During her eight years as Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon perfected the art of false promises. She consistently told SNP supporters that a second independence referendum was within reach, but the truth was that she had no power to deliver one. All Sturgeon was able to do was lead her troops halfway up the hill before having to bring them back down again.
‘Continuity candidate’ Humza Yousaf, the SNP’s new leader, seems to think that this is a strategy worth copying. In a speech at the party’s independence convention in Dundee, Yousaf unveiled his new Indyref plan. His latest brainwave appears to be, on the face of it, a complete U-turn from everything he said on the subject during the leadership race.
‘Vote SNP for Scotland to become an independent country,’ the First Minister announced in Dundee’s Caird Hall. ‘If the SNP does win this election then the people have spoken,’ Yousaf continued. ‘We will seek negotiations with the UK government on how we give democratic effect to Scotland becoming an independent nation.’
Two options face the party, according to Yousaf and his advisers. Plan A is the tried and tested method of asking Westminster for the power to hold a second independence referendum. If Westminster says ‘no’ – which, judging by recent history, is very likely – it seems Plan B would involve the party pushing ahead with independence negotiations regardless, using an election victory, however small, as a mandate for separation. The Scottish government would send a withdrawal agreement to Westminster, which would outline the process for transfer of powers to Holyrood, as well as consulting the nation on what should be included in a Scottish constitution.
Although superficially this sounds like a garbled version of Sturgeon’s idea with a sprinkling of Ash Regan’s fundamentalism – ‘I think that [Yousaf] was definitely adopting some of the language that I had used during the leadership contest,’ the former leadership race contender said – the First Minister and his team are insistent his plan is entirely different. ‘We are not the block on a referendum,’ Yousaf told his membership, before telling reporters that holding a decisive vote would be the party’s preferred choice.
Ultimately, Yousaf’s approach is not so much about defining a clear path to independence as it is about staying in power.
This wasn’t entirely clear among his own politicians though, with Pete Wishart announcing that the First Minister’s announcement is, in fact, a de facto referendum plan while Yousaf’s aides briefed to the contrary. Under Yousaf, an election win would be measured by taking the most Scottish seats in the next general election, rather than by claiming a minimum of ‘50 per cent plus one’ of the vote (as has been customary for previous independence mandates). But this shift in focus has been met with mixed feelings. Regan, who took a stronger stance on independence during the leadership campaign, now appears to be the more reasonable politician, saying support ‘needs to be over that 50 per cent because that is what we would expect in a referendum scenario. It should be a very high bar’.
Keen not to christen the new plan with any kind of easily identifiable nickname – ‘de facto’ was shut down and ‘voter empowerment mechanism’ undoubtedly didn’t get a look in – Yousaf seems to have made the idea deliberately hard to define, presumably to give himself as much flexibility as possible for when future mishaps crop up. The result? An uncertain if enthusiastic audience, and a perplexed press pack. The First Minister and his advisers had to explain the concept several times before anyone was any clearer about what exactly he meant.
To say there has been remarkable confusion about Yousaf’s plan would be an understatement. The First Minister described the need for independence to be achieved through ‘lawful democratic’ methods – but how does this fly with the notion that, to paraphrase, ‘we will put our independence plans into action even if Westminster says no’? And why would the UK government now agree to something the SNP has been saying for years, especially when its mandate has the potential to be much weaker, given the falling support for the party combined with the removal of that ‘50 per cent plus one’ threshold?
In all, Yousaf’s speech was a masterclass in sleight of hand and misdirection. On closer inspection, this radical, ambitious independence strategy isn’t really that radical or ambitious after all. And members who had spent their weekend travelling to Dundee might have been disappointed when they realised there was a dearth of any real action: instead, voting on the independence strategy will take place at the party conference later this year.
While on the surface there certainly appears to be a significant departure from March’s leadership contest, in which Yousaf heralded a more cautious route to independence, this ‘new’ approach lacks the substance to enact much change. ‘There is no strategy,’ one independence supporter remarked drily. Placing your latest independence commitment at the top of a manifesto page doesn’t actually mean all that much. And what happens if Westminster says no to a referendum and refuses to engage with the party on independence preparations? ‘This is a voluntary union,’ Yousaf shrugged to reporters, ‘They’ve got to be able to prove it.’ Do they?
If he has neglected the fine print on his new plan, Yousaf has not been ignoring the polls. As the SNP is losing support, Labour is seeing its odds improve while the desire for independence remains steady. The chance of losing more than 20 seats to Labour at next year’s general election is a terrifying prospect for nationalists – but one that is feasible as the gap between independence supporters and SNP voters continues to widen.
Ultimately, Yousaf’s approach is not so much about defining a clear path to independence as it is about staying in power. The polls have frightened the SNP and they’re running scared. They can no longer rely on the powerful presence and popularity of Nicola Sturgeon – and indeed, there was a conspicuous absence of any mention of the former first minister at the weekend’s convention. A tense second or two passed as deputy Westminster leader Mhairi Black made reference to ‘the elephant in the room’ during her speech. Was she really going to go there? ‘Brexit,’ she confirmed.
Yousaf’s proposal ‘is about ensuring what’s been predicted about the general election result does not come to pass’, a senior source close to the First Minister said. Though decisive and uncompromising on the face of it, the lack of any clear route to achieving separation begs the question: does the SNP actually believe that this approach could feasibly work? Yousaf’s elaborate – and deliberately vague – plan seems a reaction to poor poll predictions, more a front for securing seats than an offering of a meaningful path to separation. It’s about Yousaf’s own political identity too; this seems just enough of a deviation (on the surface) for Yousaf to convince voters to forget Alex Salmond and Sturgeon, and instead cement his face to an independence strategy. The hope is that this plan will reset his own position on the constitutional question in the eyes of increasingly disillusioned SNP voters.
If the polls show anything, it’s that SNP voters are looking for change – not more of the same. Pro-indy supporters are increasingly seeing Labour’s uncomplicated messaging as more attractive than the SNP’s controversial policies and muddled approach to independence. Yousaf is no closer than Sturgeon was to achieving a ‘legal democratic’ route to leaving the Union and this desperate attempt to win back voters needs more substance if it is to properly cut through. Until then, Yousaf seems content to continue marching his own increasingly exhausted troops up the hill before taking them right back down again.
Comments