As we await the #SupremeCourt ruling on @ScotParl powers today, it's worth remembering that a #mandate is a function of both votes and powers. The powers of the Scottish Parliament are defined in statute and the clear intent of the law is to reserve powers over the #constitution.
@ScotParl Basic logic tells us that nobody who intentionally used their vote in 2021 to call for #indyref2 could have been under the impression that @ScotParl was a sovereign body, because the whole point of holding a second referendum is to have another chance of voting to make it one.
@ScotParl In many ways the decision of the court won't change anything, but it could serve as a new grievance to fire up the pro-independence base ahead of the next UK election. But spoiler: the SNP will *not* fight that election as a single issue referendum. No party can make that choice.
@ScotParl Zero surprise at the ruling that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to hold a second referendum. Everyone already knew this.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The more I read responses to yesterday's #indyref2 ruling the clearer it seems that the problem for pro-independence Scots isn't the Scotland Act, or the Supreme Court, or whatever version of "democracy denied" they are currently peddling. It's that they haven't won the argument.
And much as many will blame stubborn opinion on a biased media or the dead hand of the UK Government, if they actually listened to their fellow Scots who remain unconvinced they might appreciate that we simply think it's a bad idea. We're not anti democracy. We're anti bad ideas.
Brexit has shown us what happens when a referendum is used to push through a marginal opinion in a divided country: it just creates an even more divided country. Instead of being seen as a lesson in what not to do, Brexit is being viewed as a reason to repeat its own mistake.
Two arguments the Supreme Court has killed stone dead today:
1. That Scotland is a colony with the right to self-determination.
2. That a Scottish election can deliver a mandate for an independence referendum.
Both of these commonly deployed lines are now dead.
This prompts the very reasonable question: what is the democratic route for Scots to hold a second referendum on independence? It's a question that needs an answer, but a workable one will only come through a process of consensus-building, not ultimatum-waving. My thoughts:
The justification for holding a second referendum must include clear evidence that a substantial majority of Scottish voters now consistently support independence. I'm inclined to go with Sturgeon's 2015 suggestion of a consistent >60% in the polls for at least a year.
Scottish Water is sitting on £500m of reserves, and that figure is growing. Its executives are taking home £100k bonuses. But the Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland is requiring an increase in water charges of 13% this year. We have public ownership, but no public benefits.
As @jackiebmsp says, surely rather than hiking prices unnecessarily during a cost of living crisis, our publicly owned water company should freeze prices and consider a rebate to consumers. Otherwise what is the point of the public ownership of which we are so vocally proud?
There's something very Scotland-post-2007 about this. We're incredibly proud of the things we can hold up as uniquely progressive, like baby boxes, free tuition and publicly owned water. But if they don't actually make the difference we want them to, somehow that doesn't matter.
Paul Kavanagh in The National mounts a stinging attack on BBC Scotland for accurately reporting a leaked minute of a meeting of Scottish NHS executives. Like Humza Yousaf, he pretends the article made claims it didn't, then debunks those claims. The BBC did nothing wrong here.
It was entirely in the public interest to know that these discussions are taking place. The article placed them in context and made very clear that they were discussions not decisions. Kavanagh aims to undermine honest journalism so that his variety can gain more traction. Grim.
It's on days like this that I remember with a grim smile the words of the founding editor of The National prior to its launch at an SNP event:
"We will not be a mouthpiece of the Scottish National Party and the government it leads. That would not be a healthy course to follow."
It's remarkable how "there won't be a hard border, Scotland can just be part of the CTA" coexists with "we need independence to put in place a more liberal immigration policy". You can't have both, but independence campaigners keep pretending that you can.
I'm not just trying to score points here. This sort of thing is typical of a campaign which pretends independence is the solution to problems which in reality have to either be solved across these islands or not at all. There is no flag-waving shortcut to winning the argument.
Whenever you see an argument that essentially boils down to "we need independence because we'll never persuade the rest of the UK to change on this policy" remember the biggest challenge in pushing any political change is the creation of a broad enough coalition to argue for it.
The Parliamentary Conservative Party is going to struggle to unite under Rishi Sunak, but ordinary members are surely going to be in open revolt. This is literally the man they overwhelmingly rejected a few weeks ago. Hugely damaging however you look at it.
And it's not just the stark reality of a party riven by ideological idiocy. It's that party in government at a time of profound economic crisis, a substantial element of which is their fault, which is destroying businesses and leaving families choosing between heating and eating.
It's that party showing itself to be so detached from the reality of people's lives that almost every utterance from a Tory politician over the past several months has been focused on internal squabbles rather than on the crises engulfing the country and its people.