The latest leaders special of the BBC Debate Night programme offered little in the way of surprise, proving to be a predictable and dull affair where every politician performed exactly as expected. While the studio format was intended to provide clarity ahead of the May election, it instead highlighted a profound and insidious stagnation in Scottish and British politics. The most glaring issue remains the refusal of unionist politicians to provide a clear, democratic answer on how the people of Scotland can actually trigger an independence referendum.

This constitutional impasse was brought into sharp focus by the recent comments of the UK Health Secretary, Wes Streeting. Speaking on LBC earlier on Sunday, Streeting categorically ruled out a second vote, stating simply that the people of Scotland are not having one. His justification—that the country has endured enough chaos through the financial crash, Brexit, the pandemic, and the ongoing war in Iran—attempts to frame a fundamental democratic question as a mere nuisance or a distraction the public is too exhausted to handle. By categorising the pursuit of independence as a form of systemic disruption equivalent to a global pandemic, the Labour administration is effectively seeking to delegitimise constitutional debate entirely.

For many voters, this position is an insult to their intelligence. When pressed on what would constitute a legitimate mandate, unionist politicians such as Anas Sarwar have deflected, arguing that it is for independence supporters to set out the route they think a referendum would take. This creates a circular and frustrating logic: the UK Government relies on its legal victory in the Supreme Court to maintain that Holyrood lacks the power to legislate for a vote, yet refuses to define any mechanism by which that power might be granted or triggered by the electorate. It appears that these parties only support the principles of democracy when the likely outcome suits their immediate political needs.

The current situation is one of mutual convenience for the political class but of deep detriment to the public. Unionist politicians continue to stick their fingers in their ears, refusing to confront the reality that nearly half the population consistently supports a different constitutional path. Conversely, pro-independence parties are often content to maintain their slice of the aggrieved vote share, leaning into a narrative of Westminster control and the “Claim of Right” to sustain their electoral base without necessarily finding a breakthrough. This co-dependent relationship of grudge and grievance ensures that the fundamental question of Scottish sovereignty remains a permanent scar on the body politic rather than a problem to be resolved.

The grown-up and adult thing to do in 2026 would be for all political parties to move past the rhetoric of “chaos” and “contempt” and convene a constitutional convention. Such a summit would be tasked with a single, clear objective: to define and codify the specific conditions under which the Scottish people can trigger a referendum. Without such a defined route, the claim that the United Kingdom is a voluntary union of nations becomes impossible to maintain. Until the politicians on that stage stop performing to their scripts and start treating the electorate with the respect they deserve, the constitutional impasse will continue to hollow out our democracy.