Right train! Wrong station!

Seamus Logan makes a couple of good points. In his final paragraph he warns pro-independence activists not to "set a political course based solely on what might make us feel good personally". He is right to do so. All too many of the 'cunning plans' swilling around inside the independence movement at the moment are far less about restoring Scotland's independence than about some form of immediate gratification. Not only do they tend to be unrealistic and reckless, their appeal in entirely to other committed activists. They are long on rousing rhetoric and glittering generalities and short on appreciation of the facts of our situation and knowledge of relevant 'real world' rules and procedures.

One example would be the 'plan' characterised by the battle-cry to kick the Unionists out of Holyrood by means of some voting strategy which incidentally favours one nominally pro-independence party. While this ploy is sold using the 'independence' tag, it actually has nothing whatever to do with Scotland's cause. A pro-independence Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are, of course, essential for there to be even the vaguest hope of moves towards independence. This remains true even if the party or parties making up the parliamentary majority and running the administration are no more than nominally pro-independence. Given this, however, the size of the majority makes no difference whatever. There is nothing that can be done by 76 MSPs which cannot be done by sixty-seven.

There is no substance to the claim that the so-called 'supermajority' is an independence-related strategy. The undoubted appeal of this and other such system-gaming strategies lies in the equally undoubted gratification to be derived from ousting a few of the British parties' MSPs. The spiel selling this strategy makes great play of pro-independence MSPs vastly outnumbering Unionist MSPs. The rhetoric conceals the fact that - even supposing it is achievable - this huge numerical advantage provides no practical benefit. Both because a majority is a majority and because - as things stand - this would be a 'supermajority' of MSPs from parties which are pro-independence in name only. Parties which lack the wit and the will to progress Scotland's cause.

The rhetoric also serves to conceal the partisan electoral benefit that is the real purpose of the 'cunning plan'. It's all about seats, status, salaries, and subsidies. Nothing to do with independence. Independence is reduced to an electioneering device.

Despite the uselessness of these voting strategies, they attract a great deal of support simply on account of the personal satisfaction derived from hearing and talking about punishing the British parties and/or one or more of the other nominally pro-independence parties. All part of the toddler-level squabbling which makes such an unedifying spectacle of something that is supposed to be a contest of grand ideas and rooted principles and towering aspirations.

Another example of these supposed 'plans' for restoring independence which has that immediate, instinctual, unthinking appeal to pro-independence activists - if nobody else - is the notion of using an election (specifically the 2026 Holyrood election) as a referendum for independence. Which brings us to the second of Seamus Logan's good points. He writes:

[L]et’s recognise that using an election as a plebiscite referendum is just not going to fly. Not now. Probably not ever.

I’m always puzzled how so many who argue that we absolutely must take this route can argue with 100% certainty that any UK government will say no to another referendum on independence, yet can still believe the same UK government would just roll over and say yes to actual independence in the face of a positive election result.

He's right! A matter of such magnitude as restoring Scotland's independence cannot be conclusively decided by way of an election pretending to be a referendum. While it may be theoretically or technically possible that independence might be restored by a plebiscite election, politically and practically, it's a non-starter. Not only is a dedicated constitutional referendum the method preferred by the United Nations, but it is also what the public now expect. Public expectation and perception are crucial to democratic legitimacy. Expectation must be met. Perception must be positive. Acceptance of the outcome depends on it. As does the ability to defend the outcome against the inevitable few who refuse to accept it.

As to the practicalities of making an election work as a plebiscite, this is a matter that is seldom if ever addressed by those calling for the 2026 election to be used as an independence referendum. The notion appears to be that all that's required is for one or two or maybe three parties to declare that the election is also a referendum, and that's it! I don't think so! But more on that later.

Seamus Logan is also spot on when he says that the reaction of the British state to a 'Yes' vote in an election pretending to be a referendum would be casual dismissiveness shading into vitriolic rejection. What Seamus Logan fails to acknowledge is that the parties demanding that the 2026 election be deemed an independence referendum are fully aware that the UK would only recognise a 'No' vote as legitimate and final. That is why you will find carefully concealed in their bold rhetoric about a de facto referendum, a bit which reveals that what they are actually talking about is not a referendum on the question of restoring Scotland's independence, but a referendum on the First Minister making yet another plea for a Section 30 order.

There you have the three main reasons a 'plan' to make the 2026 election an independence referendum is an unbelievably bad idea.

1. It is not made clear exactly how an inherently non-binary election could be made to work as a necessarily binary referendum on a matter of such magnitude as breaking the Union.

2. An election pretending to be a referendum would not be accepted as conclusive evidence of the settled will of Scotland's people by the people or the international community and by the UK only if the vote is 'No'.

3. It is not in fact a referendum on independence that is being proposed by the main proponents of the idea, but a vote on whether to request another Section 30 referendum.

But it sounds good! It makes for stirring electioneering rhetoric. It's the sort of stuff that gets the crowd roaring and stamping their feet. It's simple enough that anyone can grasp it. Label the election a referendum! Get everybody to vote 'Yes'! Plan your Independence Day celebration! It is politics dumbed down to the level of a TV advert for washing powder. It may not be quite the cheap populism of Donald Trump and his ilk. But it's getting there.

In his eagerness to shoot down the idea of the 2026 election being about anything other than a win for his party, Seamus Logan does a decent job of deprecating the de facto referendum idea - despite it having been his own party's policy-like-thing on and off over the years - but doesn't get around to considering the possibility that a way might be found to make the election work as a plebiscite on something other than independence itself but still of importance to Scotland's cause.

Of course, the #ScottishUDI plan is probably far too bold and radical for an SNP Member of the British Parliament. But it does both these things, and more. It sets out a practical way of making the 2026 election work as a referendum. And it proposes that this referendum should be on a matter which directly relates to independence without being independence as well as being a matter that promises a more conclusive victory and all but unchallengeable legitimacy.

One could be forgiven for supposing the self-styled 'party of independence' would at least take some interest in such a plan. Likewise, others that like to proclaim themselves as pro-independence. But one would be mistaken.

What is interesting about Seamus Logan's article is that he was on a train of thought which would surely have brought him to #ScottishUDI, had he not jumped off before the terminus.