SCOTLAND might have voted No in 2014 but the referendum did not come close to putting a stop to debates about the country’s future, which have dominated Scottish politics ever since.
As politicians, activists and commentators have reflected this week on the 10 years that have passed following the vote, we’ve once again seen competing ideas about how Scottish independence could or should be achieved vying for attention.
Over the course of the decade, it’s notable how much key political events – such as Brexit and the Supreme Court ruling that Holyrood can’t hold a referendum without Westminster’s permission – have caused the dial to shift on independence strategy, and this week we’ve heard some old theories repeated along with some stark new admissions.
During The National’s Indyref @ 10 event held at The Social Hub in Glasgow, one comment stood out from the rest as Keith Brown insisted independence supporters have not “got to accept” Westminster is never going to grant Scotland another Section 30 order.
Since the Supreme Court ruled that Holyrood could not legislate for a referendum without Westminster’s sign-off following a two-day hearing in November 2022, and multiple prime ministers have exclaimed “now is not the time” – or something to that effect – many have already come to this conclusion. But to hear it from a senior SNP politician was quite something.
His suggestion was that Scotland should be focusing on the creation of a constitutional convention, much like the one which fought for a Scottish Parliament following the 1987 General Election.
It involved representatives from political parties in Scotland, local authorities, churches and voluntary organisations, and eventually produced a report containing proposals for a devolution arrangement. This, for Brown, is a big part of how Scotland can build an “unanswerable” case for independence.
MSPs in the Scottish Parliament also voted for a convention to be set up in a debate at Holyrood this week, but they notably – and emphatically – rejected another idea which, until the resignation of Nicola Sturgeon perhaps, had been a fairly big discussion point.
Alba MSP Ash Regan tabled an amendment calling for the list vote at the 2026 Holyrood election to be treated as a de facto referendum.
The concept had previously been attached to Sturgeon, as she suggested securing 50% plus one of the vote in Scotland in a General Election could be treated as the Scottish people declaring themselves independent.
But no one, apart from Regan (below) herself, backed the idea, showing how most pro-independence politicians have moved on.
Brown also rejected the idea of the list vote being treated as a de facto referendum at The National’s event when an audience member suggested it as a way of possibly motivating young people to express their support for independence.
He said it was “not for me”, adding: “It’s half of a vote.
“I’m never going to say anything to anybody other than vote SNP, first and second vote. But if you had a second vote that went in different directions, there’s not a mandate at the end of that that I can see.”
Meanwhile, former first Humza Yousaf chipped into the discussion with a Twitter/X thread proposing an international solution to break the “impasse” between Holyrood and Westminster.
He suggested bringing in a foreign “third party” to help mediate the competing ideologies of Scotland’s governments in Edinburgh and Westminster. One has to question why he didn’t act on this idea when he was first minister, but this seems to be where we are now – lots of voices, lots of thoughts, but little, if any, decisive action.
All of this shows that, after Brexit injected real life back into the independence debate after 2014’s loss and kept its heart beating for a few years, Scotland has arrived back at a crossroads with many backseat drivers suggesting possible routes. But the question remains: Who decides who takes the wheel?
While the brakes seem to be on for now, we’ll be always be poised for when its pedal to the metal again.
