SCOTLAND might have voted No in 2014 but the referendum did not come close to putting a stop to debates about the country’s future, which have dominated Scottish politics ever since.
As politicians, activists and commentators have reflected this week on the 10 years that have passed following the vote, we’ve once again seen competing ideas about how Scottish independence could or should be achieved vying for attention.
Over the course of the decade, it’s notable how much key political events – such as Brexit and the Supreme Court ruling that Holyrood can’t hold a referendum without Westminster’s permission – have caused the dial to shift on independence strategy, and this week we’ve heard some old theories repeated along with some stark new admissions.
During The National’s Indyref @ 10 event held at The Social Hub in Glasgow, one comment stood out from the rest as Keith Brown insisted independence supporters have not “got to accept” Westminster is never going to grant Scotland another Section 30 order.
READ MORE: 10 years since Scotland’s voice was last heard – and we're still Yes
Since the Supreme Court ruled that Holyrood could not legislate for a referendum without Westminster’s sign-off following a two-day hearing in November 2022, and multiple prime ministers have exclaimed “now is not the time” – or something to that effect – many have already come to this conclusion. But to hear it from a senior SNP politician was quite something.
His suggestion was that Scotland should be focusing on the creation of a constitutional convention, much like the one which fought for a Scottish Parliament following the 1987 General Election.
It involved representatives from political parties in Scotland, local authorities, churches and voluntary organisations, and eventually produced a report containing proposals for a devolution arrangement. This, for Brown, is a big part of how Scotland can build an “unanswerable” case for independence.
MSPs in the Scottish Parliament also voted for a convention to be set up in a debate at Holyrood this week, but they notably – and emphatically – rejected another idea which, until the resignation of Nicola Sturgeon perhaps, had been a fairly big discussion point.
READ MORE: Scottish Labour support plummets in major new poll
Alba MSP Ash Regan tabled an amendment calling for the list vote at the 2026 Holyrood election to be treated as a de facto referendum.
The concept had previously been attached to Sturgeon, as she suggested securing 50% plus one of the vote in Scotland in a General Election could be treated as the Scottish people declaring themselves independent.
But no one, apart from Regan (below) herself, backed the idea, showing how most pro-independence politicians have moved on.
Brown also rejected the idea of the list vote being treated as a de facto referendum at The National’s event when an audience member suggested it as a way of possibly motivating young people to express their support for independence.
He said it was “not for me”, adding: “It’s half of a vote.
“I’m never going to say anything to anybody other than vote SNP, first and second vote. But if you had a second vote that went in different directions, there’s not a mandate at the end of that that I can see.”
Meanwhile, former first Humza Yousaf chipped into the discussion with a Twitter/X thread proposing an international solution to break the “impasse” between Holyrood and Westminster.
He suggested bringing in a foreign “third party” to help mediate the competing ideologies of Scotland’s governments in Edinburgh and Westminster. One has to question why he didn’t act on this idea when he was first minister, but this seems to be where we are now – lots of voices, lots of thoughts, but little, if any, decisive action.
All of this shows that, after Brexit injected real life back into the independence debate after 2014’s loss and kept its heart beating for a few years, Scotland has arrived back at a crossroads with many backseat drivers suggesting possible routes. But the question remains: Who decides who takes the wheel?
While the brakes seem to be on for now, we’ll be always be poised for when its pedal to the metal again.
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