Ready, steady...

Recently there has been a big debate going on in the indy-supporting community as to the timing of a second referendum on Scottish independence.  This has been sparked by Pete Wishart MP, who urges caution on holding a second independence referendum unless it's all but certain it will be won.  This has provoked a strong reaction from people who believe that the mandate that the SNP and Greens won at the last Scottish Parliamentary Elections to hold another independence referendum in the event of a material change in circumstances should be honoured in the course of the current Scottish parliament, on the basis that the fact that Scotland voted to stay in the EU but it being taken out of it anyway constitutes that material change.

I am one of the many people who joined the SNP in the wake of the 2014 referendum.  Why?  Because, like it or not, the SNP are going to be the main vehicle that gets us to independence.  There are many other groups which support Scottish independence, each with their own agenda once we get there, and all have their part to play, but the SNP are the biggest group by far.  It therefore falls to Nicola Sturgeon, as leader of the SNP, to determine when the next independence referendum will be.

Initially Ms Sturgeon made all the right noises in the wake of the Brexit referendum result, which saw Scotland being taken out of the EU at the behest of the voters in England and Wales, even though every Scottish council district had voted to stay in.  However, many people feel that she has rowed back on that commitment (see here for example, from about six minutes in)

To a degree this is understandable.  Ms Sturgeon and her government have to walk a fine line between standing up for what Scotland voted for and not scaring the currently Unionist-voting people.

The current SNP strategy appears to be to show competence in government, whether that's at Westminster by standing up to the Tory government, both on behalf on Scotland and on wider UK matters, or at Holyrood by proving that they can run a country successfully using the powers they have (such as they are) to improve the lives of Scots.  In this they have been pretty successful, and Nicola Sturgeon in particular has shown real statesmanlike qualities.

However, those of Peter Wishart's belief tend to come across as being comfortable with the status quo and unwilling to upset the applecart, whether they mean to or not.  Pete Wishart's argument is that in his constituency he has had many people who voted for him tell him that they would favour the Tories in another election, and that this therefore implies falling support for independence or at least no guarantee that another independence referendum would be winnable, and that another referendum defeat would end the independence movement and mean that future generations would never forgive us.

With respect to Mr Wishart, however, Perth cannot be considered typical of everywhere in Scotland.  Perth and the surrounding area were represented at Westminster by Nicholas Fairbairn from 1974 to 1995, an arch-Tory if ever there was one.  This would tend to imply a vein of Toryism running through the electorate in Perth, which you are unlikely to find in other areas of Scotland.

The other side of the debate thinks that the Scottish government should hold a second independence referendum, certainly before the next Scottish parliamentary elections and for some before Brexit actually takes place.  There is some merit to this argument.  Nicola Sturgeon wants to wait until the terms of Brexit are crystal-clear, countered by the argument that we are already seeing the effects of Brexit on the UK and that things are not going to improve once Brexit actually takes place.  If anything they will be much, much worse.

If another independence referendum were called tomorrow, we would be starting off from a much better position than in the last one.  Current polling suggests that support for independence is holding steady at around 46%, compared with around 22% at the beginning of the last indyref campaign.  However, getting that extra 5% will take a lot of work in persuading previous No voters that Scottish independence will not make their lives worse and will conceivably make it considerably better, this in the face of a concerted campaign from the British Establishment to keep us in the UK.

Where do I stand on this? Discretion is often the better part of valour, and I can see where the SNP are coming from with their 'steady as she goes' philosophy.  However,  major changes like Scottish independence are not won by being cautious. There comes a time when you just have to cross the Rubicon and deal with whatever the outcome is. Pete Wishart's view is that future generations will never forgive us if we try again and lose. However, I don't think we should be held back by what future generations might possibly think. We can't tell what the future will be, we can only deal with what we have now. We are starting from a much better position than we were in 2014, and Brexit will, I think, give us additional support from people who believed in 2014 that remaining in the Union was the only way to retain EU membership. I do understand that some Yessers don't support EU membership, so it's important to make it clear that an indyref isn't tied to EU membership, which can be decided (possibly by another referendum) after independence is obtained. The SNP have their mandate for another indyref, and it would be unforgivable to refuse to use that mandate because you are afraid that you might not win. 

Faint heart never won fair maiden, as they say.