Why claims of an indyref2 ‘mandate’ are political hot air
ALMOST nothing can be said about the criminal charges facing Alex Salmond, but it is a fair assumption his arrest is not a boost to the independence cause.
Nicola Sturgeon’s ideal backdrop for her imminent announcement on the timetable for indyref2 is not difficult to imagine. Growing support in the polls. A bit of political momentum. And nothing disastrous lurking around the corner.
A potential trial involving her predecessor and mentor, who has been charged with multiple counts of attempted rape and indecent assault, hardly meets the criteria and will inevitably provide the SNP leadership with sleepless nights.
But the impact of the Salmond case on Scotland’s constitutional future should not be over- stated. The former SNP leader is a political has-been who took an axe to his own reputation when he agreed to work for a Putin propaganda station. His supporters are not swing voters; they will back Yes regardless of the facts.
Sturgeon faces referendum roadblocks far more formidable than the Salmond case, particularly over her delay in revamping the case for independence and, critically, explaining the process by which she intends to deliver another plebiscite.
The First Minister’s line has been to claim she has a “cast iron” mandate for a referendum. A combination of her party’s victory at the last Holyrood election, Parliament endorsing a second vote, as well the SNP winning a majority of MPs in 2017, turned it into a “triple lock” mandate.
However, a “mandate” is a rhetorical device that has no basis in law. In politics, the only mandate a party can secure from voters is the right to bring forward a policy for parliamentary scrutiny. An initiative may be pushed through, rejected, or tweaked, but there is no such thing as automatic implementation based on an election victory.
A mandate must also reflect the powers of the legislature. The SNP could win the next Holyrood election on the basis of demanding a £10 billion funding top-up from Westminster, but Theresa May would be under no obligation to hand over the money. You cannot force another Government to do something.
Which brings us to indyref2. The first referendum became a reality after the UK Government handed the Scottish Parliament, via the Edinburgh Agreement, the temporary power to stage a vote on independence. Holyrood can only have a “mandate” to request this power again, rather than having a guaranteed right to another referendum. The cast iron is more akin to soggy paper.
Let us suspend reality and pretend Holyrood does have the power to organise another referendum unilaterally. In 2016, 63 SNP MSPs – a minority – were elected on the basis that the Parliament should have this “right” if there was a “material change” such as “Scotland