The Scottish Government appears to be proceeding on the assumption that there will still be a Scottish Parliament in the “latter half” of 2020. There can’t be many politically aware people in Scotland who consider that a safe assumption.
But I use the word “appears” advisedly. Because everything we know about the First Minister and her team tells us that they are not the kind of people who make rash assumptions. They are, however, the kind of astute political operators who recognise the importance of keeping their options open.
Nicola Sturgeon’s talk of a new referendum sometime in the second half of next year jarred with more than a few commentators. It’s not that this degree of specificity on timing was unexpected. The vagueness and ambiguity couldn’t go on much longer. In truth, Ms Sturgeon’s timing is probably perfect. She has chosen just the right moment to give some definition to the time-frame for a new referendum. We now have an approximate end point well ahead of the next Scottish general election in 2021. Nothing set in stone, of course. Remember those options and the need to keep them open.
The way this time-frame has been presented, the First Minister could set a date beyond the latter half of 2020. But that was always unlikely anyway as this would risk a clash with campaigning for the Holyrood elections in 2021. What is vastly more significant is the fact that the time-frame as stated leaves total flexibility to schedule the referendum earlier – at any point between the passing of the legislation and autumn 2020. This crucial option has been kept open.
Let’s talk!
I enjoy visiting groups across Scotland to talk about the independence campaign.
I will travel anywhere in Scotland if it is at all practical.
I do not charge a fee.
I do not ask for expenses but will accept contributions if offered.
I aim to cover all costs from donations to this site.
If you would like to discuss a visit to your group please email speaker@peterabell.scot
It would surprise no-one who has considered the constitutional implications of Brexit and the ‘mood’ of the British political elite if the date for the new referendum was to be in September 2019. British Nationalists will foam and splutter, insisting that Nicola Sturgeon had ‘promised’ the referendum wouldn’t be held before late 2020. But British Nationalists will always misrepresent the facts in this way. Just as they will always foam and splutter.
The same political acuity which we see in the careful crafted statements and the keeping open of options can be detected in the wording of the Referendums (Scotland) Bill. There is purpose in making the legislation broad – relating to plebiscites in general rather than just the new independence referendum. There is purpose in defining the territory on which legal battle with the British government will be joined. There is purpose in drafting the legislation in such a way as to allow concession to parliamentary allies. This is some smart politicking!
There has been a deal of frustration with Nicola Sturgeon of late. Many in the Yes movement – myself included – have found cause to criticise her. But nobody, I’m sure, seriously doubted our First Minister’s ability. My sense is that the days of frustration are over. The Referendum Bill marks, not a change of direction, but a change of gear. The fight is on. And Nicola needs every bit of support the Yes movement can provide.
If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence movement.
Peter A Bell 
Agreed. I listened with great interest as Mike Russell made his statement in parliament yesterday. I very much got the impression that the Scottish government knows exactly what it is doing here. The reactions from the Unionists were predictable but irrelevant, for there is actually nothing to object to – as exemplified by Willie Rennie’s apoplexy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Adam Tomkins pinned it down, though, as you would expect from a constitutional lawyer, Mr Spence: the Bill will be open-ended; and that is what the Unionists object to most, because, if it passes through the various stages to become law, it will afford the Scottish government a blank page on which to write a referendum of its choosing, in its own timeframe and at its own discretion. This could include a perfectly legal, legitimate and democratic ratifying referendum rather than a pre independence one, if the opportunity arises for a different constitutional route out of the Union; and it could also include a Scottish EU referendum later on, as well. Very astute, yes, but the Unionists have spotted the danger. Adam Tomkins is their British/English Nationalist/Establishment eyes and ears in the Scottish parliament and, as before, during and after the 2014 independence campaign, everything will be passed on along the line to Westminster and Whitehall. Let’s wait and see what they do now because we should remember that they pre-empted the previous Bill dealing with EU (devolved Scottish) powers from the SG and rendered it harmless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed. What was it that Tomkins pinned down precisely? I must have missed that bit. Was he not just objecting that this was general legislation that was ‘obviously’ a way of sneaking through specific plans for another referendum with the implication that there will be no other referendums, on anything, ever. I got no sense that Tomkins had much of an argument against Russell’s statement.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a 50+ Female.
LikeLike
I did not say that he had much of an argument against Mr Russell’s statement. Neither did the UKG when it pre-empted and rendered impotent the Continuity Bill. I am saying that we should be very circumspect and careful. It’s not as if we haven’t had over 300 years to get a handle on Westminster’s perfidy.
LikeLike
Let’s all provide that support. The time for unity amongst Yessers is upon us, let’s not f**k it up.
LikeLike