Why do the Unionists' work for them with dismissal of ‘de facto' plan?

The National

7 hours ago

A recent example came up in the column by Seamus Logan MP of June 25 (Using an election as plebiscite referendum is just not going to fly), the nub of which is to disparage the notion of independence through a plebiscitary election.
He wrote: 'I'm always puzzled how so many who argue that we absolutely must take this route can argue with 100% certainty that any UK Government will say no to another referendum on independence, yet can still believe the same UK Government would just roll over and say yes to actual independence in the face of a positive election result.'
The tactic has been employed ever since the 2014 indyref. Sturgeon said much the same in a tired, off-guard moment on TV a few years ago, and cultish devotion to the 'ye cannae' line is still prevalent. Where it comes from, I have no idea, but it is suicidal nonsense, which has gripped the movement and is doing the Unionists' work with a ferocity they themselves lack.
At root, two and only two things must occur for Scottish independence, namely a democratic vote for it to happen, and the implementation of that vote. There are only two ways of holding the vote. One is an official referendum. By law, Holyrood cannot arrange that without special consent from London, which Labour, Tory and Reform UK all completely refuse.
Such refusal bars them from complaining about use of the only alternative method, a plebiscitary election. In fact, there is no indication that they would so complain, so at least on that point they are more level-headed than the Loganites.
A UK General Election is the most solemn, legally sacrosanct, direct expression of the public will, and may be turned into a plebiscite on independence in Scotland simply by the appropriate brief manifesto seeking a head-count majority vote for Scotland to leave the Union, and promising implementation. Such a majority, of any size, would swamp the Scottish seats with the supreme representatives of the Scottish people, mandated to take Scotland out. They could give effect to the vote, restoring Scottish statehood by declaration. No superior manifestation of the will of the people of Scotland exists, and it is perfectly legal and constitutional.
When it comes down to it, after such a vote and with the Scottish members resolved to carry it through, London would not be crazy enough to attempt to prohibit it, and would come to the table for an agreed split.
They would have no case and no power to do otherwise. London claims neither the legal justification nor the practical ability to frustrate the will of Scotland to go. That very proper acknowledgement underpinned the Edinburgh Agreement which preceded the 2014 indyref, and which would not have been possible if London had not conceded Scotland's right.
Anyone who maintains that London would throw over the entire legal and constitutional position, and display itself to the world as the open oppressor of Scotland, has lost the plot.
So it is not a matter of giving London the place, or London taking it, to rule on Scottish independence.
The decision is Scotland's alone, and it is high time that Mr Logan and those who share his catastrophic misgivings saw the simple truth of that fact, and acted on it.
Alan Crocket
Motherwell