Seven Challenges for the SNP, independence and the future of Scotland
Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation caught everyone out in its timing but had in truth been flagged up over the past couple of years. It is the end of an era of Scottish politics, offering new opportunities and challenges, while being disorientating and confusing for many.
Alex Salmond returned to SNP leadership nearly twenty years ago, narrowly winning the 2007 election, thus beginning the current period of SNP dominance – a period in which the party was blessed with a wealth of talents at its apex.
Somehow the party has now exhausted that well of talent. Part of it is the cumulative wear and tear of being in office so long. Another element has been the nature of the Sturgeon leadership – of not encouraging new talent or collegiate leadership or the culture of a shared collective project at the top.
As it currently stands there are three candidates – Humza Yousaf, Kate Forbes and Ash Regan – and from this narrow field the SNP membership will elect not only their leader but the First Minister of Scotland. This is a poor, mediocre set of choices for a governing and dominant party.
The field has become narrower by Angus Robertson not standing, but this has merely highlighted the problem. The ‘golden generation’ of the SNP has come to an end. Part of the responsibility for this is the Sturgeon leadership dominating the party, but it is also a product of a party exhausted by government and the challenges of office.
The contest could be about the big issues facing Scotland – the state of public services, dealing with the effects of a Tory Westminster Government and its hard Brexit, and how to rethink and remake independence – but so far the initial days have been about none of these.
Instead the dominant issues have been the gender recognition controversy and same sex marriage. All of the candidates have had to deal with the fall out of from the Gender Recognition Reform Act, the UK Government’s Section 35 blocking, and the resulting challenges in Scotland.
Even more time has been spent on same sex marriage and the question of LGBT equality. Kate Forbes is a member of the Free Church of Scotland, an avowed social conservative and someone who has gone on record as saying she is anti-abortion. In interviews on Monday she laid out her views on same sex marriage, telling Ciaran Jenkins of Channel 4 News that she would not have supported such a measure when it came before Parliament (not being a MSP at the time), but that as First Minister she will not ‘row back on rights that already exist’. Subsequently she said she is against having children outside marriage and even sex outside marriage. The ghosts of Sunday Post conservative authoritarianism and piety and Gordon Wilson hang over such comments.
There must be a chance that the way in which Forbes has articulated her views increases the likelihood of her withdrawing from the contest. She is already portraying herself as the victim of an ‘illiberal liberalism’ and seems to have no political nous about how to calibrate her message to a predominantly social liberal and secular Scotland – and to a party which in a 2017 YouGov survey had 83% membership support for gay marriage.
The wider dimension to this is the role of faith and Christianity in a secular society, and whether it is possible to lead a socially liberal political party and country from a position of social conservatism? Faith is no barrier to political leadership. In recent years, whatever one thinks of them, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, professed their Christian socialism; former SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford is a member of the same Free Church as Forbes but has supported abortion rights and same sex marriage.
Beyond this the dominance of the above illustrates a deeper malaise. Where are the ideas and energy about the huge issues facing the country? About how the SNP renews itself in office and does politics differently? And where are the new ideas and energy on independence?
Seven Challenges for the SNP and Independence
A number of challenges awaits any new leader.
First, the nature of the SNP leadership has to change. Politics cannot continually be about ‘the great leader’, sucking energy and oxygen out of every other space. Second, a party which has not been given permission to openly debate and reflect on the big strategic issues since 2014 has to reassert its right: in its forums and as a membership led organisation.
Third, what the SNP does in government clearly matters and has consequences, and after sixteen years it is at best a patchy record. Related to the above two points the SNP’s record as the Scottish Government has increasingly involved SNP ministers thinking they know best and that the answer to every domestic problem is more power to ministers (with the SNP-Green agreement not checking this dynamic).
Fourth, beyond independence and linked to it is the nature of the Scotland the SNP claim to aspire to. Nicola Sturgeon in the words of Joyce McMillan in The Scotsman is a ‘dyed-in-the-wool social democrat’, but if that is true it is a very apologetic, defensive social democracy. One which seems to amount to ultimately no more than social democracy being what a SNP Government thinks and does (and rather similar to an older adage that ‘socialism is what a Labour Government does’).
Fifth is the question of rethinking independence. The end of the Sturgeon era breaks the illusion that independence is just around the corner – which the First Minister tried to give voice to from 2017 to the end of 2022 and the Supreme Court decision. The breaking of that increasingly threadbare illusion is a potential liberation for independence as well as for wider Scotland. It forces people to go away and rethink their basic assumptions, and not make the widespread mistake many independence supporters did of believing that it only needs the right bold leadership, declaration or process fix and Scotland will be free.
Sixth, the nature of what independence is should involve more than party, politicians and political institutions. Former Yes strategist Stephen Noon summarised this on Monday in The Times when he said the SNP used to emphasise ‘the culture of independence’ and no longer seem to do. This is a crucial dimension, glimpsed in 2014, and subsequently left to wither (for example the Scottish Government until this week proposing grim cuts to arts and culture budgets which they were forced to reverse). Independence is about how we do cultural change, how we nurture the cultural values of our country, how we encourage a diverse cultural representation which portrays the whole of Scotland, and how independence is linked to confidence and hope. This is a terrain I examined in Scotland Rising: The Challenge of Independence published late last year, and leaving this area unchampioned greatly restricts and limits the potential of independence.
Seventh, related to all the above is the question of power and democracy. Independence cannot be a top-down, narrow, managerial process which merely involves power shifting from Westminster to Holyrood – from one sovereign, omnipotent Parliament to another. Nicola Sturgeon made this mistake when after the Supreme Court decision she claimed independence was ‘Scotland’s democracy movement’. This only has plausibility if independence is obviously about sharing and dispersing power within Scotland, which has conspicuously not happened under the SNP in office.
Connected to all of the above is the challenge of the relationship of the SNP to the wider independence movement. Independence is about more than the SNP, but it needs a successful SNP to win. This then brings forth how the SNP and wider independence relate to one another. The idea of an Independence Convention floated by Alex Salmond sounds superficially attractive, but there is no chance of the SNP and Alba sitting in the same cross-party forum. For one, Salmond for all his talents is toxic and it points the wrong way with voters. More creative would be thinking about how to open out political discussions and contributions from Labour independence supporters and across the spectrum, bringing together social democratic, progressive and radical currents.
The final end of the imperial era of the SNP was always bound to come sometime. It is perplexing and anxious making for some, but it does offer a window of opportunity and opening for all of us to rethink how we do politics, the state of Scotland and independence.
The current play of UK politics suggests strongly that a Labour Government under Keir Starmer is more than likely to be elected in 2024. Despite Labour’s current stratospheric opinion poll leads (27% with Redfield and Wilton and 28% with YouGov this week), it is more than probable that 2024 will not be a 1997 landslide. Labour starts from much further behind the Tories now than in 1997 (163 seats in 2019; 55 seats in 1992); winning a mere 202 seats in 2019 compared to 271 in 1992. And Labour’s reputation and leadership has not yet transformed in its ratings in the way Blair and Brown did pre-1997.
A Labour Government will be a sea change moment for UK and Scottish politics that the SNP and independence must respond to in kind. This will require a new kind of politics from the SNP and a different vision of independence to emerge, none of which is a bad thing, but which will take time.
Don’t believe in fairy tales
A final observation about the SNP and the future of Scotland. In recent years the SNP, aided by their years of dominance, have begun to believe their own hype. That Scotland is a land progressing to becoming fairer and more equal; that Scotland is the most successful social democratic country in the world; that independence is just around the corner if only we seize the moment offered; and that process politics and quick-fixes can bring about the advancement of independence.
All political parties in office and dominant for a significant period end up falling for what are in effect fairy tales and a world of make-belief. Look at the example of the present-day UK Tories obsessed by the pursuit of a pure, unattainable Brexit and the shibboleth of an undiluted sovereignty impossible in the modern world.
This is a salutary point for the SNP, its new leader and leadership, and independence. The future of Scotland will involve hard choices in a difficult, harsh world. This cannot be ducked or avoided. Facing up to this should be central to the SNP and independence, accepting that we will all need to grow up and show a depth, maturity and respect for each other to take responsibility to make those choices. That would be a culture of independence worthy of its name – one which would reach far beyond the SNP and party politics.
“Where are the ideas and energy about the huge issues facing the country?”
Where indeed, as far as the UK is concerned too? Keir Starmer, if he wins, has little in the way of big ideas and has shelved many of the popular (Corbyn) policies that got him elected as LOTO. He has failed to tackle the Tory government on their privatisation of the NHS in England, is getting attacked by the unions for failing to support striking workers, and will not take a position on public sector pay. Meanwhile the Scottish government is negotiating with the various unions, with some success.
The SNP, like all UK parties, is faced with an establishment and media hegemony which makes it almost impossible to be truly progressive (i.e. socialist). This state of affairs has got much worse over the last 20 years, so it’s no surprise that the SNP Government is accused of managerialism. The UK currently has a government based on neoliberal economics, and a Labour government led by Starmer and his Blairite colleagues will only be marginally better.
Furthermore, Scotland within the UK has no real economic power and is clearly not a self-governing state. It’s more akin to a council with slightly more tax-raising powers. That means the Scottish government has limited policy choices, which (in my view inevitably) sees them ring-fencing a higher level of council spending than some would like to see. Would you sacrifice (for example) a public Scotrail and pay deals with ASLEF and the RCN for more flexible council budgets? Now tell me what the Labour party in Scotland would do better when in thrall to a Tory-lite Labour government at Westminster.
I watched The Resignation of Nicola Sturgeon (a BBC Disclosure documentary) which covers a range of problems and suggests the fall-out could be more damaging still for the SNP, once the presumed skeletons fall out of the closet.
That the climate emergency, the pollution of the natural world, the extinction of species, the reversible maldevelopment of human culture, the militarisation of global politics, do not seem to be priorities for the SNP-Green government suggests a fundamental lack of a grip on reality/ethics.
In regards to the first part of the article, is same-sex marriage socially liberal or socially conservative, or both? I think veteran campaigner Peter Tatchell holds the view that it is both liberal and conservative, and is not especially in favour.
“the diversity of modern relationships requires an alternative to marriage”
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/interview-with-peter-tatchell/
I suspect this is why most of the more senior & experienced MSPs & MPs are not standing now – because they know there will be skeletons aplenty and don’t want to have to deal with that. Let one of the young punks deal with that. With Ian Blackford giving his young kids as an excuse, he may well be focused on coming back when the kids are older and the skeletal dust has settled.
Your ignorance is so deep you can’t even name the correct politician who chose not to stand because of his young children. But what can we expect from someone with such a racist username it wouldn’t even have been considered funny in the 1970s.
Given the visible (hidden?) paucity of talent in Holyrood (all parties) I had some hopes that Kate Forbes, a real person in the real world, would prove to be the catalyst required to change Scotland into girding its loins and entering the world of self-governing nations. Alas, like a Cathar, she was too honest for her own good. I am an atheist, but think people of faith have exactly the same freedom of choice as anyone else. If Forbes votes agin a “thing” but bows to the majority, that’s fine with me.
Sunday Post couthiness has long been a joke, but it remains popular with many in our population. If Forbes could harness that and if the SNP could rediscover its radicalism, then the fabled 60% + could be ours. In a decade perhaps.
In a normal situation, a spell in opposition would do the SNP good——- but Holyrood could be an empty talking shop if Labour gets back in.
Translation: “Homophobia is fine by me.”
Have you thought of lying down in a darkened room?
‘Faith is no barrier to political leadership’.
Except, Kate Forbes’ faith is clearly a barrier to being First Minister, though not to being Finance Minister. Yet, Kate Forbes’ faith – with its restrictive attitude to sex – has been mainstream in Scottish Christianity for as long as Scotland has existed – until recent decades. It is also mainstream Christianity across most of the globe.
It is clear that Diversity, in this instance, requires an acceptance of secular values first. This is a reversion to the recent past. From the 1840s till the 1970s, Catholics in Scotland were treated in this way. Not second class citizens, as in Alabama or Georgia, but not quite first class ones either. Jews and Moslems had a similar experience.
‘Where are the ideas and energy on independence ?’
The genuinely large political engagement around the 2014 referendum failed to produce much in terms of ideas. In the past 8 years, the SNP has coasted along, winning elections easily, without them. Their luck may be about to run out.
The simple truth is that there is little intellectual life in Scottish politics. Two name come to mind; Neal Ascherson and Jim Sillars; aged 90 and 85 respectively; Tom Nairn having died recently, aged 90.
@florian albert, Kate Forbes is not being barred from contending for leadership of the SNP nor appointment to the post of First Minister. The contest will, I gather, be put to a vote. There will be calculations on whether each candidate can unite the great majority of the Party, persuade an election-winning slice of the Electorate, gain the backing of key supporters. You don’t have to unite the great majority of the party as Finance Minister.
The contest is being held in 2023, not decades ago, for a near-future political battleground, so I don’t see the relevance of the history lesson. Far more relevant will be the Religion section of the 2022 Census, which results we are still awaiting publication of:
https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/news-and-events/the-scotland-s-census-2022-outputs-consultation-has-now-closed/
I agree that these political posts should require acceptance of secular values, but the UK/British Empire is not a secular state, although arguably Scotland is a more secular component. Something to inform the drafting of a new Constitution.
Deficiencies in Scottish intellectual life (I don’t consider myself qualified to judge this) would be an argument for Independence anyway.
“The simple truth is that there is little intellectual life in Scottish politics.”
This is absolutely true. I realised that the SNP were intellectually hollow during the 2017 election.
It ties in directly with Gerry’s point about culture. Independence will only come once a majority of Scots see themselves as culturally different from the British/English norm. That requires an intellectual underpinning.
Not sure at all how the SNP rectifies this.
‘…political kudos…’ – do you not mean ‘political nous’, Gerry? It just seems out of place. A very good analysis btw.
Many thanks for your comments and point re: ‘kudos’. Changed.
Some interesting thoughts here, notably the idea that the end of the Sturgeon era “breaks the illusion that independence is just around the corner”, and that we need to stop kidding ourselves that “it only needs the right bold leadership, declaration or process” for Scotland to achieve independence.
I suspect that more people within the SNP than within the wider Yes movement are prepared to accept that this is indeed the case. Indeed, the Yes movement is arguably part of the problem. And some of the new thinking required is coming from the SNP. Humza Yousaf, for example, has expressed the view that we need far more than 51% for independence, and that we are way off independence being anything close to the “settled will” of the Scottish people. A lot follows from this. First, let’s ditch the whole misconceived idea of “de facto” referendums. Instead, we need to build new alliances, and the obvious unifying issue to fight the next general election on is democracy, and the right of the Scottish people to choose their own future, not independence itself.
What form should this new alliance politics take? For a start, lets not imperil the SNP-Green alliance, which some candidates in the SNP leadership election seem perfectly happy to do. Instead, let’s try and extend it further within the Labour movement, notably the trade unions. Some positive moves in this direction have already been made under Sturgeon’s leadership: they should be further promoted. Only then, I think will we be in a position to set up a genuinely broad independence convention, truly representative of civic Scotland. As things stand, we are nowhere near achieving that necessary breadth of support.
Scottish electorate appears to split 4 ways:
1.Support independence as a fundamental principle regardless of benefit to self or country. Baseline independence support pre 2012.
2.Support remaining in UK regardless of benefit to self or country. Majority probably oppose devolution as well.
3.Support independence as they think it would benefit self/country in medium to long term. Possibly also think it can’t be much worse than remaining in UK. Moved to Yes since 2012.
4.Do not currently support independence because they do not see benefit to self or country. I would suggest this group tends more to benefit to self and is more interested in short term.
Group 1 probably is about 25-30% of population and can be discounted. This group is also a more elderly demographic. Challenge is to win as many from Group 4 over to Yes without losing people from Groups 2 & 3.
In 79 Devolution vote 37% of overall electorate voted in favour similar to Yes vote in 2014. By 1997 this a majority of electorate voted in favour of devolution and Yes supporters must learn from how this was achieved.
@JP58, there seems to a key demographic variable that influences the selfish perspective, in that some of the older generation appear particularly keen on haste, so as to see Scottish Independence in their own lifetime, regardless of whether the swiftest path is the surest, safest or most sustainable. Maybe there is a Unionist counterpart, individuals with a desire to put off Independence at least until they are in the ground themselves, no matter the longer-term consequences of the selected means.
The Brexit vote highlighted this anomaly of the elderly voting for something that had long term effects that they would not be around to experience. Indeed by the time the UK actually left the EU I believe there was more people still living who had voted to remain than to leave.
The other thing becoming clear from Brexit vote is that it is easier to leave than rejoin as this requires other parties to agree on this.
In light of the above issues I would suggest that as well as having to get 50+% of voters there should be a higher threshold for voters under 66 in a second independence referendum. I appreciate that you cannot stop the elderly from voting as this would be undemocratic but a higher threshold for younger voters would give greater weight to votes of those who will be affected more by outcome.
Sorry – I should have said Group 2 is approximately 25 – 30%. These are committed unionists which is a completely legitimate stance to take but they can be ignored with respect to independence vote as nothing will persuade them to vote Yes.
The real target groups are groups 3 & 4 (soft Yes & No’s). They are also far more concerned with the impact of independence rather than the mechanisms of independence.