Nothing for us

My memory is very unreliable. But as I read the transcript of Nicola Sturgeon’s closing address to the SNP conference in Aberdeen, I quite vividly recalled the same point in proceedings back in 2019. I was there as a party member and branch delegate. The mood in the hall was upbeat. The party managers had done their job well. The party leadership had said all the right words and pressed all the right buttons. Nicola Sturgeon’s address had been as masterful as always. But what I remember most was a nagging feeling of unease. The speech was skillfully crafted and perfectly delivered. It was also formulaic. I recall that as the address continued, I started thinking about how many times I’d heard what was basically the same speech. Then I started to wonder how many times I might hear it again. The whole point of a formula is to facilitate easy repetition. Why settle on a formula if not so that you can use it time after time.

I did not participate in the standing ovation that by custom so enduring as to make it all but obligatory, followed the leader’s closing address. Initially, this was because I was having difficulty getting to my feet. I was still massively overweight at that time and my knees were very painful after a weekend of conference activity. I would have stood out of habit. I then realised that would be the only reason. The hesitation occasioned by my dodgy knees gave me a moment to realise that I didn’t really want to reward that speech with a standing ovation. I just didn’t feel a standing ovation was warranted.

When I say that Nicola Sturgeon’s closing address was the same as the one I’d heard on many previous occasions, I do not, of course, mean that literally. The words were different ─ mostly. The detail was different. But the formula was the same. These speeches are not for imparting information. It’s not about what you are being told, it’s about how you are being made to feel. The achievements listed in the self-congratulatory section of the speech would be different each time. But there was always that section. And it would always be crafted so as to elicit the same emotional response. The policy announcement portion of the speech would likewise have something new each time. But it always has the same purpose. The speech is assembled from modules labeled with the emotional response they are intended to trigger. The task of the speechwriter is to fill each of the modules with suitable words. It is all very mechanistic. Very manipulative.

As I listened to Nicola Sturgeon’s address in 2019, my main interest was as you might expect, the module labelled ‘independence’. There was the usual stuff about how we were winning the arguments and persuading people and the standard not-quite-a-promise of a referendum next year. We’d heard it all before. I, for one, was starting to get rather fed up with hearing it. The ‘independence’ module of the speech wasn’t having the intended effect. I was not inspired by it. I was irked. Over the course of the next year, irk turned to anger and in April 2021 after months of internal debate, I resigned my membership of the SNP almost sixty years after I first joined the party.

As I read the transcript of Nicola Sturgeon’s 2022 conference speech, I found nothing to make me regret that decision.

Let’s get the ‘credit where it’s due’ bit out of the way before concentrating on the constitutional issue. Much of what Nicola Sturgeon said is to be applauded. The sentiments she expressed about asylum-seekers are more than worthy. Congratulations are in order for most of what is listed in the ‘achievements’ module ─ particularly with regard to the support provided for families with young children. Broadly speaking, I don’t doubt the SNP’s claim to progressive credentials. I seriously doubt that we could have had a better devolved government. I cannot imagine having a better First Minister. Neither government nor FM are all I might hope for. But given that I can’t get what I hope for, I’ll settle for what we’ve got. We could do a lot worse.

When it comes to the constitutional issue, however, Nicola Sturgeon and successive SNP governments have been an unmitigated disaster. The contrast between their general competence as an administration and their abysmal failure as the ‘party of independence is stark indeed. As evidence I need only point to the fact that Scotland’s independence has not yet been restored. Nor is there any realistic prospect of our independence being restored. For the self-styled ‘party of independence’ every day that Scotland remains shackled to the British state by the Union is another day in which they have failed. Every day that passes without some tangible progress towards ending the Union and restoring independence is another day they have failed. As far as Scotland’s cause is concerned, Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP have a record of abject failure.

Let me remind you of the main content of the ‘independence’ module in Nicola Sturgeon’s 2019 address. (My emphasis)

We have a cast iron mandate for an independence referendum. That fact is beyond doubt.

But we don’t just have a right to offer the people of Scotland a choice over their future. In the circumstances now Scotland faces, we have a duty to do so. And it is what we intend to do.

But let me be clear about this. The process by which we choose Scotland’s future must be capable of actually achieving independence.

It must allow majority support to be expressed clearly and unambiguously. It must be legal. And it must have the recognition of the international community.

Why?

Because our job is not just to deliver a referendum. Our job is to deliver independence.

My call is that the referendum must happen next year.

Nicola Sturgeon’s full conference speech at #SNP19

The referendum didn’t happen in 2020. Sturgeon/SNP apologists will plead that the pandemic intervened. What they will not do is explain why Scotland’s cause was so uniquely impacted by the public health crisis. They will not explain why Nicola Sturgeon moved so quickly to close down independence campaigning so completely as she did in March 2020. Nor will they explain what gave Sturgeon the right to issue her cease and desist diktat to the entire Yes movement and not just the party she led.

As you may sense, I have still not stopped being angry about that email. Moving on…

You will notice the highlighted passage in the above quote. In 2019 Nicola Sturgeon said,

The process by which we choose Scotland’s future must be capable of actually achieving independence.

That statement is self-evidently true. Three years on, this is what Nicola Sturgeon says.

For now, the question of process – the ‘how’ of securing independence – is in the hands of judges.

Nicola Sturgeon’s address to #SNP22 Conference

Three years and at least a couple of mandate confirmations later and Sturgeon still has no idea of the process by which independence will be secured. She says it is in the hands of the UK Supreme Court (UKSC). That is a lie. The process the UKSC is being asked to rule on is not “capable of actually achieving independence”. But supposing it was, should it be? Why was that question never asked?

Sturgeon said

…this issue was always destined to end up in court, sooner or later Better, in my view, that it is sooner.

Maybe “this issue” really was destined to end up in court. But if by “this issue” she means the matter of a process involving a referendum that is “capable of actually achieving independence” then that is not the issue that is before the court. The issue before the court concerns a referendum that absolutely is not capable of actually achieving independence.

Supposing the issue really was a proper independence referendum, is it really better that the matter was taken out of the realm of democratic politics and handed to the courts sooner rather than later? Is Scotland’s cause best served by doing it the way Sturgeon has chosen to do it? What alternative strategies were considered?

The Scottish Government has, in essence, taken itself to court to ask if it can lawfully ask the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum that has no effect. Was this really the best way of going about it? It puts the burden of proof on the Scottish Government. The onus is on the Scottish Government to make the case that it can lawfully hold a referendum on the question ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’ on the strict condition that no action will ensue from a Yes vote. For a start, the court’s ruling will have no implications whatever for a referendum that is capable of actually achieving independence. The essential question of competence will remain unanswered. But we may still usefully ask whether this is not turning the issue on its head. And doing this in a way that is potentially seriously detrimental to Scotland’s cause.

The real issue is not whether the Scottish Parliament has the right to hold a proper constitutional referendum, but whether the British state has the authority to deny that right. The real issue is whether the British state can lawfully prevent the people of Scotland exercising our right of self-determination. Why is this not the issue that is being placed before the court? It is not the lawfulness of the democratic process that is in dispute. It is the lawfulness of obstructing the democratic process. So why isn’t the matter being put to the court in this form?

The obvious alternative to the Sturgeon strategy of asking if it is lawful to hold a totally ineffectual referendum would be to propose a proper referendum that serves as a formal exercise of our right of self-determination and is therefore capable of actually achieving independence then wait for the British government to launch a legal challenge in which the onus would be on them to convince the UKSC that Scotland is not a nation; that the people of Scotland are not sovereign; that the Scottish Parliament does not have greater democratic legitimacy than Westminster; and that the people of Scotland do not have the right of self-determination. That’s a tall order. So tall, in fact., that the UK government might well decide it’s a case they can’t win. Or a case that they can only win at a cost they’re not prepared to pay.

With this alternative available to her ─ an alternative that would put the British state under serious pressure ─ Nicola Sturgeon has chosen to launch a preemptive strike at herself. Why? And why are so few people asking that question? Why are so many SNP supporters getting so angry at those who do as why Nicola Sturgeon has opted to go about things in a way that makes absolutely no legal, political, strategical or logical sense? Why are so many people labouring under the delusion that the case before the UKSC is a challenge to the British state and something that is important for Scotland’s cause.

Part of the answer to these questions lies in the contradictory and confused messages coming from the SNP conference. For example, on the one hand we have Nicola Sturgeon attaching great importance to the process, the ‘how’ of restoring independence. On the other, we have the leader of the SNP group at Westminster Ian Blackford, urging us to stop talking about the process. Sturgeon herself in her speech follows her acknowledgement that process is important enough to warrant referral to the UKSC with a plea to leave the ‘how’ of it to the judges and concentrate on explaining the ‘why’ of independence. The upshot of all this is a pick ‘n’ mix of soundbites that can be used selectively to counter any criticism of the Sturgeon doctrine.

That pretty much describes Nicola Sturgeon’s speech. There’s something there for everybody. Everybody, that is, except those of us who are hoping to see Scotland’s independence restored. As has been the case for eight very lean years, we get nothing.

---

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.