Tom Gordon: Nicola Sturgeon's 'de facto referendum' will be a judgement on her

Back then, the First Minister and the rest of the party leadership were allergic to a so-called Plan B on independence.

Ahead of a decision on whether to debate the idea, Ms Sturgeon wrote a pungent newspaper article warning her troops not to fall into the ‘Unionist trap’.

“A key part of political leadership is knowing when not to make a miscalculation that those in opposing parties would like you to make,” she said.

“That is why I will not fall into the trap that our unionist ­opponents want me to, by ­deviating from our ­current path of ensuring the next independence referendum is legal and constitutional.”

For good measure, SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford told the hall: “Plan Bs are by definition second best. That’s why our opponents would love us to shift onto that ground - it concedes their right to block the best route to independence.”

Ms Sturgeon still hated the idea in 2020 when she urged her impatient supporters to accept some “realism” on Indyref2.

There were no “shortcuts or clever wheezes that can magically overcome the obstacles we face”. Yet on Tuesday, she smashed the glass containing the dreaded wheeze and brought it to Holyrood.

While stressing her clear preference remains the UK Government cooperating and lending Holyrood the power to hold Indyref2, she finally said what she would do if it didn’t, something she had failed to do throughout her time in Bute House.

At her urging, the Lord Advocate had asked the UK Supreme Court for a ruling on whether Holyrood could hold Indyref2 using devolved powers alone.

If the Court says No, Ms Sturgeon will make the next general election a “de facto referendum” and the SNP will fight it “on this single question: should Scotland be an independent country?”.

If the SNP then got a majority of votes, the Scottish Government would take that as a mandate to open independence negotiations with the UK Government.

Interestingly, Mr MacNeil and Mr Eleny also suggested the Scottish Government should ask the Supreme Court to clarify if Indyref2 was possible without Westminster consent.

Ms Sturgeon used to recoil from that too. “It could move us forward - but equally it could set us back,” she warned.

So it’s reasonable to suppose she is only going down the Court route now because the Lord Advocate was unwilling to sign off on a ropey Referendum Bill that didn’t have the Court’s explicit backing.

The Referendum Bill the Scottish Government published on Tuesday was only a draft on a website. It has not been laid at Holyrood. It has no legal status.

As legal scholars have noted, the Court is likely to give a referendum that lacks Westminster consent the thumbs down.

The Union is reserved to Westminster under the 1998 Scotland Act, and it is hard to argue credibly that asking Scottish voters if they fancy independence is an abstract consultation that doesn't stray beyond Holyrood's powers. It is self-evidently aimed at ending the Union.

That being so, we move to Plan B.

The reason Ms Sturgeon shrank from the idea is that it's a dud. The UK can just ignore it. It isn't obliged to open talks. And if London won't recognise the outcome as a mandate, no other country will either.

The SNP can shout about a democratic outrage till they faint. The chancelleries of Europe won't pull their ambassadors out of London in protest at the UK shrugging off a dog’s dinner. It’s a non-starter.

Despite this, and having spent most of her statement on Tuesday insisting on a referendum that is lawful, constitutional and internationally recognised, the First Minister made a screeching swerve and suggested that independence can also be achieved through this flimflam.

Nor can a multi-faceted election be contorted into a single issue referendum.

Two academics previously feted by the SNP were brutal about this yesterday.

“There’s no such thing as a de facto referendum,” said Edinburgh University’s James Mitchell. “There are elections and there are referendums and they are quite distinct.” While Matt Qvortrup, an expert on referendums, said he was “struggling to find words" for the idea of claiming a mandate without winning a stand-alone referendum.

It is a sign of the pressure Ms Sturgeon is under to advance the cause that she is even contemplating this stuff. Her allergy hasn’t gone away, and for good reason.

It’s also hard to conceive of a scheme more helpful to those who want to portray the SNP as constitutional monomaniacs increasingly desperate to deflect from their underwhelming record in office.

Imagine the election debates.

Why should people vote for you with these NHS waiting lists? Sorry, this is only about independence. Or the widening educational attainment gap? No, it’s only about independence. Court backlogs? Independence. Ferries? Independence. What’s in your manifesto? Independence, independence, independence!

Why not put your fingers in your ears while you're at it. It also paints a target squarely on Ms Sturgeon’s own back.

According to her, the election would be a de facto referendum. In that case, the de facto loser would be expected to resign.

That's a peachy bit of ammo to hand her Unionist opponents. Here’s your chance Scotland, vote for us and you can get rid of Nicola Sturgeon, they'll grin.

She may reckon her idea will galvanise Yes supporters to back the SNP, but the thought of sending her packing on a bum note will also fire up No supporters.

As she will have been FM for around a decade by the next general election, Ms Sturgeon may well have plans to leave regardless, giving her successor 18 months before the 2026 Holyrood election.

But if she moved on after a general election that could be done with some measure of dignity. Now, she faces having to quit on the back of a bourach.

The next general election won’t be a referendum on independence, because it can’t deliver it. But it could well be a final judgment on the First Minister.