Of course, the SNP's manifesto hasn't been published. It may not even have been written yet. But there are abundant clues as to its probable content in various statements from Nicola Sturgeon, Mike Russell and others. We also now have the draft Referendum Bill, which provides conclusive evidence of the SNP leadership's thinking on the constitutional issue.
In a fantasy world where our political leaders actually listen to the people, this person would tell them that the first thing they must do is repudiate the Section 30 process as an illegitimate constraint on Scotland’s right of self-determination.
The problem now facing Mike Russell, who presumably is overseeing the drafting of the Bill, is that he has to lay the groundwork for a referendum without a Section 30 order while the SNP's position is still that Section 30 is the "gold standard" and the only "legal and constitutional" way to have a referendum.
If Nicola Sturgeon is correct and the Section 30 process is the only "legal and constitutional" way to a new independence referendum, does this not mean that all other ways are 'illegal and unconstitutional'. And yet here we have two other very senior figures in the SNP saying, in effect, that what Nicola Sturgeon has identified as the only "legal and constitutional" way isn't in fact "legal and constitutional" at all!
Why is the SNP leadership so intent on silencing or sidelining anyone who asks this kind of highly pertinent question? Why are they propagandising against bloggers who do no more than insist that the SNP does what it is elected to do while pointing out the ways in which it is failing to fulfil its role as the political arm of the independence movement?
Plan C proposes that, having repudiated the Section 30 process as an affront to democracy, the SNP should include in the party's manifesto for the coming Holyrood elections a commitment that if elected an SNP Scottish Government will immediately assert the exclusive competence of the Scottish Parliament in all constitutional matters preparatory to proposing the dissolution of the Union subject to a referendum that shall be entirely made and managed in Scotland.
Any referendum that is held not having been sanctioned by the British Prime Minister must be sanctioned by the Scottish Parliament. To do that the Scottish Parliament would have to assert its competence in constitutional matters (UDI in all but name.)
Rule number one in conflict resolution - don't tell people to calm down.
If, as is now asserted, the Scottish Parliament has the competence to authorise a constitutional referendum then it could quite readily be argued that requesting a Section 30 order constitutes contempt of Parliament. Some might say it amounts to treason. Although I would not wish to put it in those terms myself.
When Boris Johnson shows me something and says look at my plan I expect to see a bungling buffoon stuck on a zip-wire. For no reason other than that is the image I simply can't help associating with the vacuous ideologue.
Peter A Bell 