By Neil Scott
When you get past The National’s editing mistake in its opening, Tommy Sheppard’s National Column last Monday is a masterclass in strategic patience and democratic maturity -something that is at present lacking in much of UK politics. It moves beyond the confines of party tribalism to present a vision of the SNP as the “first among equals” in a broader, more vibrant movement for national self-determination. [Nb, the opening should be, “ASK yourself this – if your principal concern was the integrity of the Union, what would you want the SNP to do now?” – The National’s edit makes the following paragraph seem like an attack on the Greens- it most certainly isn’t. Hopefully The National change the online version.]
By rejecting the temptation to engage in immediate, performative legislative gambits that might fracture the pro-independence majority, Sheppard identifies the true path to victory: civic momentum and governing competence.
For me, one of Sheppard’s most insightful points is the necessity of leading a “political plurality.” The SNP is without doubt, the primary vehicle for independence in our parliamentary democracy, but it is of course, not the movement in itself- a movement is much more democratic, flexible and a scale-free correlation (think- murmeration!). History shows that the most successful constitutional and social shifts occur when distinct- and sometimes competing- voices find common ground on a single, transformative goal.
For example –
The Scottish Constitutional Convention (1989): This is perhaps the most pertinent example. By bringing together the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, churches, and trade unions, the movement for devolution became an irresistible force. Despite their differences, they presented a unified front that eventually compelled the UK government to act.
The Anti-Apartheid Movement: In South Africa, the struggle succeeded because it wasn’t just the ANC; it was a broad coalition of the United Democratic Front, trade unions, and religious leaders. Their “distinct voices” created a moral and political pressure that a single party never could.
The Indian Independence Movement: Gandhi’s brilliance lay in uniting disparate rural populations, urban intellectuals, and various religious groups under the singular banner of Swaraj (self-rule).
Sheppard correctly identifies that the SNP must work respectfully with the Scottish Greens and wider civic Scotland. This approach builds a national consensus rather than a partisan one, making the case for independence harder to dismiss as mere “nationalist grievance.” As a socialist, during the Yes campaign, I reiterated my political stance throughout the campaign when confronted by accusations of blood and soil nationalism. I gave the case for socialism, and why an independent Scotland would FORWARD the goal of a fair world. Others gave their differing views of what an independent Scotland would be to the world- and that was the point. The people would decide- and with democracy closer to the people, we were more likely to return representative who would share our view. Our electorate, regardless of what our billionaire funded, middle class edited media try to fool people into believing, can hold more than one view in their minds at once.
Flexibility makes it much more difficult for a movement to be broken by outside attack (and indeed, inside mistakes and bad actors). Attacks/bad actors/ mistakes can “injure” an argument; but, for example, if a socialist indy supporter’s view on the economy is not that of a neo-liberal view, people begin to get it. Independence means WE choose.
The most striking section of the column addresses the utter failure of the Unionist Scottish Election campaign. During the election, the Labour Party and Reform UK (and Tories/Libdems) did not merely campaign on policy – they campaigned on the explicit premise that a referendum should be sidelined.
They asked the Scottish electorate to reject the constitutional journey, and the electorate responded by returning an increased majority of pro-independence MSPs.
In any healthy democracy, when a party loses on their central platform, they must concede. Labour’s current position -ignoring the democratic will of a Parliament they helped create – is logically & ethically unsustainable.
There’s was a failed veto- the Unionist parties sought a mandate to block independence. They were denied that mandate.
They must live up to the democratic bargain – As Sheppard notes, democracy loses if the winners cannot fulfill their contract with the voters.
With a record 73 pro-independence MSPs, the British government can no longer hide behind “procedural” excuses. To deny a referendum now is to suggest that Scottish elections are merely advisory, a stance that undermines the very foundations of the Union they claim to protect.
Sheppard’s call to “synthesise” the day-to-day running of Scotland with the argument for independence is a brilliant tactical shift. By using existing powers to tackle the cost-of-living crisis and energy regulation, the SNP does two things…
It demonstrates competence- it proves that Scotland can govern itself with confidence.
It exposes limitations- it highlights exactly where the “Devolution Ceiling” prevents Scotland from fully protecting its citizens – such as the lack of borrowing powers to build houses or the inability to control corporate taxation.
”By acting as far as we can we shine a light on the limits of what a non-independent government can do. Nothing makes the case for removing those limits better.”
These limitations must be writ large.
Tommy has provided a blueprint for the next phase of the struggle. By focusing on hope over despair and plurality over isolation, he reminds the movement that the goal isn’t just to win a vote, but to build a country. The Unionist parties campaigned to end Scotland’s progressive, self determined journey -they lost completely. It is now the duty of the Labour government in London to accept that defeat and allow the democratic process to take its natural course through a referendum.
