Why a plebiscite election won't deliver Scottish independence
This is generally described as the plebiscite election strategy. This argues that we should make the vote at the election the vote about Scotland's independence. If, when we add up all the votes for pro-independence parties it comes to 50%+1, then we take that as a mandate to start negotiations with the UK.
There was quite a lot wrong with this idea when Nicola Sturgeon toyed with it in 2021 and there's a lot wrong with it now. And that's even assuming it might be possible to get all the parties involved to agree.
READ MORE: Rachel Reeves failed to raise Grangemouth with refinery owner days before closure
To be clear, I'm not against trying to get a majority of the electorate to vote for parties that support independence. Indeed, there's no reason why that shouldn't in part be a consequence of the SNP trying to win a majority. These objectives are not contradictory.
The first problem is getting acceptance from the people taking part in the election that it is a vote on deciding independence. We don't need everyone to agree, but we do need a majority to buy into the idea.
This proposition will be hotly contested. Elections are about many things. Asking people to set aside concerns about everything else and focus on Scotland's constitutional future will be a big ask.
We should remember that while there may be a majority telling pollsters they want Scotland to be independent, many of them are not that strongly attached to the idea.
Their support is based on a belief that things couldn't be any worse. There are also not insignificant numbers who vote Labour or Liberal Democrat but who also believe in Scotland becoming independent.
They would vote Yes in a referendum, but that doesn't mean they will abandon their allegiance to a party they identify with at the 2026 election.
Smart Unionists will say we can come back to a decision on indy later. For now, let's fix the health service, the housing crisis, energy costs, whatever. We know the best way to fix all of these things is to have the powers that come with independence. But that is not where many of the electorate are.
So, no matter how much pro-independence parties were to tell people that is what this election is about, our opponents will shout till they are blue in the face that it isn't.
And then, should we fail to get more than 50% of the votes, they will shamelessly tell us that it was about precisely that. You'll have had your referendum. Again.
But the main problem with the plebiscite referendum is that it works only in the minds of its believers. They claim if a majority vote for pro-indy parties in the election, independence will then happen. Why?
Kenny MacAskill said in this paper last week: 'Starmer and his Cabinet have already said no to a second referendum and nothing will change that.'
If that is true, a plebiscite election won't change that. The majority of the electorate will have the same problem as the majority of MSPs. They will be ignored by a Westminster Government which takes the view that Scotland's status is a matter for it, not the people who live here.
Robin McAlpine offered some insight last week. He is half right when he talks about the process following the creation of a majority and not the other way round. Most countries became independent when it was the will of most of the people, referenda only formalised what had happened on the ground.
He is wrong, though, to suggest the political process is unimportant and that the campaign needs to be taken out of it. In fact, there is a dynamic relationship between the two.
The missing ingredient from McAlpine's analysis is the substantial chunk of people who believe in independence but see no way of it happening. For them the link between independence and voting in elections has been broken.
READ MORE: For Women Scotland launches legal action against Scottish ministers on gender policy
This isn't just the SNP's problem. The support for SNP, Greens and Alba combined is still 10% below support for independence. Neither a plebiscite election nor indeed a referendum proper, is going to offer a way forward until we change that.
In reality, John Swinney and Kenny MacAskill have the same problem – a critical number of independence supporters don't believe that voting for them achieves it. At least one of them doesn't pretend otherwise.
So, we need a strategy for what could happen with the right election result, how could that be used to advance Scotland's autonomy. And that brings us back to asserting the right of the people and getting past the Supreme Court judgment of autumn 2023.
And that requires the mobilisation of the people into a force for change. That is an expressly political task. It's not just a matter of winning elections. But winning elections is a part of it.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
18 minutes ago
- Spectator
Labour will regret its attack on nature
Environmentalists always feared that Brexit would lead to a weakening of environmental protections, but who would have guessed that it would be a Labour government which would take a bulldozer to legislation acquired through the EU Habitats Directive? Rachel Reeves is reported to be contemplating a second planning bill which would make it far harder for conservationists to hold up infrastructure projects. Reeves has already paved the way – if that is not an unfortunate expression in this context – by saying last month that she cared more about young families getting on the housing ladder than 'protecting some snails'. The ability to use judicial reviews to block projects will be curtailed and the list of creatures offered protection will be shrunk. Reeves is giving these idealistic voters an even bigger incentive to jump from the Labour ship Reeves is right that habitat rules are excessive – even if her party was among the first to scream green murder whenever the Conservative government wanted to build an infrastructure project. Where were she and her colleagues when fracking companies were trying to develop a UK shale gas industry which, by now, could have been producing cheaper energy for UK households? The £100 million 'bat tunnel' on HS2 which so offended Keir Starmer seems to have come as a moment of realisation for the government – that we are becoming a country where it is impossible to build any infrastructure project at reasonable expense thanks to the ability of the green lobby to frustrate and delay. Under existing law even common creatures are granted sacred status. But Labour's about-turn on nature and development is likely to have serious political consequences for the party. The trouble for the party is that many of its voters are already tempted by the Green party, not just for environmental reasons but because it also offers totemic left-wing policies such as a wealth tax, which Reeves and Starmer seem to have ruled out. Now, Reeves is giving these idealistic voters an even bigger incentive to jump from the Labour ship. Nor are Reeves's planning reforms on their own likely to do much to boost the economy. It might help speed up a few infrastructure projects, but they are unlikely to counter the anti-growth effects of other government policies, such as the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions and the Employment Rights Bill. Moreover, Britain, like many countries, has a history of infrastructure projects which are conceived less to boost economic growth than to fulfil some political need. HS2 is a prime example. Its economic case always was weak, based on the false assumption that business people cannot work on trains and therefore would be more productive if they could be sped to their offices a few minutes quicker. The bats in that case would have been better left undisturbed. Does anyone really think that the government will come up with better infrastructure just because Reeves has made it easier for them? It is bound to mean yet more wind farms, solar farms – with their intermittent energy helping to further inflate UK energy prices – more roads and bridges to nowhere. There are many infrastructure projects which will remain difficult to enact even with deregulated laws on habitats. It isn't bats and newts, for example, which have stymied a third runway at Heathrow – it is the government's net zero commitments, which Reeves is unlikely to do anything about. It was carbon emissions on which environmental groups chose to fight to project – successfully arguing in court that the third runway was inconsistent with the government's commitments under the Paris agreement (although that was later overturned in the Supreme Court). The issue of climate change has already steamrollered other environmental concerns. The current government looks likely to take this process further.
Daily Mirror
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Labour minister pressed on dad Neil Kinnock's benefit demand in awkward TV exchange
Care minister Stephen Kinnock was pressed by BBC Breakfast host Jon Kay on his dad Neil Kinnock's call for Labour to finally axe the two child benefit limit Neil Kinnock's minister son faced an awkward grilling over his dad's demand that the two child benefit cap is scrapped. Care minister Stephen Kinnock was repeatedly asked about his father's comments - made in an interview with the Sunday Mirror. The former Labour leader, who was at the helm from 1983 to 1992, said at the weekend: "I would want them to do it (abolish the cap). They may not be able to do it all at once, but I really want them to move in that direction because the figures are that if that did occur it would mean that about 600,000 kids, fewer, are in poverty." BBC Breakfast host Jon Kay asked the junior Mr Kinnock what his views were - but he pointedly declined to say. The minister said: "Obviously decisions like that have major financial implications. They are a matter for the Chancellor. She will be bringing forward the budget in October. It comes after Gordon Brown blasts the return of 'poverty of 60 years ago' as he makes one big demand. READ MORE: UK facing 'dire' domestic abuse crisis with thousands of victims 'trapped' "So I'm sure you'd agree, it would be wrong for me to start speculating about the Budget at this time." Mr Kay pressed: "But if you are having a chat with your dad, would you say he's right or wrong?" Mr Kinnock responded: "You've invited me onto this program as a government minister, and I am saying very clearly to you, that any decisions which have financial implications, major financial implications for the government, are a matter for the Chancellor and the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and nobody else." The Government is facing growing pressure to axe the two-child benefit limit - one of the most severe cuts to the welfare state by austerity Chancellor George Osborne. Lord Kinnock senior said doing so would be the "immediate and direct way of trying to correct the conditions the government inherited". The policy, which restricts Universal Credit and Child Tax Credits to the first two children, has been blamed by charities for trapping kids in poverty. The former Labour leader said tackling child poverty - among other issues facing the country - could be paid for by a tax on the assets of the super-rich or a hike in levies on the top 1%. He told The Mirror: "I think people would see the justification of increasing taxes on assets and the very, very highly paid - I'm talking about the top 1% - in order to make the transfer directly to reduce child poverty. "I know it's the economics of Robin Hood, but I don't think there is anything terribly bad about that." Lord Kinnock has previously said a 2% levy on asset values over £10million - a "very big fortune" - could bring in around £11billion for the Treasury. He added: "The thing is we live in a fair country where the instincts are fair, so people approve of the idea of the broadest backs bearing the heaviest burden. "Of course the very rich do make a substantial contribution. It's not enough. And it hasn't kept pace with the increase in their asset wealth. Simple and straightforward as that." Earlier this year official figures showed a record 4.5million children living in poverty. Pressed on what this said about the state of the nation, Lord Kinnock said: "All you've got to do is reflect where we were under Gordon Brown's government when they cut child poverty gigantically by millions. In 15 years, starting from a position where beneficial change was taking place, we've got to the place that would make Charles Dickens furious. "It's been allowed to happen because the kids are voiceless and their parents feel powerless. I defy anybody to see a child in need and not want to help." Keir Starmer has previously vowed to slash the number of kids living in poverty. And Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, who is leading the child poverty task force alongside Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, has suggested ending the two-child benefit limit remains on the table.
The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Labour needs to ‘pick things up' after a ‘tough' first year, says Sadiq Khan
Update: Date: 2025-08-18T07:57:03.000Z Title: Labour needs to 'pick things up' after 'tough' first year in power, Sadiq Khan warns Content: Good morning and welcome to our live coverage of UK politics. Despite winning a huge majority at last year's general election, Labour knew it had a lot of work to do to regain voters trust and show government could work for ordinary people. The task was made more difficult as the party inherited a weak economy and crumbling public services underinvested in by previous Conservative administrations. So far, the prime minister, Keir Starmer, has failed to win popularity with voters, according to many polls, with a seeming lack of political direction and constant moves to appease Reform voters while Labour's base quietly slips away. Starmer's proposed cuts to winter fuel payments, his sluggishness over adopting a firmer stance on Israel's war on Gaza and his controversial welfare reforms were out of line with much of the public's attitudes. London's mayor, Sadiq Khan, told an audience at the Edinburgh festival fringe last night that Labour needs to 'really pick things up' after a 'tough' first year in government. Khan, who has been critical over the government before, notably over disability benefit cuts and ministers' plans for a third runway at Heathrow, said there was a feeling that people 'lent' Labout their vote last summer (in a bid to get the Conservatives out). He said: Those people that say it has been a great first year … I think they are letting the party down. It hasn't been a great first year. There have been great things that have happened in this first year, around the rights for renters, around the rights for workers, around energy security, and I could go on. But as first years go, it has not been a great first year. Khan said Labour could still turn around as it has another four years and are equipped with a 'great team' in No 10 led by Starmer, who he insisted he was not being critical of, although he conceded that the prime minister and those around him could be performing better. Khan – who is a Liverpool FC supporter – said if Labour was in a football match, they would be 'two-nil down'. But continuing his analogy, he said that only 15 or 20 minutes of the match had gone, with minutes still to play and to 'win this game'. He explained: It is really important now we really pick things up because I think we are two-nil down. But the great news is we have turned it round before, we have won games before where we're two nil down, we can do it again. After over a decade out of power at Westminster, Khan also said that the party had 'lost the memory of running things'. 'It has taken some time for the Labour party, the Labour government, to understand how the machinery of government works,' he said.
