SNP need two distinct arms in order to achieve their twin objectives

The National

a day ago

Yes, we have explored the currently available constitutional options and now realise that Westminster is highly unlikely to consent to a fully lawful referendum on the basis they are afraid of losing.
What the activists have lost sight of is that in 2014 we had a parliamentary majority for the agreed democratic mandate for holding a referendum. Since then we have not. That majority didn't exist before 2014 and Westminster has not consented to one since on the basis that in Holyrood we didn't gain another single-party majority.
READ MORE: Scottish Government responds to claims of 'Iranian pro-independence accounts'
Holding a constitutionally unlawful referendum is not as easy as it appears. The practicalities of doing so are immense. Who would pay for it, who would validate the result, who would accept the result?
Who would actually participate? If nothing else, how can it claim any authority, as the arch-Unionists will almost certainly not take part, and being 'unlawful' it cannot be implemented?
The only real way of demonstrating our demands is to keep returning a majority of MPs to Westminster and regain a single-party majority at Holyrood. The voted-on mandate must have a commitment to hold a single-question referendum, not just a statement of intent about independence.
The other problem would be if a Section 35 order is issued preventing us from running that. The question is of course how would that be enforced, and the most likely way is for the Scotland Act to be suspended, thereby removing all powers from Holyrood and probably preventing it from sitting.
READ MORE: Seamus Logan: Using an election as plebiscite referendum is just not going to fly
That leaves a huge conundrum, as clearly Westminster would have to appoint commissioners to run our affairs, back to the old days of the Scottish Office!
In effect, trying to hold an unconstitutional referendum would be the cessation of devolution, forcing us back to square one. So, we have to demonstrate and continue to demonstrate a majority, preferably rising, in favour of independence. No arguing amongst ourselves, or undermining each other.
The grassroots have already started the process at the UN, and we have friends in other countries. The grassroots can do the door-knocking and one-to-one persuasion and dissemination in the absence of a friendly media, but they are currently more or less on their own.
This does introduce another difficulty as the SNP do need to meet two different challenges, – on a day-to-day basis running the country within the confines of the UK constitution, important as it is, but at the same time taking a lead in the strategic goal.
Our current political leaders, while impassioned and competent, do not have the spare time to take on another important role. So for political credibility we need two arms within the SNP: the first is ongoing political administration, and the second is that of galvanising indy supporters, but not using elected politicians to front it.
The principal role of this arm will be to give the non-aligned majority of voters something for them to understand, and achieve buy-in. Not just the ideal and fuzzy concept of independence, but the pragmatic understanding of how that would work and how our economy would be placed To this end we need to offer those voters a (draft) constitution that spells out limits and powers of whoever forms our government along with a draft budget using all of our GDP, to sit in comparison with the one limited by our current constitutional arrangement. Produce something that ordinary voters get their teeth into and forms a prospectus for a new and independent Scotland.
Nick Cole
Meigle, Perthshire