Why is John Swinney talking about a second referendum?  Professor James Mitchell takes a long view of the incumbent party’s election campaign.

---

The Scottish Sun’s Chris Musson suggested that this election could see a ‘loveless landslide’ for the SNP.  This lovelessness might have been explained by the mounting challenges that will face the incoming Scottish Government except that these challenges have barely featured in the campaign so far. 

The rehash of old arguments, unsustainable promises and demands for another independence referendum were never likely to make for an inspiring election.  The SNP’s attempt to resurrect the 1970s with a variant of It’s Scotland’s oil is opportunistic but uninspiring and unconvincing.  This is far from the first time the SNP has tried such a resurrection.  On a previous occasion, my late colleague and SNP expert Jack Brand simply responded, ‘Proverbs 26:11’. *

Despite having access to far greater resources, the SNP’s energy campaign is poor compared to the panache or expertise of half a century ago.  The SNP has no staff today of the calibre of Donald Bain, its talented researcher back then who went on to a distinguished career in European energy policy, or Stephen Maxwell who positively encouraged challenging questions.  Today’s SNP staff exist to protect the leadership rather than make a spirited and informed case for change.

Party leaders have learned from David Cameron’s cocksure self-belief – referendums do not always go as expected.

John Swinney must know there is little chance of another independence referendum in 2028.  He has at least been careful to say there ‘could’ be a referendum by 2028.  The most likely scenario was suggested recently by John Curtice.  A deal might be done if Labour needed SNP support in the Commons after the next UK election.  This is possible but far from likely.  If the SNP vote is down as much as polls suggest then it would have a weaker mandate to demand a referendum than at any time since it first came to office.  If the SNP holds the balance of power in the Commons, it would not hold all the cards.  It would likely be in competition with other minority parties.  The Scottish public, let alone British parties, show little appetite for another referendum.  Party leaders have learned from David Cameron’s cocksure self-belief – referendums do not always go as expected.

No fit state

There are other reasons to doubt the SNP’s bluster on another referendum.  The SNP is in no fit state to fight a referendum.  It has not begun to address weaknesses exposed in 2014.  In contrast, its opponents have learned a lot from the 2014 experience, and we would expect a much improved, more populist campaign from the SNP’s opponents.  Divisions in the Yes campaign were kept under wraps last time but are now fully exposed and show no signs of healing.  The SNP leadership called all the shots last time but that would not happen next time.  Additionally, the SNP now fails to attract the level of support from business and has managed to make enemies of former business friends who funded the last Yes campaign.

So why does John Swinney demand another referendum?  The SNP has always had two bodies of support.  The first consisted of those who agree with its constitutional objective.  The SNP would have been stuck with around 20% of the vote without additional support in 2007.  Before devolution, the second body of support included those who saw the SNP as ‘good for Scotland,’ a slogan well used by the party.  Even voters disinclined to vote for it thought the SNP was good for Scotland in some vague sense.

The SNP needed more than support for independence and some sense that the party was ‘good for Scotland’ to convince voters to put it into office post-devolution.  It needed to convince enough voters that it would be competent in office, avoid picking needless fights with London and not pursue its constitutional goal at the expense of all else.  The SNP squeaked into office in 2007 by convincing just enough voters that it would be competent and respectable though much potential support was still unconvinced.  

A shrinking core

Being in government gave the nationalists the opportunity to remove the fear that held back potential support.  It did not take much to appear competent when opponents had lowered expectations they had with dire predictions.  The SNP experienced a major bounce when its opponents’ warnings were disproved.  The 2011 overall majority was not based on increased support for independence, which flatlined during the SNP Minority Government, but a perception that the SNP in office was competent and stood up for Scotland.

But over time the party has suffered as the hollowness of its promises have become obvious.  It has come to rely increasingly on its core support.  It has the good fortunate that the core independence support increased significantly during the referendum giving it a major post-referendum bounce.  But how high and how stable is this core independence support?

What is clear is that this core is not as large as many assume.  The SNP has seen a significant drop in support over this Parliament amongst those who may not have been keen on independence but had previously thought the SNP was good for Scotland and/or competent.  Hence the need to shore up that core vote.  The core independence vote is now crucial as the SNP’s reputation for competence has taken a tumble.

John Swinney has no doubt calculated, not without reason, that the SNP can remain Holyrood’s largest party with under 40% of the vote so long as the opposition is fragmented.  Whatever the ethics of Swinney talking up the extent of Scottish report for Reform, it made electoral sense.  It may not have worked in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election but it remains key to the SNP strategy in this election.  Malcolm Offord’s chances of becoming First Minister are fanciful.  But Reform has the potential to be disruptive to the great advantage of the SNP.

New Green competition – nationalist and less green

But if the polls are to be believed the SNP is polling well below support for independence.  This suggests it is unable to retain support of its base.  There are a number of plausible explanations.  First, the SNP no longer has a monopoly of independence support.  The Greens have been transformed into a nationalist party and have downgraded their green credentials.  It might be logical for the SNP to allow the Greens a free run in the regional lists but not so long ago that would have been dangerous, and may yet be, for the SNP.  The SNP could only afford to gift List seats to the Greens if it was certain to win big in constituencies.  That may yet happen but was far from clear not so long ago and it would be a big gamble now. 

A second more likely explanation is that the headline polls on independence hide a less solid base of support.  Core independence support may well be some way below the headline figures.  Polling suggests that most Scots, including many who tell pollsters that they support independence, are not keen on another referendum any time soon.  The extent to which many of these people would actually support independence cannot be known.  It is easy to indicate support for a faraway hypothetical as a means of registering dissatisfaction.  What is clear is that the aim of consistently hitting 60+% as the point when pressure would be applied for a referendum by the nationalists was never achieved and has been quietly forgotten.

There is little danger of an opposition leader offering to ‘bring it on,’ as Wendy Alexander did in 2008 which, had it happened, would likely have resulted in a much more decisive defeat for independence than occurred six years later.  A referendum would be a massive gamble for each side.  But talking up another referendum avoids its lamentable record in office or the challenges that will have to be faced at some point.

*‘Proverbs 26:11’ 

As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly. (21C King James version)

• Feature image: Sunrise over the follies on Calton Hill, Edinburgh CC by SA 2.0