THE SNP manifesto for the Holyrood 2016 election will not include a commitment to hold another independence referendum, senior party figures have told the Sunday Herald.
The lack of a manifesto commitment on a second referendum means the chance of a new vote to quit the UK in the next parliament, which runs to 2021, is now remote unless a dramatic event such as Britain pulling out of the EU occurs.
SNP sources confirmed that, for the first time since devolution in 1999, the SNP manifesto for the Holyrood election will not include a firm pledge to hold a referendum.
Instead, it is expected to repeat the First Minister’s argument from her October conference speech that it would be wrong to propose a new vote without strong and consistent evidence that significant numbers of No voters had changed their minds.
However, it will also say it would be wrong to categorically rule out a referendum, in case of a sudden shift in opinion, perhaps caused by a vote to leave the EU against Scotland’s wishes.
The non-committal approach is designed to keep the SNP’s options open.
But party sources confirmed it also means that, if the SNP wins again in May and Sturgeon does want a referendum, unlike in 2011, she will lack an electoral mandate to back up her case.
That would leave her asking David Cameron to grant a legally binding vote, something the Prime Minister is highly unlikely to do after almost losing in 2014.
Although the SNP could, in theory, proceed without Westminster’s consent, any “consultative referendum” would probably become tied up in legal challenges.
The 2014 referendum was held on a legally secure footing only because Westminster handed the necessary powers to Holyrood on a temporary basis via a so-called Section 30 Order. Those powers have now expired.
Jim Sillars, the former deputy leader of the SNP, said it was a “great pity” and a great obstacle to independence that there would be no mandate for a second referendum.
He said: “I don’t think the Cameron government would budge an inch. The claim would be: you didn’t ask for a mandate, therefore you don’t have a mandate, therefore there’s no need for us to respond to your request for one. We’d come up against a brick wall.”
He said his choice would be to seek a “floating mandate”, telling voters the SNP would definitely hold a second referendum if the country's circumstances changed substantially.
Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University’s politics department said he doubted Cameron would grant a second referendum even if the SNP did have a clear mandate - as he had only granted the first one because he assumed the No side would romp home.
The close 55:45 result in 2014 meant the Prime Minister would not tempt fate twice, he said.
And with polls showing roughly 53:47 support for the Union for the last year, Sturgeon would also be extremely reluctant to call a second referendum.
He said: “If the SNP were to call a referendum tomorrow, they could not be confident of winning it at all.
“The problem for both sides is that the referendum has left Scotland split down the middle on this subject, which makes it very very difficult to resolve.
“On the one hand, the Unionists cannot be sure Scotland will remain in the Union. Scotland is now the most problematic part of the Union, much more problematic than Northern Ireland.
“But equally the SNP, although they can win election after election, are not in a position where they can be sure of winning a referendum. Both sides are caught on a sharp, even divide that leaves neither side with the confidence that their side of the political project can be delivered.”
Why are you making commenting on HeraldScotland 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