Killer question

It always pays to ask what's next

I have been irked again! Nothing new or unusual about that, I hear you say. And it is certainly true that I seem to be irked rather a lot. Two possible explanations come to mind. It could be that I am uncommonly easily irked. Or it could just be that there is so much 'out there' to be irked about. Or it could be some combination of the two.

Suppose we go with the first explanation. Do we just stop there? Is that a full enough explanation for my irk being on a hair-trigger? Or are there more questions to be asked? Here's a clue. There is always another question. There is, in every situation, always the possibility of a better understanding of that situation by finding the next question - and asking it. In this instance, the next question would as why I am so readily irritated. What is it about me that causes me to be annoyed more frequently than 'normal'?

I would suggest that it is because I have a tendency to ask more questions. I am not so easily satisfied with explanations. I generally want to know more and understand better. This is hardly a 'super-power'. Anybody can do it. It's just that so many people don't. And that irks me.

What is it this time that has got me vexed? It's the proposed Scottish Parliament Powers Referendum Act. Also known as Ash Regan's Bill. More precisely, it is the widespread celebration of this proposed Bill (As far as I can tell, there is as yet no draft.) as some kind of hugely significant breakthrough for Scotland's cause. Although that is not to say there is nothing in the proposal itself that irks me. My complaint about the proposed Bill can be summed up in the phrase 'defers to Westminster'. The fact that a great many people claim not to understand why I say Ash Regan's proposed Bill illustrates my point about people not asking questions and being too easily satisfied with politicians' words.

I often wonder if those lauding Ash Regan's proposal have even read the document. Or read it with an open mind. Read it without have already decided what it all means and therefore taking from it exactly that meaning regardless of what is actually written in the document. The indications that Ash Regan is putting Westminster at the centre of her thinking on the constitutional issue are there to be seen. Indications such as the one in her own foreword, where there appears the phrase "negotiate independence from Westminster".

If someone has genuinely studied the document then they must have read those words. But, having already made up their mind that the proposed Bill is about the people giving the Scottish Parliament "the powers to negotiate and legislate for independence for Scotland". They have accepted the politicians' words which deliberately give the impression that a positive outcome in the proposed referendum will result in Holyrood having the legislative competence to end the Union and restore independence. But look at the words quoted above. In particular, note the order. See how "negotiate" comes before "legislate". Another of those indicators that the proposal is informed by a Westminster-centric mindset.

Right there on the front cover of the document is the statement that reveals the true nature and purpose of the proposed Bill.

A proposal to make provision for ascertaining the views of the people of Scotland on whether the Scottish Parliament should have the powers to negotiate and legislate for independence for Scotland.

What this statement describes is nothing more than an opinion poll. A survey to test public opinion. Something which has no legal effect. An Act which is "consultative and non-self-executing" to borrow the phrase Nicola Sturgeon used to describe her own draft Referendum Bill which she scuppered by having it prematurely referred to the UK Supreme Court (UKSC).

A plan is a series of actions leading to a desired outcome. All the nominally pro-independence parties claim to have a plan to restore Scotland's independence. (Although this particular formulation is rarely, if ever, used. More commonly, it's something like "achieve independence" or "win independence". Formulations which also speak of the wrong mindset. But I digress.)

The glorified opinion poll proposed by Ash Regan MSP is supposed to be a component of Alba Party's plan to restore Scotland's independence. But is there a plan? We can test this by asking the killer question. The question which exposes any breaks in that chain of actions that is supposed to lead to realisation of the objective. What next?

Let's apply this question to Ash Regan's proposal. Let's suppose the proposal becomes a draft Bill and the Bill becomes an Act and the Act gets Royal Assent. Which is supposing rather a lot. There are numerous 'what's next' questions to be asked about these earlier actions in the series purporting to be a 'plan for independence'. But for the sake of brevity, let's skip those for a moment and deal with a scenario in which there is a referendum, as proposed, on 19 September 2024 in which the people of Scotland are asked -

Should the Scottish Parliament have the power to negotiate and legislate for Scottish independence?

Let us suppose further that this question is answered with a resounding Yes from the electorate. It's our imagined scenario. We can imagine any margin we wish. But we should be realistic. I reckon a Yes win with 70% to 80% of the vote on a turnout in the same range is quite credible. The sovereign people of Scotland have spoken. They have expressed their will. And they have done so quite emphatically. What next?

You won't find that question answered in the document setting out the proposed Scottish Parliament Powers Referendum Bill. It could reasonably be argued that this document is not the right place for such speculation. I would accept that argument. But I would want to be assured that Ash Regan and her colleagues had considered the 'what's next?' question, and had come up with an answer which is both credible and connects to the Yes vote in the referendum to the next in that series oof actions leading to the restoration of independence. If they have, I've yet to see the answer they came up with. I think I understand why.

I ask the question as to what ensues from that Yes vote and I come up blank. What ensues from the proposed referendum is nothing. It connects to nothing. There is no chain of actions. There is no plan.

Nothing happens because the referendum result is meaningless. It's a consultative referendum. It has no effect. Nothing happens as a direct consequence of the outcome. There is nothing that happens solely because the people have spoken. It may look superficially as if a Yes vote in the proposed referendum means the Scottish Parliament gets the powers referred to. But this is a false impression created by those 'politicians' words'.

Were the referendum to be on a proposal specifying the action ensuing from a Yes vote, then there would be an answer to the 'what next?' question. For example -

We, the people of Scotland, hereby assert, affirm and stipulate that the Scottish Parliament shall henceforth have legislative competence in all matters relating to Scotland's constitutional status, settlement and arrangements.

What ensues from this is that the Scottish Parliament asserts the legislative competence referred to. It cannot do otherwise, having been directed so to do by they ultimate political authority in Scotland - the sovereign people.

But, of course, neither this nor anything so bold and assertive is being proposed by either Ash Regan MSP or any other politician or party. Because Ash Regan's proposed Bill defers to Westminster, all that can possibly come next after a Yes vote is yet another of those pathetic, insulting Section 30 requests. (just like Neale Hanvey MP's Bill in the House of Commons). When the proposal says that the Scottish Parliament should have "the power to negotiate and legislate for Scottish independence" it means this power should be transferred from Westminster as for the 2014 (notional) independence referendum. It is a proposal to compromise the sovereignty of Scotland's people by making our democratically expressed will conditional on the British state's approval. This is an abomination!

We can - indeed, we must - continue to ask what comes next. The people of Scotland have effective commanded that the Scottish Parliament should have the said powers. But all Scotland's politicians maintain that this is not sufficient. The decision of the supposedly sovereign people of Scotland has to be endorsed by Westminster. The choice made by the supposedly sovereign people of Scotland requires the British state's approval. In other words, the people are not sovereign at all - Westminster is. All our nominally pro-independence parties and politicians defer to Westminster. They accede to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Whatever they may say about the people of Scotland being sovereign, when it comes to the crunch, they betray the principle of popular sovereignty rather than confront and challenge the British state.

What happens next is one of three things. The British refuse the Section 30 order. Or the British grant the Section 30 order. Or they simply ignore the whole thing. Which is effectively the same as refusing, but in a more contemptuous manner. None of these can possibly lead to the restoration of independence. The supposed 'plan for independence' fizzles out long before it gets within voting distance of that objective.

Ash Regan's proposed Bill is not the exception that too many people too readily believe it to be. It is, in practice, no different from the approach to the constitutional issue taken by the SNP. An approach which has failed for almost a decade to produce any progress for Scotland's cause. It has failed because it defers to Westminster. It cannot succeed because it puts Westminster at the centre of the constitutional issue rather than the people of Scotland.

Long experience tells me to anticipate responses to this article snidely demanding to know what my plan is, given that I'm saying the nominally pro-independence don't have such a thing. Note that this totally evades the criticism of what is being sold to the public as one 'plan' or another. But it is a question I'm more than happy to answer. It's a question I've already answered repeatedly. So I shall be as brief as possible answering it here.

Credit where it is due. Ash Regan is on the right track when she makes the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament the first order of business. It's just that she seems to think the required legislative competence is in the gift of Westminster and not the people of Scotland. If the people of Scotland are sovereign - which I shall maintain we are with my dying breath - then the parliament directly and democratically elected by the people of Scotland is what we say it is and has the powers we say it has.

What if that other voice we all know so well responds by saying, 'We say no, and we are the state'? Well we say yes - and we are the people.

Canon Kenyon Wright

I also approve of the idea of having a referendum on 19 September 2024. The significance of the tenth anniversary of the first 'independence' referendum is powerfully symbolic. But that should be the target date for a proper constitutional referendum (see Stirling Directive Appendix II). There is no need to delay action to restore to the Scottish Parliament the legislative competence in matters of the constitution which rightfully belongs there. The coming UK general election will suffice as a de facto referendum on the matter of the Scottish Parliament asserting the legislative competence required to facilitate the exercise of our inalienable right of self-determination.

If all pro-independence parties adopt precisely the same manifesto commitment to having the Scottish Parliament assert its primacy in matters of the constitution then this will be an adequate mandate for the Scottish Government to act. It will, in fact, oblige it to act. The SNP administration would not be able to insultingly dismiss such a mandate as they did the Stirling Directive.

Further 'what next?' question would, naturally, be perfectly in order. But I reckon that's enough to be going on with.