The first step to independence should be a post-mortem on 2014

The major shifts experienced by Scotland over the past 25 years – the ­establishment of the Parliament following the emphatic victory for self-government in the 1997 referendum; the SNP coming to office in 2007; followed by the 2014 ­indyref bringing the idea of independence centre stage and into the mainstream, where it has remained since – are seismic.

Yet for the SNP, like any party, the pressures of ­success bring their own problems – the perils of ­believing your own hype; having to look all-knowing and omnipotent when no one is, and the pitfalls of long-term incumbency in office and running out of treadmill and others to blame but yourself.

READ MORE: Anas Sarwar called out for repeated 'no austerity' pledge

The SNP over the past decade has remained in ­power. Yet in the aftermath of 2014, the party ­leadership deliberately avoided conducting any ­post-mortem to understand why Yes lost. This ­omission has stymied debate and thinking since, as well as the renewal and refresh of any ­ independence offer.

After the 2024 defeat in the General Election, the SNP leadership are again attempting to silence ­debate – proving once more that power and control politics are addictive but ultimately self-defeating in preventing those defeated from learning lessons and changing.

Labour were once the official story of Scotland, of devolution and social democracy. The SNP have ­effectively appropriated this role and become the ­unapologetic advocates of the official story of ­Scotland, of devolution and of social democracy.

This position has given them an importance and raison d’être, but this is also problematic in an age where trust in government has fallen and where ­incumbents regularly are defeated by insurgents and challengers. Labour then the SNP have become parties about power, patronage and the insider class, laying the seeds of their decline.

Ten Years After 2024

It is accurate, although disappointing, to ­characterise the decade since 2014 as a significant wasted opportunity by the SNP and by ­independence. There has been a deliberate lack of work on the purpose and point of government and independence, as well as an avoidance of thinking beyond popularity and public buy-in.

Worse, for most of that decade, Nicola Sturgeon’s (below) leadership claimed that progress was being made on the former when it was clearly not, engaging in a charade of deception to prevent awkward questions. Meanwhile, no real work, heavy lifting or honesty were advanced by the SNP or others on independence, with the result that by 2024, we were not further ­forward strategically than in 2014.

This takes us now to a place where people need to stop what they have been doing for the past decade, break out of the doom loop, stop falling for mirages and chimeras, and challenge the internal demons within the SNP and independence.

A fundamental first step in understanding where we are and what to do is to fully comprehend the scale and shape of changes we have been through – and where they have taken us.

The Scotland of the Future 25 Years Ago

Just before the establishment of the Scottish Parliament 25 years ago, I had my one and only ­substantive debate (on BBC Scotland) with Donald Dewar, then leader of Scottish Labour, who became First Minister of Scotland in 1999.

This was a courteous discussion. I had written a Fabian Society pamphlet on how Scottish public life would be changed by the Parliament – as also would ­Labour, SNP, public bodies and media. Dewar was polite, sceptical and cautious, but ­inevitably still viewed ­Labour as the ­natural party of government in Scotland who could remain in office indefinitely into the future.

This is one area on which we ­fundamentally disagreed. More than this, we were talking about different ways of looking at timeframes. Dewar was ­projecting, as many do, a version of the present continuing into the ­future. ­Whereas I was trying to dig into the ­dynamics and agents of change, and to extrapolate them into the future – ­something he as an elected politician could not do in public.

READ MORE: Mhairi Black: So much for Labour’s talk of incoming ‘change’

All those years ago, I dared to make five predictions about the future contours of Scotland in the next 20 years. First was that the SNP would become the main opposition to Labour in the Scottish Parliament. This was an inarguable fact, but less discussed was how it would change the SNP and politics.

Second, due to the reality that the ­Scottish Parliament was a PR-elected body and that Labour would in most ­circumstances have a minority of votes and seats, there was the prospect of a non-Labour government. The most likely candidate to replace them would be the largest force in anti-Labour Scotland – the SNP – who would eventually form a government.

Third, the SNP would ­decouple ­voting SNP and independence – as ­Labour had done with devolution ­under Blair (below). The SNP would learn the lesson of this – proposing an independence ­referendum and hence lowering the threshold for ­people voting SNP and making it more likely that they would win an election and enter office.

Fourth, Scotland would eventually, in the timeframe of 20 years, have an ­independence referendum. It seemed from the vantage point of pre-devolution that this would be a watershed moment for all concerned, but in the first vote on this subject in history, the forces of ­self-government would lose.

Finally, in the aftermath of this, it seemed clear that this subject would not go away and that it would take at least two attempts for the Scots to vote for ­independence. This seemed to me for the obvious reasons, that I said at the time that “Scots won’t give up on Britain until they feel they have to”.

Not a bad roll call from the foothills of devolution all those years ago. The point is that all of the above predictions emerged from assessing obvious factors which were public and known about. I was merely reading the runes.

READ MORE: Labour's PFI Scandal: The National's new series starts on Monday

Yet no one talked about these things in public. This was reinforced by even a private set of mindsets whereby Labour people ­believed they could rule into the ­distant future; while SNP folk did not ­really ­believe they could win. All of which ­carries lessons for the present and future.

The limits of mainstream politics

The Scotland of 2024, in its political landscape, is rather similar to other parts of the West. Government and politics face huge challenges. Political parties struggle to engage with and represent people.

They fail on numerous grounds including how they communicate with and have genuine dialogue with voters, while many of the parties fall short even with their own members.

Political leadership is difficult and in many cases near-impossible. Many of those who have formal titles of leaders are not that, but rather administrators. No doubt some independence ­supporters think that the main characteristic of Scottish politics is that we are not fully self-governing, but that does not excuse the clear limitations of our politics with many of the failings homemade.

Political traditions are hollowed out and exhausted in Scotland as ­elsewhere. This is true of conservatism and ­labourism. It is true of the two ­dominant ideas which have shaped Scotland in ­recent times – social democracy and ­Scottish ­nationalism. The combination of them in the 1980s first reshaped Labour and their commitment to devolution, and then the SNP – contributing to their rise to power.

What do these two perspectives now have to say? Scottish social democracy – like its manifestations everywhere in the West – is a centrist, cautious, vague set of attitudes which invoke inclusion, social justice and compassion – the sort of values which are hard to disagree with and most folk can sign up to.

Scottish nationalism’s appeal is about Scotland as a distinct, self-governing nation, either expressed through home rule or independence, but has little to say about the kind of ­Scotland it wants in the future.

READ MORE: Miriam Margolyes backs Scottish independence ahead of Fringe show

Underpinning these political ­traditions are established stories and ideas of what Scotland is. That Scotland is a ­nation; it is distinctive; it has a degree of ­autonomy (which is true of independent small ­nation-states as well); it has deeply ­historical institutions and traditions; a sense of community, and an outward-looking nature on the world.

Nearly all of Scotland’s political ­representatives and parties can sign up to such general sentiments – including the main constitutional perspectives of ­Unionism, devolution and independence.

Scotland’s need for new stories

Scotland needs to create a new set of stories and from that a new political and cultural dispensation. This is easier said than done. But our traditional stories are clesrly exhausted as roadmaps for the future, and any new stories will not come from the political parties and classes.

Nor will they come from top-down processes; or from fantasy escape exits. Alongside that, the fairy tales and internal demons which have festered and grown in the wasted decade post-2014 are diversions and obstacles.

Some people think that just ­declaring Scotland independent and awaiting ­international recognition is the answer. This is delusional, elitist, anti-democratic and actually anti-self-determination as it overrides the expressed wishes of the Scottish people.

Then there is the “mandate” argument which stresses the supposed mandate of 2021 and repeated pro-independence victories at the ballots. This misses that “mandates” are not legally defined ­watertight entities, but made by ­collective discussion and argument, and often ­defined after a democratic vote.

It cannot come from invoking a ­constitutional convention. Through 20th-century Scotland, there have been at least three exercises in this ­gathering of the ­estates, and only one worked – the last running from 1989-95 that worked because there was a political vacuum and wilderness caused by high ­Thatcherism governing Scotland on a ­minority vote. Scotland does not have such ­circumstances now as it has a ­democratically elected Parliament.

(Image: NQ)

One of the most egregious ­initiatives is the so-called “de facto referendum” (DFR) which became the flagship of ­Sturgeon as she ran out of road on ­independence. It has become SNP policy, been reaffirmed under Humza Yousaf (above) and John Swinney, and was the notional policy of the party in the recent elections.

The DFR is a policy born of ­independence being stuck in a cul-de-sac and shorn of other options and does seem difficult to kill off. Despite this stance ­being official SNP policy in 2024, but also unchampioned in the campaign, some people want to run with it again in 2026 – privately acknowledging that this is to keep up a pretence on independence.

Nearly everyone who advocates the DFR approach in senior SNP and ­independence circles knows it is a ­performative policy, trying to pretend that progress is being made and that there is a strategy when there is none.

The core purpose of the DFR under Sturgeon, Yousaf and then Swinney (below) has been to keep as much of the independence vote supporting the SNP under renewed threat from Labour. SNP leaders knew that without some apparent progress on independence, the emperor would be seen as having no clothes, and voters are more likely to go elsewhere.

(Image: Image: PA)

Some stories catch on because they tell us something about a political tribe. Too many independence supporters believe that independence is somehow ­“inevitable” when it isn’t.

Many used to believe this about socialism in ­Britain and the West, yet somehow it failed to materialise. Independence post-2014 must stop thinking that there are easy solutions at hand if only the correct folk led (DFR, UDI), and cannot continue to ignore the need for serious work and ­developing strategy.

What do we do 10 years after 2024?

After 10 wasted years, there needs to be an assessment of the landscape, ­creation of strategy, and preparation for a long haul over the next decade. That is how far-reaching, fundamental change happens.

Ten years on from 2014, there should be a belated post-mortem on why Yes lost. We know from the empirical evidence that Yes did not lose because of “The Vow”, Gordon Brown (below) or the BBC. Such past explanations evade any ­responsibility that Yes has for its defeat, and are a ­factor in why the SNP did not want any ­post-mortem.

(Image: PA)

The real reasons go to the heart of the 2014 offer – the currency ­position, ­economic uncertainties, the risks ­inherent in independence, and ­misgivings that people had about Alex Salmond (above).

But without a proper post-mortem, such views have not been widely discussed, agreed upon or necessary work begun to address them.

This is only a start. Much more is ­needed which entails institution building and movement resourcing. This has not happened post-2014. Instead, there has been the SNP rhetoric of being part of a movement, while acting as a controlling party.

There is, however, a relevant UK ­example, unpalatable to some, of a group of people who came together and built an ecology of institutions which changed UK politics and policy, and that is the ­intellectual work which contributed to the New Right – and ultimately to Thatcherism.

In the 1950s a small group of like-minded people created the Institute of ­Economic Affairs (IEA) to combat the tide of collectivism, recognising they needed to engage in a long-term battle of ideas. Slowly but surely over the next two ­decades, they became more ­influential, ­until in the 1970s as the post-war ­consensus splintered they were joined by a host of others, including the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) set up by Keith ­Joseph in 1974.

Independence needs a long view. Not one over 20 years as we are ­building on 2014, but at the minimum a 10-year ­strategy which does not repeat the ­mistakes of the past 10. At least four kinds of organisation and initiatives are needed.

First, there needs to be an intellectual trailblazer resetting the climate on self-government – an IEA of independence. Second, a policy shifter and influencer like the CPS. Third, an addressing of the cultural dimension exploring cultural representation and diplomacy – ­looking domestically and internationally. ­Finally, there should be a broad-based campaign for self-determination open to people of all persuasions which draws on the successful Campaign for a Scottish ­Assembly/Parliament whose work led to The Claim of Right and Constitutional ­Convention.

This is the sort of work that should have begun 10 years ago; or at the ­latest, after the 2016 Brexit vote. ­Without it, ­independence will flounder and ­realistically waste another two years of pretence up to 2026 before people wake up.

Scotland’s Three Futures

Scotland's future will be decided by the sum total of what we do in Scotland and the success or not of Keir Starmer’s (below) Labour government. Here then are our three most likely futures over the next decade plus.

(Image: PA)

First, Labour, with the full flush of their parliamentary landslide and the ­weakness of the Tories, go for broke. They address the fundamentals of what is wrong with Britain – economically, socially, ­democratically and geo-politically.

They create a new story of Britain and the ­Union which speaks to a majority of Scots and across the UK. This is one that independent supporters want to ­ instantly dismiss, and while it is unlikely, it is just possible, and if it did it would be a ­gamechanger.

Second, Scotland continues in its ­current half-way house, neither fully ­progressing towards independence, but neither comfortable in the Union. This is the scenario of the present – a rising ­Labour Party who may poll well in 2026 and an SNP in retreat for the foreseeable future offering nothing but more of what went before.

Third, is a Scotland which embraces a different politics – of self-determination and the dispersal of power and voice within Scotland and not just to Scotland from London. This would see in the next decade independence practice what it preached – embedding self-government across Scotland and using it to ­create a new culture and mindset – what I ­previously called “independence of the Scottish mind”.

This third Scotland would ­embrace post-social democracy and ­post-nationalism, embody interdependence and interindependence, and be ­comfortable with a ­British dimension and identity in ­Scotland. It would reject separatism, the remnants of 19th-century ­nationalism, black and white thinking, and the ­extreme ends of Scottish and British nationalism – which have much in common.

The next 10 years will be a bumpy ride in Scotland, the UK and ­internationally. We need to prepare for that with ideas, policies, cultural thinking, ­international diplomacy, and the remaking of ­self-determination and Scotland.

The next few years will see SNP ­reverses running into 2026 – the legacy of Sturgeonism and 10 wasted years, and the need for strategy, movement building and engagement in the battle of ideas.

If the work is undertaken, a new ­Scottish story and future can be created with self-determination and independence at its heart. This can lead to the culmination of my last point I made to Donald Dewar 25 years ago – a second indyref, which was always more likely to be won than the first.

There are no quick routes to such a destination. Too much time has been ­frittered away and too many fables spun. The upside is that there is an opportunity to create and make a once-in-a-lifetime change – to nurture and create a different environment and nation.

READ MORE: Scottish Labour councillor calls his own MP a liar over two-child cap

Twenty-seven years ago, surveying ­Labour’s landslide victory, Tom Nairn gave a talk at Birkbeck College, ­reprinted in his Faces of Nationalism, where he concluded: “The 1997 election result opens the door to (at least) begin an ­escape from [the British state]. I hope we can get some way through that door before it closes again.”

Reflecting on this, post-2024, election academic David McCrone notes that: “We have no obvious escape route from the British state [while] the UK state itself has locked itself into its tight little island on the fringe of Europe, with little inclination or likelihood to get back in, clutching Scotland to its bosom lest it is diminished in consequence.”

These are the circumstances in which Scotland finds itself.

It is time to talk truthfully to each ­other, grow up and take responsibility, and practice that ­independence of the Scottish mind.