Playing with scenarios

I speculate. I do not prognosticate. I don't make predictions or forecasts because I would be a fool to do so. worse than a fool given the current political climate. Had I any predilection for predicting what was going to happen, recent history would be a fine corrective. The last decade or two has been littered with things that nobody would have predicted. There are very few safe assumptions any more. Younger readers may not believe it, but there was a time - not so very long ago - when it was considered safe to assume that Boris Johnson would never be British Prime Minister and Donald Trump would never be POTUS. Now, we cannot even safely assume that Nigel Farage won't be PM and Trump has won a second term.

We are no better here in Scotland. Not so long ago we'd have casually dismissed Anas Sarwar's prediction that he would be First Minister after the 2026 Scottish Parliament election. We still laugh at the guy, of course. It's Anas Sarwar! But there may be a hint of nervousness in that laughter. It couldn't possibly happen! Could it? Would you bet your pension?

Speculation is not prediction. Prediction is foretelling an outcome. Speculation involves creating scenarios in which various conditions are stipulated and seeing what outcome those scenarios lead us to. Our old friend Geoff Bush was doing a bit of scenario-building in a recent comment.

So lets just imagine the scenario where the 2026 election has not resulted in a Scottish government with the mandate to declare independence, and that the Liberation submission to UN C24 Committee has not resulted in Scotland being added to the UN list of Non Self Governing Territories (NSGTs) whereupon every member state of the UN General Assembly is compelled to support the decolonisation of that territory. What do we do at that point ? What is our route to enforce our right to self-determination as defined in the charter of the UN ? There are other routes , and none of them are pretty.

As I pointed out in my response,

There cannot possibly be a “mandate to declare independence” after the 2026 election because, as things stand, none of the nominally pro-independence parties is proposing to have that in their manifesto.

Other than this, it's a reasonable scenario. It is perfectly possible that the (nominally) pro-independence majority will be lost in 2026. As things stand, the best we can hope for is another SNP administration propped-up by - but dominating - one or more other nominally pro-independence parties. Remember that, as things stand - this is the best outcome we can anticipate. An SNP-led government with no mandate to do anything about restoring Scotland's independence. And no political will to do anything even supposing they did have that mandate. It's a recipe for another five years of stagnation.

Geoff was attempting to imagine a doomsday scenario in which (a) there is no pro-independence majority at Holyrood and (b) the Salvo initiative to have Scotland designated a colony by the UN comes to nothing. But this is not merely a speculative scenario. It is more like a prediction. Because, the first is almost inevitable and the second even more inevitable. I have already explained that, as things stand, there is no party standing candidates on a manifesto commitment to restore independence. There cannot be a mandate for something that nobody is proposing.

Add to this the fact that the Salvo initiative cannot possibly come to anything in time for the election. And even if by some miracle it did, this would make no difference.as we would still require the political process in the Scottish Parliament for which there is no mandate. What Geoff has suggested is a genuine doomsday scenario. Could it get any worse!?

Well, yes! It could get worse. In an attempt to appease the pro-independence wing of his own party, the First Minister (John Swinney?) could beg the British Prime Minister for a Section 30 order! And to make it worse still, the British Prime Minister might grant the request!!!

Starmer has said he would never allow another referendum. According to his yappy wee lapdog, Sarwar, it wouldn't matter even if there was a pro-independence mandate - which, you'll recall, there cannot be - a Section 30 request would still be snubbed. But is it safe to assume Starmer won't U-turn on this as on so many other things? If he wanted to kill independence stone dead, granting a Section 30 referendum would be a very good way of doing so. For one thing, Swinney (or his Sturgeonite replacement) wouldn't be expecting it. The SNP would have no way to fund a campaign. The independence movement is a disunited shambles. There is no campaign plan and neither the money nor the manpower to mount a campaign in any case.

If I were Starmer, I'd like my chances of winning that referendum. And, let's face it, he really has nothing to lose. Or very, very little. Remember that a Section 30 referendum is only a glorified opinion poll. The outcome has no legal or constitutional effect. It leaves the British state with the final say as to what the result means. You'd have to be beyond naive to suppose the Brits would give up their precious Union just because of a glorified opinion poll.

There are those who insist that a Yes vote in a Section 30 referendum would lead to Scotland's independence being restored. They reckon that a referendum that has no legal or constitution effect will nonetheless have the rather significant legal and constitutional effect of ending the Union. They say that while there is no legal or constitutional effect there is a political effect. Some kind of moral force would compel the British state to give up its most valuable colony. There are people who actually believe this shite!

We could call this the Bush+ scenario. It is based on Geoff's suggestion, but with a few added barbs. Either the British parties take power at Holyrood or we have a weak SNP-led administration with no mandate to do anything more than the nothing that they have committed to in their manifesto. Starmer sees an opportunity to shoot the independence fox and offers a Section 30 order with enough conditions attached to make it all but impossible for the 'Yes' side to win even if it was able to mount a decent campaign, which it isn't. Swinney grabs the offered S30 referendum with both hands and claims it as a victory. Not that he could have refused it!

Regardless of the outcome of that sham referendum, nothing happens. Maybe a Royal Commission that'll report in five years or some such. Which is also nothing. The Scottish Government just accepts all of this. The National does a week of articles saying how it has boosted support for independence. The polls stubbornly refuse to confirm this.

Then, the toxic cherry atop the poisoned cake! The UN gives Salvo a knock-back by refusing Scotland's claim to colony status and thus legitimises the Union. British nationalists are in danger of drowning in their own smug.

But don't fret, folks! It's just a scenario! We can safely assume it won't pan out like this. Can't we?.