A second independence referendum should not be held before 2020, warn senior SNP sources, because there is still too much uncertainty that the public would support Scotland leaving the United Kingdom.
Pressure is mounting on Nicola Sturgeon to give a clear indication about the prospect of a rerun poll following last September’s vote when the cause of independence was defeated by 55 per cent to 45 per cent. The subject is a potential flashpoint for the SNP leader at this autumn’s party conference.
Last month, the First Minister said she was “not planning another referendum at the moment”. The only “material change” she has referred to, which would trigger a second poll, is if in the forthcoming EU referendum the UK voted No to continued membership but Scotland voted Yes.
Yet Ms Sturgeon knows that by spring, she will have to decide whether or not to include a reference to a second referendum in the SNP manifesto for the 2016 Scottish parliamentary elections and, crucially, how strong the commitment will be.
The dramatic victory at the General Election when the Nationalists won 56 out of 59 Scottish seats, the prospect of them winning most if not all 73 constituency seats at next May’s Holyrood election and the latest poll giving the SNP a rating of 62 per cent have led some Nationalists to believe that a second referendum must be held soon, and certainly by the end of the decade, to capitalise on the political momentum.
Earlier this month, Alex Salmond, the former party leader, declared confidently that a second referendum was now “inevitable” but that the timing had yet to be determined.
Pete Wishart, the SNP’s Shadow Commons Leader, agreed there would be another poll but noted: “The process of getting there is still uncertain."
Angus Brendan MacNeil, the MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, was less equivocal about the timing. When asked if there would be another referendum before 2020, he said without hesitation: “Yes.”
However, there are more cautious Nationalist voices.
One SNP MP said: "We should not rush into a second referendum; it cannot happen before 2020; for goodness sake, we haven't yet properly discussed why we lost the last one.”
The senior party figure recognised, given the surge in party membership to beyond 100,000, that some hardliners would like another vote on independence tomorrow. “But,” the MP insisted, “we have to be sensible; Nicola and the leadership get that.
“We can't afford to lose another one or the cause really will be lost for a generation," added the senior source.
A colleague at Westminster also urged caution, saying: "People have to realise it would be a mistake to directly equate support for the party with support for independence. We have to go when we are absolutely sure the public is with us on this. We're not there yet and probably won’t be by the end of this parliament; it might take a bit longer."
It is thought the plunge in the oil price – still below $50 a barrel - might give some Scottish voters pause for thought in backing independence.
Last week, the Fiscal Affairs Scotland think-tank said the Scottish Government’s latest oil forecasts showed the nation would be more than £7bn a year worse off - £1,300 per head by 2019/2020 - if it became financially independent.
At Westminster, David Cameron has made clear he sees “no need” for another independence referendum, pointing out, like others, that both Ms Sturgeon and Mr Salmond stressed barely a year ago the 2014 referendum was a “once in a generation” or a “once in a lifetime” opportunity.
Also, within the next six months Ms Sturgeon has to decide whether or not the next Scottish parliamentary term will be three or five years to ensure there is no clash with the General Election in 2020.
One theory is that she might opt for 2019, enabling her to fudge a promise on holding a second referendum in the SNP’s 2016 manifesto but with a pointer that the intention is to include a firm commitment to one in a 2019 manifesto.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel