IndyRef2: can ‘de facto’ referendum help SNP achieve independence?

The Scottish National Party (SNP) will approach the next UK general election on the basis of it being a “de facto referendum” on Scottish independence.

SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon said that while an actual referendum would be the “best way” to achieve independence, “we must, and we will, find another democratic lawful and constitutional means by which the Scottish people can express their will”. “In my view that can only be an election,” she added.

The first minister was speaking after the UK Supreme Court ruled the Scottish Parliament could not legislate for a second independence referendum – the so-called IndyRef2 – without agreement from the UK government.

The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

At Prime Minister’s Questions, Rishi Sunak was challenged by the SNP’s Westminster leader Ian Blackford to allow a new referendum with Blackford telling him the Scottish people voted last year for a government with a mandate for a referendum. He added that blocking a referendum meant “the very idea that the United Kingdom is a voluntary union of nations is dead and buried”.

In response, Sunak said: “The people of Scotland want us to be working on fixing the major challenges that we collectively face, whether that is the economy, supporting the NHS or indeed supporting Ukraine.”

Looking ahead, Sturgeon said it was now “necessary to agree the precise detail of the proposition we intend to put before the country” and that her party will hold a special conference in the new year to “discuss and agree the detail of a proposed de facto referendum”.

But can a “de facto referendum” really bring about Scottish independence?

What did the papers say?

In her speech today, Sturgeon “spelt out what would define a ‘win’ in her books” at the next election, tweeted The Telegraph’s political editor Ben Riley-Smith, which was a “‘majority’ of Scottish votes, rather than winning a majority of seats”.

It is “an extremely high bar in an election where any number of other issues could be at play”, said BBC Scotland’s political editor Glenn Campbell.

“Clearing it is unlikely to get easier if Labour continue to be seen as serious challengers to the Conservatives in the battle for No. 10 and an alternative route to political change,” Campbell added.

James Mitchell, professor of public policy at Edinburgh University, agreed, telling The Times this strategy may have boxed the SNP leader into a corner. A recent Survation poll suggested that if the next election were a de facto referendum, 44% of Scots would vote for the SNP. Mitchell asked “If the SNP fights the next election solely on independence and fails to get 50% of the vote, what next? Does that put the issue back for a generation or are they going to fight on that issue at the next election after that?”

Indeed, if the SNP falls short, the UK government may say that the “nationalists had their referendum and have lost it”, at which point "it is game over for Nicola Sturgeon", said The Spectator’s Alan Massie.

Because of this, Sturgeon could look to include “the pro-independence Scottish Greens share of the vote under her definition”, said Riley-Smith, giving her a better chance of reaching the 50% mark.

In any case, the hope for the Unionists is that this ruling “paves the way for Scotland’s political landscape to be transformed, that real issues like health, education and the economy will start being given the same level of priority and urgency that the nationalists have given to flags in the last ten years”, said Tom Harris in The Telegraph. “That may be overly optimistic. But there can be little doubt that the court’s decision today is a crucial milestone in Scotland’s history,” he added.

What next?

At the heart of the current impasse lies “a new fissure in the British constitutional set-up – the fact that the Scottish Parliament and UK Parliament’s relationship to each other is developing, changing and much more contested than was envisioned when the devolution settlement was established in 1998��, tweeted Global broadcaster Lewis Goodall.

“The fact the Supreme Court was even ruling today was (to some extent) testament to that fact,” he added.

Even if there is not an independence referendum next year, many commentators believe it is a question of when, not if, for IndyRef2. “Is it sustainable for Westminster to ignore the SNP’s run of election wins where they put independence front and centre? What is the route to ending the debate?” said Sky News’s Connor Gillies.

“Almost every domestic issue in Scotland is seen through the prism of the constitution,” he added. “Might this be the moment Prime Minister Rishi Sunak realises this isn’t going away and he agrees to enter talks about settling the issue once and for all?”

However, the “consent which matters is not in Downing Street but, rather, in Scotland itself”, said The Spectator’s Massie. “If it were clear that a significant majority of Scottish voters thirsted for a referendum it would be impossible to deny that desire”, he wrote. “This is not where we are at present,” Massie added.

Indeed “as has essentially been the case since the wake of the 2021 elections, this is now in the court that really matters – Scottish public opinion, and how much right now they care”, said Goodall.