The wrong door

I see Alan Crocket is again peddling his supposed simple solution to the constitutional conundrum through the letters page of The Sunday National. It’s nonsense, of course. But no explanation of why it is nonsense seems to penetrate. Which is doubly irritating because there are more than a few things he gets right. At least he is attempting a reframing of the constitutional issue, however clumsily.

Putting it plainly, there is just too much Westminster in Alan’s thinking. In fact, his ‘solution’ revolves around Westminster. He puts Westminster at the centre, just as do the nominally pro-independence parties. To my mind, the more we remove Westminster from our thinking, the better we discern a viable route to a proper constitutional referendum and the restoration of independence.

The #ScottishUDI strategy is the result of unconventional thinking around the constitutional issue. It started as an attempt embarked on by Geoff Bush and me back in 2019/20 to formulate the most stripped-down manifesto for independence possible. From that point, Geoff pursued a different path while I continued with a project that evolved into #ScottishUDI, gradually incorporating various elements and adapting to new circumstances and fresh insights. For example, somewhere along the way I included the human rights component, largely inspired by input from the likes of Alf Baird and Sara Salyers, among many others. The strategy aims to eliminate Westminster and the British ruling elite from the process of restoring Scotland’s independence. The truth is that it has absolutely nothing to do with them.

Alan also correctly observes that restoring Scotland’s independence requires not just any referendum, but a particular kind of referendum. Unfortunately, he again allows Westminster to intrude on his thinking. While we emphatically do not want a Section 30 referendum, no election pretending to be a referendum can ever be conclusive enough to minimise challenges both during the process of restoring our independence and, crucially, post-independence. The outcome of the referendum must deal a crushing blow to hard-line Unionists in Scotland. Otherwise, ongoing conflict is inevitable.

For all these reasons and more, #ScottishUDI proposes a confirmatory referendum on a proposal to dissolve the Union with England passed by the Scottish Parliament after it has repossessed the competence to legislate for a proper constitutional referendum. Any internal democratic event can be used to obtain a mandate for the Scottish Parliament to assert its legislative competence in matters relating to the constitution. In practice, a Scottish general election.

The #ScottishUDI strategy's most unconventional idea is that independence is the ultimate goal, but not the immediate one. This approach stems from the correction of the misidentification of our starting point and a redefinition of the problem. Westminster is not the problem. Westminster is not what is preventing us from moving towards restoration of independence. Remember! Westminster has no legitimate role in this process!

The problem is that our own Scottish Government gives Westminster a role to which it is not entitled. The Scottish Government is the problem. The Scottish Government is the obstacle because our elected representatives lack the courage to confront the British state’s claimed ownership of the Scottish Parliament. We have all heard it said that Holyrood is just an offshoot of Westminster. And this is true if you accept the supremacy of Westminster.

The people of Scotland are sovereign. The Scottish Parliament is whatever we say it is. If we say the Scottish Parliament must repossess powers being illegitimately withheld from it by the British state, such a demand constitutes both a mandate and a solemn instruction to our elected representatives. We can make this demand during an appropriate democratic event. This can only be a Scottish general election.

We are not held against our will by London. We cannot be held against our will by London. The British state does not deny our right of self-determination. The British state cannot deny our right of self-determination. The British state is aware that it cannot deny our right of self-determination, as such an action would contravene international law. Instead, the British state asserts the authority to control our access to the means and opportunity to exercise our right of self-determination. Our problem is that Scotland’s self-styled ‘party of independence’ has meekly accepted this asserted authority. Our elected representatives lack the wit and the will to confront the British state and challenge its asserted ‘right’ to dictate when and how we exercise our right to determine Scotland’s constitutional status.

Alan Crocket has not yet sufficiently decolonised his mind to see that the door to independence is here in Scotland, not in London.