The slow dawning

If anybody in the upper echelons of the SNP still pays the slightest attention to professional Westminster veteran Pete Wishart, they’d be groaning over their morning coffee on reading about the Perth & North Perthshire MP’s latest musings and mutterings as reported in The National today, (SNP MP doubts Westminster will ‘positively’ engage if party wins independence mandate) I confess to having gasped a small gasp myself when I read that he’d acknowledged to folly of expecting honest and willing cooperation from the British government in a processes designed to end their precious Union. This was both an unheard-of departure from the party line and an uncharacteristically astute observation – even if several years later than most of us came to the same conclusion.

Here’s what Wishart reportedly told Holyrood magazine when asked about a de facto referendum.

We would need 50% plus one of all that vote.

Would the UK accept it? Probably not.

But we are not responsible for how the UK responds to these situations and what we will have done is demonstrate to the UK and the world that Scotland has decided to be an independent nation and whether that elicits some sort of positive response from the UK, I don’t know, but

Holyrood magazine: “We would need 50% plus one of all that vote.

“Would the UK accept it? Probably not.

“But we are not responsible for how the UK responds to these situations and what we will have done is demonstrate to the UK and the world that Scotland has decided to be an independent nation and whether that elicits some sort of positive response from the UK, I don’t know, but they might actually go, ‘oh, alright, you’ve done it’, and will move things forward.”

That’s a remarkable comment in a number of ways. As one of the ‘vile Yes bloggers’ and ‘zoomers’ not so long ago excoriated by Wishart for saying the SNP Scottish Government was never going to elicit any kind of “positive response” from the British state, I can’t help but note the hypocrisy. Although to be fair, it may well be that he actually believed in the Sturgeon doctrine back then and it is only now that her Svengali-like influence has been removed that he can see just what a load of naive nonsense it was.

Wishart’s epiphany is also surprising because Humza Yousaf has yet to catch up with him. While little sense could be made of the First Minister’s speech to the recent SNP gathering in Dundee, one thing that was made clear is that he still regards the Section 30 process as the ‘gold standard’. Maybe Pete Wishart could have a wee word in his ear.

What is most shocking, however, is that Wishart’s comments reflect adversely on the position maintained by the SNP going all the way back to the sunny days when Alex Salmond was FM and leader of a triumphant party. The faith position – for that’s all it can be – that a Yes vote in a Section 30 referendum would lead to independence has been around at least since Salmond and Cameron signed the Edinburgh Agreement. In modern terms, that’s a big chunk of history. For all of that time, Wishart has been a true believer. Now, his faith seems to be wavering. Or to put it another way, reality is beginning to intrude into the bubble he has made for himself over all those years spent in the heart of the British beast.

Should we take this as a hopeful sign? Should we take the view that if Pete Wishart can figure it out then it’s surely only a matter of time before other MPs and MSPs do likewise? I was talking to a friend at a Salvo event in Stirling yesterday and he reckons there are a significant number of SNP elected representatives who are on the cusp of what some might take for a rebellion. Not so much against the party leadership as against the policy of pursuing a process (Section 30) which cannot possibly lead to independence being restored simply because it allows the British state too much influence. I would like to think my friend is correct.

Of course, Pete Wishart has no suggestions as to what to do instead when the Section 30 process is abandoned; as it must be. Although he has got as far as expressing reservations about the Section 30 process, he hasn’t yet fully decolonised his mind. He still defers to Westminster and continues to cling to the hope that might actually concede defeat. That is just not going to happen. Or, to be more accurate, it might happen if the right circumstances are contrived by the Scottish Government. If the British state is put in the position of having to challenge action intended to facilitate the exercise of our right of self-determination, then it might well hesitate. What it will not ever do is cooperate willingly and honestly with the restoration of Scotland’s independence.

There are faint signs that this truth is beginning to be realised by some in the SNP. Will they be able to take the next step and acknowledge that the only way the Scottish Parliament can acquire the competence to hold a true independence referendum is to assert and use that competence in defiance of the British state? That would be the day we could say we’re actually making progress towards realising our noble aspiration.