If Yes wins any de facto referendum, SNP MPs must quit the Commons

Whatever Salmond’s motivation was in choosing to work for Scottish independence in London rather than Edinburgh, he thrived in the Westminster bearpit. His choice is perhaps a reminder that as much as people in Scotland increasingly think of the Scottish Parliament as being our most important institution of government, power devolved is power retained.

We might win independence in Scotland but we will only know that we have won it when the British government concedes that fact.

A few weeks ago, I started a class on colonial history by wondering aloud whether our freedoms are inevitably limited by the coercive power of the state. It was 9am. There was nothing in the reading that my students would have seen which would have covered that. I got a couple of puzzled looks while the rest ignored me.

Britain did not grant its colonies independence because its enlightened administration ensured that subject peoples acquired the skills and capabilities required for self-government. Until 1939, Britain still had the financial capacity needed to control its empire coercively where necessary.

Over the next five years, war destroyed that imperial resource base. With the return of peace, Britain, for more than a century the world’s largest international investor, had to plead for a loan with very generous repayment terms from the US to enable post-war reconstruction.

READ MORE: How will an epochal shift in Joe Biden's America impact on Scotland and Europe?

Loss of the ability to project power around the world was permanent. In 1956, then prime minister Anthony Eden decided to “secure” the Suez Canal after Egypt’s President Nasser had nationalised it. The planned joint military operation with Israel and France ended in farce.

In the face of Soviet threats of nuclear escalation, the US threatened to impose economic sanctions on the invaders. Britain and France complied, grudgingly. The UN established its first peacekeeping force, largely to hide the embarrassment of two permanent members of its Security Council.

Had Britain become a colony of the US? Of course not. But, as the former US secretary of state Dean Acheson remarked a few years later, as it dithered over whether to join the EEC, it had lost an empire, and was still to find a role. And thanks to the Brexiteers, Britain is looking for one again.

Perhaps ultimately, the coercive power of the state is necessarily violent. But often, the state can use economic and political powers to compel its citizens. Especially in a democracy, people tend to cooperate with public authorities.

Most people pay their taxes. Smoking in public spaces is very rare. In 2020, we surprised the government with our willingness to obey lockdown restrictions – until it became clear that many Tory politicians didn’t care about them.

At every election, between two-thirds and three-quarters of us will cast a vote. The exercise seems almost pointless. The probability of any one of us casting a decisive vote is negligibly small. But, collectively, an election becomes a deeply eloquent expression of the public mood. Overnight, it becomes clear what sort of country voters want.

And so, we look forward to a Westminster election, and Scotland speaking clearly. Suppose that in a General Election in October 2024, 53% of the votes cast are for the SNP and that the party’s group at Westminster is once again more than 50 strong.

What would such an outcome mean in a “plebiscite election”? And what if the SNP only secures 46% of the votes, but another 4.5% of the votes are for independence-supporting parties?

READ MORE: Gerry Hassan: What should the SNP’s MPs do at Westminster?

Gerry Hassan discussed three possibilities: MPs withdrawing from Westminster, working with a minority Labour government, and using Westminster’s processes imaginatively. Uncertain what the best strategy will be, he ruled out withdrawing from Westminster, believing that the SNP’s voters are not ready for that.

This seems illogical. If the SNP clearly state that they consider the election to be a plebiscite, if the party’s manifesto states that if they receive more than half of the votes cast in the election, then they will consider Scotland to have declared independence, how can they also state that, under those circumstances, their MPs will travel to Westminster, and take up their places on the green benches?

That seems to accept the power of the UK state, and deny the sovereignty of the Scottish electorate.

Should the SNP treat an election as a plebiscite, then they need to be willing to bear the consequences of success – as well as of failure. Success might require redefinition of the SNP’s Westminster representatives – perhaps as Commissioners for the Scottish Nation – travelling down to London simply to initiate negotiations.

The Union seems powerful because it exists. Were Scottish voters to express a clear desire to dissolve the Union, the British government would lack legitimate means to prevent Scotland from achieving independence. The unwillingness of Britain’s political leaders to allow any clear expression of that desire is certainly a problem.

After a successful plebiscite election, whether in 2024 or in future, Scotland’s MPs should revel in being such constitutional anomalies. Challenging the legitimacy of the union state, they will need to find intelligent ways of using their popular mandate to face down its coercive power.