We might be waiting a long time for the death of the union

“We are there to put forward the positive case for Scottish independence and by working together we go back to the old adage of the role of SNP MPs,[which] is ‘not to settle down, it’s to settle up’ and that’s where our focus lies.”

This week, the SNP leadership used a Commons debate to try to amend the 1998 Scotland Act to enable Holyrood to hold a second independence referendum; a reaction to the UK Supreme Court’s ruling that it is unlawful for the Scottish Parliament to hold Indyref2 without Westminster’s consent.

The Nationalist-inspired motion was an exercise in hope over experience. To no one’s surprise, this particular Westminster process was lost by 265 votes to 42; a majority of 223.

To their opponents, the SNP had again indulged in gesture politics. But the Nationalists sincerely believe right is on their side; that however much their cause is shackled by UK law, they must continually argue that Scottish democracy will ultimately prevail. They could, however, be waiting some considerable time.

During the debate, Tommy Sheppard for the Nationalists argued his party’s motion was an attempt to “clarify and fix the British constitution,” empowering Holyrood “to do the things the Supreme Court ruled it could not do and which everyone thought previously it was able to do”.

This latter point was rather disingenuous; certainly, not “everyone” believed Holyrood could unilaterally hold a referendum to end the 315-year-old Union.

For the UK Government, John Lamont emphasised there was indeed a process by which the constitutional question could be asked about Scotland’s future; it actually had happened in 2014 when voters, he said, decided by an “overwhelming majority” to stick with the Union.

The Borders MP explained how that referendum occurred because of a consensus across political parties, civic society and the Scottish public. The minister noted: “But that is not where we are today.”

Flynn has been keen to highlight how since the Supreme Court ruling there have been consecutive opinion polls, showing majority support for Scottish independence.

Yet the Aberdeen South MP knows full well that polls fluctuate. Each side highlights them when the numbers are in their favour and ignores them when they aren’t.

Of the 26 snapshots on independence this year, 16 have shown a majority against, eight in favour and two tied. Over the past two years, the respective numbers have been 46, 26 and eight.

From the SNP’s perspective the Westminster system is loaded unfairly against it. The constitutional door is locked; only the UK Government has the key. But that’s devolution.

So, perhaps as the run-in to the 2024 UK election begins, the Nationalists’ Commons division might consider the only way forward is to think outside the box of those usual “Westminster processes”.

In recent years, people have passed the SNP leader’s Commons office without ever noticing a bronze bust nearby; that of Charles Stewart Parnell.

The 19th century Irish Nationalist used “obstructionist” tactics to keep home rule for Ireland in the public eye, often to the great annoyance of the UK Establishment.

Irish Parliamentary Party MPs made lengthy speeches, packed bills with amendments and called unnecessary votes to hamper the Westminster system; one sitting on the 1877 South Africa Bill lasted an unbearable 45 hours.

Could the SNP and their supporters seek to up the political tempo and go so far as engaging in protests at Westminster?

During the Commons Scotland debate, Ian Blackford, the Nationalists’ ex-leader, reminded MPs of Parnell's famous quote: “No man has the right to fix the boundary to the march of a nation.”

Occasionally in recent years, his colleagues have suggested Parnell’s disruptive tactics should become the “template” for the SNP’s approach at Westminster.

Such an obstructionist strategy in the run-in to the 2024 poll would seriously raise Unionist hackles. Yet, in their determined cause to secure Scottish democracy, the Nationalists wouldn’t give a hoot.

Then there is the little matter of that crucial General Election vote, which the SNP’s supreme leader announced in June, should the Supreme Court judges rule against her – which they did – that it “would become a ‘de facto’ referendum”.

In November, after the justices delivered their ruling, Nicola Sturgeon declared the ‘de facto’ referendum was “no longer hypothetical” and that a special SNP conference would be convened in the New Year to “discuss and agree the detail of a proposed ‘de facto referendum.’” Again, no ifs or buts.

However, intriguingly, Flynn has made clear the Sturgeon approach is not a given.

“We will be coming together to determine our position for the next General Election. I don’t think it’s right to be presumptuous about what the outcome of that will be; that will be for our members,” he said.

That Sturgeon’s approach is not being readily endorsed by the Westminster leader is interesting; for some, it may even be sacrilegious. Unlike other parties, public dissent isn’t something, which comes readily to the SNP.

Few doubt the ‘de facto’ referendum strategy is high risk.

Even if the pro-independence parties secured a 50%-plus-one result in 2024, the UK Government wouldn’t accept it as a mandate to break up Britain. Neither Rishi Sunak nor Keir Starmer would countenance being the prime minister, who oversaw the death of the 315-year-old Union.

And if the pro-independence parties didn’t secure that 50%-plus-one vote, where would it leave the Yes campaign? In a Quebec-style disintegration? Possibly.

Sunak, Starmer and their pro-Unionist chums are confident the law, and the politics, remain in their favour; that for too many Scots the leap to independence is simply too risky. Fear remains the key.

The continuing conundrum for Sturgeon and Flynn is how to change that equation. And quickly. Certainly, any whiff of Nationalist cross-border disunity would hinder their cause greatly. Parnell would never have approved.