How should Lib Dems respond to growing support for independence?

We’re a few months away from elections to the Scottish Parliament and already it looks as if those elections will essentially be a referendum on the Scottish government’s handling of the pandemic and its proposal to hold an independence referendum in the near future.

Nicola Sturgeon, and the SNP government more generally, have not necessarily performed brilliantly during this pandemic. Personally, I think Mark Drakeford has been the stand-out performer. However, the comparison that matters is between Holyrood and Westminster, and in that respect the SNP have been very fortunate that their London-based counterparts have stumbled through this crisis with the levels of competence one would expect from a cabinet that includes Matt Hancock, Priti Patel, Therese Coffey and Dominic Raab. Ms Sturgeon’s administration has been positively adept by contrast.

That does not mean that questions should not be asked of the Scottish government’s performance, but it is worth noting that the First Minister’s public approval ratings are strong – mainly on account of how she is perceived to be steering Scotland through unchartered waters. There aren’t easy points to be gained by consistently attacking the SNP here; what is perhaps needed is for opposition parties to adopt a stance more akin to that of a “critical friend”, generally supportive but calling out poor decisions when appropriate.

This brings me to the other issue – Scottish independence. An opinion poll published at the weekend suggested the SNP and Greens are on course to win 70 and 10 seats respectively, giving pro-independence parties 80 out of 129 seats. That, however, doesn’t demonstrate that a similar majority of the population supports independence. While there seems to be a willingness to trust the SNP and a general approval of its record in government, the same polling showed a much closer gap between support for “Yes” and “No”. In spite of the narrative being spun in certain sections of the media, there’s nothing inevitable about independence.

What we can be sure of is that the issue won’t go away, and we as Liberal Democrats need to understand this. We also need to appreciate that while a pro-independence majority – especially a thumping one, if the polling turns out to be accurate – should be democratically respected, there is a huge difference between securing a mandate for holding a referendum and actually convincing the public to vote for change. There remains a great deal of political and constitutional argument to be had...

How should the Liberal Democrats approach this question?

It’s probably easier to say what we should not do. Firstly, we should not deny the democratic mandate pro-independence parties have secured should they win the majority all pollsters are forecasting. It’s difficult to see how they could do much more than win 48 out of 59 seats in a  General Election and follow it up with 80 out of 129 at Holyrood (under a system supposedly making it impossible to secure outright majorities). I wouldn’t accept that as a mandate for independence, but I’d certainly maintain it entitles pro-independence parties to ask the question. Opposition and obstruction are different things; we should leave the latter to the Tories, who can be trusted to resist any calls (however democratically earned) for a further referendum. We should not wish to be associated with such anti-democracy.

Arguments about the timing of the referendum and the question itself are as legitimate as they are inevitable, as too of course are arguments about independence more generally and what it means for Scotland. Accepting our opposition have the right to ask the question does not imply agreement with the answer. Any referendum would give the Liberal Democrats an opportunity to put across our own distinctive message – so long as we don’t join something like Better Together this time and have our progressive ideas drowned out by reactionary Tories.

And so if – and it is a big if, given the election might be delayed by a few months – the polling is correct and pro-independence parties win an unprecedented majority, our position should be to respect this outcome. It gives them an electoral mandate for a referendum, just as (according to our own rhetoric) a Liberal Democrat majority in the 2019 General Election would have given us a mandate to remain in the EU. The fact that legally Westminster must facilitate it is undeniable, but we should not side with those who would deny the Scottish Parliament the right to consult with its electorate. We are Liberal and we are Democrats.

Secondly, irrespective of the outcome of the elections, we need to avoid citing Alex Salmond’s “once in a generation” quote as a reason not to hold a further referendum. Context is important: Mr Salmond was encouraging people to get out and vote, not seeking to establish a rule and bind his successors. Referenda in mature democracies such as Ireland and Switzerland, which use them regularly, are used as a means of dialogue between the executive and the electorate. They are not seen as a means of settling an issue, but as a process for the government to gain approval for its proposals. As we saw in Ireland in relation to the Lisbon Treaty, if government proposals don’t earn public approval there is always scope for asking the question again or tweaking the proposals in order to make them more acceptable. The length of time between referenda is irrelevant.

In any case, both Brexit and a potentially enormous pro-independence Holyrood majority are exceptional circumstances. There are many reasons why we might feel it is inappropriate or undesirable to hold an independence referendum, but the seven year gap (during which time the UK has had three Prime Minister and three General Elections) isn’t one of them.

Thirdly, as far as independence itself is concerned, we should avoid focusing too much on economics. I say this in spite of recognising that the economic case for independence is, as many others point out, weak. It was the least convincing section of the 2013 White Paper, Scotland’s Future, and there remain more questions than answers as far as Scotland’s economic future is concerned.

However, while it is necessary to point out weaknesses and flaws in proposals, it’s also true that few people support independence because they believe the SNP's economic case is so good. If we are to win this "debate", we need to understand why people are moving towards independence and propose something positive in its place. Focusing on the economics will be counter-productive, not least as the political case is stronger than ever - if we're to arrest the steady but undoubtedly real shift in social attitudes towards independence we need a convincing and compelling response that has an authentic appeal to "the person in the street".

"New" nations seldom start out on their new journeys for economic reasons. Slovenia didn't leave Yugoslavia because the economic arguments were stacked in its favour. Czecholslovakia (effectively the Federation of Czech and Slovak Republics by 1992) wasn't dissolved due to economic factors but nationalist tensions. South Sudan, Namibia and Eritrea gained independence in spite of the economic considerations weighing strongly against separation.

Of course, I am not equating any of these examples with Scotland. What I would suggest is that, while the SNP's economic case isn't strong, we need to counter the growing appeal of Scottish independence with something other than finding holes in overly-optimistic and simplistic economic forecasts. That approach didn't work for Brexit, and ignores the simple reality that so many other factors matter more to electorates.

Fourthly, in the weeks and months before the election, we need to ditch the tired line that "we're in a pandemic and all the Scottish government can do is talk about independence". It won't really work, not least when the First Minister is on TV every day talking about the pandemic while we're publicly obsessing about the undesirability of an independence referendum. It could also be quite easily said that "we're in a pandemic and all the Lib Dems can do is talk about PR / gender identity / federalism / the EU / delivering focus leaflets*" (or maybe that's just my social media feeds...). Instead we need to be talking about the pandemic, about health more generally, about education, and so on. Let the SNP and Greens talk about independence, while we talk about federalism, improving healthcare, getting our schools working and facilitating a fairer society. This is not an exhaustive list – there is a lot we should be standing up for. I should perhaps add that, as important as sound Liberal policy detail is, Liberal Democrats have historically done best when focused on people rather than policy. Getting into petty arguments with nationalists doesn’t really help anyone.

What we need to do is promote our own ideas. I’m not suggesting that we should be passive observers as the independence question evolves and unravels, but I believe that our focus should be on advancing our own alternative proposals. In the last few months it has been heartening to (finally) see the party advocating a workable federalist settlement for the UK. It might be rather late in the day, but we have an opportunity to forge our own path rather than react to – and define ourselves by – what other parties are doing. We have an opportunity to demonstrate our democratic values, our vision for a better future and our hope for new constitutional arrangements that will radically change how the UK works. None of this will be achieved by blocking pro-independence parties carrying out their promise to the electorate.

As a federalist, my default position is that I favour a federal UK. In 2014 I saw federalism as a non-starter and was dismayed by the Liberal Democrats’ participation in Better Together. No meaningful alternative was put forward by those advocating remaining in the Union, and I felt I could not support the status quo. I’d still opt for independence over more of the same.

But a lot has changed in seven years and if the party can demonstrate that another UK is possible – and that’s another big if – then I’m open to being persuaded. If our party’s default position is that the Union is dysfunctional and unfit for purpose then we’re already in a better place than we were in 2014.

There’s nothing guaranteed about independence. One of the surest ways to achieve it would be to actively undermine the democratic mandate of the Scottish Parliament or present facile arguments to object to a referendum. We also need to avoid counter-productive “pro-Union” alliances with the Conservatives.

The momentum is undeniably with the pro-independence parties and it’s going to be difficult to halt the attitude shift among Scottish voters. The incompetence of Scottish Labour and the anti-democracy Conservatives only compound the problem. However, with the argument for independence far from won, we owe it to ourselves and to Scotland (and to the UK, for that matter) to passionately champion a coherent plan for an authentic, radical federalism rather than allow ourselves to become yet another tired anti-independence party.  

The status quo is no longer acceptable: it’s either federalism or independence. It’s time for the Liberal Democrats to fight for what we believe, rather than define ourselves by what we’re against. Let’s either make federalism happen or go down fighting for it.