In the ongoing debate surrounding Scottish independence, a critical question arises: Can Unionists ever truly facilitate Scotland's path to independence? The answer, as this article will argue, is a resounding no. The very nature of the Union and the political dynamics at play make it impossible for Unionists to provide the necessary support for Scottish independence. This is not merely a matter of political strategy but a fundamental structural issue that underpins the relationship between Scotland and the UK.
One of the key arguments presented is that the Scotland Act, which currently constrains referendums, simultaneously enables Holyrood elections. This dual nature of the Act is both a strength and a weakness for the independence movement. While it allows for democratic expression through elections, it also creates a Catch-22 situation. If the SNP leadership were to advocate for a referendum, they would be constrained by the Act, but if they push for elections, they are essentially engaging in a de facto referendum, which is what they have been doing. This strategic conundrum highlights the inherent limitations of the Act in facilitating a clear and straightforward path to independence.
The article further explores the historical context, noting that David Cameron granted the 2014 referendum to kill the issue stone dead. Instead, it opened people's eyes to a better possibility, alarming Westminster and prompting a response. The author speculates that this response was not just a reaction to the referendum but also to the growing momentum for independence. The absence of consequences for ignoring Scottish independence further reinforces the idea that Westminster has no incentive to facilitate it.
A deeper analysis reveals that the SNP leadership's calls for Westminster to explain how Scotland can leave the Union are self-defeating. The author questions why the SNP or Holyrood should spend time on something they do not support, and why Westminster should support or signpost a path to something it opposes. This raises a broader question about the nature of the Union and the role of Westminster in facilitating Scottish independence.
The article concludes by emphasizing the futility of demanding that Westminster provide or agree to a route to Scottish independence. Instead, it advocates for a de facto referendum via Holyrood elections as the most viable path forward. The author speculates that the SNP leadership's behavior makes Jonathon Shafi's article even more haunting, as it highlights the disconnect between the SNP's rhetoric and the practical steps needed to achieve independence. This disconnect is a critical barrier to the dream of Scottish independence becoming a reality.
