what he is saying is that we cannot restore our independence absent the consent of the UK. Or to put it another way, we can only restore our independence on terms which the UK finds acceptable, no matter how much those terms restrict our ability to act as an independent nation.

If the UK’s agreement is as essential as Robin says, we can be sure that this agreement will come at a very high cost. The purpose of the Union was to give England-as-Britain a decisive advantage over Scotland in all matters and for all time. The Union is what allows England-as-Britain to exploit Scotland’s resources for its own benefit and at any cost to Scotland. We can be quite certain that the British state would seek to retain as much of this advantage as can be squeezed from Scotland as the price of its agreement.

If Robin is right, Scotland can never have a status that would resemble what other nations consider to be independence. If he is right, we can only have as much independence as England-as-Britain is prepared to allow. Need I remind readers that this is the England-as-Britain which is barely able to accept the highly restrictive devolution we have? Need I point out the various ways—such as the Internal Market Act—in which England-as-Britain is endeavouring to circumvent or roll back devolution?

The strange thing is that Robin McAlpine appears to genuinely believe that Scotland’s independence can be restored despite this England-as-Britain having the final say on what independence means.

More from Robin:

Democracy isn’t a science but a ­collective agreement – it works because (almost) everyone agrees to the rules of how it works in advance. If different parties start to play by different rules, it starts to break down.

For example, a referendum is an ­agreement signed by both sides which states they will abide by the result. It’s [sic] strength is this agreement, this binding commitment. Take that away and it is just an opinion poll. You cannot make ­another party agree to recognise the outcome of something against their will.

I don’t know what referendum Robin has in mind here, but it can’t be the one we had in 2014 because England-as-Britain did not undertake to “abide by the result” of that sham referendum. Scour the Edinburgh Agreement as you may, and you will find nothing which commits the British state to abide by the result. It was “just an opinion poll”. No process in which England-as-Britain has a significant role can ever lead to the full restoration of Scotland’s independence. And Robin McAlpine opines that England-as-Britain must have a role which is not merely significant but decisive.

I promise this is the last excerpt from Robin’s spirit-sapping column.

If you want to be independent, the people have to support it. If a strong majority of Scotland wants to be independent and London continues to block it, then and only then does the political pressure rise high enough that it starts to force their hand.

At that point we can start talking about de facto referendums or unilateral declarations or delegations to the UN or mass protest as negotiating tactics from a position of strength – but as means of skipping the process of building strength? Forget it.

This is a common argument. Robin is far from being alone in maintaining that we must have won majority support for independence before we engage with the process by which independence will be restored. None of those who advance this argument seem able to grasp that engaging with the process might be the thing which wins that majority support. What is certain is that declining to engage with a credible process will leave Scotland’s cause abandoned up a blind alley, as it has been for the last twelve years.

According to Robin, we will win because we “build a ­position of strength”. And we will do this by building a “solid, defensible case and an enthused and engaged public”. But building that case is what the independence industry claims it has been doing for all of the twelve years that support for independence has flatlined. Support for independence has flatlined despite whatever it is that the independence industry has been doing and despite the UK government supposedly ‘driving people to Yes’ throughout that period.

It is clear that the SNP Scottish Government’s strategy of making progress for Scotland’s cause conditional on the consent and cooperation of the administering power has comprehensively failed. Yet this is what Robin McAlpine maintains is the only strategy that can work. It sure as hell isn’t a strategy which enthuses and engages the public. Inaction breeds only indifference. People are not enthused and engaged because there is nothing to be enthusiastic about and nothing to engage them.

If support for independence is to increase, people not only need to want it, they have to be persuaded that it can happen. They have to see it happening. But if Robin McAlpine and John Swinney are both correct and nothing can happen without the consent and cooperation of those most strenuously opposed to restoring Scotland’s independence, Scotland’s cause is stillborn. If they are right, we have no way out.

The most significant thing about what Craig Murray says is the fact that he is saying it. And that what he is saying is being discussed. This serves to illustrate the extent to which thinking on the constitutional issue in the independence movement has parted company with orthodoxies of the independence industry.

It’s approximately seven years since I first started writing about some form of UDI as a legitimate way of restoring Scotland’s independence. I don’t recall exactly when it was that I came to the conclusion that #ScottishUDI was the only way independence can be restored, but with a handful of others I was strenuously advocating this course in the lead-up to the 2021 Scottish general election. At that time, talk of UDI would have you relegated to the fringe of the independence movement. UDI was unthinkable. It occurred to me to wonder why the British had worked so hard at making UDI unthinkable. I quickly recognised how convenient it was for the British state that UDI was dismissed without consideration or discussion.

Six or seven years on and UDI is now firmly established as part of the discourse around Scotland’s cause. Unfortunately, much of the discussion informed by the concept of UDI is most generously described as primitive. Or perhaps ‘unevolved’ would be a better term. Craig Murray’s plan falls into this category. He makes the same mistake so many others do in failing to fully develop the human rights aspect of the constitutional issue.

Craig gets some things right, and it is important that we acknowledge this. He is right to recognise that confrontation with the British state is unavoidable. But he fails to discover ways in which we might influence the form this confrontation takes. He is right to say that there must be evident public support for what is being done. But he doesn’t explore ways in which this support can be made apparent within the democratic process. He is right to say that independence must be taken. But this is at odds with the fact that he appears to consider the Section 30 process legitimate.

Finally, he is right about using the mechanism of a confirmatory referendum to establish the impeccable democratic credentials of the unilateral declaration of independence. But on his way to this conclusion, he sidesteps the issue of legislative competence. In his rush to take independence, he misses the bit where we secure the means and opportunity to exercise our right of self-determination.

If Craig Murray’s contribution shows how far the independence movement has come since 2014, the response from the Scottish Government illustrates in the starkest manner how pathetically little the ‘old guard’ of the independence movement has travelled in that period. Craig has only a short way to go before he reaches the #ScottishUDI strategy. The independence industry, meanwhile, hasn’t even left the starting line.

The title of this article does not, as some might suppose, refer to the condition that afflicts every writer from time to time. Those occasions when you sit down with the intention of writing a masterpiece of prose and find yourself instead staring at a blank page (or screen) for two or three hours while your mind strives to emulate the blankness of that page.

What the title refers to is the appeal of a fresh start. The idea of wiping the slate clean and starting from scratch is, I suppose, something that everybody entertains from time to time. Especially when things are particularly shitty, we all enjoy the notion of flushing it all away and going back to a pristine condition. We all like to imagine we can erase all the mistakes we’ve made, do it over, and do it right this time.

Marketers exploit this tendency all the time, whether they are selling a product or an idea. Political activists are really just marketers. A political campaign is a marketing exercise. Wannabe politicians are sold to the public using the same techniques as are used to sell washing powder. To a greater or lesser degree, they are all sold on the basis of a promise to cast off the old and introduce the new. Or just as likely, to cast off the new and return to some imagined golden age.

I had a mild case of the first type of blank page syndrome earlier this morning. It was a mild case because I hadn’t yet looked at the news or my social media feeds, which are my usual source of inspiration. Unusually, I went to my social media feeds first today. I usually turn to the news first. On 𝕏 I was involved in an exchange with Sara Salyers. For all that we agree on a great many points, I have never accepted that the Scottish Parliament cannot be whatever we want it to be and that it would have to be abandoned in favour of some kind of “civic commission”.

As regular readers will know, I advocate making use of the parliament we have by electing people who are committed to making it the parliament that we want or need. Sara and I ‘debate’ this point every once in a while. Neither of us has so far managed to influence the other. But the discussion is far from arid. In fact, it can be quite fruitful. So, I thought I would bring the discussion here to see what commenters make of the arguments.

The following is my most recent response on the topic and covers the gist of my argument against throwing away what we have in favour of something that remains unknown. The appeal of the blank page can, if we are not cautious, lead us to unnecessarily destroy things that are valuable.

I grasp the idea. Of course, an embassy would stop being an embassy if you repurposed it as something other than an embassy – a brothel, for example. But that is not what I'm suggesting we do with the Scottish Parliament.

The parliament is the people sitting in it. If the Scottish Parliament were packed with Unionists, it would be a different parliament from a parliament packed with nationalists.

You seem to be saying that if we elected a majority of MSPs committed to the #ScottishUDI process, it still wouldn't be able to restore Scotland's independence. You seem to be saying that we, the people, can own everything in Scotland except the parliament that we elect.

This is what I can't make sense of. If I am grasping your point correctly, you are saying that there is nothing we can do to make the Scottish Parliament the parliament of an independent Scotland – not even if we elect a huge majority of genuine nationalists. Not even if every single MSP was signed up to the #ScottishUDI process. Not even if every single one of them voted to assert legislative competence and then unanimously passed legislation for a proper constitutional referendum

Moreover, you seem to be saying that all the things which can't be done by the parliament we vote for can be done by some unelected "civic commission". I'm having a hard time getting my head around that.

I'm trying very hard to envisage the legislature we have sitting idly by while some cobbled-together committee enacts legislation. I don't think that makes me stupid. I reckon it just makes me someone who adheres to the principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign and that the parliament the sovereign people elect is whatever the sovereign people want it to be.

I can understand the appeal of a 'fresh start'. Raze and rebuild! Tear down everything to restore Scotland to some pristine state, then build anew all that you've just torn down using the same materials! What other materials are there?

Presumably, this would apply to every part of our existing governance infrastructure – the civil service, for example. If not, it needs to be explained why the Scottish Parliament is an exception. So, I have to ask, who will implement the decisions made over the heads of our elected parliament by an unelected committee?

Presumably, there would have to be a parallel civil service. If you discount the democratically elected parliament, you would surely have to also discount all the administrators who derive their authority from the discounted parliament.

Here's another thing! This "civic commission" could only come into existence after the electorate has elected a parliament that is sympathetic to the idea of a parallel (rival?) body doing things that only the parliament is empowered to do, because that's the only way we have of measuring the mood of the voters. So, why bother? Why go to the trouble of setting up this unelected parallel administration when you have a democratically legitimised administration with the same objective?

I understand the idea. It is because I understand it that I have so many questions.

Xander Elliards states, correctly, that “Swinney clearly doesn’t have a secret plan.” (John Swinney’s ‘secret plan’ is bust. Is this the route to indyref2?) But he evidently can’t bring himself to condemn Swinney’s deceitfulness and dishonesty. I know what the actual words he used were. I also know that neither Swinney nor anyone else did anything to correct those who misinterpreted those words. He was perfectly happy to let people believe he had a ‘Big Secret Plan’. And he never did! Because if he ever did have such a plan, he would still have it. He’d just have a good excuse for not implementing it. Which is what the whole SNP-only majority was always about. There was never a realistic prospect of the SNP taking 65 seats. It suited Swinney very nicely to have an excuse for doing nothing beyond pleading for a Section 30 order because pleading for a Section 30 order was the only ‘plan’ he ever had.

Answer this, Xander! How often since the election have you heard Swinney say he doesn’t have a mandate? The correct answer is ‘never’! On the contrary, he has taken every opportunity to insist that he does have a mandate for a referendum based on the nominally pro-independence parties having more seats than ever.

Tell me, Xander! How often have you heard Swinney explain the difference between the mandate he says he has and the mandate he says he would have had if the SNP had won 65 seats? The correct answer again is ‘never’.

Here’s a third question for you, Xander! What is it that John Swinney could have done with 65 SNP seats that he can’t do with 73 pro-independence seats? The majority he had was sufficient to have the Scottish Parliament back his supplication to the British Prime Minister. If it is sufficient for that, why is it not sufficient for his ‘Big Secret Plan’?

Which brings us to Xander Elliard’s own question. He asks, “Is this the route to IndyRef2?” referring to something new SNP star Lara Bird spoke about in The National Podcast.

“What do we do when we keep having Westminster governments keep saying no?” she asked.

“I think you’ve got to be really realistic about what’s going to happen in Westminster. I think there’s a really strong chance that we have a hung parliament [after the 2029 General Election].”

Bird went on: “So you essentially have a situation where Labour, if they did remain in government, would have to work really closely with a lot of the smaller parties, including the SNP, where deals would be struck and negotiations would be had about how Labour got what they wanted whilst also giving others what they wanted.

“I think that provides a very unique opportunity for the SNP down in Westminster, where we are likely going to return – I hope we certainly return – 40-plus MPs at the next General Election, where in a hung parliament that gives us a really strong opportunity to negotiate with a Labour government.”

Xander goes on to ask:

Maybe that is the most realistic route to a second independence referendum?

Aye, Xander! And maybe I’ll be running marathons next week!

What is Lara Bird’s plan? It can be summed up in two words – ‘wait’ and ‘hope’. Wait until the UK general election and hope for a hung parliament at Westminster.

The waiting part of this ‘plan’ is all too familiar. It always features prominently in the SNP’s approach to the constitutional issue. The trouble is that when waiting becomes the strategy, it soon becomes the only thing you are capable of. Because as all your resources are geared to justifying more procrastination, the capacity for action atrophies.

The second part of Lara Bird’s ‘plan’ is also quite familiar. What she is asking us to wait for is something over which neither she nor any other part of the independence industry has any control. She is asking us to wait and hope for circumstances to arise in which the SNP has some leverage at Westminster. She asks that we gamble Scotland’s cause on an election which will be decided in England on the basis that a hung parliament would be a winning hand.

So, we are to wait and hope for a hung parliament in Westminster while also hoping that the SNP group at Westminster will have the kind of hold over the British establishment that allows them to force the British government to concede a referendum that will have no legal or constitutional effect.

Naturally, all of this hinges on us continuing to vote SNP. Therefore, we would also be hoping that the self-styled ‘party of independence’ didn’t squander the opportunity we are hoping for, as it has so many times in the past. And to top it off, we’d be hoping we could win that referendum with no legal or constitutional effect with the SNP steering the campaign.

The hoping piles up like Jenga blocks made of blancmange.

All I can possibly take from Lara Bird’s comments is that she is as clueless about restoring Scotland’s independence as John Swinney. Approaching two decades of SNP government and almost twelve years on from the sham independence referendum of 2014, the party has clearly learned nothing. Thinking on the constitutional issue within the SNP leadership has not developed at all. Not only is there no ‘Big Secret Plan’, there is no plan of any kind. Unless you are foolish enough to suppose Lara Bird’s flimsy speculation can pass muster as a plan. In which case, you are more to be pitied than chastised.

Alluding to the 1989 children’s picture book written by Michael Rosen and illustrated by Helen Oxenbury, Xander Elliards writes:

Like those children on the bear hunt, Swinney cannot go over Westminster, cannot go under it, and cannot go around it. The only way is through.

This is the orthodoxy of the independence industry. The insistence that Westminster not only be given a role in resolving the constitutional issue but also that it must have a controlling role. Those of us who have the capacity to learn from the past realised long ago that there cannot be a way through Westminster. We have learnt that there is no route to independence through a legal and constitutional framework which has developed under the influence of England-as-Britain’s imperative to preserve the Union. Nor is there any possibility of such a route. The hope that one will open up is as forlorn as any hope ever was.

To paraphrase Xander Elliards, we cannot go through Westminster. The only way is over, under, or around it.

What we are watching is the unravelling of the long-running confidence trick which has kept the SNP in power for nearly twenty years. For the SNP leadership, that is what the constitutional issue is all about.

A regular below-the-line commenter on this site lately brought to my attention a short article penned by John Swinney and published on the SNP website under the title There is a better future for Scotland away from Westminster control. This commenter then asks:

Are the velvet gloves coming off to expose an iron fist? Does this merit a PAB article?

They got the second bit right, although they may not like my answer to the first bit. The suggestion that Swinney’s article shows signs of him getting tough with Westminster is just the kind of deluded nonsense that SNP apologists peddle incessantly. To say that Swinney’s article is just empty rhetoric is to afford it far more substance than it deserves.

In that 560-word article, Swinney mentions ‘Westminster’ around five times as often as he mentions ‘independence’ and about the same number of times as he mentions ‘Scotland’. There is neither call nor commitment to any action. Swinney says nothing about how he proposes to take Scotland away from Westminster control. Nor does he suggest anything readers of the article should do to hasten the dawn of that new era for our nation.

The gist of the article is that the power to shape Scotland’s future should be in the hands of Scotland’s people. A real no-shit-sherlock moment for Swinney, there!

But at the same time as he says power should lie in Scotland, he addresses Andy Burnham as if he had all the power. Which he does, of course. But there is an implicit acceptance of this by Swinney. Swinney’s article is a dire illustration of how he puts Westminster at the centre of the constitutional issue. He deplores the asymmetry of power that favours Burnham and the British state. But he looks to Burnham to fix this. He’s waiting for Burnham to do something about it. Swinney himself doesn’t propose to do anything. Or should that be proposes to do nothing?

Swinney refers to the fact that the Scottish Parliament voted for a new referendum, even if only in a roundabout way. He claims popular support for independence. But then he passes the ball to Burnham, who promptly punctures it. Swinney just doesn’t get this popular sovereignty thing at all. If the people of Scotland are sovereign — which they are — and they have given Swinney and his party a mandate to act on the constitutional issue, then what follows should be action by Swinney. But Swinney does nothing. He offers no proposals for doing anything. He puts the whole matter in the hands of a British prime minister who has no mandate from the people of Scotland and a British parliament in which Scotland has only token representation.

Where is the iron fist?

The true purpose of what Swinney writes is to give the impression that Andy Burnham and he are actively engaged on the constitutional issue when the truth is that Burnham has already brushed Swinney aside as one might shoo a pesky fly.

When the velvet glove comes off, all that’s revealed is a limp wrist.

The time to take John Swinney seriously as the de facto leader of Scotland’s independence movement will be when he can author a 560-word essay on the constitutional question without mentioning Westminster or Burnham at all.

Seeking inspiration for today’s article, I came across a letter from Iain Bruce of Respect Scottish Sovereignty (RSS) which was published in The National on 21 July (We need your help to make the case for a citizens’ convention). I should say I rediscovered this letter, as I recall glancing at it earlier but taking little interest. On reading the letter fully, I find that I was justified in not paying it much heed. I am familiar with RSS from their efforts to promote a petition demanding that the Scottish Parliament incorporate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) into Scots law. I recall objecting strongly to a flyer RSS distributed which encouraged people to sign the petition with a totally dishonest claim that success would enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a constitutional referendum. With this in mind, I was wary.

This time, RSS is promoting a petition “calling for a people’s assembly/citizens’ convention, specifically to discuss the sovereign people of Scotland’s right to decide our own future”. This petition failed because RSS failed to follow the correct procedure. Although Iain Bruce tries to give the impression that RRS had been “thwarted by the powers-that-be”.

I had been intending to write something about the much-hyped ‘citizens’ convention’, or ‘national convention’, or some such. I wanted to address the purpose of such an entity. What would it do? What could it do? It has long seemed to me that advocates of a citizens’ convention were seeking a way to circumvent the Scottish Parliament. While I can understand this given the fact that the parliament is dominated by parties which are pro-independence in name only, I can’t see how any attempt to sidestep the democratic institutions could work. And supposing it could work, would we want it to?

The bit of Iain Bruce’s letter that caught my attention is where he quotes Professor Ciaran Martin of the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford (RESIST, REFORM OR RE-RUN? Short- and long-term reflections on Scotland and independence referendums).

Ultimately there are no constraints on what Westminster can do to block a lawful path to Scottish independence if it’s so minded.

There are, in effect, only two things that matter.

One: The law is in Westminster,

Two: The votes are in Scotland. So if these two forces clash, one has to give way to the other. But there are no rules as to how such a situation should be resolved.

I had hoped that by the time I got to this point in the article, I would have figured out how the above quote relates to the idea of a citizens’ convention. I’m still not sure. But I think it has something to do with looking for ways to deal with – or avoid – that clash between the seemingly immovable object of Westminster law and the theoretically irresistible force of democracy. Let’s keep going and see where we end up.

If nothing else, I am grateful to Iain Bruce for providing a reminder and a reason for referring to Professor Ciaran Martin’s 2021 paper. There is much in what he says that remains relevant to the constitutional issue. I would recommend that, at the very least, everybody should read the first section, titled Lecture Summary. Accepting that many won’t read the whole summary, I’ll take the liberty of extracting the four key conclusions as, if you like, a summary of the summary.

1. That the Union can be maintained by force of law is not, ultimately, in doubt. The question is whether it is wise to seek to do so.

2. There is no viable alternative model for the United Kingdom. Ultimately, the choice facing Scotland, whether soon or at some point later, is between the status quo (or some variant of it) and independence.

3. The 2014 template is broadly replicable for a further referendum.

4. The conduct of the campaigns on both sides in 2014 unnecessarily complicated what is a huge, but actually reasonably straightforward, political choice which is easily understood by most people. If there is another referendum, this need not be so again.

I would qualify that first conclusion. The Union can be maintained by force of law only if we, the people of Scotland, accept the legitimacy of this law. Bear in mind that we are talking here not about criminal law, but constitutional law. The former is respected by being obeyed. The latter is respected by being constantly questioned. Otherwise, the right of self-determination is meaningless. The right of self-determination must mean that we, the people, always have a right to choose our status as a nation and the form of government which best serves our needs, priorities, and aspirations. If this were not so, the right of self-determination would not be inalienable. In theory, it could be forfeited or relinquished.

Readers will be familiar with one of the more inane arguments advanced by amateur Unionist propagandists. The one in which they argue that we had a referendum in 2014 and that settled the matter. But, as I would wearily point out, nobody voted to give up our right of self-determination. We could not have done so even if it had been an option on the ballot because the right of self-determination is an inalienable human right without which democracy ceases to be possible.

As Ernest Renan put it in his 1882 lecture, What is a Nation? (my emphasis):

A nation is therefore a large-scale solidarity, constituted by the feeling of the sacrifices that one has made in the past and of those that one is prepared to make in the future. It presupposes a past; it is summarized, however, in the present by a tangible fact, namely, consent, the clearly expressed desire to continue a common life. A nation’s existence is, if you will pardon the metaphor, a daily plebiscite, just as an individual’s existence is a perpetual affirmation of life. That, I know full well, is less metaphysical than divine right and less brutal than so-called historical right. According to the ideas that I am outlining to you, a nation has no more right than a king does to say to a province: ‘You belong to me, I am seizing you.’ A province, as far as I am concerned, is its inhabitants; if anyone has the right to be consulted in such an affair, it is the inhabitant. A nation never has any real interest in annexing or holding on to a country against its will. The wish of nations is, all in all, the sole legitimate criterion, the one to which one must always return.

If we follow Renan’s thinking on the matter – and why would we not? – then we, the inhabitants of Scotland, can on any day choose to make that plebiscite formal. We can choose at any time to say to the UK, “We do not belong to you! You shall not seize us!”

It is a question of which takes precedence: local (UK) law, or the most fundamental precept on which rests all our ideas of democracy and civilisation. The sovereignty of a people is an extension of the sovereignty of the person. They are the same thing. Democracy is the consensual pooling of sovereignty that makes civilisation possible. Deny the sovereignty of the individual and you condone slavery. Deny the sovereignty of a people and you condone tyranny and precipitate a descent into barbarity.

That the people of Scotland are sovereign is both a constitutional fact and an abiding principle underpinning our distinct political culture and our identity as a nation. Not only do we have an inalienable right to challenge local (UK) law which denies us access to the full and free exercise of our right of self-determination, we have a solemn duty as democrats and citizens to do so.

Where local law impinges on our right of self-determination, as UK law demonstrably does, then the corrective can only be a process which steps outside the constraints of that law whilst being strictly confined by the principles and provisions of international law.

Professor Ciaran Martin’s second conclusion appears to reinforce my own portrayal of the constitutional issue as an existential struggle which culminates in the end of Scotland as a distinct nation or the end of the British state’s conceit of itself as an imperial power. That, ultimately, is the choice we, the people of Scotland, must make. It is understandable that England-as-Britain would seek to prevent us from making that choice other than when it is certain the outcome cannot put the Union in jeopardy.

In this context, it is worth referring to what Professor Martin has to say about the Section 30 process.

Although some academics had pointed out some years earlier its potential for use as a route to holding a referendum, Section 30 was not designed for existential constitutional issues. It was designed to iron out mistakes in the way devolved and reserved powers work in more mundane matters, such as road transport, and to provide flexibility for new developments.

In other words, Section 30 of the Scotland Act was a belt-and-braces provision which would allow the UK government to adjust the powers of the Scottish Parliament. It seems redundant to state that it is a provision England-as-Britain would resort to in order to safeguard the Union. The Union which is ‘precious’ to them for much more than sentimental reasons.

Professor Martin continues:

[Section 30] was never regarded as the only legal path to a referendum. Indeed, Whitehall gave serious if brief consideration in 2011 to running the referendum under Westminster law, before deciding that it needed to be, as in the slogan, ‘Made in Scotland’. The Scottish government may find ways around a refusal to grant a Section 30 order, as it has said it will. But that’s potentially beside the point. Westminster is sovereign, and could pass a further law blocking whatever path Holyrood had found. Ultimately there are no constraints on what Westminster can do to block a lawful path to Scottish independence if it’s so minded.

Which is kinda where we came in. There is a distinct feeling of being trapped in some kind of loop. This is because there is no route to the full and proper exercise of our right of self-determination while we accept the constraints of local law, as our political leaders insist we must. There is no escape from this loop unless and until we cease to accept those constraints.

I must emphasise here that it is not independence per se that is denied to us by the strictures of local law. There is no right to independence. There is only the right to self-determine our constitutional status, with independence being one option. The point Professor Ciaran Martin makes is that there is no ‘third way’. There is no constitutional arrangement that both ensures the continuity of the UK and permits the development of a distinct Scottish political culture. The doctrines of parliamentary and popular sovereignty are totally incompatible and absolutely irreconcilable. Arguably, this was always the fatal flaw in the Union. Although those who originally contrived it would have no way of foreseeing a situation in which votes in Scotland could challenge law in Westminster. If those votes were ever cast, that is.

Professor Martin’s third key conclusion is that the 2014 template is broadly replicable for a further referendum. Well, maybe. But would we want to replicate it? Obviously, John Swinney imagines we can. I have devoted a lot of words to pointing out how wrong this is. Frankly, I’m rather surprised that writing in 2021 Professor Martin still supposed a Section 30 referendum was acceptable or viable. Clearly, it isn’t. Not least because the British state won’t go along. But as far as I am concerned, the argument for repudiating the Section 30 process has been made and not rebutted. So, I’ll move on to Professor Martin’s fourth and final conclusion. Because it seems to contradict the notion of replicating the 2014 referendum.

Let’s remind ourselves of that fourth conclusion.

The conduct of the campaigns on both sides in 2014 unnecessarily complicated what is a huge, but actually reasonably straightforward, political choice which is easily understood by most people. If there is another referendum, this need not be so again.

Again, this is a point I have made time and time again. The 2014 referendum took a simple binary choice and buried it in a mountain of debate about matters of policy, not a single one of which was part of that binary choice.

If I may make so bold as to suggest where the good professor is in error, it is in thinking we could replicate the 2014 referendum without replicating that horribly flawed campaign. It is an error that John Swinney is also guilty of. Less forgivably, I would contend. He’s had five more years to think about the constitutional issue. Evidently, he has put that time to no use whatever.

Everything about a referendum is determined by the question that is asked, or the binary choice that is offered. The 2014 referendum made independence the contentious issue. But independence is normal. It is the default status of all nations. It is the status to which all the peoples of nations are presumed to aspire. A status which can only be circumscribed or altered with the ongoing consent of the people. Therefore, it is the Union which is anomalous. It is the Union that should be the contentious issue.

The law is in Westminster, and the votes are in Scotland. If these two forces clash, one has to give way to the other. But there are no rules as to how such a situation should be resolved. Moreover, the UK has shown no interest in developing such rules. And we would have to ask whether it is their right to do so. Surely that right lies with the people of Scotland. Surely, the right of self-determination must encompass the right to decide when and how we exercise that right.

It simply makes no sense that the matter of how and when and even if we exercise our right of self-determination should be at the discretion of what, for the purposes of the constitutional issue if nothing else, is effectively a foreign government.

Which brings us yet again to #ScottishUDI, a strategy which can be seen as the people of Scotland taking charge of the process by which we exercise our right of self-determination.

And I’m still unsure about the role of a citizens’ convention in all of this. Of one thing I am certain, however. If establishing a citizens’ convention is left to the independence industry, it will achieve nothing, as it would be bound by the orthodoxies which have paralysed Scotland’s cause. The independence industry’s first instinct is to stifle dissenting voices. Only ‘respectable’ views are to be considered. Where ‘respectable’ means accepting that Scotland’s votes are inferior to Westminster law.

For the record, I will never be ‘respectable’.

I have frequently stated that we need to reframe the constitutional issue and rethink the campaign to restore Scotland’s independence. The language we use when discussing the constitutional issue should both form and reflect the way we approach Scotland’s cause.

You have just seen an example of reframing without, perhaps, realising it. The phrase ‘restore Scotland’s independence’ is not what you’ll hear from the independence industry, where it is all talk of ‘gaining’ or ‘winning’ independence. As if independence were a prize which we might win from the British state if we jump through whatever hoops they put in front of us. The problem with this is that the British state has a near-infinite supply of hoops.

The language used by the independence industry frames independence as the property of England-as-Britain which they might give us if we pass some kind of test. Needless to say, they reserve the right to formulate this test and to alter it without notice.

Using the word ‘restore’ instead of ‘win’ may seem trivial to some. But while it is a small change in the language, it implies a huge change in the way we think about the issue. The phrase ‘restore Scotland’s independence’ necessarily implies that independence is ours. It is not something which is naturally in the gift of the British state but something which we own or are fully entitled to. Something which we would have were it not being illegitimately withheld from us by the British state.

For centuries British propaganda has presented the superiority of England-as-Britain — with the corollary of Scottish inferiority — as nothing more than the ‘natural order’. The order ordained by an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent entity. That supernatural entity is imaginary. The power that flows from it is very real.

The independence industry’s framing of the constitutional issue implicitly accepts this ‘natural order‘ whilst striving to disrupt or destroy it. The independence industry insists we must play by the British state’s rules. Only by compliance with the rules which keep Scotland down can we hope to elevate our nation. It is an approach which simply makes no sense.

The required reframing of the constitutional issue is evident in the slogan deployed by New Scotland Party when it was launched in November 2024.

• Take back our government!

• Take back our parliament!

• Take back our nation!

Thus, the constitutional issue is reframed as a campaign to recover or repossess that which has been taken from us and which continues to be withheld from us. Another aspect of this reframing is more subtle but no less important. It represents a mindset in which the constitutional issue is split into two battles:

1. The battle to secure the means and opportunity whereby the people of Scotland can fully and freely exercise our right of self-determination.

2. The battle to restore Scotland’s rightful status as an independent nation.

Let’s focus for the moment on the idea of taking back, or recovering or repossessing, our parliament. Discourse on the topic of Scotland’s cause tends to emphasise the fact that the Scottish Parliament is a creature of the British state. It is commonly dismissed as an agency of England-as-Britain. Some even label it a colonial administration. There are weel-kent voices in the independence movement which maintain that the Scottish Parliament must be abolished because it is owned by Westminster. I stipulate the facts but reject the conclusion.

To my way of thinking, the foregoing is the British framing of the Scottish Parliament. I see no good reason to simply accept that framing, as the independence industry does. I would reframe the Scottish Parliament from a Scottish nationalist perspective. I speak of the Scottish parliament as our parliament. I reframe it as the ancient parliament of Scotland, which was taken from us by dubious means in 1707 and returned to us in 1999, but bound by the chains of devolution.

My framing of the Scottish Parliament maintains it is the true national parliament of Scotland from which a raft of critical powers are illegitimately being withheld by England-as-Britain. My rethinking of the campaign follows from this reframing. I am not interested in campaigning for more powers to be bestowed on the Scottish Parliament by the British state. Real power isn’t given. Real power is only ever taken. That which is given is not power so much as an affirmation of the giver’s superiority.

This reframing of the Scottish Parliament allows us to mount a much stronger campaign. The message of this campaign is that we are retaking something that has been taken from us. Certainly, it’s a more powerful message than please, can we have this or that power? Especially when the request is no more than an invitation to rebuff.

Isn’t it great to see our First Minister and the new British Prime Minister engaged in productive dialogue? See how hard John Swinney is working for Scotland’s cause. Look at how much more open to discussing the constitutional issue Andy Burnham is compared to his predecessors. Can’t you just feel the fresh air blowing through our politics as the mixed metaphor of new broom Burnham gets down to work on his project to renew British democracy?

I could go on in this sarcastic vein for hours. But the joke’s already wearing thin. I am not being sarcastic at all when I say that at least Burnham is honest. In a very limited sense, of course. He is honest about the fact that he won’t discuss the constitutional issue. John Swinney’s pretence that discussions on independence are under way is totally dishonest. It’s a lie intended to postpone the moment when he is forced to admit that there is no ‘Big Secret Plan’.

How credible is it that Swinney can still imagine a Section 30 order will be forthcoming? He must know that it’s not going to happen. How stupid would he have to be to suppose Burnham is going to be bounced into substantive talks on a new referendum by the odd headline in The National?

Am I the only one who gets the impression John Swinney enjoys being rebuffed? He appears to relish the opportunity to play the offended party. He gets to indulge in a bit of performative righteous indignation. And, of course, every snub by successive British Prime Ministers allows him to claim that it is the UK government which is blocking the way to a new referendum.

What about that guaranteed referendum, John? How’s that going? When can we expect you to announce the date?

I think it’s the casualness of the dishonesty that really offends me. Can it possibly be that Swinney actually thinks he’s being cleverly manipulative? Does he suppose people don’t notice? How can he be so oblivious to how all this looks from outside the leadership bubble.

Of course, he is fooling far more people than our conceit of ourselves as a politically aware nation would allow. But there is always a tipping point. A point at which there is the appearance of sudden, dramatic change which is, in fact, a particular moment in a process that has been happening, unnoticed, in the background for a long time. One day — and I suspect it will be sooner rather than later — John Swinney will wake one morning to find that he is massively out of favour with the Scottish public.

The moment Swinney starts to feel the chill may be when the media do their 100-day appraisal of the SNP administration’s performance. By my calculation, that is about five weeks away. Here’s a wee reminder of what he promised within that first hundred days.

So I can confirm today that on the first sitting day after the appointment of the new government, we will bring forward a vote of the Scottish Parliament to approve the development of a Section 30 to give Scotland the power to hold an independence referendum.

The parliament chosen by the people of Scotland will have the chance to represent the democratic will of the people of Scotland.

Within the first hundred days, we will publish the draft Referendum Bill.

We propose that the question, as in 2014, is: ‘Should Scotland be an independent country? Yes or No.’

We had the vote in the Scottish Parliament. But it was not a vote to “approve the development of a Section 30 [order]”. Which, to my mind at least, implies that the Scottish Government will be drafting the Section 30 order. What we got was just a vote to ask the British Prime Minister to provide a Section 30 order. How much difference this makes is debatable. But I get the distinct impression that not a great deal of thought went into the promises Swinney made. You can read the other promises he made here.

Will we see that draft Referendum Bill before the hundred days are up? What would be the point of it? Supposing Swinney does deliver that draft Bill, doing so will be just as performative as the vote on begging for a Section 30 order.

That vote was certainly performative. But that is not to say it was without effect or consequences. What it means is that the Section 30 process has now been validated by the Scottish Parliament rather than just by the First Minister. That validation could be crucial if/when the British state is required to show that there is an existing democratic route to an independence referendum. This could be the rock that sinks the UN initiative to have Scotland listed as a non-self-governing territory.

This is why the Manifesto for Independence starts with repudiation of the Section 30 process. In the first instance, the justification for having the Scottish Parliament assert legislative competence in matters relating to the constitution is the fact that this is the only way the people of Scotland can exercise our right of self-determination. That justification is lost if the British can claim that there is already provision for this.

The Scottish Parliament has now validated the Section 30 process as providing a route to a proper constitutional referendum. But the referendum we get by way of the Section 30 process meets none of the criteria for a proper constitutional referendum. The British can now say this referendum has been endorsed by the Scottish Parliament. Swinney has roped the Scottish Parliament in on his own folly.

The day is coming when Swinney will topple from his pedestal with the awfiest clatter.

In the second of an occasional series of articles highlighting arguments in favour of the #ScottishUDI strategy, I want to set out some of the reasoning behind the idea of using a de facto referendum to generate a mandate for the Scottish Parliament to repossess legislative competence in matters relating to the constitution. This may be considered particularly apt at the moment as new British prime minister Andy Burnham accepts John Swinney’s invitation to humiliate him.

The independence movement needs a win. Success breeds success, and Scotland’s cause hasn’t had a success in a very long time. One reason for using a de facto referendum to generate that mandate is that a plebiscite on the powers of the Scottish Parliament will be a much easier win than a de facto referendum on independence. And win by a bigger margin.

Although the picture isn’t perfectly clear, it is probably fair to say that the public attitude to the Scottish Parliament is and has always been quite positive. There is more support for the Scottish Parliament having more powers than there is for independence.

Rather, Scotland is more divided on how the country should be governed now than it was in 1999. Then, in response to a question that SSA has asked every year since, 59% said they thought Scotland should have its own parliament within the framework of the UK, while just 27% backed leaving the UK (just 10% rejected the idea of Scotland having any kind of parliament of its own). Now, in our latest survey conducted last autumn, 47% support independence, compared with 41% who prefer a devolved parliament (and 9% who do not want a parliament at all).

It may also be fair to say that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (UKIMA) with its threat to the devolved administrations, has hardened a defensive attitude to the Scottish Parliament. A clear majority of people want more powers for the Scottish Parliament.

The research found that 51.8% of Scots were in favour of more devolution, with 17.7% in favour of powers being taken away from Holyrood.

It is also worth noting that the pro-independence pairing of SNP and SGP has never won over 50% of the vote in any Scottish general election. Had any of those elections been a de facto referendum on independence, we would have lost. I’m well aware that this reasoning is flawed, as the outcomes might have been very different had the vote been on independence. Nonetheless, the contrast with a de facto referendum on more powers is striking.

Using the regional ballot in a Scottish general election to get a mandate for the Scottish Parliament to assert the power to legislate for a proper constitutional election would be as close as we’re ever likely to get to certain to give the independence movement the win it so desperately needs. And that win would stand us in good stead when it came to the confirmatory referendum that would restore Scotland’s independence.

My letter published in the Sunday National caused a bit of a stir. Which was the whole idea, of course. I am semi-persuaded that the comments were not as knee-jerkingly opposed as has been the case in the past. A few years ago, when I gave a presentation on #ScottishUDI at the Scottish Sovereignty Research Group (SSRG) conference in Dunfermline, somebody remarked afterwards that I was perhaps too far ahead of the leading edge of the independence movement for my thinking on the constitutional issue to get any purchase on people’s imagination. That may well have been a wise comment.

The orthodoxies of the independence industry are very deeply embedded in the independence movement. It is understandably difficult for people to set aside what they’ve been told by ‘leading figures’ for well over a decade. It’s inevitably difficult to persuade people to shake off the idea that the Section 30 process is the ‘gold standard’ of democracy. It is difficult for people who have been told repeatedly by those they’ve come to regard as ‘experts’ on the constitutional issue that the Section 30 process is the only way forward because it was the only way that was ‘legal and constitutional’.

Dissenting voices were shunned or abused and shouted down every time they tried to be heard. My impression is that there is a lot less of that attitude now. People who refused to even listen now hesitantly give the new thinking at least a bit of consideration. The longer John Swinney dithers and bloviates, the easier it is to persuade people that we need a very different approach to the whole constitutional issue.

Andy Burnham has now humiliated Swinney, as predicted by anybody with the smallest understanding of the situation. There is no ‘Big Secret Plan’, as will become clear in the coming days and weeks. As the realisation dawns, I anticipate more and more people will start to take an interest in ideas they previously dismissed as casually as Andy Burnham dismissed First Minister of Scotland John Swinney, First Minister of Wales Rhun ap Iorwerth, and First Minister of Northern Ireland Michelle O’Neill.

If I am correct in foreseeing increasing interest in alternative takes on the constitutional issue, then this puts a burden of responsibility on those expounding these new perspectives. We must work even harder at explaining our ideas. I’ve got to write more articles on various aspects of the #ScottishUDI strategy.

One of the most common reactions to my sketch of the #ScottishUDI process in that letter was that support for independence was not high enough. That is a fair point. But I would maintain that initiation of the #ScottishUDI process is the thing that will take support for independence towards a consistent 60%. Saying we can’t do anything until we have more support is a self-realising dictum. This has been thoroughly proved by twelve years of inaction by the SNP Scottish Government. They have done nothing. The figures haven’t moved. It is not unreasonable to suppose that if you do something, the figures will move.

Requesting a Section order doesn’t count as action. It has been done repeatedly. Often enough that you would have to be extremely dull-witted to imagine it would ever produce a positive result. Even if you are unaware of the damage done by the request, you must know it’s a dead end.

There is no ‘Big Secret Plan’. That was all part of the confidence trick played on voters by John Swinney. That and the downright lie that he could guarantee a referendum. Swinney will probably roll out something old and shop-worn and present it as his ‘Plan B’. Most likely, he’ll start talking about making the next UK general election a de facto referendum. This was briefly SNP strategy during Humza Yousaf’s brief spell as First Minister, if memory serves. Swinney could easily drag it off the top of the wardrobe and dust it off. Decorate it with a few glittering generalities, and there you have it, a nice shiny plan-like thing. Plan-like enough to convince the endlessly gullible.

The advantage of this is that it is good for electioneering. Nothing is more important than winning seats. Or to put it another way, everything else can be sacrificed in the name of winning electoral prizes.

Of course, when the SNP played with this idea back then, they weren’t talking about a de facto referendum on independence. Or to be more accurate, they were talking as if they were talking about a de facto referendum on independence. In fact, the plan was to make it a de facto referendum on asking for a Section 30 order. Which is just as pointless as it sounds. Electing an SNP government provides a mandate for action to progress Scotland’s cause. A de facto referendum adds nothing to that. Although it would surely subtract from it if that de facto referendum were lost.

Watch as the ‘Big Secret Plan’ becomes the dampest of squibs.

Getting back to the matter of increasing support for independence, what will achieve this is making independence real. At present, independence isn’t real. It’s just something some people talk about. There is nothing tangible about it. Back in the early days of the Yes movement, support grew at a phenomenal rate. It grew because there was a purpose relating to a real event on a given date. This made independence real. We don’t have that now. Back then, we thought we had a process by which we could restore Scotland’s independence. We didn’t. But that is irrelevant in this context. Because I’m talking about the psychological effect of making something real in people’s minds.

I have previously used the analogy of the independence industry selling independence like a holiday destination. Which is what they’ve been doing for about thirteen years now. It stopped having any effect sometime in summer 2014. It definitely hasn’t had any effect since 2015, when Sturgeon put the independence bus on blocks. The independence industry blames this failure to increase support for independence on activists. We’re not selling hard enough. We need glossier brochures. We need more marches and rallies. We have to work harder.

The real reason support for independence hasn’t increased is that it isn’t real in the minds of voters. It isn’t real because although the brochure is very alluring, there is nothing about travel plans. The independence industry is selling independence like a holiday destination, but it has nothing whatever to say about how we get there.

This is why I calculate that the #ScottishUDI process will start the numbers rising. When there is a tangible plan that people can see and understand, the objective becomes real in their minds. That really is all it takes. Because it is real in their minds, they are more receptive to arguments in favour of independence. Presenting a credible plan is the kick Scotland’s cause needs. Let’s have no more damp squibs.

My thanks to The National for graciously offering me right of reply to Stan Grodynski, who mentioned me in his letter of July 13 (John Swinney will be toast if he can’t confirm a route to independence).

Stan wrote:

Those who maintain that John Swinney is simply a career politician and that SNP politicians are only interested in maintaining high public salaries for as long as possible should note that unless we can confirm another route to independence or the opportunity to vote for independence whether directly before the next General Election or indirectly via a de facto referendum in that election, then John, regardless of demonstrated financial probity, will be political toast.

I would take issue with the phrase “another route to independence”, as it implies there is already such a route. There isn’t.

At the risk of being labelled “negative”, I should explain why I do not consider either the Section 30 process or the de facto referendum idea as routes to independence. In short, it is because neither ends at independence. Largely because they don’t start from where we are in the summer of 2026.

The Section 30 process doesn’t connect to independence because it gives veto power to those opposed to independence. Few people outwith the ranks of party loyalists believed Swinney when he said he could “guarantee” a referendum if he was given another mandate. But even if they had given Swinney a Section 30 order, the referendum this would permit could not lead to the restoration of independence.

The reason a Section 30 referendum cannot lead to a proper constitutional referendum is that Westminster cannot transfer powers which supersede its own. In a proper constitutional referendum, the people have the final say. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty prohibits the transfer of powers that would enable the people to override England-as-Britain’s imperative to preserve the Union.

Swinney’s “route to independence” doesn’t connect to independence because he concedes the British state’s veto power. In requesting a Section 30 order, Swinney accedes to the alien doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.

The reason the de facto referendum idea doesn’t connect to independence is primarily that an election pretending to be a referendum can never be as conclusive as would be required. Referendums are binary. Elections are not. I’ll leave it at that.

The way we’ve been thinking about the constitutional issue has been all wrong. Our colonised minds have placed Westminster at the centre of the constitutional issue where only the people of Scotland have a right to be. We should be thinking of independence as repossessing something which is rightfully ours but which is being withheld from us by a neighbouring nation.

In fact, we shouldn’t be thinking about independence at all. Not yet. Independence is the ultimate aim. The proximate issue is securing the means and opportunity to fully and freely exercise our inalienable right of self-determination. If there is to be a de facto referendum, let it be for the purpose of obtaining from the electorate a mandate for the Scottish Parliament to assert the legislative competence to hold a proper constitutional referendum. That is to say, a referendum which meets criteria derived from international law.

The most important of these criteria is that the referendum should be determinative and self-executing. It must be a referendum entirely made and managed in Scotland. Westminster has no legitimate role in the process by which the people of Scotland exercise their right of self-determination. That we have been in the habit of assuming Westminster must have a role is another part of the mindset problem.

In a similar vein, we should stop thinking of the Scottish Parliament as a devolved legislature bestowed on us by a gracious British state. Rather, we should think of Holyrood as the ancient parliament of Scotland stolen from us in 1707 and returned to us in 1999, bound in the crippling chains of devolution. We must strike off these chains in order to restore to our parliament all the powers of a normal national parliament.

Once the task of decolonising your mind is begun, you will begin to regard the constitutional issue in new ways. At this point, the #ScottishUDI strategy will make perfect sense. The reason Stan so casually dismisses UDI is that decades of British propaganda have made UDI unthinkable. Ask yourself, why would the British want to deter us from thinking about UDI? Could it be because they don’t want us to think about it?

Certain truths must be accepted. There is no “legal and constitutional” route to independence. There is no route to independence through the legal and constitutional framework developed under the influence of the British state’s imperative to preserve the Union.

There is no route to independence which does not pass through a point at which there is acrimonious confrontation with the British state.

There is only one route to independence, and that is #ScottishUDI. All paths converge at the issue of legislative competence. Anything purporting to be a route to independence which fails to address the legislative competence issue fails the test of a credible route to independence.

Restoration of Scotland’s independence requires only two things – an Act of the Scottish Parliament and the agreement of a simple majority of those who vote in a referendum on the question of whether they accept an Act of Dissolution passed by the Scottish Parliament. Stan’s mistake is thinking that the referendum comes first and nothing can happen until we’ve had it.

Stan also says UDI can’t happen without the support of a majority in favour. This is correct. The mistake lies in the failure to recognise that support for independence will only increase when it is made real in the minds of the electorate. It is launching the process leading to a proper constitutional referendum that will make it real to people. Just as the 2014 referendum made it real. Circumstances have changed dramatically since then, and it is foolish to suppose that we can simply repeat that referendum and associated campaign. The 2014 referendum was as successful as it was because the independence movement was given a purpose. A new purpose is needed. One which takes into account the altered circumstances.

I am firmly persuaded that the #ScottishUDI strategy will provide that purpose, initially to gain a mandate by way of a de facto referendum for the Scottish Parliament to assert legislative competence in matters relating to the constitution and subsequently to gain a decisive Yes vote in a referendum to ratify an Act of Dissolution.

Among the advantages of the #ScottishUDI strategy is the way it takes the constitutional issue out of the realm of electoral politics by making it a human rights issue. Specifically, access to our right of self-determination. With all the pro-independence parties adopting exactly the same manifesto commitment on the constitutional issue, independence ceases to be a political football. There is a great deal more I could say about #ScottishUDI. But I hope what I’ve written here is enough to make Stan Grodynski revisit his attitude to UDI. I would also hope that discourse on the constitutional issue might be widened if I have at least made people wonder about alternative perspectives they were previously unaware of.

I confess I’m struggling to discern what point Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp is trying to make in his latest column for The National. Much of it is standard independence industry boilerplate about the ‘vision’ thing. It’s the old independence industry orthodoxy that independence ensues from creating the perfect glossy brochure selling independence as a holiday destination and getting that glossy brochure shoved in the faces of enough ‘soft nos’ to make a difference. Gordon clings to his belief in the ‘vision’ thing despite the fact that it has been the independence industry’s preferred strategy since the earliest days of the Yes campaign for the 2014 sham independence referendum and, in all that time, it hasn’t lifted support for independence much above 50%, as Gordon himself acknowledges.

Independence support sits at just over 50%, but we need to understand the question asked in those polls. All the polls are based on an agreed referendum, with recognised processes, an accepted result and willing post-Yes vote negotiations between the Scottish and UK governments.

What he doesn’t acknowledge is that selling independence like a holiday destination hasn’t lifted support for independence at all in the past eleven years. But then, he wouldn’t, would he? After all, the ‘vision’ thing is all he has. That and creating yet another ineffectual talking shop tasked with helping to design the ultimate glossy brochure ‘vision’ of independent Scotland in the hope that this strategy will stop failing

You all know what’s coming next. This is where I draw attention to the fact that Gordon has nothing whatever to say about the travel arrangements. He tells us nothing about how we get to the wonderful place described in the glossy brochure. Some of us regard this as a fatal omission.

Of course, Gordon will doubtless say the ‘vision’ strategy hasn’t had any effect in eleven or twelve years because we’ve not yet perfected the glossy brochure. And some of his supporters, imagining they’re helping, will say there hasn’t been any actual campaigning.

To which my response would be to wonder just how long it’s going to take to perfect the glossy brochure. And to suggest to those supporters of his that they try telling Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp there’s been no campaigning. After all, he’s never done telling us about all the work that’s being done by Believe in Scotland.

Nowadays, the ‘vision’ thing is augmented with the notion of a Celtic alliance.

A co-ordinated demand from the Celtic nations for clear democratic routes places enormous pressure on the claim that the UK is a voluntary union of equals and is not about asking permission.

It’s not about asking permission. It’s about asking the British state to provide “clear democratic routes“ that come with permission attached. Gordon still hasn’t figured out that putting Westminster at the centre of the constitutional issue is a serious mistake and a very large part of the reason the independence industry is unable to explain the ‘how’ of restoring independence. It’s because there is no way to restore independence with Westminster at the centre.

Where is the evidence of this “enormous pressure” that is supposedly being brought to bear on the UK government? Granted, the UK government looks flustered and panicky and muddled. But that’s how it always looks. I’ve seen no increase in the levels of fluster, panic, and muddle since the election and the cobbling together of a Celtic Alliance.

For Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp, read John Swinney. For Believe in Scotland, read Scottish National Party. For all the former claims independence from the latter, there is no difference between them in terms of strategy. Both are wedded to the failed ‘vision’ thing and the Section 30 process. Neither has had a new thought since 2013.

The other matter Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp deals with is the idea of a de facto referendum which Angus MacNeil was touting in the pages of The National earlier in the week. My response to that article can be found here.

Some of the things Gordon says about a de facto referendum I can almost agree with.

The thing is, a de facto path could yet be the answer to our constitutional roadblock, but it absolutely should not be seen as the easy shortcut that some are suggesting.

A de facto referendum on independence sure as hell isn’t the “easy shortcut” Angus MacNeil supposes it to be. But neither is it ever going to be “the answer to our constitutional roadblock“. Just like John Swinney, Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp sees Westminster as the roadblock. Or portrays it as such. Westminster makes an easy scapegoat for the independence industry when asked to explain the dearth of progress on the constitutional issue. They blame Westminster and hope nobody notices the pusillanimous procrastination and the total lack of any new ideas.

The reality is that it’s the SNP that is obstructing Scotland’s cause. It is not Westminster that we’re looking to for independence. Westminster isn’t the one promising to restore our independence. It is to the SNP that we have given mandate after mandate. The ‘roadblock’ is the SNP’s refusal to honour those mandates. The rest of the independence industry goes along with the inaction because it’s good for business. The independence industry isn’t in the business of delivering. It is in the business of campaigning. So long as that campaigning is unsuccessful, the independence industry thrives.

I’ve read Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp’s column three times and bits of it a lot more than that. I’m still unclear whether he is for or against a de facto referendum or whether he thinks we could win it or not. Or maybe it’s a good idea at a certain time or under certain conditions. I’m not sure.

What I do know is that even with all his cogitating about a de facto referendum, Gordon can’t get past thinking of it as a referendum on independence. At one point, he makes much of the fact that a de facto referendum would be difficult to win. Which is true. But elsewhere he intimates that he supports the idea.

I previously supported using the last General Election as a de facto referendum, but that was well enough in advance for it to have been practicable – then the SNP became chaotic and it was no longer an option.

However, I would not rule out a de facto referendum though, and Believe in Scotland (BiS) has made it clear that, if Westminster refuses an agreed democratic route by 2028, then the 2029 UK General Election may have to become one.

That he even contemplates using a UK general election as a de facto referendum amply demonstrates how he puts Westminster at the centre of the constitution — no matter if he pays lip service to the principle of popular sovereignty. And, of course, the above quote shows how he – just like John Swinney – continues to believe the Section 30 process to be the ‘gold standard’.

It never occurs to Gordon that a de facto referendum might be about something other than independence but still offer a way of Scotland’s cause making real progress. Nor does it seem to occur to him that making the de facto referendum about something other than independence might make it easier to win by a more impressive margin, thus making a subsequent referendum on independence easier to win by a decisive margin.

Gordon’s thinking never escapes the same wee British box that confines John Swinney’s superficial thinking on the matter. Both are so concerned not to break any rules; they are effectively paralysed.

Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp isn’t talking about making progress. He’s talking about going round and round in the same circles we’ve been going around in for years. Just like Swinney and the SNP and The National, he is caught in Westminster’s gravity well and cannot reach escape velocity. I’m not saying he’s a rocket. Am I?

Someone should probably let The National know that Angus MacNeil ceased to be an MP more than two years ago. Maybe then they’ll adjust his byline.

He is still a professional politician, however, and like the vast majority of that ilk, he has one overriding ambition – winning elected office. I’m not one of those who thinks all of Scotland’s MPs and MSPs are only in it for the money. Frankly, the remuneration isn’t that great, considering the hours and the travel and the hassle and, in some cases, the responsibility. Nor am I naive enough to suppose all MPs and MSPs are motivated purely by a sense of civic duty or commitment to a cause. That may be a factor. But I strongly suspect that, whether they would admit to it or not, the strongest motivating factor is the status and the power that attend being an elected representative – or the proximity to power. That goes double for those who, like Angus, have already had a taste of it.

I don’t doubt Angus’s sincerity in the matter of Scotland’s cause. But when attending to what anyone seeking re-election says, we should be ever-mindful of the fact that there is a degree of self-interest involved. That self-interest inevitably influences the thinking of the individual concerned. Whatever else might inform their views on a ‘route to independence’, we can be sure that what they say on the subject will tend to be what will best serve their electoral ambitions. What they say will probably be what they think their target audience wants to hear. It will also tend to be what they reckon the lowest common denominator of that target audience is able to understand when it is explained to them at a length which doesn’t mount too great a challenge to their span of attention.

The idea of a de facto referendum on independence is pleasingly simple (Unionist [sic] will never help us gain independence – we have to stop asking). Especially if you go heavy on the pros and omit as many of the cons as you think safe. For example, it is, as Angus claims, possible for the Scottish Government to precipitate an extraordinary general election.

In November 2022, the Supreme Court concluded that the devolved Parliament at Holyrood could not organise a referendum on Scottish independence. Nevertheless, Section 3 of the same Scotland Act allows Holyrood to call an election at almost any time of its choosing.

Currently, this requires either the support of two-thirds of MSPs or a simple majority to amend Section 3 so that an election can also be called by simple majority. That additional power was devolved through the Scotland Act’s schedules in 2016.

The door is open for John Swinney to look into a camera and say he is calling an election for the noble cause of Scottish independence.

The door is, indeed, open for John Swinney to contrive an extraordinary Scottish general election. But how likely is it that he will go through that door? Angus uses his column in The National to explain the pointlessness of asking the British government to provide a map indicating a route by which Scotland can exit the UK.

Calls from the SNP’s hierarchy for Westminster to explain how Scotland can leave the 1707 Union can be turned back on the SNP leadership, exposing the hollowness and, frankly, the absurdity of that argument.

How much less absurd is it to ask John Swinney to go through that door? How much sense does it make to expect at least 65 MSPs to vote themselves out of a job? A job Angus covets. If Angus tells me he would be prepared to make this sacrifice, who am I to say he’s being disingenuous? But hypothetical sacrifices are a long way from the real thing. I seriously doubt that there are 65 actual MSPs who would be so noble as to lay down their careers, even for the very worthy cause of restoring their nation’s independence.

Before embarking on the adventure of forcing an extraordinary election, John Swinney would have to be absolutely certain he had the 64 names in the bag – with between three and six additional names to allow for the ones who get cold feet. It is very difficult to see how Swinney could achieve the degree of certainty he’d require.

All of this supposes that John Swinney himself would be motivated to vote himself out of a job. I look at the man, and I look at the plan, and I simply cannot see the two coming together. The plan requires a person that John Swinney isn’t.

What good would it do, anyway? Let’s imagine that Angus’s plan gets off the ground and a date is set for a referendum. That date would, I think, have to be after we’re halfway through the current parliamentary term. Otherwise, it would set off the girning about ‘voter fatigue’. So, no sooner than July 2028. That’s potentially problematic right away. Elections tend to be held in spring or early summer. There are a number of reasons for this, weather being arguably the most important. In spring or early summer the odds favour clement weather and more daylight hours, which is ideal for campaigning. There is also the matter of avoiding clashes with the party conference season and the main holiday season.

There would also be the matter of avoiding a clash with the Westminster election, which could be called at any time between now and the end of June 2029. The considerations for scheduling the Holyrood election would apply also to the Westminster election, meaning it would be more likely to be called no later than April or May 2029. Which is also likely to be the favoured time for the Holyrood election. Although that could be held in spring 2028.

I mention all this because there are always calendaring issues to be taken into account. It’s not as if John Swinney could just call that extraordinary election any time he wanted. There are constraints. Taking those constraints into account, scheduling an extraordinary Scottish general election in the current parliamentary term may be difficult or even impossible. I wonder if Angus MacNeil has taken this into account. I haven’t seen any mention of potential calendaring problems by Angus or any of the people banging the de facto referendum drum. Which suggests they haven’t thought it through.

Since we are playing the ‘just suppose’ game, let’s suppose all the problems mentioned so far have been overcome and the date of the extraordinary Scottish election is set in, let’s say, March 2028. How likely is it that the pro-independence side might win?

To answer this question, we can look at opinion polls and previous elections. Do these provide any assurance that the pro-independence side would triumph? Bear in mind that if we are talking about a referendum, then it is vote share that decides the matter and not seats. Is there any reason to believe the pro-independence side might get over 50% of the vote? Has there been any election in the past quarter of a century where the pro-independence side got over 50% of the vote? Have any opinion polls indicated that the pro-independence side would win a clear majority of votes?

Support for independence is only about 50% according to polls. That’s in an actual referendum and not an election pretending to be a referendum. A referendum is binary. An election is not. In a de facto referendum, policy matters would complicate the campaign, putting downward pressure on the pro-independence vote.

A lot would depend on how a binary element is introduced to the inherently non-binary election. All the pro-independence parties would have to make exactly the same manifesto commitment. Then the regional ballot could be used as a referendum on that manifesto commitment. This works in theory. But could we be confident of winning? I see no reason to be sure enough of a clear win to make it a risk worth taking. Bear in mind that this de facto referendum will only be recognised as a constitutional referendum if the pro-independence side loses.

Which brings me to my final question. Would a de facto referendum have any legal or constitutional effect? The answer to that has to be in the negative. There is nothing that can ensue from a de facto referendum. It would be a vote on something neither the Scottish Parliament nor Westminster can or will deliver. Holyrood doesn’t possess the legislative competence to end the Union, and Westminster is bound by the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. In any case, independence can’t be given. It has to be taken And it has to be taken by the Scottish Parliament because that is Scotland’s legislature.

My main reason for rejecting the idea of a de facto referendum is the fact that I am not persuaded it could be as decisive as it would need to be. The majority for independence must be great enough to leave Unionists no grounds for refusing to accept the outcome. My preference is for a proper constitutional referendum. A confirmatory vote on a detailed proposal for ending the Union and restoring Scotland’s independence contained in an Act of the Scottish Parliament passed subsequent to the Scottish Parliament asserting legislative competence in matters relating to the constitution.

The reason no politician has advocated the #ScottishUDI strategy is in large part that this ‘route to independence’ is not as simple as the de facto referendum idea. Politicians tend to think — with some justification — that voters are not able to understand anything that cannot be expressed as a slogan or headline or a soundbite.

Although I can’t claim to know Angus MacNeil well, having met him only a couple of times and once spoken with him on the phone, I have no reason to consider him stupid. I’m certainly not intending to suggest that he is too stupid to comprehend the #ScottishUDI strategy or the new thinking that lies behind it. In fact, there was a time when I thought he might be the first Scottish politician to embrace the idea. Sadly, that now seems unlikely.