ALBA - Unofficial Forum

I'm probably quite unusual within the independence movement in that I'm one of the dwindling group of people who neither "trust in Nicola" and take it as read that her every word is gospel, nor assume that she must be lying simply because her lips are moving.  Even since joining the Alba Party, I've continued to try to take every fresh development on its merits and reach an honest conclusion on how much trust can be placed in what the SNP leadership are promising.  I received brickbats from a few people in my own party for saying after Ms Sturgeon's big announcement in June that her plebiscite election pledge was specific enough that it would be hard for her to renege upon it - and that if it did go ahead, it would be a golden opportunity for the Yes movement that we would need to seize, not sabotage.

But by the same token, I need to be equally honest in my assessment of what has been said and done since June, and that assessment is: there is some cause for concern.  To a limited extent that's because of Mhairi Hunter's notorious tweet - although of course she's a relatively minor figure who doesn't speak on behalf of the Scottish Government, she's nevertheless known to be close to Nicola Sturgeon and thus in tune with the leadership's thinking.  To a much greater extent my concern is caused by Angus Robertson, who as External Affairs Secretary most certainly is empowered to speak on behalf of the Scottish Government, and whose comments to France 24 about how a referendum will come "sooner or later", whenever the UK Government agrees to it, were literally incompatible with the SNP's stated plan that a referendum will be held on 19th October 2023 or not at all.

And now we have Nicola Sturgeon's speech yesterday.  I didn't watch it live, but I swiftly heard from some quarters that she had walked back all of her solemn promises to the Yes movement, and from other quarters that she'd doubled down on her determination to hold an independence vote in the very near future.  So, as ever, I've sought out her words to make up my own mind.

One thing that's causing concern for some people is her undertaking to "respect" the Supreme Court's verdict.  I don't have a major problem with that, because it's in the nature of constitutional nationalism to work within the framework of the rule of law.  There is no point in taking a case to the Supreme Court, or indeed in defending a case at the Supreme Court, if you're not going to abide by the outcome, and of course there would be no higher court to appeal to.  To quote Al Gore's famous words for the second time in a few days: "And while I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling, I accept it, and I accept its finality."  I understand the argument that domestic UK law may find itself in conflict with international law on the question of self-determination, but the correct moment to consider "going over the head" of domestic UK law would be after we have a clear mandate for independence, ie. after a positive outcome in a plebiscite election.

No, what concerns me is not the "respect" comment but the "reflect" comment.  She says the SNP and the wider indy movement would need to "of course, reflect" after a Supreme Court setback.  Why?  And why "of course"?  She's already set out in crystal-clear fashion what course of action will be followed if the Supreme Court rules against her - she will use the next general election as a de facto independence referendum.  So what on earth would be the purpose of a period of reflection other than to open up the possibility of backtracking on the solemn promise she has already made?

Naturally the tone of the remainder of her remarks are designed to reassure and to give the impression that the outcome of any reflection would be a foregone conclusion - there would be a straight choice between "putting our case for independence to the people in an election" and "giving up on Scottish democracy", and she will "never - ever - give up on Scottish democracy".  But nevertheless she's leaving herself some wiggle room by using less specific language than she used in June.  I'd just remind people that before she completely backtracked on her promise of a referendum in 2017, she prepared the ground for the U-turn with occasional mutterings about how she was going to have to "reflect".  It's sometimes forgotten that she started doing that well before the SNP lost more seats than expected in the 2017 general election - I clearly recall her using the "R" word in a TV debate during the election campaign, which was a pretty strong signal that a decision had already been taken privately to kick the referendum into the long grass, even though she wasn't being upfront about that with SNP members.

That said, there's also a potential positive interpretation here.  A number of us have been calling for the plan of a Westminster plebiscite election in 2024 to be replaced with a snap Holyrood plebiscite election in 2023.  That way the campaign wouldn't be overshadowed by Labour's bid for power at Westminster, and both 16-17 year olds and EU citizens would have the right to vote.  If the purpose of a period of reflection is to give the Scottish Government the scope to adjust its plans in that direction, it would be an extremely constructive development.  But the red line for the movement must be: a referendum or plebiscite election of some sort by 2024 at the latest.