By far the most disturbing part of this momentous day has been the mutterings from certain usual suspects in the SNP that the special party conference next month, in which the details of a de facto referendum are to be decided, should be postponed due to the leadership vacancy. If that idea is even entertained, let alone if it comes to pass, there will quite understandably be grave suspicions that Nicola Sturgeon's resignation was merely part of the choreography for backing down on a solemn promise made to Yessers that a de facto referendum would definitely take place. It could well permanently destroy trust between the SNP and the broader independence movement, because forever afterwards it would be known that there is no promise watertight enough that the SNP leadership can't find a creative method of wriggling out of it. (And I must admit that this one would be creative enough that I don't think I could ever have anticipated it.)
Toni Giugliano is arguing that the NEC resolution that will be put to conference is no longer valid. Simple question: why? His claim might make sense if it was the NEC that had just collectively resigned, but it's not, it's just the leader. And clearly the resolution was not Nicola Sturgeon's sole work, because it contains two options, and presumably she only agrees with one. Moreover, the resolution is amendable, so even if Giugliano dislikes both options (and plainly he does) there's still a democratic path open to him. Why doesn't he just take it, rather than trying to rig the process? What he really wants is conference to be used as a rubber-stamp by the new leader to cancel the de facto referendum altogether. Nicola Sturgeon argued in her speech that one of the advantages of her resignation is that the conference would no longer feel bound by loyalty to go along with the option she personally prefers. It logically follows that it would be just as bad for conference to feel bound by loyalty to go along with whatever option the new leader hits them with.
Maybe some will claim that the planned conference process is flawed because the vote will be restricted to delegates and most members will be excluded. They might argue that using the leadership election as a proxy vote on the de facto referendum is democratically superior because all members will get a say. But that theory only works if every leadership candidate is open and honest about their intentions. Generally what actually happens is that a candidate will say whatever is necessary to get elected, and only then reveal what was in their mind all along. That's how Tony Blair smuggled in the concept of New Labour in 1994. That's how Starmer mugged the soft left in 2020.
No, instead of electing the leader and then being bound by the whim of that individual, do it the other way around. Hold the conference first and make sure it's the incoming leader that is bound by democratic decisions that precede their own election. I have no doubt whatsoever that if left to their own devices, the SNP conference delegates would approve a de facto referendum. I have no idea whether they would select the 2023, 2024 or 2026 option, but it would be one of those three and the Scottish people would at long last get a choice on their own future. No last-minute chicanery should be allowed to thwart that.
PS. I think I was over-optimistic earlier in saying that Angus Robertson as leader would follow roughly the same strategic path charted by Nicola Sturgeon. I think he'd actually be even more cautious and passive. The mood music from him in recent months (for example in the notorious France 24 interview) suggests that he thinks the commitment to a de facto referendum is an optional extra that should be discarded. He may well be the standard bearer for the 'do nothing' faction in the coming contest - which makes the fact that he is the current bookies' favourite to win very troubling indeed.
* * *