The nine High Court judges have the power to make or break Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP leadership on Wednesday when they deliver their long-awaited judgment on whether she has the legal right to hold the independence referendum she plans for October 19 next year.
As the supreme legal authority of the United Kingdom, they would not have cared in the least about her future, or lack thereof.
Instead, they have been mulling the referendum issue for more than two months now, after Scotland’s First Minister took the issue to them when even her government’s most senior official – Dorothy Bain QC, the Lord Advocate – said she was unable to rule , that Ms Sturgeon’s Indyref2 plan was possible without the consent of Westminster.
It is expected, by unionists and most nationalists alike, that the Court will insist that legally the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to order another referendum.
Uphill battles to win support
Ms Sturgeon has always said she wants another such vote – she lost the last one in 2014 – to be legal.
She also insisted she was determined to defy demands from many leading nationalists that she should defy the Court’s ruling and go ahead with a “fraudulent” vote.
This would ultimately be completely futile as most trade unionists would almost certainly boycott such a referendum.
But if that’s the case, we’ll get to her Plan B, where, displaying all the hubris Scots have come to expect from her, she wants to use the next general election, which isn’t due until 2024, as a vote on one question Scottish independence.
This, she believes, will be a de facto referendum on the breakup of Great Britain.
Her view is that if at least half of voters support the SNP, as well as the two other nationalist parties – its coalition partners, the Scottish Greens, plus the tiny Alba party led by Alex Salmond – then that would be enough to start talks on an end of the United Kingdom between England and Scotland.
Echoes of history
But getting half the vote is a huge challenge – hardly ever achieved – and her plan ignores the fact that she, no more than any other political leader, can dictate what the single election issue should be.
The electorate decides that, as Ted Heath discovered when he called the 1974 election a choice of “who runs” Britain – him or the miners. The voters’ verdict was a brutal “Not you, Ted!”
A complete rejection by the High Court of her request for a referendum next autumn would also cause an uproar in nationalist ranks, with countless protest rallies already planned and a massive lobbyist demonstration outside the Parliament Square headquarters already set for Wednesday.
A campaign of civil disobedience and mass protests by nationalists could alienate undecided voters and ultimately prove counterproductive, even if the First Minister and other leading SNP figures would lend their support to non-violent protests.
There are no winners in a long game
But such an election campaign would allow her to “play the long game” for many months and thus appease her activists, who are growing impatient with the lack of progress towards her independence.
However, if he does not accept the judgment of the High Court, assuming it is against her, it would prolong the agony for the majority of the Scottish people.
At the moment they are much more focused on life issues like inflation and how they are going to heat their homes than on the constitution.
And they are not the least bit interested in helping Ms Sturgeon maintain her grip on an increasingly divided and unhappy party.
Unfortunately, as far as most voters are concerned, she is determined to maintain her determination to pursue an issue that is nowhere near the top of voters’ current priorities.
Add Comment