For more than a decade, the question of Scotland’s place in the UK was at the front and centre of political debate – a determiner of voter behaviour and a precursor to the Scottish government’s legislative agenda. Through, and as a consequence of, the 2024 general election, that has ceased to be the case. An almost eerie silence now envelopes the constitutional arena.
Independence campaigners may still talk of the significance of their fight, but it is undeniable that the matter no longer grips politics, Scottish or UK, in the way it once did. For unionists, this reprieve has been long-sought. The circumstances of its arrival, though, provide an unstable foundation, and unionists’ reluctance to seize the agenda means this reprieve might be short-lived.
The low salience of independence at the general election can be traced back to the resignation of Nicola Sturgeon and the ensuing events – see: Operation Branchform, a bitter and bizarre leadership contest (what exactly is an independence thermometer?) and Humza Yousaf’s short tenure as First Minister. During this period, the SNP lost respect and trust, conceding ground just as the Labour Party was positioning itself as a UK government-in-waiting.
With the independence campaign and the SNP essentially inseparable, the resulting fall from grace of the Party has left the campaign not just with little direction, but more significantly set back.
The “page one, line one” approach – in which the SNP’s 2024 general election manifesto declared that winning a majority of Scottish seats would result in “immediate negotiations with the UK Government to give democratic effect to Scotland becoming an independent country” – backfired spectacularly. The SNP nose-dived to nine MPs.
Although this approach had already been widely dismissed by commentators and the SNP’s opponents, voters also regarded the ultimatum as unserious. Preoccupied with the cost-of-living crisis and desperate to eject the Tories from power, voters turned away from the SNP and, for the first time since 2010, Labour emerged as Scotland’s largest party at Westminster.
Scottish Labour succeeded by appealing to a broad church of supporters encompassing both loyal No and less-hardline Yes voters. For the latter as much as the former, the independence question was of less immediate significance than concerns around government delivery and competence. Gerry Hassan describes the election in Scotland as being one of “double change” whereby incumbency wounded the SNP just as much as it harmed the Tories.
But winning in this context should worry Labour too: sweeping to power on the tailwind of huge public frustration only intensifies the requirement for visible and meaningful change. After only a year in power, Labour’s favour with the public has already faded and its poor performance has given way to a breakthrough for Nigel Farage’s Reform Party, including in Scotland.
And, of course, even if independence was less pressing at the election, it remains an issue which divides opinion. The Scottish public continues to be split on the question of Scotland’s future. What’s strange is that neither side appears willing or able to break that deadlock and fill the agenda vacuum.
First, despite the UK government experiencing serious backlash over issues such as the winter fuel payment and welfare reforms, the SNP have been unsuccessful at translating public dissatisfaction into sustained support for themselves or independence. Indeed, at the recent Scottish Parliament by-election in Hamilton, Labour gained the seat, against expectation, with the SNP vote down a dramatic 16.8%.
The Hamilton result confirms that the electorate remains unimpressed by the Scottish government and that the SNP’s record continues to alienate voters. Where in the past people may have been prepared to set aside poor government performance as a trade-off for the delivery of independence, that no longer looks to be the case. And, consequently, a renewed call for a plebiscite on the issue risks being viewed as a diversion tactic from the SNP’s responsibilities in government. The Scottish government, therefore, may find it challenging to exploit Labour’s waning public support without first addressing their own public perception.
Equally, the 2024 election does not represent a permanent return to Scottish Labour’s heyday, though it does demonstrate the kind of coalition the Party needs if it’s to dominate Scottish elections again. With little evidence that the UK government is interested in wholesale constitutional change, though, it’s hard to foresee a voter coalition – inclusive of the indy curious – enduring. Labour has spent the best part of the last decade marginalised because of the constitutional question’s impact on voter intention. Party insiders often surmised that a return to government would be enough, in and of itself, to shift opinion in favour of the No campaign. That blue sky thinking now faces gloomy forecasts. In power, Labour ought to be presenting a programme of democratic renewal to persuade Scots, especially those inclined towards independence, that reform within the Union is possible. Action on this, however, is in short supply, with little rational explanation.
That is not to negate areas of progress. This government’s approach to devolved relations is noticeably more collegiate and respectful than the last. The Tories’ approach to devolution saw the legislative consent convention (known as Sewel) undermined, with Holyrood routinely rejecting what it saw as an encroachment in devolved competence areas from the UK Parliament. In the last twelve months, however, numerous consent motions have been laid and approved by the Scottish Parliament, testament to an improved partnership that is also apparent in intergovernmental activity.
But none of this is permanent, and it is entirely reliant on good faith. In the now-forgotten Gordon Brown commission, endorsed by both Anas Sarwar and Sir Keir Starmer, an incoming Labour government was encouraged to address, with meaningful reform, areas where Conservative action had weakened the fabric of the Union.
So far, there has been no movement on enacting a statutory duty to cooperate or translating the Sewel convention into a binding legal rule. Both of these would be a marked demonstration of a responsive Union, but inaction on these fronts leaves devolution vulnerable. If voters in Scotland are to be convinced that Labour can deliver meaningful constitutional reform, the Party has to begin embedding this reform in legislation as well as convention. On this note, proposals to replace the House of Lords with an assembly representative of, and electorally accountable to, the nations and regions have not been forthcoming. It had been envisaged that the new upper house would give Scotland greater representation as part of a territorial chamber acting as a constitutional guardian and protecting devolved power.
Why calls for these changes and new devolved powers have faded is not easy to comprehend. Perhaps Scottish Labour fears that reactivating constitutional debate will ignite calls for a new independence referendum when, at the moment at least, all remains quiet. But this is their moment, and not acting now may mean that Scots later conclude that the Union will simply never adapt. People had come to assume this under the Conservatives, but if Labour, too, rest on the issue, then the constitutional question may finally topple in favour of those desiring change.
Too often movement on constitutional matters comes only in times of genuine crisis, with political actors ignoring the air raid siren until the moment is upon them. They fail to see the calm as the time for action. Now ought to be when Labour makes its case for the Union, what it could be and why Scots should buy into it.
This inertia may become central at next year’s Scottish Parliament elections when the SNP and Labour face their greatest test of public support yet. As it stands, neither government immediately commands confidence, meaning that this could be an election shaped by voters’ concerns around the constitution, with the parties cancelling one another out on competence.
Silence on the former, then, is not a strategy. Between now and May, both parties have a chance to lay out a vision for the next chapter in Scotland’s constitutional journey – the future of which remains as unpredictable as ever. This is an issue that is less heated and less insistent, but still present. An unresolved question with the prize of shaping the future to be won by whoever is willing to make a case for it.
Declan McLean.
Declan McLean is a PhD student at Cardiff University. His research focuses on the future of the UK’s territorial constitution. He has worked in the Scottish and UK Parliaments and as a Researcher at the University of Glasgow’s Law School.
The Constitution Society is committed to the promotion of informed debate and is politically impartial. Any views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and not those of The Constitution Society.