THE SNP may be set to roll back plans for a de facto independence referendum at the next General Election with major changes to the proposals at a key meeting today.
Last year First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said that if the Supreme Court determined Holyrood could not legally hold a vote, the next Westminster election would be treated as indyref2 – and if the SNP won a majority of overall votes, negotiations to remove Scotland from the Union could begin with the UK Government.
However according to The Times, an option is set to be presented to the party’s National Executive Committee on Saturday changing the terms of such a vote.
READ MORE: Pope Francis: 'The English' have resolved Scottish independence debate
Instead, the document reportedly says the result of the election would represent a show of support for holding indyref2 rather than a trigger for independence negotiations.
In addition, it apparently calls for a majority of pro-independence MPs winning the election to be the threshold for that rather than a majority of overall votes under the First Past the Post system.
It appears that should a majority of pro-independence MPs be elected, the proposal would see the SNP argue that they have a mandate for “the necessary transfer of power” from Westminster – effectively a Section 30 order.
The technical details of the de facto referendum are set to be thrashed out at a special conference in March, though the strategy presented to SNP members will be discussed at this weekend’s NEC meet-up.
How the de facto indyref should work has been a source of debate within the independence movement, with MPs this week stepping up the conversation around how best to use the next election.
Writing in The National on Saturday, SNP MP and the party’s constitution spokesperson at Westminster Tommy Sheppard called for each ballot to be used as a “stepping stone towards independence”.
He said both Westminster and Holyrood’s next elections, in 2024 and 2026, should be fought on the issue of independence, with calls for updates to the devolution settlement allowing the Scottish Parliament to hold indyref2 to be featured in the SNP manifesto.
Writing in The National, Sheppard said: “Much has been said recently about the pros and cons of using an election as a de-facto referendum. Some have argued that the next Westminster election should be a vote on independence.
“Others have argued that a Holyrood election would be the better option. But why don’t we use both?
“For too long we’ve been chasing the next election, hoping it would be the vote which delivers independence. We need a longer-term plan which uses each and every democratic event as a stepping-stone towards independence.”
READ MORE: Rishi Sunak REFUSES to set out Scottish independence referendum route
Earlier this week Pete Wishart, the party’s longest serving MP, said the referendum would be a “massive gamble” for the movement – but warned that giving up would just mean continuing the constitutional deadlock.
SNP MP Angus MacNeil has been calling for Holyrood to be dissolved and a de facto referendum held at a Scottish Parliament election, in order to allow the full franchise to participate in the vote.
However, Wishart said this option would lead to backlash and “First Minister Douglas Ross”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel