Death by de facto!
I would be in total agreement with Old John (We deserve to know what Stephen Flynn means about the next election) were it not for his silly, simplistic notion that the constitutional issue might be satisfactorily resolved by an election that some people want to pretend is a proper constitutional referendum. The de facto referendum idea appeals to politicians who are stupid, politicians who think voters are stupid, and voters who prove them right.
If the SNP do not stop the rot then I feel that John Swinney must come out and say that the next time the people of Scotland vote in an election it will be to leave this voluntary Union.
Before adherents to the Church of the Holy Plebiscitary Election pile on (Good morning, Rev. Angus Brendan MacNeil!), I am not saying a de facto referendum is not possible. What I am saying is that a de facto referendum can never be conclusive enough to be the last word on a matter as momentous as ending the Union. A fact for which we should be eternally grateful. Try thinking about it. Think it through. Consider all the implications.
What I am saying is that a de facto referendum can never be conclusive enough to be the last word on a matter as momentous as ending the Union.
Consider this! If an election can be declared a decisive referendum by the pro-independence side, then the same must be true for the pro-Union side. If the fans of a de facto referendum manage to successfully argue that an election can be a referendum, what is to prevent fans of the Union using the same argument to make an election in which they win the majority of votes a referendum that favours the Union?
Don’t think it can happen? It is already happening! There are already Unionists claiming that the 2026 Scottish Parliament election was a vote for remaining part of the UK based on the fact that the (nominally) pro-independence parties (SNP and SGP) won only 40.5% of the constituency vote and 41.2% of the regional vote. Even if we include the other nominally pro-independence parties – none of which broke the 1% barrier – it still leaves the pro-independence total well short of a majority. If May’s election had been the referendum some wanted it to be, Scotland’s cause would have suffered a severe trouncing from which it would not quickly recover.
There are already Unionists claiming that the 2026 Scottish Parliament election was a vote for remaining part of the UK…
How about the UK general election in 2024? How would that have worked out if it had been declared a de facto referendum? In the Scottish part of that election, the four main Unionist parties – Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Reform UK – took nearly 65% of the vote. Had that been a de facto referendum, it too would have been a resounding defeat for Scotland’s cause.
Proponents of the de facto referendum will say that the outcome in either case or both might have been very different had the election campaign been fought on the basis that what was at stake was independence. Fair point! It might have altered the outcome. But then again, it might not. And even if it did alter the outcome to the benefit of the pro-independence side, would it have changed the result sufficiently to overturn the pro-Union side’s lead of between ten and fifteen points?
That is one hell of a gamble, given what we stand to lose. Because what we would lose in both cases is not just that de facto referendum but the possibility of a proper constitutional referendum any time in the foreseeable future. We’d have had our second referendum. And we’d have lost. The de facto referendum card is a card you only get to play once.
When we eventually secure the means and opportunity to fully and freely exercise our right of self-determination, we must do it properly. We must do it in a way that is conclusive. The outcome must be beyond any rational challenge. So, it might be best if the de facto referendum idea were allowed to die a richly deserved death.
On principle, and if truly believe in popular sovereignty, then it is the votes garnered that matters, especially when it comes to such a momentous decision as choosing the form of government best suited to our needs.
In practical terms the only occasion in UK election history when the political parties purporting to support Scottish full self-government obtained over half the vote was in the 'Tsunami' of 2015 . Even then they managed to scrape just over 51% of the vote whilst winning 95% of the seats (thanks to the skewed First Past The Post system of allocating parliamentary representation in the UK).
Sturgeon said in advance of the count that the 2015 election 'wasn't about Independence' or some equivalent. Had she said it had been a statement in support of Independence by the Scottish people there would have been disputes as to her claim.
If Independence had been declared on this basis half the country would have been up in arms and, at a minimum, we would have been mired in legalities endlessly.
Just saying that an election is about this or that doesn't automatically make it so.
We need a proper democratic and transparent process on the single issue of Independence that delivers an unequivocal outcome.
This is a problem arising from the levels of support for independence ie at around 50% in recent polls. This makes a plebiscitary vote a somewhat risky policy for the subsequent reasons you state.
Obvious answer is to get poll levels up to 60% or thereabouts! However previous SNP leaders such as Gordon Wilson were saying that after the first indyref. Wings has also frequently highlighted Sturgeon's dismal failure to move the dial on indy support during her tenure - it flatlined at 45% mostly. (Now she's off to London to film British propaganda!)
Your stated strategy is more a long term approach. One wonders if we'll see indy in our lifetimes sadly. (I'm 63). But there's no harm in people talking tactics and strategy; something may turn up. Maybe 'Events dear boy' :-)