The first thing that must be said about the proposal announced yesterday (30 November) by Alba Party is that while the openness to fresh thinking it implies must be welcomed, that welcome must be cautious and conditional. What little we have been told gives the impression of a very promising development. But we’ve had numerous similar announcements which failed to live up to the superficial gloss put on them for their launch. We await publication of the draft Bill being sponsored by Ash Regan to discover precisely what is being proposed. With that caveat firmly in mind, there are a few things that can be said at this time.
Arguably the most significant thing about the proposal for a September 2024 referendum on “whether or not to extend Holyrood’s powers” (should that not be ‘expand’?) to include “powers to legislate for and negotiate independence” is the fact that it deals with the matter of process – and does so at a time when other politicians, parties and commentators are urging us to stop talking about process. More precisely, the proposal touches on the question of legislative competence which is critical to Scotland’s cause.
That being said, I do have a couple of problems with the proposal as we know it right now. Firstly, it is a mistake to make the referendum about “powers to legislate for and negotiate independence“. Not only does this make it more likely that the Bill will be ruled incompetent, it puts the cart before the horse. I have long maintained that we have two battles to fight. The first is the battle to assert and defend the sovereignty of Scotland’s people as well as our right of self-determination. Only when this battle is won will we have the means to facilitate the exercise of our right to decide the constitutional status of our nation.
The second battle is that to restore Scotland’s independence. The Alba proposal gets them in the wrong order. The referendum should be on the question of the Scottish Parliament’s powers in relation to all constitutional matters. Obviously, this would include the more specific powers Ash Regan wants to put to a vote. But it is much broader. And, being much broader, it is considerably more potent.
One of the questions that must be addressed by those proposing measures such as that being advanced by Alba concerns the consequences of losing. The ideal, of course, is a win/win – where Scotland’s cause progresses regardless of the outcome. That ideal is unlikely to be realised. The best we might realistically hope for is a negative outcome which leaves Scotland’s cause where it was. As proposed, the referendum would effectively be a vote on independence. In the event of a negative outcome, the British state would be certain to maintain that it was the second referendum we’d been demanding and we should now shut up about the matter for the next few generations.
A question on the competence of the Scottish Parliament in all constitutional matters is not only more likely to elicit a positive response from voters, should it fail to do so we are no worse off than before. We merely return to the position of trying to get a referendum while the British state tries to prevent it happening.
That is an important point. The British state doesn’t deny our right of self-determination. To do so would open up the matter to international law – the right of self-determination being established as a human right. What the British state does instead of explicitly denying that we have the right of self-determination is ensure it keeps control of the means to exercise that right.
A similar situation arises with the referendum question being suggested by Alba. A question about the “powers to legislate for and negotiate independence“. It could be argued that the Scottish Parliament already has these powers, at least in principle. After all, who other than Scotland’s elected representatives could negotiate on behalf of the people of Scotland? But they are latent powers. They don’t become effective until the people have chosen independence. The people have to vote for independence before the matter of negotiation even arises. The people have to exercise their right of self-determination. And control of the means to do so remains with Westminster. We could vote Yes to Alba’s suggested question and still be no further forward.
Under Alba’s proposals, the Scottish Parliament might acquire the power to legislate for and negotiate independence if independence is happening, but not the power to enable a decision that it should happen.
My second problem with those proposals – to the extent that we know what they are – is that it means waiting until September next year for a referendum. A referendum is not necessary and not necessarily the best option. While I contend that a de facto referendum would not meet the criteria for a proper constitutional referendum (see Stirling Directive Appendix II), it would certainly suffice for a vote on the powers of the Scottish Parliament. To understand why it is necessary to realise that whatever else happens, the Scottish Parliament will have to assert its competence in all constitutional matters in defiance of the British state. That is the only way it can acquire the capacity to facilitate the exercise our right of self-determination. The power has to be taken because it will never be given – and wouldn’t real if it was.
If the Scottish Parliament is going to have to assert its primacy in this way, it is obviously better that it does so with some kind of mandate from Scotland’s people. That mandate can be acquired by making the upcoming Westminster election a de facto referendum on the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
If Alba Party gets this right – and the indications are that they have some way to go – then they could quite conceivably go into the UK general election as a palpable threat to the SNP’s dominance. At last, the party would be in a position to make good on its promise to put the SNP under pressure. For this to happen, Alba needs not only to get its offer right, it has to formulate and frame that offer in a way that is difficult for the SNP to argue against.
I have been thinking about this matter for some time now and I have a few ideas as to how Alba Party should proceed. But I am not even a member of the party, far less one of those involved in determining its strategies. My hope is that some of the people reading this might be in a position to influence the Alba leadership, and that they might see the sense of my thinking.
Peter A Bell 
Promising but, as you say, needs refinement. Perhaps that’s why they have put it out for consultation for a couple of months. I hope so.
My feedback was along the lines of:
It is not about ‘negotiating Independence’ as Independence happens if the people vote for it. (It might be about negotiating the terms of settlement including trade, borders etc).
It is about creating a process that removes/by-passes/circumnavigates/hurdles the obstruction to Scottish self-determination.
It is good that Ash Regan and Alex Salmond are emphasising that the bill is “born in Scotland, born in the Scottish Parliament” thus asserting the right of the people through its elected legislative body to enact this bill.
LikeLiked by 3 people
More of an overhaul than “refinement”, I’d say. But we now have mainstream politicians talking about things some of us have been discussing for several years. I wouldn’t expect them to get it right first time. So long as they’re not precious about it, something very significant can be born of this. And let us not forget that the Stirling Directive is still in play.
The biggest obstacle, as ever, is the dumb tribalism that will have so-called independence activists rubbishing the proposal because it didn’t come from the SNP leadership.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The SNP would rather shut the door on Alba than deliver any of the mandates given over 9yrs. There isn’t any chance of these so-called Pro-Indy parties at Holyrood supporting this bill, they’d rather stay in the Union. We have just had a new poll saying support for Independence at 54%, but will the SNP take any notice? Sooner rather than later I hope the general public will notice that the SNP is no longer the party who wants to deliver Independence and will vote for a party that does.
LikeLiked by 1 person
FFS! Think it through!
LikeLike
This is definitely a step in the right direction, and as an Alba member I am pleased to see this as a deliverable process subject to a bit of tidying up. Also it puts clear water between Alba’s preferred route to Independence and that of the SNP. I agree with you Peter about the need to take power over all constitutional matters at least, and as you know I would go further and use the process as a means of converting Holyrood into the true sovereign parliament of the Scottish people. But that’s splitting hairs a bit at this point.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you have legislative competence over the constitution then you have everything. Because the constitution defines everything else.
LikeLike
My one concern with this is, ALBA are staying with the mindset of the SNP. That is Scotland is somehow subservient to England. We MUST start negotiating as Equals, or we are going nowhere.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Perhaps some signs that is changing?
LikeLiked by 4 people
More wee words… more discussion on something designed to bore the pants off anyone who’s looking for reasons to believe in Indy…. Words on something so remote from their daily lives that I would imagine the majority of Scots would switch off. … Instead politicians who actually support Indy should be discussing the future wealth & prospects of an Indy Scotland…. how the £250 Million pound spent on the new Manchester Arts venue is more than is spent on an entire year in Scotland on Art… or… how the £12 Billion spent on the Lower Thames Road development alongside the £2 Billion allocated for the Road Tunnel to bypass Stonehenge… would make people think on these facts far more than constitutional arguments…. whilst the Road & Rail infrastructure in Scotland is third world and unlikely to progress unless Scots politician’s start shouting & screaming about our colonial masters depletion of Scotlands wealth…. But… neither the SNP or Alba seem to be explaining the facts of life in this… they both must know what resources are being spent south of the border in compassion to Scotland yet why is there no live pronouncements on this?
LikeLike
You’re talking about two separate things here. It’s just that you prefer to hear “more wee words” on one rather than the other. Every day, I see lots of wee words about the kind of disparity you refer to. It is a welcome change to see more wee words about a process for restoring independence. I’m not sure how that process might be described and explained other than using words.
LikeLiked by 3 people
You attributed the words to a female politician … when I try to convince the hard nosed unionists who I work alongside….with words…. concerning a tinkering with an unknown constitution I would be wasting my time.
Had ANY Indy inspired politician spoken about the spending habits of our colonial masters and pointed out the recognised disparity between what passes for acceptable standards in Scotland and the spend that we Scots contribute to but see almost zero benefit from in the South…. that has more relevance than any ‘constitutional’ chatter.
Are these figures unknown to our Indy seeking?.. but fence sitting politicians?… Has an ounce of nationwide publicity came from words on the constitution or sovereignty?… especially in the desperate financial situation most people are dealing with now?….
I travel throughout the Uk with my business and the difference is spectacular… no other wee word can convey what spend is taking place in parts of the South.
E.G……On sections of the M6 motorway South of Carlise they are replacing the Crash Barriers… a completely unnecessary waste of money given that the crash barriers are protecting a small embankment… then when travelling onto the A 75 which has been voted the worst road in Europe 4 years running there are parts of that road the in the interests of road safety are an absolute disgrace…. without a hint of crash barrier…. and given that this is one of the main linkage roads leading to Stranraer & Ireland with CONVOYS of HGV’s it is an open sore…. yet apart from the usual suspects of Lab/Tory politicians complaining over the lack of the SNP to carry out work on this farcical road …. NO other pro Indy politician has even whispered about this form of inequality……. WHY?
So as much as I support the majority of what you eloquently write about… my complaint is that pro Indy politicians are missing an open goal by never referring to the pathetic financial resources that an Oil & Energy wealthy nation is left with after our greedy colonial master takes it all…. especially never referring to why this is so.
LikeLike
It’s a bit odd that you think a crash barrier is there to protect an embankment rather than the occupants of any vehicle that might veer off the road. But to whatever extent it may be accurate to say that politicians never mention these “disparities”, this example may be useful in that it illustrates the kind of sound reasons politicians might have for not making an issue of such matters.
An essential test of any proposed attack line is to consider how the target of the attack might respond. It is said that, in a court of law, lawyers should never ask a question if they don’t know the answer. Similarly, a sensible politician (if you can find one) will not raise an issue without considering the arguments available to any or all sides. If, say, an SNP politician made a fuss about disparities between Scotland and England in the amount of money spent on road safety measures, I would expect the opposition to respond by pointing out that the Scottish Government is responsible for setting spending priorities in Scotland, So, if there is less money being spent on crash barriers in Scotland relative to England, this is entirely down to choices made by the SNP administration.
If the SNP politician ends up with no more than egg on their face from this backfire, they may consider themselves fortunate.
The general point I’m making here is that just because you haven’t thought of a good reason for something being done or not done doesn’t mean there is no good reason. It only means you haven’t thought of it. A skilled debater will be so familiar with all the potential arguments that they could readily argue the matter from either side. Politicians need to be skilled debaters. Or at least, to have advisers who have some expertise in this area.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hoping somebody can copy this to Ash Regan, it seems Alba still have some way to go to arrive at this strategy outlined here. Brilliant stuff, peter, keep it up.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So Regan is proposing a referendum on referendums as a backup to a lack of referendums. Apparently that is supposed to be an exciting development.
It sounds like it’ll be shining bright in the night for a variety of obvious reasons.
LikeLike
interesting but the SNP are likely to vote it down
LikeLike
So this comment is a little late, but there is an audio recording available at Abbi Garton-Crosbies podcast of the launch of this policy by Ash Regan and Alec Salmond on Saint Andrews day.
https://omny.fm/shows/the-national-s-holyrood-weekly-podcast/why-are-scotlands-rents-so-expensive-despite-the-r
from 24 mins 33 seconds
LikeLike