A guest post today from the newly-elected SNP MSP for Renfrewshire North & West, Derek Mackay. Â Derek has been the SNP group leader in Renfrewshire Council since 2004 and became Council leader in 2007, a position he held until his election to the Scottish Parliament earlier this month. Â Independence is the word on every political journalist’s radar at the moment, so Derek decided to blog on that for us.
Some UK commentators claim we are already preparing for the creation of our independent Scottish state – what will passports be like, will we keep the monarchy etc. etc.  Well there’s the small matter of a referendum to get through first!
I believed this would be a turning point in Scotland’s political history.  There are now more MSPs who believe in an independent Scotland in the Scottish Parliament than who do not. The SNP won outright, and every Unionist party lost support.  I’m not delusional in thinking that the historic 2011 election result was a vote for independence outright (I wish!).  But it was a vote of confidence in a competent SNP Government, with a desire to put the question to the people.
Impressive as that 45% of the vote and majority of MSPs is, it doesn’t equate to a mandate on independence – only a plebiscite could deliver that now. The election signals support for the referendum policy.  Positive has won over negative, opportunity has won over opportunism – and independence can triumph too.
A message I received from an ex-Labour voter sums it up nicely. He backed the SNP for the first time in May 2011, and in his words thought we were “the best team on the field” and would now give us a few years to convince him of independence.
Many voters hadn’t decided how to cast their vote in the Scottish elections just weeks before the 2011 election, so nothing can be taken for granted on the independence referendum.  Unionists aren’t as confident of defeating independence as they claim to be, and no Unionist Westminster politician would dare trigger a referendum bill in Westminster.  They just aren’t 100% certain they can win. The days of second-guessing the Scottish electorate (and First Minister Alex Salmond for that matter) are over. What they do know is the Scottish electorate are sophisticated and unpredictable. Labour surge one year, wipe-out the next!
But of course levels of party support aren’t an indication of views on independence. Many voters of other parties are comfortable with the concept of Scottish independence. Labour HQ must be well aware of the propensity of independence-friendly Labour voters out there.  Former Labour MSP Charlie Gordon gave us an insight into Labour’s current doubts on their constitutional position;
“Then there’s the independence referendum; can we please stop opposing Scotland’s democratic right to self-determination?  If we still advocate the Union, we had better find reasons for its retention that Scottish voters find credible.”
To fight UK ConDem cuts, to give Scotland the government she elects, to follow a social democratic path – Scottish Labour needs independence, and for that matter so do the Scottish Liberal Democrats. But the Scottish heavyweights left in these two parties don’t sit in Edinburgh, but comfortably in the green benches in London, and for as long as Westminster dispatches the orders their Scottish sovereignty has no chance.  The London establishment has too much to lose from Scotland leaving the Union, so the forces against independence will be substantial and intense.
The SNP Government will choose the referendum timing. Opponents say Salmond will choose the optimum timing to win – of course he will.  The Scottish Parliament will determine the question. The people will determine the result. Democracy at last!
So what if three of the four so-called mainstream Scottish parties are sticking to opposing independence – the AV referendum showed the electorate will pay no attention to party lines if they so choose. Â The SNP will deliver the referendum, but it will be the man and woman on the street who deliver the result.
Civic society must be motivated by our argument, and 2011 showed the electorate want reasons to vote positively. It will be about hearts and minds. I believe hearts can be delivered by a positive message of hope and opportunity.  Minds – the constant “can we do it†question. I can’t think of a country that opted for independence on financial grounds alone, but we cannot win without proving “yes, of course we can!â€.
Financial and administrative positions will be the Unionists battleground of choice, with economists bamboozling us with statistics to engender doubt and fear.  Even though we’ve proven Scotland isn’t a subsidy junkie, showing we have contributed more to the UK than we take, the Scots fiscal confidence has been shaken with the international economic turbulence, but some ‘confidence builders’ are coming incrementally – increased competencies and accountability with the Scotland Bill.
Albeit limited, this is progress. Not just because the parliament’s powers are enhanced, but because the mechanics of the state are gradually being transferred also.  The Scottish Parliament will have a new borrowing ability and greater tax raising powers, HM Revenue and civil service structures will have to change to execute these powers.
The UK Government say they are considering their response to the 2011 results. Scotland Bill enhancements should be London’s response, and a new clause removing all doubt about the Scottish Parliament’s legitimacy to hold a referendum on independence would be an act of respect and good faith.
Whilst the pace of devolution is slow, at least the direction of travel is in Scotland’s favour. We have passed the Rubicon, self-belief is rising, and the giant ‘leap’ to Independence is getting smaller by the day.
Derek Mackay MSP
Renfrewshire North & West
#1 by John Tyler on May 23, 2011 - 10:30 am
There is no need to hang back, if you ask the UK as a whole, in a referendum, whether Scotland should be independent, your wish would be the electorates command.
#2 by rlemkin on May 23, 2011 - 11:10 am
I’ve got to say the discussion of what an independent Scotland will look like would be critical to my personal decision as to whether I would say Yes in a referendum.
If the SNPs vision independent Scotland isn’t closer to my own value system/beliefs then I would say no, if the practicalities of the ‘vision’ aren’t articulated what are we voting for? Fuzzy, happy independence?
#3 by dcomerf on May 23, 2011 - 1:40 pm
How can the advocates of a yes vote say what an independent Scotland would look like though? I want an independent Scotland to prioritise a green agenda and get rid of nuclear weapons. However I entirely accept that, post yes vote, a party may stand on a fossil fuel and nuclear armed defence union ticket, and win.
Independence is about normalising Scotland’s constitutional arrangements – to become closer to the setup in other small European countries (which make up a large fraction of the happiest and wealthiest countries on the planet). However beyond saying that we’d be democratic the details and “practicalities” cannot be pre-specified – since they’d be subject to the democratic will of the people.
#4 by Tony on May 23, 2011 - 11:35 am
Indeed the rubicon has been crossed, the more labour stick to their discredited ‘too daft, too wee Scotland’ keek the more irrelevant they become. There is still the need for an education campaign so that people don’t vote no out of ignorance, because sadly so many still believe the oft told keek and are not aware of a differing view. Nothing wrong with allowing the electorate an informed choice., although I am aware this may not be in the interests of unionists.
I would hope that a referendum on keeping the monarchy would come about in the lifetime of the first free Scottish parly.
Also not meaning to leap too far ahead but many are involved with the SNP as the primary vehicle for independence that we so desperately need. Once that has been achieved, will that herald a movement to other parties who have more like-minded individuals or ethos, or perhaps even some kind of split?
#5 by Alex Buchan on May 23, 2011 - 1:29 pm
Although there are a lot of caveats in this piece it still draws attention to every piece of evidence of uncertainty over Scotland’s attitude towards independence in a way that suggests momentum. However, that is different from hard evidence of support for independence, and, like much of the commentary on this issue, it lacks a balanced assessment of where we are. I am a supporter of independence but I feel that we have to be far more circumspect in our assessment of the possibility of a positive vote for independence.
The SNP made a lot during the election of what it had delivered in terms of scrapping bridge tolls and prescriptions as well as freezing the council tax, and it’s quite likely that continuing that freeze for another 5 years was the single most important reason for its success. So, although we could argue that the vote for the SNP was a vote for a positive attitude to Scotland’s future we could just as easily argue that the Scottish public voted on purely financial terms. This is where the problem lies. Unlike the election campaign the SNP will be on the back foot in a referendum campaign against the forces that will be brought to bear to argue that independence will be a great risk financially.
Derek says the campaign will not be won on financial arguments, but no one can say it can’t be lost on financial arguments. I passionately feel we need to wake up and realise that SNP defeats in the past have often led to a real setback for Scotland in terms of progress towards greater self-government. There is every reason to believe that that would be the case again if the SNP lost the referendum vote.
We need to think through carefully how that can be avoided.
It seems now impossible for the SNP to not have a referendum during this parliament even if opinion polls towards the end of the parliament were still showing little support. Thinking ahead one possibility would be to have a multi-option referendum, but Alex Salmond seemed to be distancing himself from this on Friday in an interview with Glen Campbell when he suggested that there would need to be a groundswell in favour of another option for it to be included.
This raises the question for those of us who want maximum self-government, either within or outside the union, of how we can get greater clarity from the SNP government over what this means and how we can guarantee that that groundswell is there. Does he mean a groundswell within the unionist parties in parliament, I hope not because this seems unlikerly to happen. If those who want greater self-government sit back and wait we may be faced with engaging in a hopeless referendum campaign on a straight yes or no question at a timing ultimately forced on the SNP by its commitment to hold it during this parliament. Argentina 1978 all over again.
#6 by Indy on May 23, 2011 - 3:48 pm
What a load of doom and gloom nonsense.
We have four years to win this referendum.
We are not going to be starting the campaign six weeks before polling day.
And Derek highlights what is an open secret among political activists of every party. Support for independence is not limited to SNP supporters by any means. Labour supporters in particular are also very likely to support independence.
The real battle will be for the 20% or so of undecideds.
#7 by Tony on May 23, 2011 - 5:45 pm
Indy beat me to it re-doom and gloom Alex, how are you going to convince anyone who is wavering if your fears overcomes positivity?
Also the idea of a multi question referendum had it’s day, it was a sop to the lib-dem’s who catastrophically were led by the biggest nay sayer since the pre-reformed Ian Paisley.
#8 by Alex Buchan on May 23, 2011 - 5:24 pm
@ Indy
You are making my point for me. My point is that a referendum on independence is different from normal politics, the result of such a referendum will not only impact on the SNP, either way; it will impact on all of us. From your perspective we are not supposed to have a balanced discussion on the possible outcomes of the event that will potentially be the most important in our political lives. I’m not saying it will definitely be lost but you can’t credibly claim to know that it will definitely be won either.
I can see the kind of comment you’ve just made as being appropriate to fellow SNP members in relation to elections and bye-elections, but then look what happened in the Glenrothes and Glasgow North East bye-elections, and in last year’s general election. The SNP cannot have control over events. I want to know that there is a credibly strategy for dealing with a situation in 4 years, if things have not all gone to plan and the opinion polls have not improved. What I want to believe is what Derek says above; that the referendum will only take place if there is a good chance that it will pass, so if that means leaving it to the next parliament then so be it, but I can’t see how that could happen now, and if not then a middle option seems the only other alternative.
The fact that some labour voters support independence has to be set against the fact that there are people who vote SNP who don’t support independence. Latest opinion poll result is for 38% for 46% against. I would say that it will take more than just winning over the undecided.
#9 by Indy on May 23, 2011 - 6:33 pm
The referendum will take place in 4 years time./
I am very well aware that a referendum campaign will be very different to an election but that is a masive massive opportunity for us, not a problem.
You can have a balanced discussion on the the possible outcome of independence all you like. A discussion is not a campaign though. And the independence campaign will be much broader than any “political” campaign. It will be very different to anything that has been seen before in Scotland.
There is of course a section of the electorate who will analyse and assess all the options and come to a rational conclusion. But most voters won’t – because that is not how most voters think. That’s why we can’t get boxed into the kind of campaign you might want to see.
#10 by CassiusClaymore on May 23, 2011 - 7:14 pm
Surely it’s unknowable what an independent Scotland would be like. It would depend who’s in charge, and what policies they followed. It could be a glorious Norway-style success story, or a disastrous Albania-style wasteland. Sorry, Albanians.
Personally, I have a lot of faith in my fellow Scots and believe that the former is many times more likely than the latter. I also believe that, given our natural resources, we’d have to go some to be in worse economic shape than the UK currently is.
The bottom line for me is – should Scotland be run by those who choose to live here? I say it should, and that’s why I favour independence. For me, it’s fundamentally a matter of self-respect. It’s not about the economics of independence, for me at least. Although, as it happens, I believe them to be positive rather than negative.
CC
#11 by Alex Buchan on May 23, 2011 - 7:45 pm
@ Indy
I really want to believe you’re right. I think you’re right about the way people vote, but that can be seen as just as big a handicap as a benefit, because the No campaign only need to insinuate that there are too many unknowns and that the whole thing is too risky. One of the things that has alarmed me is the frequent comments on blogs about the problems unionists face in arguing for the union. I don’t see their task as that difficult. Independence is a giant leap and people generally are risk averse. They know this and will campaign accordingly. People can say all they like to canvassers on the doorstep but in the privacy of the voting booth it’s another story. On election night I was struck by a defeated Labour MSP [I think it was Tom McCabe] saying that Labour’s support had obviously said one thing on the doorstep but voted differently on the day.
But I am impressed by what you’re saying about the SNPs plans. I know that discussion is different from campaigning and, having returned from living in England for years, I probably need to rejoin the SNP and get involved in campaigning. At least then I would be more likely to have the inside knowledge that you obviously have that gives you the confidence that the SNP will achieve something no other party has ever achieved in an advanced Western country. The ex Tory MEP John Stevens has written this article in ConservativeHome drawing out all the ramifications at the international and British level of a yes vote. http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2011/05/the-victory-of-the-snp-in-the-edinburgh-parliament-elect-ions-has-obviously-put-the-prospect-of-scottish-independ-ence-firmly.html
Even if half of what he says were to follow it would still cause massive shock waves. Ultimately, I want the referendum to succeed, obviously. I think those who think that a close defeat would somehow still be an advance are mistaken because the British state and unionism would be massively bolstered by an SNP defeat in the referendum, however small the margin. I stand by what I said, the referendum is a massive opportunity, but also a massive risk. The negative psychological impact of defeat on the nation at large, and on the SNP in particular, would be big. I want to get involved and learn more about the positive plans for ensuring success, but I don’t ever want to lose sight of what’s at stake.
#12 by Indy on May 24, 2011 - 5:20 pm
But independence is not really such a giant leap for the Scottish electorate. It might have been twenty or thirty years ago but not now. Indeed from the point of view of the voter, many of the British institutions Scottish people care most deeply about – such as the NHS – are coming under attack not from Scottish nationalists but from the elected government in Westminster. Independence offers Scots voters the best chance of preserving the NHS as we know it.
I agree obviously that it will require some major readjustments but that will happen. The British state is pretty sophisticated. Of course it will be necessary for the Scottish Government to provide some reassurances about stability and continuity during the transition and they are already doing that – we will keep the monarchy, we will retain sterling as the currency, we will continue to cooperate on conventional defence – the UK can keep bases in Scotland etc. That is what the debate about so-called “independence lite†is about. It’s the SNP saying don’t panic, we are not going to dig a trench along the border.
It is interesting reading the article you posted to see him talking about the implications for Northern Ireland and “The need to create some effective “Council of the Isles.†The SNP has been talking about a Council of the Isles for years, it’s not a new idea. And the devolved administrations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have been working very closely with each other, especially since the SNP took office.
#13 by Alex Buchan on May 24, 2011 - 8:16 pm
Yes but the Scottish public at present want all the things you are taking about like the NHS etc within an enhanced devolved settlement. The SNP cant be seen to be shirking away from this argument.
If there is no devo-max option then they cant fudge the argument why idependence is necessary. It comes accross as evasive if the SNP does not engage the Scottish people where they are at because if they haven’t been won over they will feel they are being denied their preferred choice and will vote no in the mistaken hope of getting devo-max which, of course, will be scuppered by a failed referendum.
The election has shown the electorate is sophisticated enough to know when they are being patronised as they were by the unionists, and the SNPs attempts to make independence less scary could easily be seen by the electorate as also being patronised.
The SNP need to talk up things like the Council of the Isles and other things that keep the social union. A good example would be for Alex Salmond to associate himself personally with the plans to create a branch of the V&A museum in Dundee.
#14 by Alex Buchan on May 23, 2011 - 8:20 pm
OneOne last point that I would be grateful for any thoughts on: Alex Salmond repeated again in that interview with Glen Campbell, that, although independence is as certain as anything is in politics, the timescale of when it will happen is entirely up to the Scottish people. I’m genuinely not sure how this sits with whats been said above to the effect that the referendum will definitely happen in 4 years, and no devo-max option will be on the table.
If we put all that together the only conclusion I can come to is that we will have referenda until the public finally votes for independence. There could be lots of objections to this but mine would only be on the grounds of how successfull this would be in ensuring a yes vote, and in Quebec, where this was tried, it failed miserably.
#15 by Angus McLellan on May 24, 2011 - 12:48 am
On the referendum question, Salmond appeared to say that a two-question referendum was possible. What could there be on the second ballot paper if not a question on fiscal autonomy?
As for inevitability, few things ever are. But consider the context. Unionism in England is visibly declining. English, as opposed to confused Anglo-British, identity is on the rise. Support for an English parliament, while still at a low level, is much increased. A sense of grievance, justified or not, is on the rise in England, even if it hasn’t yet matched the equally unlovely sentiments and made-up history commonly found here. Unionist feeling still exists among English politicians, but that won’t long survive if the people hold a different view. One major national party has a clear electoral interest in disunion, even if they remain Unionists for the present.
There seems to me to be good reason to suppose that the day will come soon enough when very few people will care whether the Union lives or dies. At that point, a repeat of the Velvet Divorce is more than likely.
#16 by Doug Daniel on May 24, 2011 - 10:29 am
When Alex says independence is inevitable, he’s referring to the fact that the flow of powers is only going to go one way. Whether that’s through powers gradually being passed over through devolution, or by a vote for independence, the result will eventually be the same. We’ll either be independent by the end of this parliament (or have voted for it, at least), or we’ll be independent in a couple of decades after the last reserved power is finally handed over. Anything else (powers going back to Westminster or devolution remaining as it is) just isn’t credible.
With this in mind, it would be kind of pointless for people to not vote for independence in the referendum, because it’ll happen anyway!
#17 by Alex Buchan on May 24, 2011 - 12:56 pm
Nothing is ever inevitable. If this were the case Catalonia, which has had devolution for nearly 3 times as long as Scotland, would be independent by now.
Everything depends on how the SNP uses its current position. I can understand why Alex Salmond says what he says about an independence referendum. It wrests the initiative away from Westminster and the unionist parties in Scotland, it raises Scots ambitions, and gives a momentum to devolution that would otherwise not be there, it also gives him massive leverage with Westminster, which has to weigh everything it does in terms of how it will play into the SNPs tactics vis a vis the referendum.
But it is also a headache because, as the parti quebecois are reported in the press as saying, the lesson they have learned from their two failed referenda is that you don’t have a referendum unless you are sure everything is set up for a yes vote, and they mean everything, remember they lost by less than 1% point.
#18 by Alex Buchan on May 24, 2011 - 10:25 am
I think England is more critical than many think. Having lived much of my adult life there I would say that if Scotland voted no in a straight yes/no referendum on independence the backlash in England would be substantial. Those in England who believe that Scotland will never vote yes because they get too good a deal inside the union will feel vindicated. Expect this view, especially in the press, to get much stronger and, instead of moves towards an English parliament, expect pressure for scrapping Barnett and all other benefits Scotland is perceived to get, also expect calls for no more powers to be devolved and for legislation to prevent any further referendum in the future. All of this will play directly into the hands of unionist politicians in Westminster who will feel strengthened regardless of the margin of defeat.
If, on the other hand, there was a ‘fiscal autonomy’ option in the referendum, and this past, as everyone expects it would, even if the vote were held today, then there would be an entirely different dynamic in England. It would give a massive boost to calls for the West Lothian Question to be settled, but as this would mean two classes of MPs and the possibility of a future Labour government not able to push through legislation on England, there would be growing discussion on England’s governance and calls for a commission to look into this, with the possibility of an English parliament being on the cards for the first time. A dynamic towards an English parliament is not a given, it very much depends on what happens in Scotland. Of course, if we vote yes to independence all this is academic, but that’s a big if.
On Alex Salmond: he did not suggest there could be a second option. When pressed on it he said it would only be considered if there was a groundswell of support for an alternative option.