A whiff of deja vu and confusion over Humza Yousaf's indy plans

The media’s immediate take was that there was nothing very new in it.

Mr Yousaf announced that if the SNP won the next general election, it would be a mandate for independence which he would promptly present to the next UK Government.

The First Minister would invite Rishi Sunak or Keir Starmer to give Holyrood a second referendum or cut to the chase and negotiate independence straight away.

There was more than a whiff of deja vu in the air at Dundee’s Caird Hall.

After her 2015 Westminster and 2016 Holyrood election wins, Nicola Sturgeon said she had a “cast-iron” mandate for indyref2. Going into the 2017 general election, she said a third win would boost it to a “triple-lock” mandate.

Asked how his plan was different, Mr Yousaf told the media it was about foregrounding the SNP’s desire for independence in its manifesto, but that was about it.

“This is different because we have never, on the first page and the first line of a manifesto, made it as clear as we're going to make it in the next general election,” he said.

“Going to make it absolutely clear, with no equivocation at all: A vote for the SNP is a vote for Scotland to become independent.

“And if we win that general election, we get that mandate from the people, then we negotiate with the UK government how to give that democratic effect.”

Just why a “page one, line one” mandate would carry more clout with the UK Government than its cast-iron and triple-lock predecessors remained a mystery.

Nor was it clear which voters had ever doubted the SNP’s desire for independence.

The next day not even Mr Yousaf appeared persuaded by his plan, telling the BBC he was “under no illusion that Westminster will continue… to deny us”. 

Weightier figures also opined.

Alex Salmond said the plan was fatally flawed, i.e. it didn’t include his Alba party.

More credibly, Professor James Mitchell of Edinburgh University, a great authority on the SNP, declared Mr Yousaf’s message had been “deeply confused”.

I actually thought that was a bit harsh, as it seemed to be Prof Mitchell who was confused about what was meant by a “win” for the SNP in the election, not Mr Yousaf.

After the speech, the FM’s spin doctors gave the answer – a majority of the 57 seats would be seen as a win, not a majority of votes cast, as in Ms Sturgeon’s ‘de facto’ referendum.

But Prof Mitchell was not wrong about wider confusion and sloppy thinking at the top.

As well as reheating Ms Sturgeon’s failed most-seats mandate plan, Mr Yousaf is also going about arguing that he can shame the UK Government into being nicer.

Put to him that there was “absolutely no substance” to his plan, he replied: “If this is a voluntary Union, then the Westminster parties have to prove it.”

He said it in his speech too: “They told Scotland, this is a voluntary union. Prove it!”

Remarkably, his spin doctors even drew our attention to the line, thinking it a corker.

But it is a sign of how stuck the party is.

The argument is that if the Union wants to be seen as one of equals, it has to “prove it” by granting indyref2. But supposing it did, would the SNP then want to stay in that equal Union?

Unspun | Neil Mackay: SNP indy summit already an own goal

Could the Union rehabilitate itself through indyref2, thereby making indyref2 unnecessary?

No. For the SNP, the ideal Union is the one Scotland can leave immediately.

The only way it can satisfy the SNP is by bringing about its own end. The “prove it” demand is asking the UK if it would like to commit suicide with honour.

The idea that this is going to sway the next Prime Minister is for the birds. Yet somehow somebody upstairs thought it was terribly clever. Like they thought “page one, line one” was a clincher.

None of this means the SNP is wrong about independence being desirable. But...

...want to read the full article? Sign up for free to the Unspun newsletter and receive it directly to your inbox every weekday night at 7pm. Click here 👈