The front page of the Scottish edition of The Times leads with a headline claiming that the de facto independence referendum promised to Scotland by the SNP is now “dead in the water”. The supporting evidence in the text is that an anonymous source from the SNP’s NEC says that the plebiscite election is “dead in the water, as it always should have been” Now, this could well be an Alyn Smith type just shooting his mouth off in an attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the arrogance of the turn of phrase does sound a bit like Smith. (Off the top of my head, I can’t actually remember if Smith is currently a member of the NEC, but even if he isn’t, there’s sure to be some ‘offspring of Daddy’ there.) But even if that’s the case, it confirms the fear I expressed yesterday that there are at least some dark forces within the SNP who see the postponement of the special conference as not merely an exercise in prosaic practicalities, but instead as an early part of an elongated choreography that will eventually culminate in yet another betrayal of a solemn promise made to the people of Scotland that they will soon have the right to choose their own constitutional future.
On what possible rational basis could this Smith-like source have concluded that a de facto referendum is dead? Certainly not on the basis of opinion within the SNP membership, which continues to strongly support Nicola Sturgeon’s plan (not necessarily her choice of a Westminster election, but that’s the only real point of dispute). And although conference delegates tend to be a bit more small ‘c’ conservative than the wider membership, it seems pretty likely that delegates would, if left to their own devices, choose one of the three proposed dates for a plebiscite election. So the only conclusion it’s possible to draw is that the Smith-like source thinks Ms Sturgeon’s resignation has opened up a space for the process to be fixed by an elite. Perhaps Ms Sturgeon was even muscled out of the way simply to open up that space. Presumably the plan is that members can be gently coaxed into choosing a new leader who privately intends to ditch the plebiscite election, and can then be bounced into rubberstamping that plan when it is finally presented to the special conference. That sounds a hell of a lot like a coup attempt to me.
If Angus Robertson turns out to be the main standard bearer of the ‘ditch the de facto’ plotters, we’ve already had a sneak preview of how he might try to navigate the obstacle of a leadership vote in which the electorate are mostly people who support a plebiscite election. When Nicola Sturgeon originally announced her policy, there were very obvious clues that Mr Robertson was not on board for it. Instead of coming out and expressing his opposition publicly, he used formulations of words that attempted to redefine a de facto referendum as something much less than it actually is. In particular, he called it “an election campaign in which independence is the key issue”. That’s a completely meaningless statement that certainly does not describe a plebiscite election. A party could campaign in an election on the “key issue” of marshmallows being fabulous, but that wouldn’t give them a mandate to take any specific action on the whole Marshmallow Question. In a nutshell, he’ll use vague language intended to give the impression to members that he’s continuing with Nicola Sturgeon’s plan, but his words will be deniable enough to give him scope to ditch her plan within a week of taking office. Don’t fall for the ruse.
Here’s the case for remaining optimistic, at least for now. Students of history will know that coup attempts have a relatively high failure rate, and often produce results that are the complete opposite of what was intended. On 19th August 1991 it looked for all the world as if the Soviet Union had reverted to hardline communism. But by 22nd August the country was set on an even more liberal path than before the coup started, and by Christmas Day the Soviet Union itself had ceased to exist. The anti-Chavez coup in Venezuela two decades ago fell apart on a similar timescale. So the SNP plotters do not have to succeed. Members have the power to stop them – although there’s a huge danger of forfeiting any power at all for a very, very long time if the wrong leader is elected.
It’s surely inevitable that at least one leadership candidate will emerge with a strong, highly specific and daring stance on winning independence in the very near future. Whoever that person is will deserve the full support of SNP members – not only to save our chances of independence, but also because he or she will represent the only hope of salvaging SNP internal democracy.
How do you “build consensus” with unionist parties on delivering constitutional change without that change falling well short of independence? And if you accept that indy requires a specific mandate, by definition that vote will be a “short-term event”.https://t.co/bvtq2SBUHl
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) February 17, 2023
* * *
