In recent discussions surrounding Scottish independence, Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, has firmly stated that if the Scottish National Party (SNP) wins a majority in the upcoming Holyrood elections next year, there will be no second independence referendum. This declaration has sparked significant backlash, particularly from the SNP leadership.
Reeves articulated her stance during an interview on Radio Scotland’s Breakfast show, emphasizing her commitment to the UK government’s position that the question of independence should not be revisited. She noted that the last referendum, held in 2014, was presented as a “once-in-a-generation” event, a sentiment echoed by many, including Alex Salmond, the former First Minister of Scotland. However, Reeves argues that this referendum exhausted the issue for the foreseeable future.
Scottish Finance Secretary Shona Robison reacted strongly to Reeves’ comments, labeling them as an “astonishing display of arrogance.” Robison has implied that the Labour government, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, risks further alienating the Scottish electorate by denying them the opportunity to decide their own future. She asserted that if the SNP is given a democratic mandate in May—by winning a majority of seats—it would be unjust for Labour to refuse the referendum they seek.
First Minister John Swinney has positioned himself to assert a mandate for another referendum should the SNP win, utilizing strategies similar to those that established the successful 2014 vote. He aims to channel the momentum from the elections to initiate discussions about the independence mandate once again if his party secures victory.
Reeves’ comments drew attention not only due to their boldness but also because they reflect a broader sentiment within the Labour Party regarding independence. She emphasized the need for the Scottish government to prioritize pressing domestic issues, such as reducing NHS waiting times and enhancing education, over the contentious debate surrounding independence. Her stance has sparked debate about what constitutes effective governance in the face of continued calls for independence from many sectors of the Scottish populace.
In regard to the time frame of a generation, Reeves responded vaguely, suggesting that it is “certainly not 12 years.” This statement directly addressed the notion that the previous referendum should suffice for an extended period before another vote is warranted. She reiterated that the Labour government should focus on challenges facing Scotland rather than revisiting contentious constitutional issues.
The SNP, meanwhile, indicates that the prevailing narrative from Westminster may not resonate with voters, particularly if the party is perceived as being undermined in its goal to obtain self-determination. Robison, in her discussion with Radio Scotland’s Breakfast team, emphasized that Labour’s current posture of refusing to acknowledge the potential for another referendum might drive Labour’s poll numbers down even further in Scotland, making it seem disconnected from the people it aims to represent.
Swinney has reinforced through various channels that the strategy agreed upon at the recent SNP conference seeks to replicate the conditions that enabled the 2014 referendum. However, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has previously indicated that he would not expect a second referendum to occur during his leadership, creating further obstacles for those pushing for independence.
Taken together, these statements highlight a moment of friction between the nationalist aspirations of the SNP and the current Labour-led government at Westminster. The upcoming Holyrood elections will undoubtedly provide a critical barometer for public sentiment towards independence and the future of Scottish self-governance in a complex political landscape. The debate continues surrounding what “once-in-a-generation” truly means, and whether the sentiments of the Scottish people can actually undermine the current decrees from Labour’s leadership.
