A Loveless Landslide

Labour have won a landslide on a smaller percentage of the vote than they won under Jeremy Corbyn. On 35% of the vote they have been swept to power on a promise to do nothing at all. Such is the nature of British politics that today feels both momentous and completely banal. The joy of seeing the Conservatives annihilated is tempered by the rhetoric from Labour.

This wasn’t a Labour win, it was a Tory collapse, and when that sinks in the reality of a Starmer government will be seen for what it is.

The election was a disaster for the SNP who are reduced to just 9 seats. It was not a ‘bad night’ it was and is a catastrophic defeat seeing the departure of Kirsten Oswald, Deidre Brock, Tommy Sheppard, Alison Thewliss and high-profile MP Joanna Cherry who took no time to lay the blame at Nicola Sturgeon’s door. This was not an election lost by the SNP by a bad campaign, by a confused pitch or by a strange manifesto, it is the culmination of years of confusion, lack of direction, loss of strategy and a complete failure of leadership and ambition. It is the culmination of an inability to resolve contradictory policies and take part in any form of self-honesty about where we are and why. The twin drivers of Holyrood policy failure and a complete confusion about what the Westminster cohort were for has led to this debacle. The party is now short of funds and will likely ‘stagger on’ with Continuity John towards the 2026 election. But without an honest appraisal and some major changes they will suffer further decline.

In a gleeful editorial for the Guardian Severin Carrell writes: “The general election result is a catastrophe for John Swinney and the Scottish National party, which has dominated Scottish politics for a decade.”

“A decade on from the independence referendum, the SNP has been swept aside by a resurgent Labour across central and western Scotland – to a far greater degree than any opinion poll predicted.”

“On the eve of the election, Swinney had insisted the race in Scotland was too close to call. Unlike Labour’s certain victory across England, he said, the SNP was in a nip and tuck race with Labour in Scotland.”

“In the event, the SNP has been humiliated, losing three-quarters of its Westminster seats, down by at least 38. Many of its voters stayed at home to register discontent at the party’s failure to deliver a second independence referendum or their disillusionment with the series of scandals hitting it at Holyrood, its policy failures and its divisions over gender recognition.”

Carrell joins a throng of liberal commentators who will be overjoyed by these events. I’m not sure about his take: “SNP’s humiliation in Scotland shows independence is no longer a priority”. It may be that the fortunes of the SNP and the cause of independence are no longer tied together, and this may not be a bad thing. It may be that people have realised that the party and the cause are not inter-changeable, that, if anything, the SNP are at present unable to deliver.

In his first speech as PM Keir Starmer has promised ‘stability and moderation’. This is a nothing burger of a victory based on revulsion for the Tories. Having promised nothing at all Labour have a very low bar to deliver. But a handful of independents (including Corbyn) point to enduring problems for the incoming government. Complicity with Israeli genocidal activities will not go away, nor will constitutional intransigence.

After fourteen years of a Tory hellscape people are crying out for real change and the problems of grotesque social inequality are unlikely to be resolved by Labour’s promises of ‘stability and moderation’. Having stolen the Conservatives economic policies and hollowed out the party of dissent and intent, Starmer now needs to move from placating the red tops to a meaningful programme of government. It remains to be seen what they can deliver other than Not Being the Tories.

Scottish politics is now blown apart by these results and the real left and the independence movement will need a period of soul-searching and honest appraisal. As the BBC’s Philip Sim notes, “Alba managed a total of 11,784 votes across the 19 constituencies they contested – losing their deposit in all 19. Neale Hanvey was best at 2.8% in Cowdenbeath & Kirkcaldy, Kenny MacAskill 1.5% in Alloa & Grangemouth, George Kerevan 1.2% in Lothian East, Corri Wilson 1.2% in Ayr.” These are not the results of a serious party, and if the SNP needs to offer something beyond the same old tactics and the same old faces, so too do Alba. Both are likely to soldier on regardless.

The electorate have chosen a party that has promised nothing, let’s see how that works for a country on its knees after fourteen years of disastrous misrule. People deserve better.

 

Comments (83)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published.

  1. Roland says:

    In France the extreme right wing RN party won the first round of their elections with 34% of the vote. However, this victory could well be mitigated in the second round this coming Sunday. Labour will no doubt be happy to have a huge majority of MPs on virtually the same percentage as the RN but they should also be aware that a similar “landslide” could be achieved by the Reform Party in a future election with the support of only a third of the electorate.

  2. Iain L says:

    SNP & Alba need to find a solution to the current split. In the Independence Movement.

    Unity is strength after all.

    Also, the term “National Party” smacks of you know what and I recall Nicola Sturgeon bemoaning this and wishing SNP was called something different.

    There’s no reason why it can’t be renamed and now may be a good opportunity to do so while negotiating peace all round.

    A new broom could sweep clean in 2026.

    1. ALBA aren’t a thing. Get real.

    2. 240705 says:

      ‘Scottish Independence Party’?

    3. John says:

      Alba got 12,000 votes in total – they are an irrelevance too the vast majority of people in Scotland. Time for AS to show some dignity, wind Alba up and stop trashing his reputation and legacy.
      SNP got a drubbing primarily due to people who had previously supported them staying at home allied to some older Labour switchers moving back to Labour.
      Tory vote halved primarily due to Tories, who are hostile to independence, switching to Labour or Lib Dem’s to defeat SNP.
      Reform did a lot less well in Scotland because they are primarily an English nationalist party.
      SNP failed in 3 key areas:
      1.Competency in government.
      2.Clearly show the benefits of independence for majority of people in Scotland.
      3. A clear, believable, democratic route to achieving independence.
      Unless SNP can succeed in these aims people may say they support independence but they will not see it as a priority in their life or at the ballot box.

    4. Alec Lomax says:

      All Alba’s candidates (including Hanvey and MacAskill) lost their deposits the other night. Alex’s vanity project is drawing to a close.

  3. Daniel Raphael says:

    Concise, clear, and spot on. Tweeted/posted to as many as I can, and glad to see the stream of incisive analysis continuing from this site. More like it, please.

  4. Jeannie Mackenzie says:

    How much can we contribute the downfall of the SNP and the failure of the Scottish Greens to win a single seat to both parties ignoring the rights of women and child safeguarding? It’s not necessarily that those concerned on these issues may have voted Labour, but that they may not have voted at all.

    1. Graham Kerr says:

      In which case Joanne Cherry would have been safe as houses… as she has spoken out passionately the other way. But no she got wiped out too

    2. Elaine Fraser says:

      Women stayed at home or voted for a female Labour candidate they hoped would be gender critical or like me spoiled their votes writing WomenWontWheesht across the ballot paper.

      One example – A small group of women attended a local hustings on Sunday – we had each submitted questions on women rights and child safeguarding – none of our questions were selected. We left disgusted but not surprised having spent the last 5 yrs+ trying to get MSPs and MPs to listen to our concerns. I have met with and written to all of my 8 MSPs over the years. Not one listened or offered help. Kezia Dugdale said “well this makes a change from talking about bins”…Andy Wightman assured me there was nothing to worry about ….later when he did question Greens policy he was out..only Jeremy Balfour ( Tory) a disabled man with two daughters took me seriously and listened carefully.
      One MP Joanna Cherry MP heard and supported women risking her own personal safety and being ostracised by her own party for doing so. Nicola Sturgeon ( now a BRASS NECKED tv pundit who talks about “the SNP” like its nothing to do with her) said women concerns were ” not valid” and struggled to call rapist Isla Bryson a man live on TV. So what have we got with Labour?
      A Prime Minister who wont say what a woman is… A Foreign Secretary who thinks ” women are dinosaurs who hoard rights”…to name only two … then we have Ed Davey who worries about who will look after his disabled son when he’s gone but it seems could care less for mothers who worry about their disabled daughters having their intimate care needs attended to by a bloke in a dress with Lib Dems promotion of self-id policy. No trust left. Its all yours fellas

      1. MrVertigo says:

        Do transphobes ever just take a day off?

      2. Alec Lomax says:

        There’s always the Scottish Family Party, Elaine.

  5. Peter Havelock says:

    The SNP has paid a terrible price for, amongst other things, teaming up with the mad-eyed Trans lobby.

    Once the Scottish general public found out about the party’s lunatic Trans plans, they were dead in the water.

    How did the party get this so wrong? Men being allowed in women’s toilets, men going into women’s changing rooms, and even a Trans rapist sent to a woman’s prison.

    The party’s rabidly right-on trans crusade shows how incredibly disconnected the SNP is from what most Scots want.

    This annihilation is well deserved and all hope of independence anytime soon is now sunk to the bottom of the Firth of Forth.

    1. David Milligan says:

      This is no time to be throwing Trans people under the bus cos we did so poorly. Not on at all in my view. We did not lose because of a microscopically small percentage of the population, much bigger issues at play, around strategy etc.

      1. Alistair Tuach says:

        I’m a Labour voter who supported yes and will do so again. I won’t vote SNP because they have been incompetent in government. Education is a mess, NHS as well. The ferry fiasco just to get a couple of days headlines. Also the Sturgeon worship was unhealthy in a political party., as well as the husband/wife partnership.

        1. Frank Mahann says:

          And voting Labour is going to bring about independence ? Okay…

  6. Dr Charlie Lynch says:

    A truly dismal night for the SNP as support evaporated. What struck me in Glasgow was the near lack of a campaign. The ‘Yes’ signs, which clung on, fading, in so many windows have now long gone. It seemed that the SNP had nothing to inspire people with. Their toleration of transphobia has alienated younger, progressive voters, while at the same time, there has been little attempt to alleviate the precarity and uncertainty which blight the lives of many. The useless lack of progress in delivering rent controls is a case in point. With hope in very short supply, we are doomed to bumble on as best we can, subject to the whims of bland suits and briefcases in the distance.

  7. Peter Havelock says:

    Ha ha, pathetic. Trans bigot in charge of “vetting” comments perhaps? It’s game over for the SNP and Scottish Independence for a very long time. The whole world is laughing at you.

  8. Mr Alistair Thomas says:

    Interesting that Labour on 35% is a landslide while SNP on 30% is a disaster. All this shows is the totally unfit nature of FPTP for running general elections. Unless Starmer & Co. actually swerve leftward, I fear I will see PM Farage in 2029.

    1. 240705 says:

      Interesting that SNP on 37% was a ‘landslide’ in 2017.

      1. Mr Alistair Thomas says:

        I think that was my point. Who the 35/37% is for isn’t relevant.

        1. 240706 says:

          Yep; that was indeed your point. I was just taking another example.

  9. Jake Solo says:

    Neither the SNP nor Alba are the answer. The SNP can’t and won’t reform itself and Alba can’t and won’t get off the ground. And neither has the balls to state what it’s going to take for Scotland to exit the UK in the face of permanent WM intransigence anyway. There is no hope in either of them.

    1. 240706 says:

      The big problem for Scottish nationalists is that there’s no legal mechanism (other than an act of the UK parliament) by which Scexit could be achieved. The Brexiteers faced no such problem when it came to the UK exiting the EU.

    2. Alec Lomax says:

      And what precisely is it for Scotland to take to get independence ?

  10. Richard Pelling says:

    I think you really need to take a more detailed look at the results overall. This is not the gleeful return to a golden age of Scottish subservience portrayed by the mainstream media. This is a lurch to the right and a stepping stone to a Faragist UK government to come. The traditional British Nationalist Parties – Labour, Tory & LibDem may form the prongs of the Trident – but Reform are the shaft and the prongs strike where the shaft is pointed.

  11. Richard Pelling says:

    Mike, I think you really need to take a more detailed look at the results overall. There is maybe more in the detail of the vote than the MSM want to mention. This is not the gleeful return to a golden age of Scottish subservience portrayed by the mainstream media. This is a lurch to the right and a stepping stone to a Faragist UK government to come. The traditional British Nationalist Parties – Labour, Tory & LibDem may form the prongs of the Trident – but Reform are the shaft and the prongs strike where the shaft is pointed.

    1. John Learmonth says:

      You may be correct but why is a Faragist govt likely?
      Any ideas?
      Could it be anything to do with 4 seats been won by (hmm how to put this) misogynist/homophobic/anti-semitic/anti-western/anti-democratic/anti secular begining with the word M.
      For the first time in mainland Britain (to be fair England the M’s dont have any great desire to live in Scotland) we have a serious sectarian problem and it will only get worse.

      1. 240705 says:

        I believe that Richard sacrificed a chicken today and read the dreadful omen in its entrails.

  12. florian albert says:

    ‘the real left and the independence movement will need a period of soul searching’

    Who exactly are the ‘real left’ in Scottish politics ?

    1. 240705 says:

      The ‘true believers’, as opposed to the apostates and heretics. The phrase ‘the real left’ is a product of the chronic sectarianism within the Left.

  13. Kit says:

    You talk about the “real left” and independence movement, but somehow failed to mention the Scottish Green Party at all? They are a pro-independence party on the left.

    So far, (still awaiting the results from Inverness, Skye & West Ross-shire) they have 90,647 votes, considerably more than Alba. They have more votes than Alba in all constituencies they both contested, by some margin. They have increased their vote share in every constituency they’ve stood in, have more than 5% of the vote share in 12 constituencies, and are now in 3rd place in 10 of them (all 6 constituencies in Glasgow, 3 in Edinburgh, plus Orkney & Shetland). Considering they lost all deposits in the 2019 GE, this is a very strong result.

    It’s unbelievable that anyone writing a serious article on this subject would mention Alba, which has never been a serious party, but neglect to mention the Scottish Greens, who have been a serious party in PR elections for years, and who have suddenly become one in a FPTP election as well. Maybe that is where the future of independence lies, especially if the transphobes can get a grip and unlearn their bigotry (but even if they cannot, as they don’t have nearly as many supporters as they think they do). If you’re looking for hope in this election, the Greens are it.

    1. John Monro says:

      Thanks, a worthwhile comment and you’re right, the omission is unfortunate. The Greens have a right to feel aggrieved with the SNP too but the SNP’s terrible result won’t be a consolation. .

  14. Niemand says:

    ‘Labour have won a landslide on a smaller percentage of the vote than they won under Jeremy Corbyn. On 35% of the vote they have been swept to power ‘

    Actually they only got 33.7% (way ahead of the Tories on 23%)

    But only Corbyn got 32% in 2019, Tories 43.6%

    But also, Corbyn got 10.2 million votes but Starmer only 9.6 million but turnout was down 7.6% in 2024.

    And also the Tories got 3.7 million more votes than Corbyn but Starmer only 3 million more than the Tories.

    All stats on wikipedia.

    The thing is you can analyse FPTP in all sorts of ways, as you can the various forms of PR but FPTP is about electing MPs from regions of the country as constituencies, not vote percentages overall. Once that is the principle of an election, the rest is bound to vary a lot.

    1. Steven says:

      The article is accurate – Corbyn’s Labour got 40% of the vote in 2017.

      1. 240706 says:

        The turnout in 2017 was only 68.8%. 40% of that is 27.5%. This means that Labour under Jeremy enjoyed the support of only 27.5% of the electorate in 2017. That fell to 21.5% in 2019.

        The turnout last Thusday was only 59.9%. This means that Labour under Keir enjoyed the support of only 20% of the total electorate on July 4th.

        However, because of the FPTP system and the fact that void and unused votes are discounted, this 20% support of the electorate has translated into a 63% share of the seats in the Commons, which obliges the Crown to invite Keir to be its Prime Minister and assmble its Cabinet.

        Crazy, innit!

      2. Niemand says:

        My figures are for 2019 which in fact are more stark in their similarity in vote percentages but with very differing end results and thus reaction.

        I see now Mike meant 2017 but didn’t state this I don’t think. Corbyn fought two elections.

    2. 240706 says:

      ‘The thing is you can analyse FPTP in all sorts of ways, as you can the various forms of PR but FPTP is about electing MPs from regions of the country as constituencies, not vote percentages overall.’

      Precisely! We don’t elect our governments in this country; our governments are formed by the party that can command a majority of votes in the parliament. In general elections, we’re only voting for who we want to represent our geographical constituency in the parliament.

      Overall vote percentages are an irrelevance in our general elections; it’s how many seats that each party wins that counts.

    3. John says:

      The figures in the article are correct and highlight how undemocratic the FPTP system is.
      I note many supporters on the left who railed against the unfairness of FPTP are now supporting it when it works in their favour.
      In essence Labour games the system well and we’re aided and abetted by Reform and tactical voting.
      If 35% share of vote can give a 170 seat majority in 2024 it could give a similar result for some right wing Tory/Reform UK Trumpian hybrid.
      The FPTP voting system is unfair and encourages negative voting and should be changed as a matter of democratic principle.

      1. 240706 says:

        Yep; we need some way of preventing single parties from achieving an overall majority in our councils and parliaments to encourage consensus-building.

        Mind you; that might mean that parties we don’t like, like Reform, gain disproportionate power and influence by entering coalitions with the larger minority parties, giving them a joint overall majority.

        It’s a difficult circle to square.

        1. John says:

          Firstly – the recent election result would not have given him a chance to be part of a coalition and studying recent results it is difficult, though not impossible, to see an election where under PR right wing votes would be majority.
          Notwithstanding this if Reform were to join a coalition as junior partner I would suggest recent history proves they would not have an undue influence. Only recent coalition 2010-2015 Lib Dem’s had to drop lead policy on abolishing Student Fees, got shafted on another one PR then took the blame in 2015 election. I would be interested to hear where they exerted undue influence?
          In contrast Nigel Farage in his various parties has had an enormous in last 15 years. He bullied Tories into an EU Referendum and has pulled Tories off to the right by exerting undue influence outside parliament and by being given a high media profile.
          Reform are half the party without Farage and if he was in a coalition he would either need to show some collective discipline or ship out. He would also come under far more critical scrutiny in a coalition party something he struggled with during election campaign.

      2. Niemand says:

        They are correct for 2017 not 2019. The article did not give a date but I see now 2017 was meant

        The thing is PR nearly always also invloves horse trading between parties to form a government with much smaller parties in terms of vote share gaining power as a result, not a coalition of the bigger ones. Is that democratic? We had our own rare version fo this with the 2010 election. Many found the LD’s in power with the Tories unfair and undemocratic.

        FPTP is about regions and their voter’s relationship to political parties. How is it that parties have different levels of support in different regions? Because they have a connection to the place and have built up support over decades – the LibDems in the south west is a good example. Looking at the current election stats ignores how all this works and just tots up numbers and says – look, unfair! It is not a proper analysis and is simplistic

        When it comes to PR I would say – be careful what you wish for and ask first, what are General Elections for? To offer the most democratic system possible thus leading to mutliple partners in power, or the most stable sinngle party governement that represents a more general will?

        1. John says:

          If you cannot see the utter unfairness of one party getting complete power on 1/3rd of votes received then you are completely tribal.
          The UK is now a multi party democracy and FPTP is wholly inadequate in reflecting this reality. How many other western democracies still use this discredited system? Observe how under PR the French electorate yesterday rejected the far right who would have been voted in with a mandate under FPTP on the first round of voting.
          Representation of local constituents is a vital link and this is still available under the Holyrood voting system which incorporates this and PR. I am sure you are aware of this.
          All political parties are coalitions- look at the 2 wings of Labour Party who have been in ascendancy in recent years. I did not personally agree with a lot of coalition policies of 2010 government but Con/Lib was fairest reflection of votes cast and I would argue that Lib Dem’s rained in a lot of right wing Tory policies. Coalitions or other such supply agreements have worked quite successfully in Holyrood and I would suggest the recent decision to finish the SNP/Green coalition was a failure by Humza Yousaf for which he quite rightly had to step down.
          The election vote was primarily to get the Tories out because they were so incompetent. Labour benefited by playing the system effectively and good luck to them but they do not have a mandate from majority of voters.
          Lastly, as I have said above, just because I personally intensely dislike Reform that is no reason that they should not be fairly represented in Parliament. What worries me most is under FPTP extremists like Reform can achieve complete power on 1/3rd of the popular vote despite being rejected by a vast majority of voters. I am happy, like the majority, that the Tories have gone, but this does not blind me to the utter unfairness of the outdated FPTP system.

          1. Niemand says:

            It isn’t tribalism at all (e.g. Reform are the party that has been most scuppered by FPTP this time and UKIP even more so a few years ago and in general Labour have suffered badly ever since they were formed due to the left / centre-left being split), it is simply understanding how the system works and why FPTP exists and is still preferred by some.

            One can argue about the merits of different systems. The LDs were terrible in the coalition. I am aware that you can still have regionality under some forms of PR of course but it is quite complicated. I actually appreciate the fact that at a GE, my MP, whatever their party is supposed to represent all voters, not just those who voted for them.

            The point remains – how do you justify all the horse trading that happens with PR with those who got low votes gaining power in coalitions over those who got a lot more? That is arguably even less democratic than FPTP as it all happens behind closed doors and the people have zero say in it.

            Is the French system really PR as we know it? – a single official is elected for a given area after a run-off for both presidential and national assembly. It is the runoff that is distinct and gave the chance for what happened at the weekend, but it isn’t PR. I am glad it happened but I can see why the RN would say it was a bit of stitch up. No system is perfect.

          2. John says:

            Niemand – you are defending the indefensible from any perspective of fairness of representation.
            Labour got approximately 66% of seats with 33% of vote.
            In 2019 SNP got approximately 90% of seats from 45% of vote.
            Plainly both of these outcomes are ridiculous, do not in any way represent the electorate’s wishes and cannot be sustained.
            I did not personally like the policies of Con/Lib coalition but it provided stable government for 5 years and many right wing Tories were unhappy because the government had to moderate policies.
            Coalitions/ arrangements can be made to work- most Holyrood governments have not had a majority, indeed it was set up in such a way to avoid a single party majority. This has worked for the majority of the last 25 years.
            I see no difference between my constituency MSP and MP and have required the assistance of both over the years.
            What any country requires is not strong government it needs wise and stable government. Do you think we have had wise and stable government since 2015?
            FPTP is only suitable for a bilateral political system as this country had up to the 1970’s.
            With the multiparty system we now have whether you get a majority or coalition is basically down to luck rather than votes cast – contrast 2010/2017 with 2024.
            I again ask you why other countries are moving away from FPTP and Westminster is one of the very few parliament’s elected by this method now?

          3. Niemand says:

            When you start your repsonse with ‘you are defending the indefensible’ when I have given sound reasons already for what I am defending there is no reason to respond further with anything substanitve as it will only get the same response and I will have wasted time trying to ‘discuss’ it.

            I am hardly alone in defending FPTP, in fact very many do so are they all defending the indefensible? Of course not.
            Rather they understand the issues here and have a nunaced view on the matter but you are coming from a dogmatic good/bad / black/white perspective. The twain shall never meet.

          4. John says:

            Niemand – I did clarify that you were defending the indefensible from the perspective of ‘fairness of representation’. When 33% of the votes get 64% of seats I personally cannot see how anyone can say that is a fair representation. Indeed the disparity between votes cast and seats achieved was discussed by Ed Conway on Sky News and shown to be greater at this election than any previous one.
            Your and your fellow supporters of FPTP argument appears to be that it reflect wishes of electorate and provides stable government. I contend that in a multiparty system this argument is no longer tenable and I have tried to set out why I think so.
            I have also pointed out that UK is one of the few western democracies that still use FPTP. In addition most countries have moved away from using this system(NZ in 1990’) and no country, as far as I am aware, have moved from PR to FPTP. In addition the devolved governments were all set up using PR rather than FPTP.
            The evidence from other democratic countries is that some form of PR is the preferred system to FPTP. Why is the Uk reluctant to change – very simply it suits the two main political parties in their pursuit of power.
            I have asked you on previous occasions to identify another western democracy that uses FPTP. You have ignored my question, my argument, taken umbrage with a comment I made and then refused to discuss the issue further.

  15. maxwell macleod says:

    I come here not to bury Sir Keir Stamer but to praise him for taking a half dead labour party to extraordinary success. in four years flat. The media creates a dynamic in which almost anyone who makes a statement is pilloried leaving those who say nothing to be the last man standing. in No10. Who can guess what it will be like in 2026 when hard print may well be over and AI writing even more copy. The trick is to make access to [proper news fun. Which is why I, a Unionist, revel in Bella. Thanks Mike.

    1. 240706 says:

      Yep; scepticism and critical thinking will be even more necessary in a world that’s increasingly generated by AI.

    2. Niemand says:

      All I can say is that I am glad Labout won and given the actual situation there was no better national result. I find the demonisation of Labour by nationalists pretty pathetic and full of hot air. But still, the result means there will still be plenty to keep on complaining about: Starmer is just a mixture ofThatcher re-incarnated apparently and centrist ‘scum’, the latter of course being the worst sort imaginable.

      1. 240707 says:

        Plus, and perhaps most significantly, he’s a unionist.

  16. Derek Thomson says:

    I think I’m going to stay off this site for a wee while. It’s getting worse than the Mail.

    1. 240706 says:

      In what respect is it getting worse than the Mail?

      1. Derek Thomson says:

        Just the naked hatred on display. This used to be a civilised place.

        1. 240706 says:

          I see no ‘naked hatred’, just disagreement. Can you give an example of the naked hatred on display in Bella?

    2. What are you talking about Derek?

  17. Mr Vertigo says:

    Spot on, Mike! Spot on!

    My one observation is this: English liberals have no difficulty accepting Farage is Putin adjacent, and deeply entangled with Putin’s American project. Why then do they have zero interest in noting he played a large part in bringing Starmer and his cabal a majority so large they can do whatever they want? Even just the future relationship of Peter Theil/Wes Streeting should be being scrutinised in this light, surely?

  18. SleepingDog says:

    Well, I have long said that the surest path to Scottish Independence probably lies through UK Constitutional reform. The SNP have been very conservative over this (support for Royalty and the overlordship of NATO, prime examples). Alba’s (Republican, anti-NATO) alternative has been decisively rejected, possibly as hopelessly patriarchal in form.

    There are many other possible allies in that movement; better be part of it rather than be left behind.

    Remember that the British Empire still exists. The mainstream British reporting on Hurricane Beryl is deeply implicated in not making the connection between calls for funds for devastated Caribbean islands and British responsibility for many of them (and how little electoral clout they have).
    https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/nsgt
    It might even prompt another wave of decolonisation, if the vaults of the tax havens are exposed. And that opens a door to constitutional reform. Better be prepared.

    1. 240706 says:

      In what sense is the UK ‘responsible’ for many of the independent nations in the Caribbean? Surely, that’s a bit like saying the UK would still be responsible for Scotland after it became independent or the EU is still responsible for the UK after Brexit.

      1. SleepingDog says:

        @Lord Parakeet the Cacophonist, and I thought Hurricane Beryl was full of wind. Which Empire do you think British Overseas Territories belong to? The Russian? The Chinese?

        And these are just the formal incorporations (historically, annexations), put into diplomatic-speak by your beloved Tories:
        https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-overseas-territories-joint-declaration-a-modern-partnership-for-a-stronger-british-family

        The British Crown (and the Privy Council which judicial committee acts as supreme court) rules over more, although this hardly makes news here (we did cover it briefly in politics class, though, for reasons which might become obvious if people were more familiar with the ongoing arrangements of the British Empire).

        Anyway, there are motions and meetings (postponed) and reactions which suggest that Labour will make at least a token gesture, although this of course falls short of reparations for racialised chattel slavery, murderous colonialism and climate change spearheaded by the British industrial revolution. If the British were good at anything, it was impoverishing other people.

        1. 240707 says:

          The British Overseas Territories don’t belong to any empire. An empire is a nation that controls many territories and is ruled by a single authority figure. The UK neither controls the 14 territories that make up the BOT (all of them had varying degrees of internal self-governance, with the United Kingdom only retaining responsibility for defence and foreign relations), nor are any of them ruled by any single authority figure (all of them are ruled by a Westminster system of government, whereby sovereign power is divided between an executive head of state, a legislative assembly, and an independent judiciary, with the monarchy serving only a formal function).

          Whether or not the UK owe the people of any of these internally self-governing territories reparations for cruelties our ancestors inflicted on theirs is a moot point. But its also irrelevant to the question of whether the UK bears any more responsibility for providing disaster relief to BOTs than it does with respect to non-BOTs.

          As a matter of fact, however, as part of its overall International Development Strategy, the UK is currently a partner in the Caribbean Region Development Partnership, which includes all the former colonies and colonising powers in the region. The UK’s involvement in this partnership goes beyond charity by delivering reliable investment, providing women and girls with the freedom they need to succeed in their life-aims, increasing the region’s capacity to deliver an effective humanitarian response to natural and man-made disasters, and to increase its capacity to contribute to international work on global issues like climate change, nature conservation, and health. These four priorities align with the Partnership’s strategic aims of reducing poverty in the region and reinvigorating the region’s progress towards meeting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

          You’ll find details of the UK’s role and its performance in that role within this partnership in the UK–Caribbean Region Development Partnership Summary that the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office published almost a year ago to the day.

          1. SleepingDog says:

            Oh, how the apologists for the British Empire panic when the rock (of Gibraltar?) is lifted and sunlight shone on the squirming reality revealed. @Lord Parakeet the Cacophonist, I doubt if spewing a press release will help your dear cause of sucking up to the British Establishment.

            Now, consider the overseas jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Committee_of_the_Privy_Council#Overseas_jurisdiction
            How independent can any of these countries be? How much did they move towards independence by each disentanglement of the tentacles of Empire?

            It is worth noting that even formal independence is no barrier to a British (or British-backed) coup. Compare the standard British interventions in British Guiana in 1953 and 1964 to crush democracy with the subtler royal coup to oust Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975. Note: any country that has a governor-general reporting to HM is not even formally independent of the British Empire.

            One of my forthcoming entries in my Flaws of Democracy series will be its use as a tool (alongside genocide and apartheid) by settler colonialists to cement conquest and give it a retrospective fig-leaf.

          2. 240708 says:

            SD – You’ve just ignored the argument I made in my last post and engaged in some name-calling instead.

          3. 240708 says:

            I’d also point out that the JCPC doesn’t ‘rule over’ the Crown Dependencies, BOTs, and some Commonwealth countries, any more than Charles III does. The JCPC serves only as the highest court of appeal in those jurisdiction, much as the European Court of Justice is still (despite Brexit) the highest court of appeal in the UK. You’re not suggesting that the ECJ ‘rules over’ the UK, are you?

            Moreover, the JCPC is independent of Crown; it’s made up of justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and senior judges from the Commonwealth of Nations. Appeals are made not to the Crown, but I’d also point out that the JCPC doesn’t ‘rule over’ the Crown Dependencies, BOTs, and some Commonwealth countries, any more than Charles III does. The JCPC serves only as the highest court of appeal in those jurisdiction, much as the European Court of Justice is still (despite Brexit) the highest court of appeal in the UK. You’re not suggesting that the ECJ ‘rules over’ the UK, are you?

            Moreover, the JCPC is independent of Crown; it’s made up of justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and senior judges from the Commonwealth of Nations. Appeals are made not to the Crown, but to a panel of five judges whose judgement is by convention has to be accepted whatever King Charles might want.

  19. Stephen says:

    Independence surveys generally conclude that it is younger age groups who are most likely to vote Yes in a future referendum. We also know younger people are more likely to prioritise our response to climate change and other policies often branded by social conservatives as ‘student politics’. Scrapping our climate targets in favour of fossil fuel extraction and dual-carriageways has damaged the SNPs credibility, probably beyond repair. Interestingly, it is Alba who support road building, drilling for oil in the same vein as the pre-1979 tartan tories while people lose their homes and livelihood elsewhere in the world due to climate change. Alba are irrelevant but people do vote Green.

  20. Dr John O'Dowd says:

    So now we have a right-wing ‘Labou’r government (with a large contingent of LIB-DEMS – successors to the Ill-starred Establishment spoiler party, the SDP – astonishingly on its left flank) and a prime minister elected on 35% of the popular vote – less than Corbyn managed. And in Scotland the SNP was deservedly hammered.

    There is only one reason for the SNP to exist and only one reason to vote for it: INDEPENDENCE.

    The present scenario in England was foreseen by Corbyn’s mentor Tony Benn.

    In 1982 Benn, who would surely have been expelled from Starmer’s Labour, said “If the Labour party could be persuaded to denounce all its marxists, the media.. would demand that it expelled all its socialists….” and “Labour reunited with the SDP to form a harmless alternative to the Conservatives, which could be allowed to take office now and then when the Conservatives fell out of favour with the public. Thus British capitalism would be made safe forever and socialism squeezed off the national agenda. But if such a strategy were to succeed it would in fact profoundly endanger British society, for it would open up the danger of a swing to the far-right…”.

    It will do so because Centrism has no remedy for the depredation of neoliberalism and will, inevitably, fail. Thereafter, an enraged, largely ignorant English electorate, will seek salvation elsewhere.

    As in the USA and Europe, Centrist extremists, who believe in nothing beyond obtaining power, will have opened the door to the extreme Right – as we see in Hungary, Italy, Germany and today in France. Very soon England will follow.

    For now Starmer may be PM. His successor will likely be Farage.

    In Scotland we really need to get our act together for Independence, because once the fascists are in power in England, all bets are off.

    1. Alastair McIntosh says:

      John, hello. How good to see such sage voices as yourself, Stan Reeves and Paddy Farrington in succession at what is, at present, the tail end of these comments. When looking for a reboot it is such old hand voices I most listen out for, to mix metaphors, like in the old Hebridean birlinn’s they had an elder crew member who read the ocean’s movements, “the Teller of the Waves”.

      1. John O'Dowd says:

        Good to hear from you Alastair.

        Thanks for the kind words. I wish a were – and felt -‘sage’.

        I had great hopes rising towards 2014 – and for the first wee while afterwards. All dashed.

        But when only chaos, falsehood and confusion reign, I find myself returning to the eternal – or least, solidly decent – political verities.

        Anti-fascism, anti-racism, care FOR the poor, FOR the planet and FOR the truth. The things that make us human, and keep us in sync with our human ecology. Get the feet back on firm ground.

        I hope that you and Verene are well.

        best wishes.

  21. Stan reeves says:

    I am inclined to Billy Connolly’s observation that folk get the government they deserve!! The middle classes(especially in the arts) abandoned action for independence in 2014!, and many left leaning women of my ken gave up on the SNP. Folk need to understand that decolonisation is always delivered by popular movements, not local governments! I begged people for 10years to invigorate Yes groups and join with me in making a joyful and hopeful noise, sadly few takers. Timidity is rammed into the Scots in my experience. 30,000 Estonias sang themselves to freedom.

    1. Alastair McIntosh says:

      Vérène (wife) and I were discussing just the other day, Stan, how the kind of work you and colleagues carried out with the Adult Learning Project in the 1990s and a few years following – work that opened peoples minds to vision and connected them to their cultural roots in conscientisation (Freire) – seems to be a rarity today. Something has shifted, whether in leadership, funding, the collective psyche or all, and that is massively to our detriment because the roots that give life to a culture are no longer being nourished. Put me right if that’s wrong – but I just don’t sense the cultural uplift and buzz in the Scotland of today that was so apparent in the run-up to the turn of the millennium and was shot down in 2014. I think Blair’s election hopes being sacrificed on the altars of war had a lot to do with it – 9/11 globally was a turning point – but frankly, there are so many overlapping factors that adequate analysis defeats me. I just make the observation that the vibe feels not the same as was, the possibilities have shrunk, our humanity is not diminished, but the spirit feels caged in comparison.

  22. Paddy Farrington says:

    Perhaps this setback is exactly what the independence movement needs just now. Lets face it, we were stuck and going nowhere. Much will depend on the quality of the discussion that now unfolds within the SNP and the wider movement: if it’s just a blame game then I fear that nothing good will come of it.

    1. John says:

      I agree Paddy and I would add that the first thing the SNP needs to do is actually ask as many of the 500,000 voters who they lost why they either stayed at home or voted for Labour.
      The independence movement in general and SNP in particular are at a crossroads. They must understand that although 50% of population support independence in principle this may not mean they will support it in practice. The support of younger voters for independence is a glimmer of hope but their continued support cannot be taken for granted.
      There needs to be less public shouting trying to justify individuals own actions and opinions and more willingness to listen to others inside and outside party and movement. How the SNP and independence movement behave to this setback is critical as to whether they can recover or the loss in support will continue.
      The Holyrood government must focus on being competent and relevant to majority of people living in Scotland over next 2 years as a start.

  23. Stan reeves says:

    Folk expect a political party to deliver them from colonisers with almost complete control of the media and thousands of new “civil servants “ in Queen Elizabeth house. Look to other countries de-colonising strategies and learn ! Never underestimate the power of a few committed activists to turn things around. Despite their own in fighting half a dozen working class men in AUOB have turned out thousands of folk in peaceful and optimistic rallies! Farage and his wee gang have destroyed the Tories, and angry youngsters, aided by British agents have played a big party in the mess the SNP have got themselves in.
    It’s time folk stepped away from commentating and start selling the idea of Independence as a hopeful, joyful, and manageable idea. Being afraid to come out for Independence because it might damage your career willnae cut it!!

  24. Hector says:

    Why are the SNP where they are?
    Because they have been bought, pure and simple.
    A couple of blankets, a mirror and a musket were traditional english bribes to buy off the native leaders and surrender their land, today its a motorhome and a gold smerican express card

  25. SleepingDog says:

    Just an observation on comments: politics is analogue, voting merely digital.

    1. 240711 says:

      That’s right, SD; marking a cross against a name on a wee bit of paper with the stub of a pencil is ‘digital’.

  26. John Wood says:

    Across the UK, this is the result of negative, so-called ‘tactical’ voting. If you vote for the lesser evil to keep out the greater one, it is still evil. There is nothing very clever about it at all: you will be assumed to support all sorts of policies that you might feel very uncomfortable about. For example.
    The SNP, instead of getting on and working for independence, became too keen to please the same people and interests that the Labour, LibDem and Tory Parties targetted. It has spent all its energies in trying to make devolution work, trying to appease the unappeasable, and please those who do not believe in national sovereignty at all. IT knows full well that power devolved is power retained. And then it bleats that no-body in London is going to do anything beyond attacking, mocking, and belittling them. That is just a statement of helplessness and failure. A complete lack of any self-confidence. We have been left wondering if they even believe in independence anymore. They have insisted on owning the whole movement and they therefore divided and weakened it. Who seriously is going to believe in their promises to stand up for us or vote for that? They fell into the same trap that Labour did some years ago and took us for granted. But voting against them does not mean independence is dead. Far from it. When the horse pulling the wagon drops dead, another one will have to be found. And the worse this British Nationalist so-called Labour government gets, I do not think in Scotland it will drive us into the arms of Fascist Farage. The demand for independence will become overwhelming.

    As for me,

    I couldn’t vote SNP because of their ‘rewilding’ and de-funding of the highlands, their so-called ‘freeports’, their ‘smart’ cities, their arrogance and refusal to listen to people, their urban-centric, technocratic focus. For all the good things they have certainly done, they have betrayed us all. And past performance is no guide to future prospects.

    I couldn’t vote for Labour because they have exactly the same agenda and worse, they actively support genocide in Palestine, and Starmer presents himself as a British Nationalist. I’m reminded that Oswald Mosely started as a Labour MP.

    I couldn’t vote for the Scottish Greens after they were taken over by Stalinists on behalf of corporate interests and they too completely betrayed their principles. Their agenda is the same corporate one, with a bit of greenwash. No thanks.

    I couldn’t vote for the LibDems whose main offer was to defeat the SNP and promote nuclear power. Their promises to stand up for the highlands are as empty as the rest of them.

    And as for the others, I fail to see how anyone in their right mind could possibly vote for them.

    So I spoiled my ballot. I don’t actually want to be represented at Westminster at all. It’s not my Parliament and it doesn’t represent Scotland. (It doesn’t actually represent England either!)

    I hope no-one will take seriously the Unionist crowing that ‘independence is dead’. What the election really did was to kill the idea of devolution once and for all. The future will now be a stark choice between the ‘British’ traditional vision of Scotland as mere North Britain, just a group of ‘local’ authorities without agency or resources, bribed, bullied and bankrupted at will; or a sovereign Scotland where we reject the globalist narrative and actually do things differently. And I think the tide of history is towards the second outcome. The American (formerly British) Empire is collapsing, and the sooner we get out of the way the better.

    We don’t need a charismatic populist leader, just a group of people prepared to say enough is enough. The Scottish cringe is over.

    1. 240711 says:

      ‘So I spoiled my ballot. I don’t actually want to be represented at Westminster at all.’

      If you don’t actually want to be represented in the UK parliament, then you did right. Unfortunately, as a constituent, you’re still represented in the UK parliament by the candidate who won the election in your constituency.

      It’s a b*gg*r, eh?

      1. John Wood says:

        Except the winning candidate (in my case Angus Macdonald for the LibDems) does not actually represent me at all. He can claim whatever he likes but who I recognise as my representative is up to me. And I have specifically rejected him.
        The UK government also claims to represent me, but it does not.

        1. 240714 says:

          He actually does, you know. He was duly elected by you and your fellow constituents to represent you in the UK parliament. Whether you personally voted for him or not is neither here nor there; the choice of who will represent you in the parliament is a collective decision, made by all the electorate, through our electoral system.

          The government (neither the Scottish government nor the UK government) represents no one. It’s not part of its constitutional function to represent the British people; that’s the job of the House of Commons, to which we collectively elect constituency representatives.

          1. John Wood says:

            He actually doesn’t, you know, because I specifically rejected him as my representative. He was not duly elected by me at all, and as I have stated I do not wish to be represented in the UK Parliament. If he wishes to claim to represent me, he needs to represent that view.
            and your fellow constituents to represent you in the UK parliament. Whether you personally voted for him or not actually is important, to me at least. The choice of who will represent you in the parliament may be a collective decision, but it’s not made by this elector and because of the ludicrous electoral system almost every MP receives his or her ‘mandate’ from a minority of voters. Your statemet is mere wishful thinking on your part. The reality is very different.

          2. John Wood says:

            Apologies for the garbled version just posted in error. Corrected here:

            He actually doesn’t, you know, because I specifically rejected him as my representative. He was not duly elected by me at all, and (as I have stated) I do not wish to be represented in the UK Parliament. So if he wishes to claim to represent me, he needs to represent that view.
            Whether I personally voted for him or not actually is important, to me at least. The choice of who will ‘represent’ me in the parliament may be a collective decision, but it’s not made by this elector and because of the ludicrous electoral system, almost every MP receives his or her ‘mandate’ from a minority of voters. This means that most MPs do not even represent that views of the majority of constituents. I have an absolute right to reject all candidates, and did so. Your statement is mere wishful thinking on your part. The reality is very different.

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.