So where are we now on our journey to independence when the route to our destination is facing a crossroads with the possibility a redirection and maybe even a complete U-turn? With our special conference postponed, where does this leave us on our independence journey and how is the party meant to respond to this particular hiatus? The news that Nicola was standing down was unsettling enough, being without a clear way forward in our main political mission just compounds that anxiety even more. 

I completely understand the view that we need a new leader in place before we decide our next move. I also get that no leader of the party would want to be unnecessarily bound by a decision of the party in which she/he is not particularly well disposed. But one of the key takeaways from the First Minister’s resignation speech was the hope that by removing herself from the question she was allowing the party an uninhibited space to make a decision about a way forward. With a new leader in place that space disappears, possibly even contracts, as there will be a temptation to back whatever the new leader suggests in order to bring the harmony the early days of a new leadership requires.

Up to this point there was a steady order and evolution to our independence strategy. At the heart of it was a referendum. Firstly it was a referendum agreed with the UK Government structured and designed by both parties dependent on the enacting of a Section 30 order. This is what happened in 2014 and remains the most orderly way to settle the question. It was right that the SNP did absolutely everything possible to secure this ‘gold standard’ process once again. When it became apparent that this was not going to be agreed by the UK Government, the approach changed to a referendum designed in the Scottish Parliament and we won an independence parliamentary majority in the 2021 Scottish Parliamentary election to do just that. That of course was brought to an end with the ruling of the Supreme Court when it said that the Scottish Parliament didn’t have the necessary powers and any referendum would be illegal. 

Anticipating that a positive decision from the Supreme Court would be unlikely to go our way, Nicola Sturgeon set out the next part in the process and that was to treat the next Westminster election as a de facto referendum in order to fulfil our obligations to bring a referendum in this term of the Scottish parliament. This policy was finessed into a motion to be debated at a special conference of the party with the option of using the Scottish Parliament election as an alternative vehicle. With the resignation of the First Minster, this approach is now being reviewed with the strong possibility that it could be abandoned altogether.

I’m not entirely sure where the antipathy over a de facto referendum has come from. Where opinion polls are at best mixed there are some that show a de facto referendum is there to be won and won well. It also has the support of our current and most successful First Minister, the leader of the Westminster Parliamentary group and representative organisations such as Believe in Scotland and the Aberdeen Independence Movement. Putting the brakes on this so abruptly has bemused large sections of our membership who still believe that this remains our best hope for progressing independence at this time.

Amongst the talk around our leadership election there is the familiar ‘further consultations’, ‘reviews’, the ‘need to build support’ and even stuff about ‘keeping Labour honest’ as an alternative. It’s as if none of these have ever been tried before. Where it hasn’t been pronounced dead, de facto is certainly on life support with many queuing up to pull the plug. Only one leadership candidate has supported the idea of a de facto referendum but she comes burdened by opposing legislation properly agreed in the Scottish Parliament, allowing the UK Parliament to impose a Section 35 order on that legislation and embarking on a policy agenda that would almost certainly lead to us losing the Greens from our partnership agreement in the Scottish Government. A range of positions which exclude so many of us from being able to offer any sort of support for her candidacy. 

We all know the many issues and problems associated with a de facto referendum. We know that no other party will participate in it and there remains more than a good chance that the UK Government would fail to recognise a positive result. But a de facto referendum remains the only legal way to demonstrate to the UK and the international community that the Scottish people want Scotland to be an independent nation. If there is any other strategy that could achieve that result then we need to hear about it soon. 

If we go into the next Westminster election without a clear independence strategy we are at great risk of demotivating our independence voter base and losing out to a Labour campaign that will have a clear message about replacing the Tories. There are those who claim our setback in 2017 was down to the lack of a clear independence commitment and where I have my doubts that was the case, many seats were lost to Labour on a modest swing to them from us. We can not risk taking on a resurgent Labour Party without a clear message that a vote for the SNP is a vote for independence. We certainly can not go back to an electorate with the same old tired message that a vote for the SNP is again only a vote for ‘progress’ towards independence. 

So far I’ve read a number of articles but I can not detect another credible alternative. The answer is certainly not found on the fringes of the movement in the ludicrous suggestions that salvation lies in legal subtexts of 17th century documents. Nor is it found in any illegal actions, UDIs or Parliamentary disruptions. What we need is a strategy that is legal, deliverable and would secure the support of the Scottish public. Beyond de facto I seriously do not know where that is to be found.

I was amongst the biggest and earliest critics of a de facto referendum because of its many inherent difficulties and issues. I remember being at a joint parliamentary session where this was discussed raising my hand to list my many concerns to the First Minister only for her to tell me in response if I had a better idea to please share it with her. I didn’t have one and haven’t come up with one since.

So colleagues, it’s now over to you….. If not de facto, then what?