SNP is clearly playing the long game ... well, at least until 2031

Following the justices’ unanimous verdict, Ms Sturgeon declared: “Scottish democracy will not be denied,” and turned to a route she had previously rejected: making an election a de facto referendum.

But now her successor, Humza Yousaf, has “parked” this option and, instead, made clear he wants to see a “consistent majority for independence” to pressure the UK Government into giving Holyrood a Section 30 Order, enabling it to hold another poll.

During BBC Question Time this week Mairi McAllan, the Scottish Government’s Net Zero Secretary, railed against how the UK Government was denying democracy and underscored the First Minister’s point, saying: “In the meantime, my party has a job to do to get support for independence up beyond 50%, up to 55, 60%, because at that point the democracy denial we are experiencing from the UK Government has to collapse.” I doubt it.

Of the 22 polls on Scottish independence this year, only two have had leads for Yes. The average Yes-No split has been 44-48 with 6% don’t-knows. Too close for comfort for the Unionists to feel safe in their beds. Plus, while public support for Labour is on the up and on the way down for the SNP, the Nationalists still have a healthy 40-28 lead over Anas Sarwar’s party.

Mr Yousaf, soon after he became FM and amid his party’s turmoil, argued that it remained “realistic” to suggest Scotland could become an independent country within five years. But it isn’t.

Union pledges

Both the Conservatives and Labour will have in their election manifestos a commitment not to facilitate Indyref2 during the next Westminster parliament, set to run until 2029. Whichever party wins will claim a UK mandate to keep the Union intact.

Yet, there are still hopeful souls, who are pushing the de facto referendum line.

The SNP’s Perth champion Pete Wishart has concluded the notion of Indyref2 is “dead,” so the only alternative is using an election to trigger leaving the UK.

Alex Salmond, Alba’s leader, also argued Scots should be allowed “at each election to vote for independence, not anything else,” suggesting a 50%-plus vote should be predicated not just on SNP votes but on all pro-independence votes, including those for his party and the Greens.

Read more by Michael Settle: Yousaf’s main challenge is keeping SNP united

However, the essence of a general election is in the name. The vote isn’t on a specific subject, however much Nationalist politicians would wish it to be.

One fundamental problem for the Yes camp is it hasn’t copper-bottomed its prospectus for independence. One of the starkest criticisms about the SNP’s approach came from a Nationalist MP; albeit a usual suspect.

Earlier this month, the disgruntled Joanna Cherry branded her party’s strategy to achieve an independent Scotland “absolutely lightweight” and came out with a zinger, claiming the governing party was “intellectually dead from the neck up”. I can see the Labour and Tory election leaflets already.

'Sabotage' claim

Last week, a former Yes Scotland director complained that in 2014 it was the SNP, more interested in political power than leaving the UK, which sabotaged the independence campaign. Next time round, he insisted, it had to be taken out of the hands of politicians and owned by ordinary people. Good luck with that one.

Mr Salmond has, for some time, been pressing for an independence convention to corral Nationalist forces and, in his address to the Alba party conference in Inverness, told delegates: “It’s time for the independence movement to unite to declare its own independence from any political party.”

The ex-FM called for an election pact, whereby each constituency would have just one pro-independence candidate at the 2024 General Election to maximise the Yes vote.

But I suspect there will be some cynical minds who might think this is his attempt to return as Nationalism’s great chieftain. The wounds may be too deep for that to ever happen.

Read more by Michael Settle: The SNP’s culture of secrecy has become transparently toxic

Amid all the de facto referendum talk, Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s Westminster leader, seems to have gently placed the emphasis elsewhere.

He has been talking up the prospect of a hung parliament in London and the opportunity this may afford his party given how desperate a minority Labour Government would be to cling onto power.

We’re told that the Aberdeen MP has signalled he might be willing to row back on his demand for another independence vote, if Sir Keir Starmer were to devolve more powers to Holyrood.

New powers generation

Mr Flynn told the BBC’s Political Thinking programme his price for propping up a Labour administration would be empowering Edinburgh with control over policies on energy, immigration and employment and ensuring Scotland had access to the European single market.

He did also mention the Scottish Parliament being given the power to “make its own choice in relation to Scotland’s constitutional future” but, of course, this would break Labour’s manifesto commitment to protect the Union.

While Mr Flynn will continue to tell loyal supporters Indyref2 is at the forefront of the SNP’s strategy, there is a sense from his demeanour that the SNP, post-election, would be in bargaining mode; Indyref2 might just be negotiable if other things were forthcoming.

So, if, as it seems, the SNP strategy is to play a long game - bagging more devolved powers from a minority Labour Government while trying to grow the pro-independence base to 55%-plus - the question will be: just how long will the long game be? Until the Scottish election in 2031? At least.