The two Tory leader/UK Prime Minister candidates had their only Scottish party hustings in Perth on Tuesday hopeful of picking up a few votes from the roughly 10% of Scottish party members who were in the hall and those among the hundreds watching online. Would we be treated to them actually discussing the Union, and just how voluntary it is, for longer than 30 seconds or so.
Before Perth, it hadn’t been easy to get much beyond single phrase justifications for why they’d continue blocking of Scottish democratic processes of the last two Tory Prime Ministers when they take over. However despite host Colin McKay’s efforts Rishy Sunak and Liz Truss still managed to stick to the usual soundbites about respecting the No vote in 2014, but no vote since then.
There was talk of independence being barmy, bypassing devolution to implement Tory policy in Scotland, and how, To the loudest Tory cheers of the night, they reiterated that they’d both say no to a referendum but neither gave an actual explanation of how and when they thought Scots could achieve independence democratically. The crowd growing rowdy when McKay briefly tried to press the issue.
It’s an insult of an argument actually. But Tories aren’t trying to persuade people they just need to say something, anything, in reply to the question. They’re not normally in Perth and it is normally just one question.
They both slipped out of Perth leaving us none the wiser as to exactly how democracy can be shelved for a generation because Alex Salmond gave an answer in a tv interview, predicting a repeat of the two devolution referendums timescale, in the event of a 2014 no vote. A brexit after voting Remain and multiple mandates from elections don’t get much sympathy from Tory politicians.
It was good, then, to see that Times Columnist Alex Massie is now also a blogger and has written a fleshed-out more thoughtful piece on this issue of sovereignty. And it’s not behind a pesky paywall. And, genuine credit to Massie: he doesn’t use the word ‘generation’ once… in a fairly long piece.
In his post ‘The Debatable Land #23: Nicola Sturgeon concedes defeat (for now)’ Massie says there won’t be a referendum next year, that Nicola Sturgeon has ‘abandoned her promise’ and has no plans for how to fulfill it. He writes:
Sturgeon insists secession must be lawful and – as a consequence of that – recognised by the international community. That means a referendum must have the consent of, in order of priority, the Scottish people and the British government. Neither branch of consent is available at present, though the second is contingent upon the first. The polling on this is very clear: no more than three in ten voters support a referendum next October. (By contrast, there is a soft majority in favour of the vague proposition there ought to be a referendum at some point in the next five or more years.)
This is a mischievous analysis of the situation for a few reasons. Firstly – while it’s very possible, maybe likely, there won’t be a referendum on her timescale – as it’s not the FM who’s been standing in the way of a vote, it’s a stretch to accuse her of abandoning her promise. Secondly, demonstrably, there are plans, plural, to confront the Tory intransigence. But we’ll get to that. And thirdly, there’s the unhelpful reality that the people have actually voted for a referendum. A few times.
We see no mandate, and we are the state
‘Mandate’ is another word notable for its absence in Massie’s piece. By any normal understanding of a party-based representative democracy, the latest mandate the government has won is a significantly large one as these things go. Bigger than in 2011 for 2014. Bigger than the Tories gained in 2015 to hold a Brexit referendum. Bigger than Labour had in ’97 for devolution. Can we ask about the mandate the Scottish Tories received from their ‘vote Tory to stop indyref’ campaign?
This is why Massie avoids the m-word. But, just as they’re content to go without a winning argument, Tories are not relying on winning elections in Scotland. Their party can ask for votes to stop the referendum and then – when they don’t get many – just ignore the result. ‘Ah but’, they’ll say ‘the Unionists parties combined received more votes in the constituency vote part’. Forgetting the list vote and that an election is not a binary constitutional choice anyway. Unsuccessful candidates can be popped into the House of Lords to pontificate about what’s good and not good for Scots. Recent elections can be ignored, Massie argues, if we just concentrate on some polls instead. And even then, only certain parts of certain, agreeable, polls.
Given the obvious, creaking, weakness of that position, it would be surprising if an intelligent person, such as a Times columnist, feels entirely comfortable when writing that polling, where people list their priorities or their views on timing, is somehow more important than actual votes in national elections. See the recent expressions of distaste from full-on Unionists like Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford (as with his predecessor)and Massie’s Spectator colleague, Fraser Nelson.
Massie reassures us that UK gov consent would follow public demand. Yet Boris, his predecessor, and his replacement have all turned a Nelson’s eye to election results in Scotland. Another UK government of a different colour perhaps? Nope, Labour and the other ones would also block it. So that’s that then, everyone agrees. Unity at last…
Polls
Of course, for most people, polls aren’t more important than votes, but if they’re really so central to the Unionist argument we should get some more out for inspection. Firstly, as Massie himself admits, polls show people do want a referendum. The latest Yes/No poll, atow, has Yes ahead again. Then there were the unanimous 22 in a row for Yes in 2020/21 (archived here) and I definitely can’t remember Massie arguing for a referendum then. In fact (quick twitter search of ‘Massie polls in a row’) yes, he dismissed them.
Polls also consistently show people believe Holyrood should decide on these matters and Westminster shouldn’t interfere and have done for a number of years. And polling shows people believe the government has a mandate. The minority who say it doesn’t, either don’t understand the concept or are effectively using their answer as a preemptive, protest, No vote.
It’s good to be recognised
Massie is right to say the FM wants legality and recognition. It could hardly be otherwise. And he’s right about this being a problem for her government, as it thus follows that the Tories, know they’ve Holyrood in a bind. That they can effortlessly halt the democratic process simply by refusing to go along with a different government that wants to repeat the steps that were agreed for 2014. The Tory ‘no’ is given its power by the chilling threat of a worldwide cold shoulder. No Westminster recognition of a referendum means no state recognition. No state recognition – no international recognition for the result.
In 1989, when the Tories were ignoring a country repeatedly voting for devolution, the standoff was summarised as – “‘We say no – and we are the state’. Well, we say yes – and we are the people.” In 2022 it is – “We say ‘talk to the hand’ – and we are the state. and if you people go ahead anyway we’ll tell everyone you acted illegally and they’ll all just ignore you.” The only circumstances where the Unionist troll tweeting that Spain would veto membership of the EU would suddenly be telling the truth.
Coercion, in other words. A far cry from the ‘don’t leave us, lead us’ patter we were treated to in 2014. So much for JK Rowling’s envisaged, post no vote, Scotland ‘dictating terms’.
Plans
The question of what the government can and should do to get around this (and when) is complicated. Happily for the Tories, differences over strategy has led to splits in the Yes movement as people direct their frustration in alternative directions. Meanwhile, the government has asked for the all-important section 30 and has again been denied. As they wait for a change of mind, perhaps led by wider society feeling, they petition the UK Supreme Court for a judgment on whether it’s needed.
That’s Plan A and B. Failing that, we have the First Minister’s general election as a referendum Plan C. Will it work? Massie thinks not and perhaps it could unravel or be ruled illegal somehow or be ignored by London still. But it is a Plan C designed to maintain progress and steady pressure, where it belongs. Unionists have always labeled the SNP as a one-issue party, ironic then that they’re about to turn it into one for real.
Plan C for Catalonia?
What kind of Plan C was Massie expecting or perhaps hoping for? Something foolishly reckless and likely to set independence back? A messy unsanctioned Catalan-style referendum? A UDI?
Even if international recognition wasn’t a huge issue, we’ve all seen what happened in Barcelona, First Ministers included. Can we be so sure that the Conservative & Unionist Party doesn’t fantasise about apeing Spain’s Partido Popular when they bussed in some state violence from Madrid and imprisoned elected politicians for organising a vote?
Certainly, while many of us watched with disgust as blooded Catalan voters were clubbed, it seems others were taking inspiration. The UK government sided strongly with Madrid and what looked a lot like fascistic thuggery in response to democratic expression. It was perhaps the most surprising recent throwback to a darker Europe till Ukraine.
“The referendum is a matter for the Spanish Government and people. We want to see Spanish law and the Spanish constitution respected and the rule of law upheld. Spain is a close ally and a good friend, whose strength and unity matters to us.” – UK Foreign Office, after the State violence in Catalonia.
The First Minister called that response “shamefully weak”. Adding “A true friend of Spain would tell them today’s actions wrong and damaging.” She called on the Spanish government to “Let people vote peacefully.”
Despite voting Yes, Catalonia is no nearer to independence and despite concern and sympathy from abroad, they are told there’s no route towards that goal more firmly than ever.
What would constitute an effective Plan C for Massie? Tellingly, he doesn’t give even the tiniest of clues. It’s not his job to, of course, but claims about the FM’s plans would carry a lot more weight if he explained what it is he thinks she should be doing instead. What genius scheme has been missed? A similarly critical Wings over Scotland is calling for an immediate dissolution of Parliament and a Holyrood election-as-referendum, rather than a wait for a Westminster one, for instance.
Another hint that Massie doubts the strength of his position is his retention of a paragraph about a John Swinney radio interview. Kept even though he knows it’s completely erroneous, with only an update underneath explaining that it’s a bogus point. Would you really be doing that if you were full of great arguments?
The FM’s Plan C makes sense and makes progress. It might be slow progress but by keeping the pressure on Westminster to defend its behaviour, it’s advancing the case as much as anyone really can in the constitutional trench warfare against an unrelenting news backdrop of domestic and worldwide grimness and uncertainty.
Voluntary Union
Perhaps worried about how the Scottish media would react, Theresa May gave a nervous, timid, ‘now is not the time‘ back in, post-Brexit vote, 2016. She needn’t have been concerned as the kilted editions of the British press, of course, went along with it. That NINTT hardened under the self-satisfied bulk of the self-declared Minister for the Union, Boris Johnson, to a confident, even glibly amused, ‘No’ and is now delivered robotically by whichever Tory minister is being asked. The agreed new justification: once in a generation.
Those senior Scottish Tories who had until recently defended the rights of voters are all back in line.
The first minister accuses her opponents of “denying democracy” and frustrating “self-determination” but this might equally be said of her own position. She declines to accept that 2014 was an act of self-determination which must have some meaning; she denies the agency of voters then and it is she who implicitly argues the SNP has the unilateral right to ask the same question again and again until such time as a weary people give her the answer she desires.
In what is probably the weakest part of his argument, Massie says the No voters in 2014 should be respected – the SNP didn’t declare independence and it wasn’t in the manifesto till Brexit came along – but is much less concerned about the times when voters were genuinely ignored. Like the election when Scotland voted against having an EU referendum. Like Brexit when Scotland was dragged out anyway, as the only part of the UK not to get what it voted for.
Despite the press’ narrative, Unionists don’t have a monopoly on concern about division, it’s hardly ideal to be stuck at 50-50 on an issue that stirs the passions. But that division is here, now, and the unpopular Tory Party’s approach of incessantly lamenting about divisiveness while acting to make things worse is only an answer to the question: how do we keep people divided?
Where’s the consistency in the logic of relying on a politician uttering a phrase while ignoring the fact that at no time did Better Together tell people the U.K. government would block a future referendum if people voted for one. The post-no-vote, cross-party, actually binding, Smith Commission was clear that nothing stood in the way of Scotland’s right to choose its future. No caveats. Yet here we are asking again. Politely waiting.
Unionism’s fall
Still, this is a long, long game. If the SNP keep winning elections – a probability as matters currently stand – then at some point the “Now is not the time” argument runs out of juice. That moment is not yet upon us but it takes little imagination to see how it could be pretty soon and certainly by the end of the decade.
Despite the claymore-rattling the real battle is not in the Supreme Court and not at the next British general election either. It will come in 2026 at the next Scottish parliamentary elections. An SNP (or SNP-Green) victory then, combined with the unavoidable passage of time, would make life awfully tricky for Unionists. We are not there yet, however.
Of course, there’s a chance, this arbitrary Unionist goalpost moving and timewasting only delays an inevitability it’s actually helping to manufacture. Whereas allowing the vote next year would probably see the No campaign start as favourites to win, their Union looks like it will be swept away by demographics over time.
We’ve come a long way from the Unionist country that voted Tory in the 1950s and Labour, solidly, thereafter. Massie knows, that blocking a referendum won’t be sustainable forever, if it’s even sustainable now, and he seems to be acknowledging that Unionism is now reduced to kicking the can as far down the road as possible, hoping for events to intervene. For some of the players that clearly starts by answering every question about democracy being denied with an ultra-brief ‘it was a once-in-a-generation vote’.
Last, depressing, admission from Massie:
Sturgeon is on firmer ground when she asks what the democratic route towards independence would be. A good question, but not one without an answer. For the legal route is as it was in 2014: when the British government agrees a referendum is reasonable.
