Mandate? We’re asking the wrong question

Mandate (noun.) 1, an official or authoritative instruction or command. 2, politics – the support or commission given to a government and its policies or an elected representative and his policies through an electoral victory.

Thank you, Collins Dictionary. It would be wonderful if people could take a breath and remember this definition when angrily debating.

For the avoidance of doubt, number two is the explanation a worrying number of folk – including some in Downing Street – seem to be ignorant of.

You don’t need to agree with a party’s policy to acknowledge they have a mandate for it. You are entitled to argue that it is entirely the wrong thing to do.

Take, let’s say, the curious case of the second Scottish independence referendum. Polls are still favouring a No vote. If these surveys are to be believed, most Scots aren’t actually fussed on another debate on identity.

Crucially, though, the Scottish Government has a mandate to take us back to the ballot box. Why? See page 24 of the SNP’s 2016 Holyrood manifesto, helpfully titled Right to a Referendum.

“We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.”

The second part of this has happened. There is no arguing that factual point. The SNP, which was voted into government with this as part of its programme, therefore has a mandate to call for a second referendum.

Unlike, for example, a Prime Minister who is seemingly veering further and further from the manifesto her party won an election on.

Legally, of course, Holyrood does not have the power to hold such a vote. That’s why the phrasing contains the phrase “should have the right” and why the parliamentary process has started in Edinburgh.

The most often cited case against another constitutional question being put to the people is that we said No pretty comprehensively just a fraction more than two years ago in what was termed a “once in a generation” opportunity by multiple senior Yes figures. That’s a pretty strong logical argument against another second referendum but it does not address the question of mandate. Nicola Sturgeon undeniably has one on this issue.

The question we should perhaps be asking is whether or not she’ll have the bottle to use it.

Picture: PA. One to ponder: Nicola Sturgeon must decide whether to use the mandate she undoubtedly has.