The election campaign is bumping along quite nicely so far and there is still 3 weeks to go for issues to be drawn out and debated, not to mention a few manifestos still to be published (SNP tomorrow, Greens several days hence).
The main battlegrounds thus far have included local taxation, minimum pricing and policing but one policy that has been conspicuous by its absence is independence. Indeed, it is the pro-UK parties that are making the most noise around this issue, warning voters of a broken up Britain that their main rivals, the SNP, seem surprisingly nonplussed about.
The expected logic from the outset of the last session was that competent Nationalist Government coupled with a Parliamentary defeat for a Referendum Bill would see Salmond campaigning hard on ‘the Scottish people being denied their sovereign say on the future of our great nation’, or something else similarly overblown.
It hasn’t happened and we are left with the Jim Sillars of the independence movement flying the flag for separation. How has this come to pass? Why does the SNP PEB ask what the Scottish Government has done for us and not what you can achieve for your country? I appreciate that many Scots misundertand the N in SNP to the party’s electoral disadvantage but it has snapped back the other way quite dramatically.
There are reasons why of course: the Referendum Bill never did get voted on, let alone down, the economy went haywire, Scottish confidence freefalled and polling figures for independence sank as a result. This, as far as I can see, shouldn’t dim the SNP’s appetite for independence so why is the party immersing itself in the snug embrace of devolved Scotland and what is the strategy for the coming term?
Well, the answer to the first question is simple – suppressing its independence aims is the only way for the SNP to win this coming election. This contest is about preaching to the converted and a recent poll has shown that the NHS, policing and free university education are Scotland’s top priorities, while independence (and an extra Forth Road Bridge) are seen as irrelevant.
So, what can we expect during the next parliamentary term on independence? Nothing referendum-related unless there is an SNP/Green coalition as the other parties can, quite reasonably, claim there is little mandate for the barely discussed issue.
Perhaps a bedding in of Calman and a hope that Coalition rule from London will drop independence into Scotland’s lap is sufficient for the SNP over the next five years but one would expect that, for a party whose stated objective is independence, it might want to talk about it in some detail and make its case once in a while.
#1 by Nconway on April 13, 2011 - 10:30 am
Isnt it more likely that if the SNP and the Greens form a coalition that the first step would be fiscal autonomy which will be easier to sell to unsure Scots,then we would be like The Isle Of Man ,after that Scots would wonder what is the point of being part of the UK when we can be full members of the EU and the UN which would lead to independence.
#2 by Jeff on April 13, 2011 - 10:33 am
I disagree. I don’t think the Scottish Parliament can unilaterally decide that Scotland will be fiscally autonomous, it can only work within the remit (constraints?) of the Scotland Act.
It is only through the winning of a referendum that SNP calls for independence/fiscal autonomy carry any weight.
I do agree that fiscal autonomy is the probable next step towards independence but that is very much a Westminster issue.
#3 by Jon on April 13, 2011 - 11:00 am
I’m not sure if it is a case of independence aims being “suppressed”, exactly.
The SNP are the savviest of the four main parties and it will simply be a pragmatic calculation; why bang on about independence when the majority of voters don’t seem that exercised by it? The news agenda beyond Scotland has been nothing short of apocalyptic in the last year, and to many the issue of full independence will seem something of an irrelevant side-show at the moment, set in the context of these broader UK/global concerns.
Whilst the SNP can’t do anything about tsunamis in Asia or difficulties in the Middle East, it could do something to build the vision for a post-independence Scotland, slowly and surely. The apparent lack of desire to/interest in doing so, is telling in itself. Gradualism (economic/civic nationalism) has been the broad mainstream opinion in the SNP for sometime, with the old fundamentalists (cultural nationalism) disappearing through age, and an inability to win the internal debate.
I wonder if many in the SNP are quite happy to chunter along for a couple of terms as a minority devolved government, and wait until the moment is right before launching an independence referendum. To be honest, at the present time, it is hard to predict that moment coming soon.
I don’t fear independence, I would probably support it in a referendum. That said, it will take a lot more than glib platitudes about “Releasing Our Full Potential as a Nation” to convince agnostics to vote positively for separation from the UK. The SNPs decision to launch a positive, fact-heavy, soundbite-light case for independence will be governed as much by what happens beyond Scotland, as what happens in it.
The last point I’d make is that the SNP are far, far too reliant on the charisma and (sometimes grudgingly) acknowledged leadership qualities of Salmond. From the outside looking in, there seems little effort being made in building up a couple of viable candidates who could take over the leadership. Salmond can’t go on for ever, and after John Swinney’s disastrous performance as SNP leader to 2003, you’d have thought that lessons would have been learned, and strenuous efforts being made to ensure a credible succession once Salmond goes. The current leadership may well frm up a broader range of support for independence, but any independent Scotland will have to be delivered by a future SNP hierarchy- IMO it’s still quite a long way off, yet.
#4 by Jeff on April 13, 2011 - 1:20 pm
Great comment Jon, thanks for that.
I would say that the leadership succession is quite clearly aligned towards Nicola Sturgeon, although time is on her side and a Kenny MacAskill or Bruce Crawford or John Swinney (the return!) or Mike Russell could be leader in between AS and NS quite feasibly.
There will be pressure on whoever steps into Salmond’s shoes, whenever that time comes, but that person doesn’t have to be better than Salmond, they just have to be better than the other leaders in Holyrood. Is Sturgeon more electable than Gray/Kerr/Baillie or whoever it may be? I would say so.
As for independence, I’m on the same page as you – a probable yes but a detailed explanation of what the venture would involve is required for me to be sure.
#5 by Ezio on April 13, 2011 - 12:12 pm
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/scottish-politics/2050-independence-and-greater-powers-for-holyrood-neck-and-neck-in-opinion-poll.html
I haven’t seen any comment on this particular poll from anybody, really.
#6 by Indy on April 13, 2011 - 12:12 pm
I think sometimes people make the mistake of thinking that the independence universe expands and contracts entirely according to what the SNP says or does. It doesn’t. To use another perhaps better known analogy, though I can’t remember who came up with this one, it’s like the tide going in and out – people focus on it going in and out but every time the tide comes in, it’s a little further up the beach.
Independence is perhaps further up the beach than ever – partly due to the normalisation of the SNP but also due to circumstances. The circumstances which make it unlikely that an independence referendum would succeesd at this time – the recession, economic uncertainty, public sector cutbacks, pay restraint, worry about the housing market etc – are also the circumstances that make independence more attractive in the long run. Because they undermine the supposed “security” that the Union provides.
We just need to look at some of the traditional arguments used against independence to see that. Independence would cost jobs in the financial sector, the banks would pull out, we will lose defence jobs and wouldn’t be able to afford an army etc. Well the financial and banking sector imploded spectacularly within the Union – and defence jobs have been lost on a massive scale. So those arguments don’t stack up any more. Of course unionists will come up with new arguments but the fear factor has been strongly undermined by the fact that so many of the apocalyptic events which were threatened should we ever be mad enough to go it on our own have transpired within the status quo. And of course we have the Tories back in Westminster reinforcing the political divergence north and south of the border.
The challenge for the SNP is – as it always has been – how to best use the circumstances to forward our arguments, always bearing in mind that we do not control those circumstances.
#7 by James on April 13, 2011 - 12:24 pm
Only because of climate change. Without that, the same tide would reach the same place each year.
#8 by Malc on April 13, 2011 - 12:29 pm
Indy – fancy giving us 100 words on why you are voting for the SNP?
#9 by Jeff on April 13, 2011 - 1:26 pm
Great answer Indy and a very neat analogy.
To continue your tidal metaphor though; wasn’t it only the other week that the moon was closest to the Earth as it has been in 19 years? Well, much like this one-in-a-generation consideration we hear so much of with independence, perhaps that moment for a referendum came a few years ago. The high watermark for independence last century was around the late 70s? Is that right? If the SNP has missed the ‘bring it on’ boat then I can envisage the next realistic opportunity being 2025 at least. (5 years of SNP Gov’t where it’s not an issue followed by ~8 years of Lab rule at Holyrood where SNP aren’t in control).
The independence universe may not expand or contract with what the SNP says or does, but if they are to be the handmaidens then their role is pretty significant.
#10 by Una on April 14, 2011 - 11:53 am
so do you think the SNP are going to form the next government now Jeff? If so, I’m sure a referendum will be part of the plan.
Last term it’s true there was no vote, but there was plenty debate about what independence could look like and a draft bill for the referendum (did you see the white paper?).
SNP cannae win here – whenever independence is raised, opposition sneers that the party is ‘obsessed with the constitution’; when other things are discussed, there are cries that it’s off the agenda.
#11 by Jeff on April 14, 2011 - 1:42 pm
I think the SNP has a very decent chance of forming the next Government, largest party or not, but I don’t see what has changed that would make Lab, LD or Con any more likely to support it in Parliament, especially if the SNP pointedly demote it as an issue during the campaign.
Anyone in power can pull a White Paper together, I don’t understand why you suggest that is so remarkable. It is getting that paper through a Unionist-majority Parli that matters and the SNP, on the face of it, doesn’t look up for the argument. Not before May 5th anyway.
#12 by Una on April 15, 2011 - 8:19 am
My point was not that it’d definitely go through next parly -although I’m certainly optimistic that it would – it was just your predictions were different and your 2025 timescale is just plain daft.
Since I wrote this the manifesto has launched with independence was still very clearly on the agenda.
I don’t mind whether it was ‘remarkable’ or not that they pulled a white paper together (although they did rather a lot more than that to try to generate debate). My point was that it covered many of the questions about what independence means which your piece suggests they need to do. What I find remarkable is the idea they didn’t push the case.
#13 by Indy on April 13, 2011 - 12:45 pm
Aye sure – where to send it?
#14 by Malc on April 13, 2011 - 12:51 pm
baldy_malc@hotmail.com – Thanks!
Goes for anyone else who wants to give 100 words on why they are voting for whomever they are voting for!
#15 by Douglas McLellan on April 13, 2011 - 1:08 pm
Type your comment here
Nah. Costal erosion is a phenomenon older than mankind. Unless you subscribe to a literal biblical interpretation of creation.
#16 by James on April 13, 2011 - 1:12 pm
Dammit, you’re right. But what about gradual tectonic changes?
#17 by Nconway on April 13, 2011 - 1:27 pm
Have you seen the latest from the Catalan Parliament
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2011/04/13/catalan-parliament-to-vote-on-udi-from-spain-to-take-effect-from-tonight/
#18 by Jeff on April 13, 2011 - 2:11 pm
I have now, thanks for the link.
Perhaps not ‘so’ big news since the motion is doomed to fail but Catalan independence could be the precursor to Scottish independence, the support is high if suppressed by a general resigned consensus that noone wants to go back to the troubles of several decades ago.
#19 by Gavin Hamilton on April 13, 2011 - 3:00 pm
As you say Independence seems at this time to be a low priority for many voters including those that are sympathetic.
My instinct is that the SNP are, at this election, bedding is an alternative government – in Scotland – to Labour.
I’ve not looked recently but I think around 25% – 33% of the population are interested – a sizeable minority but most are not.
What goes on in the UK (and indeed the global economy) is very important to that and we are fully part of that.
There are many interesting things happening in our politics besides the Independence debate.
The emergence of the Greens as an important strand of political thinking.
The challenging of dull, old, conservative, tribal Labour as not the only alternative – and at times hypocritical.
The LibDems face their challenges and the Tories continue a long slow march back from the margins.
And the SNP? Are they an alternative, what would hapen to them if we got Independence? Would they be a catch all sort of Fine Fail? Who are they and what do they stand for – apart from a sort of technocratic vaguely left of centre alternative to Labour.
Gavin
#20 by Indy on April 13, 2011 - 3:07 pm
I think a referendum on independence is a once in a generation thing but we haven’t had one yet so I don’t know why you think we would need to wait till 2025.
Also on your second prediction, if – when – Labour lose this election one of two things will probably happen – they will go into meltdown and/or fundamentally re-assess who they are and what they are for. At the moment they are actively campaigning on the basis that voting Labour is the best way of protesting against the Tories. A party of protest is not a party of government. If they want to get back into government in Scotland they will have to make some major changes including in their attitude towards independence and fiscal autonomy.
#21 by Jon on April 13, 2011 - 3:19 pm
Jeff, thanks for your reply, yes, I quite agree. Sturgeon would be a decent choice as a replacement from Salmond, too hypothetical as yet to work out if she could win elections for the SNP, though!
#22 by Jeff on April 13, 2011 - 3:47 pm
Well, given Salmond seems to have a particular problem winning over female voters, one could argue that Sturgeon is better placed to win elections… (bit of a stretch there perhaps and, yes, all hypothetical McChattering classes stuff)
#23 by Doug Daniel on April 13, 2011 - 4:05 pm
I reckon she’s just about there. She’s good in debates, on television, in interviews and in person. She’s got a high profile as Deputy FM and Health Minister, in fact she probably already has much higher recognition and approval ratings than the other party’s leader, never mind their deputy leaders. It would be interesting to see how she would fare in such a poll, in fact.
John Swinney may not have been a successful leader, but there’s still Mike Russell, who probably fancies a shot at some point, as well as a couple of others. Angus Robertson, if he makes the move from Westminster to Holyrood, would probably do a decent job. Perhaps if the next government is SNP again, we’ll see some more young blood getting a push – Shirley-Anne Somerville perhaps? There’s certainly more potential in the SNP than in the other parties – after all, where on earth are the Lib Dems going to go once Tavish gets the boot in May? What about Labour post-Gray? The Tories next leader? Derek Brownlee would be an obvious choice, but he might not even be there next term!
I reckon Salmond can keep going for some time yet, anyway.
#24 by Douglas McLellan on April 13, 2011 - 5:54 pm
Even as a Lib Dem I think that Nicola Sturgeon has a mastery of her brief and performs well in every appearance she makes. Even as Depute Leader but leader in the Parliament from 04-07 she performed well and I cant see past her for a better leader for the SNP when Salmond steps down. Of course, SNP activists may not see it that way but that will only benefit the other parties.
Shirley-Anne Somerville is less than 4 years younger than Sturgeon. I would not define that as younger blood!
The Lib Dems will probably look to Willie Rennie if they decide that Tavish should get the boot. Thing is, there is a lot of sympathy given the feelings around Scotland about the Coalition with the Tories in Westminster. If only Tavish could do better in difficult TV situations.
The Tories will go for Murdo Fraser if they have a bad result.
I have no idea what Labour would do if Gray is not the next First Minister. He couldnt stay but who is next?
#25 by James on April 13, 2011 - 6:05 pm
How sure are you that Willie Rennie will get in? Seems to rely on Jim Tolson losing and the LD vote holding up improbably well, or Jim and Iain Smith both losing.
#26 by Douglas McLellan on April 13, 2011 - 6:24 pm
Its clear that Jim will lose. It was his very low majority of 476 that persuaded Thomas Docherty (I’ve know him since the mid-90s) to stand against Willie Rennie. And we saw what happened in May 10 and I cant see the Lib Dems holding on to that slender majority.
Iain Smith should get back in and Malc has Willie getting seat number 5 on the list and from what I have seen that seems a fair bet. Alex-Cole Hamilton was at the top of the list in 07 and didnt get a seat thanks to the win in Dunfermline. I expect one of the list seats to back to the Lib Dems at this election.
#27 by Jon on April 13, 2011 - 4:20 pm
Then again, for certain elderly Scots voters (well, okay, my parents), she comes across as ” a wee nippy sweetie”, which apparently is a bad thing. I had heard that NS was trying to soften her image a little around the time of her joint leadership bid with Salmond back in 2003.
#28 by douglas clark on April 14, 2011 - 3:59 am
Douglas McLellan @ 21,
I’d have thought Nicola Sturgeon was the obvious choice. Who are these SNP activists? We cannot afford to play into the hands of our rivals.
I don’t think she is a wee nippy sweetie either, and I’m probably as old as Jon’s parents. 2003? That’s not yesterday.
Anyway, I hope Alex Salmond is around for a long time yet.
#29 by Jon on April 14, 2011 - 11:17 am
My parents are both nearly 80, and that’s an old Glasgow description little used by anyone much under that age, as far as I can see.
I can’t see the “succession” to Salmond being an issue for at least 5 years yet, but would hope that those vying to succeed him in the future would be taking a more prominent media role in that time frame.