Since 2016, she has claimed that Brexit has transformed the independence debate and provided the necessary “substantial change of circumstances” that would justify her insistence on a repeat referendum.
The decision of the British voters to leave the European Union, even though a majority of the Scots voted Remain, gave Sturgeon the excuse that she wanted to fuel her activist base and start demanding another referendum.
But if Brexit “changed everything”, it was difficult to explain why the polls seem to indicate that Scots themselves did not change their minds, that a majority decided that they would rather live in a UK outside the EU than in a Scotland that was back. within the trading block.
Nevertheless, with a mandate from the 2016 Scottish Parliamentary election, where her party did not gain an overall majority, the prime minister began agitating for another Article 30 order that would allow her government to run for a second “once in a while” start organizing a “generation” referendum in three years’ time.
But Theresa May, who replaced David Cameron in number 10, said no. It was an extraordinary development; the nationalists were now accustomed to British governments doing whatever they required, whether it be independence referendums or more devolved powers. The eras of Gordon Brown and Cameron really spoiled the nationalists. But now they were faced with a relentless brick wall.
When Boris Johnson replaced May in 2019, the answer was the same: “This is not the time now.”
Uncertainty and division
This was a dilemma for Sturgeon. Faced with a series of domestic policy failures and scandals, she needed the diversion of another referendum. More importantly, she had to make progress with this one iconic policy. Otherwise, what was the point of the SNP being in office at all? At the Holyrood election in 2021, her party again had an overall majority, leading to an agreement with the independence-supporting Scottish Greens.
Last week, the prime minister capitulated to her own members. Despite insisting for years that she would not endorse a “wildcat” or illegal referendum, she announced that she had set aside October 19, 2023, as the voting day for the next ballot.
And, aware of the limits of the Scottish Parliament in determining policy in a matter reserved for Westminster, she announced that her plan would be referred to the Supreme Court.
If the court decides that the proposal for a referendum is ultra vires and outside the legal scope of Holyrood, it will return to Plan B: to make the next British general election a “de facto” referendum, which the SNP as will use a mandate to start independence negotiations with the British government.
It’s all thousands away from the stately, moderate language that Sturgeon has tended to use in recent years. She desperately wanted an official referendum endorsed by the UK, as it would be the only route to international recognition of Scottish independence, including a future path to EU membership.
But such considerations are unimportant to too many of the Prime Minister’s activists, who would happily be content with a unilateral declaration of independence if it were the only way to break free from the UK.
In fact, for many of them, it would be their preferred option.
But it’s hard now to see a way forward for Sturgeon. Although it is impossible to guess the Supreme Court, judges are generally expected to veto her plans – especially as recent precedent has been set that the Scottish Parliament cannot pass legislation that obliges the British government or even puts pressure on it to act in a certain way.
But even if the court somehow approves of some form of watered-down referendum, the vast majority of pro-UK Scots will boycott it, rendering the result meaningless and relieving Westminster of any obligation even to admit that it took place.
And as for Plan B, does any party have the right to redefine what a general election is for? Who says why individual voters put an X in this or that box? This is a “strategy” that is hardly worth the description.
Sturgeon’s main complaint is that the British government is taking her word for it and refusing to endorse another referendum within the time scale normally accepted as a “generation”. But instead of acknowledging her powerlessness to do anything about the constitutional framework that limits her actions, she chose instead to do what leaders should never do: she decided to tell her supporters what they wanted to hear, rather than what they need to hear …
The consequences for Scotland are another year to eighteen months of uncertainty and division. The consequences for the Prime Minister’s party, at least in the long run, can be truly devastating.