• Latest
  • Trending
  • All

If you want a risk-free referendum, try living in a totalitarian state. This is Scotland, and we can’t win independence without risking defeat.

June 8, 2019

Labour’s lying reply to Believe in Scotland’s petition

September 16, 2026

The positive case for the Union will be along shortly, this time they mean it.

September 15, 2026

The Cardiff Agreement marks a new chapter in the path to independence

September 14, 2026

Burnham’s expected reverse ferret

September 10, 2026

The independence cat is out of the bag

September 10, 2026

Burnham’s crack in the constitutional dam

September 9, 2026

BBC Scotland’s educational F grade

September 8, 2026

The smokiest of smoking guns

September 4, 2026

The BBC’s clutching pearls are in aisle three

September 3, 2026

The branch office’s stagnant talent puddle

September 2, 2026

Keir today, gone tomorrow

September 1, 2026

The Record’s proposed trigger for Indyref2 benefits Labour not Scotland

August 31, 2026
  • Home
Saturday, September 19, 2026
  • Login
Aye We Can
No Result
View All Result
Aye We Can
No Result
View All Result
Home Comment

If you want a risk-free referendum, try living in a totalitarian state. This is Scotland, and we can’t win independence without risking defeat.

by qwertyfan
June 8, 2019
in Comment
0
0
SHARES
1
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

I’ve been meaning for a few days to write a detailed response to Pete Wishart’s new article, in which he claims that the experience of Quebec provides proof for his well-rehearsed belief that the maximum amount of independence referendums that Scotland can ever hold is two, and that we can’t afford to lose the second indyref because we’d never get another one.  Here’s the short version of the point I was going to make: the Quebec experience shows no such thing, because the Parti Québécois has in fact won two elections since the second referendum loss in 1995, and one of those victories was with an outright majority.  It therefore had the window of opportunity if it so wished to hold a third referendum, but it chose not to do so, and now the moment seems to have passed.  The PQ was recently replaced as the main Quebec nationalist force by a right-of-centre party which opposes independence but theoretically supports more powers for Quebec within the Canadian federation.  (The concept of an anti-independence nationalist party is an alien one in Scotland, but it has a long tradition in Quebec, and it arguably has some parallels in Wales – under Carwyn Jones, Welsh Labour was sometimes referred to as ‘soft nationalist’.)

So this is an uncomfortable thought for Pete, who is previously on the record as wanting to delay an independence referendum until we “know” we will win it.  The real lesson of Quebec is that if you timidly hold off from calling a referendum until the moment seems perfect, you eventually find that you’re no longer anywhere near government and can’t hold a referendum whether you want to or not.  And if you can’t call a referendum, you can’t become an independent country.

As I’ve pointed out umpteen times before, the pre-knowledge of victory that Pete is seeking is unattainable anyway.  Public opinion in referendum campaigns is notoriously volatile, much more so that in regular elections.  Even if it was somehow realistic to think we’ll get Yes support to 60% before the referendum campaign even begins (and I don’t think it is), we’d feel a bit bloody silly for holding off until that point if there’s a 20% drop in support within a week or two of the campaign starting.  You can find endless examples from referendums around the world of that sort of thing happening – and indeed the two Quebec referendum campaigns are themselves excellent examples of volatility.  In 1980, the Yes side were in a winning position but suffered a catastrophic loss of support as the campaign progressed, but in 1995 the swing was in the opposite direction, with Yes turning around a seemingly insurmountable deficit to draw more or less level by polling day.

Even if a 60% starting point wouldn’t guarantee victory, surely it would give us a somewhat better chance than a 45% starting point?  Well, maybe, but the operative word is “somewhat”.  I strongly suspect that the relative stability of independence polls in recent years is deceptive, and that once a campaign is underway we’d see a big swing in public opinion once again.  The real test always comes when the public actually focus on the choice in front of them.

Incidentally, volatility has been increasing even in regular elections.  There have been any number of occasions over recent years when we “knew” the result of an election in advance…until it turned out that we didn’t.

2007 Holyrood election: SNP started the campaign with a solid lead, but ended up in a virtual dead heat with Labour.

2011 Holyrood election: Labour appeared to be coasting to an effortless victory, until the SNP completely turned it around in the closing weeks and won by a landslide.

2015 Westminster election: A hung parliament was supposedly guaranteed, and indeed masses of column inches were devoted to pondering whether majority government had become a thing of the past in Britain.  David Cameron ended up with an overall majority that virtually no-one saw coming.

2016 Holyrood election: An SNP majority government was supposedly so assured that SNP voters didn’t even need to bother backing the party on the list vote.  In the end, the SNP fell two seats short of a majority.

2017 Westminster election: The reverse of 2015.  A landslide Conservative majority was a nailed-on certainty, but we ended up with a hung parliament instead.

*  *  *

On the subject of learning the wrong lessons from Canada, Stephen Bush of the New Statesman has offered the following reason for thinking that Dominic Raab wouldn’t be able to follow Stephen Harper’s notorious example by proroguing parliament for tactical reasons –

“One of several crucial differences between the Canadian example and the United Kingdom is that while Elizabeth II is the head of state in both, in Canada, her constitutional role is largely parcelled off to the governor-general, who is appointed by the prime minister. It’s one thing for the governor-general, who is usually a former political figure, to be drawn into politics, but quite another for the same to happen to the sovereign.”

I’ll freely hold my hands up and say that I don’t know whether it would be legally possible for a British Prime Minister to achieve a No Deal Brexit by means of a tactical prorogation.  But I do know that Stephen’s reading of the Canadian precedent is incorrect. The Governor-General at the time of the 2008 constitutional crisis was Michaëlle Jean, a Liberal appointee.  There was a great deal of speculation about whether she would allow herself to be dragged into political controversy by blocking the request of the Conservative Prime Minister for prorogation, in line with her presumed Liberal loyalties.  When she took the opposite course of action, it was firmly interpreted as her playing a straight bat by putting constitutional precedent before partisan politics, in much the same way that the Queen would be expected to in this country.  She had clearly received advice that it would be constitutionally inappropriate to decline a prorogation request from the Prime Minister.

*  *  *

2019 Scot Goes Pop Fundraiser: This is Day 9 of the fundraiser, and so far £5722 has been raised. That’s 67% of the way towards the target figure of £8500. A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far, and I’m also extremely grateful to all the people who have left a kind comment with their donation. You can visit the fundraising page HERE.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Related

ShareTweet
qwertyfan

qwertyfan

No Result
View All Result

Recent Posts

  • The Cardiff Agreement marks a new chapter in the path to independence
  • The positive case for the Union will be along shortly, this time they mean it.
  • Labour’s lying reply to Believe in Scotland’s petition
  • Burnham’s expected reverse ferret
  • The independence cat is out of the bag

Recent Comments

    Archives

    • September 2026
    • August 2026
    • July 2026
    • June 2026
    • May 2026
    • November 2025
    • October 2025
    • August 2025
    • July 2025
    • June 2025
    • April 2025
    • March 2025
    • February 2025
    • January 2025
    • December 2024
    • November 2024
    • October 2024
    • September 2024
    • August 2024
    • July 2024
    • June 2024
    • May 2024
    • April 2024
    • March 2024
    • February 2024
    • January 2024
    • December 2023
    • November 2023
    • October 2023
    • September 2023
    • August 2023
    • July 2023
    • June 2023
    • May 2023
    • April 2023
    • March 2023
    • February 2023
    • January 2023
    • December 2022
    • November 2022
    • October 2022
    • September 2022
    • August 2022
    • July 2022
    • June 2022
    • May 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • February 2022
    • January 2022
    • December 2021
    • November 2021
    • October 2021
    • September 2021
    • August 2021
    • July 2021
    • June 2021
    • May 2021
    • April 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • September 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • June 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • March 2019
    • February 2019
    • January 2019
    • December 2018
    • November 2018
    • October 2018
    • September 2018
    • August 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • May 2018

    Categories

    • Comment
    • CommonSpace
    • Craig Murray
    • Lesley Riddoch
    • Phantom Power
    • The National
    • Uncategorized
    • Wee Ginger Dug
    • Yes Bikers

    Meta

    • Log in
    • Entries feed
    • Comments feed
    • WordPress.org
    Aye We Can

    Copyright © 2017 JNews.

    Navigate Site

    • About
    • Home
    • Login
    • Logout
    • Members
    • Password Reset
    • User

    Follow Us

    Welcome Back!

    Login to your account below

    Forgotten Password?

    Retrieve your password

    Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

    Log In
    No Result
    View All Result
    • About
    • Home
    • Login
    • Logout
    • Members
    • Password Reset
    • User

    Copyright © 2017 JNews.

    This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this website you are giving consent to cookies being used. Visit our Privacy and Cookie Policy.