Devolution: can it serve more than Unionism alone?
On the matter of representation in Holyrood and Westminster, there is a very silly argument being exploited for extraneous and irrelevant purposes (other political agendas), leading to self-defeating division in the SNP, about Stephen Flynn’s desire to stand for election in both Westminster and Holyrood. Stephen Flynn is quite right to stand for both Parliaments, provided only the democratic protocols of constituency politics are followed. Independence is based on the proposition that its political representatives are elected to serve Scotland first, and not just serve in a Westminster Parliament as an independence Party, in which it is obliged to serve in order to represent the Scottish people, wherever they are being democratically governed; but paradoxically (for a democratic Party) they cannot ever form a Government in Westminster, in practice, and that is a matter of indisputable fact. In principle that makes the SNP position in Westminster very different from all Unionist Parties, because they are all bent on government, and can aspire to form a majority. Independence Parties are effectively, ‘de facto’ excluded from the fundamental objective of all democratic political Parties; to form a government in the Parliament. This makes the politics of SNP very, very different from Unionist Parties.
Stephen Flynn is right to pursue this, provided only the constituencies actually want him to stand for both Parliaments; that is a democratic issue to be resolved best – solely in the constituencies involved. The problem here is that there as a supposed extraneous political issue, largely drummed up because of the spurious precedent of Douglas Ross’s acrimonious and self-destructive “leadership” of the Scottish Conservatives. This may be summarised as – selfish Scottish Conservative leader puts himself first. That wasn’t an error, it is a definition of Scottish Conservatism. Some SNP members (on BBC Radio Scotland GMS this morning for example) are trying to turn this shrewd Stephen Flynn move into a Women’s Rights issue. It simply begs the question to turn this into a women’s rights issue. If there is a democracy issue, the matter should be settled by the constituencies themselves. Turning this into a wider issue of Scottish politics is a big mistake; and the SNP membership need to think issues through before falling so easily (and so often) into Unionist traps.
Flynn is right because he understands that the critics do not understand the politics of Devolution. His critics are playing the ‘devolution is all there can ever be’ game; the Unionist game. Unionism alone defines Devolution. Unionist politicians divide the politics in two. Divide and rule. Make it as difficult as possible for the politics of independence to function, at all. Starve it of the oxygen of representation to serve independence. Oblige it to spread its resources between two black boxes, and create an illusory unbridgeable political gap between. This is Unionist politics, devised by Unionists solely to protect the status quo.
From an independence perspective, there are two Parliaments, deliberately making the politics of independence more cumbersome and difficult to achieve, that the SNP require to use in ways that best serve the politics of independence, while running a Government in Scotland, for Scotland and an opposition in Westminster (but never, ever a Government in Westminster – which is itself highly problematic for a political Party, but not for Unionism or Unionist Parties, which gives them a very different perspective, and a huge insurmountable advantage) that does both. Once the problem is properly understood, the critics of Flynn (save any internal rules in the SNP in which I have no interest, and are mere bureaucracy that the Party needs to sort out), really need to figure out that the SNP have to manage the political disadvantage differently from Unionist Parties; and decide whether they are content simply to serve Unionism, and continue, frankly to be politically mugged by Unionists. You are making it too easy for them.
We are supported only by our readers. We don't have corporate backers and we don't take advertising, so we rely entirely on your support.
Help to support independent Scottish journalism
Sorry Mr Warren your argument re Westminster representation would hold good if indeed Scotland had consistently voted for a majority of Independence parties to that Chamber. The inability to form the government would indeed render them impotent to achieve Independence. However this has only happened once and when Mr Flynn as their leader (49 MPs) had the privilege of Parliamentary debating time did he use that to table a motion for amendments to the Scotland Act in light of the Supreme Court decision. Such an effort however unlikely of success would have bloodied Tory noses and sent a message home perhaps even enraged some not previously supportive of Indy. No instead he decided to showboat and table a motion on a ceasefire in Gaza accusing Israel of war crimes. His aim was to bloody the oppositions nose. Yet he was outmaneuvered by Starmer and a golden opportunity was lost. I’m not really sure what all the noise around this man is, I don’t see ANY evidence of a great debater, great orator, political strategist. He is belligerent and makes a lot of noise but there isn’t in my opinion a great deal of substance.
This is a very tortured argument. While the SNP can’t aspire to form a government in Westminster, it can aspire to form a government in Holyrood. If the argument (that double-jobbing is OK because the SNP can’t form a government) applies to Westminster, it ought also to apply to Holyrood.
But in any case, I have the sense that all this is a matter of personal ambition rather than high principle. And so, it being personal, I’d like to know more about Stephen Flynn’s politics, beyond his commitment to independence. What little I can surmise – on the continuing use of fossil fuels oil from the North Sea and the alliance with the Scottish Greens – does not fill me with great optimism. It seems to me that what the SNP really need just now is some big ideas, not a big ego.
Just so. Look where relying on ‘big beasts’ has got us!
I agree that we need to winkle out the politics behind this manoeuvering. Otherwise the process rather than the substance becomes our focus.
ANd I agree with Paddy that the rather muted signals arent hopeful for a progressive vision of Scotland’s self determination.
He was very naive if he thought the opposition and Tory press would not make a meal of this, particularly the part about him replacing a sitting SNP MSP. Why was it not all discussed with and OK’d by the SNP hierarchy and the MSP in question before going public?
I think the “tortured argument” is in the comments. I made the case, and am content with my argument. Whether an independence Party forms a government or is in opposition in Holyrood; it is always in a position to win an election and form a Government in Holyrood. An Independence Party cannot form a Government in Westminster, no matter what. It is in Westminster to represent its voters, not to imagine it can form, or greatly influence policy of a Unionist Government. In Westminster Scotland has 57 out of 650 seats (8.7%). You do the maths. Independence Parties have very little impact on decisions in Westminster. It is designed to produce that result. This is realpolitik. Unionist Parties dominate. In 1950 Scotland had 71 seats in Westminster. Scotland’s position has been quietly eroded as a ‘national interest’ in the Union Parliament, 14 fewer seats (-20%). Nobody notices. nobody cares. Everyone is encouraged to argue about the wrong things. The comments here demonstrate the problem; the politics of irrelevance.
But do not independence parties excluded themselves? In fact there is, as far as I know, nothing stopping the SNP fielding candidates across the the UK in a GE in an attempt to win, form a UK government then break up the Union. Of course that is hypothetical but if you only ever stand in Scotland by choice, then yes, you can never form a UK government (or even have much broad influence) as you will never have a majority. There is no ‘de facto’ about it – it is literally and knowingly, impossible. Can you ‘blame’ devolution for that? It is what devolution is – you can say it is ‘designed’ to do that but what other devolved system would not?
Your example is not just hypothetical, it is abstract, purely theoretical, and inoperable. No serious Independence Party/politicians would subscribe to a futile campaign over 650 constituencies, when there is no vestige of interest in such an idea has ever been shown in such a proposition, by around 90% of voters; nor would the money to invest in such a campaign ever be forthcoming. Of course devolution presupposes independence will not happen (that is what it was designed to do – shoot the SNP fox). Devolution is a framework designed for Unionism. There is nothing problematic about that – provided you are not an Independence Party. Devolution is the environment in which an independence Party operates to serve the voter; but it cannot be limited to simply carrying out the function of a devolved Unionist Party operating within a Westminster Parliament in which it can never decide policy (a democratic paradox). An Independence Party requires both to serve its (Scottish) voters, and use the dual parliamentary system to serve the purpose it is in politics to achieve; independence. This is difficult to do; the Unionist Parties will make it as difficult as possible, which they conspire together to ensure (note that Unionist politics requires of the SNP not just that they democratically accept defeat – but give up entirely advocating independence).
It is not wise for an Independence Party to make it easier for Unionism, in a Westminster Parliament in which it is at an irrevocable disadvantage. Independence can only, ever be won – in Scotland; because only the decisive verdict of the Scottish elector will ever achieve it. Westminster will never gratuitously offer independence; it will only accept independence when the Scottish people decisively vote decisively for it, and there is no other credible option open to Unionism. Realpolitik (and Unionists are none to fussy politically about how that end game is avoided – which is why they claim Scotland can be independent, but there is no identifiable Westminster mechanism to achieve it – ever).
While “there is there is no identifiable Westminster mechanism to achieve” Scottish independence (apart, presumably, from winning the necessary vote in that chamber), it would not take any such mechanism for the Scottish members, by a majority decision amongst themselves, to declare Scotland’s exit from the Union, to vacate Westminster, and to reconstitute themselves as the supreme parliament of an independent Scotland.
There is no impediment to that course in UK law or constitution (or in international law, for that matter). To keep the democratic imperative, it would require to follow a democratic vote for independence by the people of Scotland. Any independence party worth its salt and standing throughout Scotland could issue a manifesto to turn the next Westminster general election into a plebiscite on that issue.
So Scotland has the means to leave the Union if its people so wish. London has never said anything to contradict that, and indeed has sometimes made statements confirming it, thereby merely stating the fact of the matter.
The particular lunacy which grips Scotland (given that around 50% of us consistently support independence, which would be the starting point in any such plebiscite) is that the only independence party which occupies the necessary ground, namely the SNP, simply refuses to acknowledge it, and is fixated on defeat, so will not give us the vote, as in the person of Stephen Flynn, who according to Graeme McCormick, at an SNP branch meeting admitted “that he knew of no other legal route to independence other that requesting permission from Westminster, and that as he was not a lawyer, he would not undertake any research to explore alternatives”. He and Yousaf were the joint architects of the party’s suicidal stance at July’s election. What need of blocking from London, when we have the likes of that in charge right here?
“it would not take any such mechanism for the Scottish members, by a majority decision amongst themselves, to declare Scotland’s exit from the Union, to vacate Westminster, and to reconstitute themselves as the supreme parliament of an independent Scotland.”
Perhaps not, but good luck with that thought experiment (because that is all it is). This is Scotland. It isn’t going to happen; I doubt if you would fill an old telephone box with supporters for that project in any feasible scenario – at least in the real world, rather than the end of a keyboard..
Another “tortured argument”.
Niemand – this is a ridiculous comment. If you recall the Tories used the spectre of SNP holding balance of power to frighten electorate outside Scotland so how many votes and influence would SNP gain as opposed to deposits lost if they stood candidates outside Scotland?
The bottom line is that Westminster (elected by 90% of electorate outside Scotland) have rejected the request for an independence referendum voted for by majority of MSP’s (voted in under PR by electorate in Scotland). Devolution has a mechanism for an independence referendum but Westminster refuses to implement it against democratic wishes of Scottish electorate. The Unionist parties are not only frightened that they might lose any subsequent referendum but they can see political advantage of effectively shutting down any route to independence thus making voters question whether to vote for a party whose primary objective is therefore unachievable. They are now extending this to try and shutdown any discussion on independence under cover of saying it cannot happen. This cynical political manoeuvring is partly because they have failed to make any positive case for Scotland remaining in UK and are worried that the negative argument against independence which was successful in 2014 will not succeed next time. This tactic may well be politically successful in short term (SNP support fallen) but could well prove counterproductive in longer term as it does not seem to be affecting support for independence itself.
It is as legitimate to support Scotland remaining in UK as it is to support independence but unionist parties should have confidence to debate the issue and put their money where their mouth is rather than closing down debate and the democratic process.
Maybe Flynn has a clone, so he can be in two places at the same time.
If the constituencies and voters want two different people representing them, and not Flynn they can vote for it.
This is all pretty feeble stuff.
Outside of the strange world Flynn is in (ditto yourself, apparently) people don’t have two full-time jobs. I would be astounded if his prospective constituents wanted Flynn to have two full-time jobs, but I am sure that the denizens of Kincorth, Torry, and Garthdee would have plenty nicknames for him..
Alex Salmond not ruling out SNP joining Westminster coalition
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-30036168
Under comparable systems, regional parties have joined coalition governments elsewhere. The Westminster electoral system may change, other parties may fracture or become electoral outcasts via scandals, the rise of Welsh independence, Irish reunificationists and Greens may make common cause (perhaps temporarily with English ethno-nationalists wanting to break from UK). Past history is no reliable guide. Who knows if the monarch would approve a coalition whose mandate was officially treason felony against them? But the SNP in government in Westminster is not impossible, and might have been a reasonable possibility in the recent past.
I agree. But they don’t want to be. They want to be on the outside so they can maintain what they perceive as the moral high ground and grandstand (loudly but ineffectually) to their hearts content. Though never at Westminster, Sturgeon was one the best politicians for this I have ever known, a brilliant talker, great at skewering whoever was PM and their party and policies; and useless at everything else. Trouble is, it is the ‘everything else’ that really matters but the former was easily enough to keep her in power as FM for years – a disastrous combination. A serious politician who actually wanted to put the rhetoric to practical use in terms of independence would have been organising something like what you suggest from 2014 on.
@Niemand, so far, yes, so I suppose. But if the alternative to being in coalition in Westminster was government by those with a mandate to scrap devolution, or do something else the SNP would find intolerable, I’m sure various qualms could be overcome. And there are a number of important privileges of government which could be enticing. A lot depends on events (and possibly official secrets, and state impediments to a smooth path to Independence which a term in office might be seen as a chance to sweep away). If the British quasi-Constitution was perceived as a blockage to Independence, then with popular backing for a Convention to produce a codified constitution (with formal optionality for membership etc) then being in coalition might be the sensible option (and failure to take it, an electoral liability).
John, I disagree with what you say in the article, for two reasons, one being Flynn, the other concerning Independence parties. The first, Flynn: why does he need to be in both parliaments? There’s already a good enough constituent SNP MSP – it is just not necessary. You are only concerned with the constituency process, but what about the issue of his two wages? That’s a heck of a lot of money he’s going to be trousering – is he going to give one wage to charity? What’s he going to do with it? And, how can he be in both houses at the same time? Suppose there’s two crucial votes at either end of the UK, how does he vote in both, unless there’s some sort of Padre Pio effect? He shouldn’t do it, and he’s not that good either, it’s bad enough having him in one parliament.
Okay, now Westminster. You say “Flynn is right because he understands that the critics do not understand the politics of Devolution.” I say that after all these years of begging for a Section 30 the SNP still do not understand the politics of Westminster (or don’t really care). You point out they can never form a government – true, very true, but I say they should not be in opposition in the way you suggest either. I’m not talking about abstentionism like Sein Fein, I’m talking disruption. All those years ago when we sent 56 of them down to represent us, the speaker told the SNP to stop clapping as it was not customary in that house, and they complied! They stopped clapping. They showed everyone how feeble they were, that tThis was a party that would do as it was told.
It would have been better for Scotland to have elected 56 boxers than the lot they sent down to curry favour with their imperial masters – correction, OUR imperial masters. Rather than witnessing an occasional wise crack remark from Flynn or being embarrassed by Wishart’s suggestion of becoming speaker, we could have been entertained by some bruiser punching the lights out of the PM at PMQs. We could have watched individual MPs disrupting debates and breaking the rules and conventions of the house on a regular basis. One at a time, time after time. Yes, they would have been suspended or expelled but they would have made a point. Stopping WM from working would have been a better approach than listening to the talking scone repeatedly telling us he wouldn’t let Scotland be dragged out of the EU against its wishes.
It is Westminster that is the problem. It is the job of the SNP or any other independence party to disrupt that parliament’s business. There is no need for Flynn to be in two houses, better he resign and let a boxer take his place.
First, I understand Flynn has said he will not take two salaries. That seems right to me; but these are decisions I think are best made at the ballot box; by voters not electing people if they do not like their candidate’s decisions. It is democracy in action.
On your second point, you acknowledge the principle (a matter of fact, and unchangeable), and fuss about the execution (which can be changed by Parties and their supporters), because you don’t like it: “You point out they can never form a government – true, very true, but I say they should not be in opposition in the way you suggest either. I’m not talking about abstentionism like Sein Fein, I’m talking disruption”. If you support the SNP, and you don’t like the policy then it is open to you to find people who agree with you, and persuade them to change their tactics.
My argument is about what can’t be changed in devolution, and how to handle it. All you are doing is serving Unionism, by following the logic of a system that is there to defeat you.
Why does the SNP not disrupt Parliament? 50% of the electorate do not vote for independence. The SNP need to persuade some of them to vote for independence, and judge that the cohort of voters they need to change their mind will not vote for a disruptive Party. You disagree? Take it up with the SNP (but if you do I suspect you will find independence is further off than ever). You are chasing shadows, and serving Unionism. Too many independence supporters do; too easily distracted by political confetti.
There is a further irony here. You think some element of disruption is required. That sense arises because devolution is a Unionist solution to an independence problem. It is there to serve Unionism, exclusively – not independence. Devolution is a Unionist hierarchy. Westminster at the top; every other assembly (including Holyrood) has a place and ranking, further down the hierarchy. This is why it is so easy for English MPs to dismiss Holyrood as nothing more than a local council. The Unionist hierarchy also works by placing each person, each representative in his selective place in the hierarchy; a full MP at Westminster, a second tier MSP at Holyrood, a third tier councillor in a district council. That is Unionism. It is possible, but difficult for independence Parties to function effectively in a Unionist devolution system, without simply being completely absorbed within the Unionist hierarchy.
This is the structure in which independence Parties are required to function (and deliver Government), so long as the Scottish voter does not gift them a decisive victory on independence. From an independence perspective the devolution hierarchy is false, because from that perspective Westminster is redundant, but yet has to be managed. Therefore Independence Parties must both work in a Unionist devolution settlement, without settling for it. Disruption is therefore difficult, and that is a Unionist design.
If you thought about it, what Flynn is doing is refusing to accept the hierarchy, by restructuring it informally to allow an independence representative to determine what is primary or secondary (which can only be done by choosing to serve in both) and therefore disrupting the Unionist hierarchy’s application. This is a clear statement of literal “independence”, and a rare one that can be done within the system, and without creating major consequential problems.
John – thank you for your reply, but I think you are wrong here. You are talking about the situation in terms of a structural hierarchy – every action that is taken politically recognises that hierarchy. Your position is the one that serves unionism. Perhaps as a paper theory it works but in reality it changes nothing. Only disruption at WM offers a way forward. You think that disruption might make voting SNP less attractive to voters pushing independence further away but you don’t know. The play the British game the British way has led us nowhere it is time to stop the British way by making WM unworkable. Perhaps that approach would attract more people to independence, perhaps seeing WM being frozen by people with some backbone rather than the smooth syrup of the likes of Wishart would be a fresh breath of air putting some energy into the movement would be attractive to voters – a competent functioning Holyrood in contrast to a disrupted WM – who can say? But Mr. Flynn is representative of what is wrong with the SNP – it is deaf to the views of many who used to support them and is cosy in the world of a British made political system.
@WT, I wonder if the SNP might simply be more productive, leveraging parliamentary privilege, say, to disclose some of the vast number of embarrassing secrets of public interest held by the British Establishment (specifically the military-industrial complex in the case of the Zircon Affair, and the secret cabinet committees that the affair overshadowed):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege
Perhaps, having skeletons of their own, they wish to keep that closet closed?
What WT and SleepingDog (how do they get that info out there though?) are suggesting sounds good as we cannot allow this no-way-out situation to continue.
@Tom Ultuous, well, for a topical example, you can watch both the British nuclear test scandal documentaries on Channel 4 and BBC, factor in the British opposing the UN proposal to research nuclear weapon effects (a proposal supported by China), consider the test veterans’ call for a public inquiry, look at the history of obfuscation and lying by the MoD, consider how the British treated its colonial subjects as well as service people and civilian contractors, compare that with how China compensated its victims, understand this through the lens of the British imperial royal prerogative and official secrecy:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4ng2873jro
and then say something helpful in Parliament, even if it breaks the official secrets omertà or commits de jure treason. BTW, I like how the official documents that the Mirror journalist was eventually able to FOI out of the MoD were frame-broadcast by the BBC. But with parliamentary privilege, a carefully-selected unredacted document read out might be the touchpaper to set off a) a public inquiry b) the exposure of the MoD to long overdue accountability c) the end of the British imperial quasi-constitution d) a legal requirement for public officials to act and disclose in the public and planetary interest. Are the SNP up to it?
The gutter press just bury these things and, even if C4 and the BBC put up a good documentary now and then, if they clash with a soap the dim never get to see them. Take Netanyahu being charged by the ICC and the royal parasites charging the NHS, in a weeks time it’s almost as if it has never happened in Expressworld. I agree with what you’re suggesting but the b******** have it all sewn up.
@Tom Ultuous, well, I think you are right about sewing things up. I came across an example today, in the context of royal prerogatives and international treaties, which you would think might be a relevant topic (for post-Brexit Britain and post-Independence Scotland alike). But, in a section of a 2021 briefing headed ‘A democratic deficit?’:
“It has been noted that academics in the UK have largely ignored treaty-
making. Foreign relations law is rarely studied or taught as a subject in
its own right in the UK. Treaty-making and other topics therefore tend
to fall between international law, constitutional law, international
relations and politics, with no branch taking a particular interest.”
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9247/CBP-9247.pdf
Now, why would academics in British royal-chartered universities steer clear of this area of law?
Yip, it’s all very depressing. We are being pissed all over.
It seems that Stephen Flynn has given up his attempt to stand in both Parliaments. I understand that he will be inclined to do so, given the general criticism he has received in all forms of media. That is unfortunate, because it is the public that is weakly following a Unionist framing of the issue, and the media; which is, of course always Unionist – although even the National seems to have fallen for it. There is insufficient rigour in the thinking of independence supporters, and an inability to see how easily they are played.
Labour won 37 seats in the 2024 General election, and increase of 36. 35 Labour MPs voted against the Winter Fuel Allowance (WFA) within three months. The Energy price cap will rise a further 1.2% this January, and stay high probably beyond winter; a ‘new normal’. Anas Sarwar has pretended the 35 Labour MPs do not exist by saying Scottish Labour will reinstate the WFA (in 2026); but quite obviously as an utterly cynical move to try and save the Labour Holyrood election campaign in 2026. For Scottish Labour we are both in and not in the Union.
Sarwar is doing this only because he is confident the Scottish public is easily played, because they do ‘fall for it’. Here is a fair summation of Scottish politics, given Scottish predilections:
“I put my right hand in,
I put my left hand out,
In out, in out.
shake it all about.” (the Hokey Pokey, suitably amended for Scottish tastes).
Yes SleepingDog, any weapon that can be used to embarrass or expose the UK government should be used – parliamentary privilege is definitely one. The key weapon we have is that the WM parliament is built on convention and ceremony, It loves it’s traditions, its pomp, and that is what should be smashed. Every time we conform with those traditions, ceremonies or conventions we are agreeing to the principle that they are our overlords.
I turn again to John,
John, we have a situation at present where we are in a voluntary union with our neighbour but they have left us a puzzle, to find a way out of that voluntary union. That is the task they have set us, we have tried to ask them nicely for a section 30 but no, now is not the time. There is no democratic route apart from a defacto plebiscite election for our country to escape. And, if we did win a plebiscite election there is still no way to force our imperial masters to negotiate with us either in good faith or bad – they can just refuse. Therefor the only weapon we really have is disruption. With disruption we have two choices: bring it to chaos, or we have to make their parliament bend to our whim. Change the power balance. We control the agenda. We decide which items are worth debating and we disrupt the rest. We break every convention because they are not ours. We destroy every ceremony because they are not ours. We do not take the oath to the King if he does not take the oath to us. The list is endless. It may or may not work, but what we have just now, clever-dickery just doesn’t do anything.
Forgive me, but candidly, I can’t take this seriously. I keep hearing this nonsense. You are not going to carry a majority of Scottish voters with you with this fantasy politics. Either you can live in the real world that politics offers in Scotland; or you can continue blethering, and wondering why it never happens. All I see here is the hokey pokey.
You are frustrated? Welcome to Scotland, but to carry Scotland with you, you will need to be clever and compellingly persuasive, and what you offer, and what you think works isn’t clever. There really is nothing more to say; I have found this quite bleak, because nobody in Scotland seems to learn anything from experience; but just go round in circles, repeating the same, failed answers that have no purchase whatsoever on the voters who alone can deliver independence.
You’re right, it would lose votes but if it brought with it an agreed way to leave the union it would be worth it. Then we work on getting the votes.
It isn’t going to deliver a way to independence. The way is already there. Persuade a decisive majority of Scots that independence is the only realistic solution. The British State is in serious difficulty, but what you want to do is have an answer, without taking the people you have to persuade with you. In order to do that, you are going to have to change your views, and compromise, more than they require to change. From their perspective, you are simply not persuasive. you are not convincing.
As for major disruption of major UK institutions, look closely on home ground. In Scotland many of our major institutions are the slowest to change, and the least transparent in operation. That should tell you something about the underlying nature of Scotland. Not only is the argument for disruption never going to work; virtually nobody in Scotland that anyone is likely take seriously is , or takes him/herself seriously, is going to undertake that task. It is a credibility destroying operation. Even Flynn’s modest attempt to compromise the strict Unionist Parliamentary hierarchy, blew up in his face within a week; blown up by independence supporters. It is all so endlessly predictable.
It’s not there though. Holyrood had a pro-independence majority in 2022 and they just said NO, had their press dogs launch an anti-SNP / anti-independence propaganda tsunami and the forces of the crown a Very British Coup. It’s all worked a treat for them.
If the SNP hit back as WT & Sleeping Dog suggested maybe they’d at least take the hardcore independence voters with them.
This is the truth John S. Warren.
@WT, a small group of MPs including Caroline Lucas of the Greens attempted to force the issue of Westminster Parliamentary reform into the public spotlight. I’m not sure who has taken on the task inside the Houses, since Mhairi Black of the SNP has also retired.
https://carolinelucas.com/latest/caroline-puts-the-case-for-parliamentary-reform
Westminster has extensive research support and archival access, and the results can be published on the web for all to see. This is a pretty powerful tool for getting analysis of these creaking systems into the public domain.
If we take the political-philosophical question: what information would it take for people to reject the British Union (/Empire)? then we can treat the problem of public rejection of Unionism (/ending the British Empire) as an information science problem.
We might consider what information is currently hidden from UK public in general. If I could publish a visual representation of the metadata of all British official secrets, with the most suppressed secrets in some appropriately shadowy colour scheme, with labelled clusters and topic icons (AI can do this), it would give a simple, user-friendly route into the heart of darkness.
Some scandals have great cut-through (in the sense of quickly reaching and resonating with diverse audiences) potential, like the British nuclear test example I gave. On top of that, like in Watergate and other political scandals, it is the cover-ups which bring down the government (and potentially political systems too). If a person symbolising the British deep state and imperial continuity was then to be interviewed on the topic, the results might be worth watching. The fallout might include an even more rapid falling off than Anglican church attendance.
Brexit (above all, it has wiped almost £100Bn off British trade, and it can’t be replaced), a world of big economic battalions, international protectionism, newly emerging major powers, and serious diplomatic instability throughout the world that is slowly breaking Britain; not the long history of dubious state practices or deep state scandals*, are the critical matters that will bring the possibility of independence.
There is no substitute for taking people with you. The problem is too many independence supporters want to discuss the wrong things, and can’t bring themselves to make the necessary compromises with the people they need to persuade.
* They outrage everyone, and change nothing fundamental.
Johnson suppressed the MI5 report on Russian interference in the EU referendum. When it was later released how many heard anything about it or (on the /Brexit side) cared?
The IRA always claimed the security forces were complicit in aiding loyalist killers to murder republicans. When it was later admitted, the dim opinion was “quite right” Ditto for war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Getting the message out there to the fodder is nigh on impossible. The gutter press just pin a union jack to it and the fodder swallow it whole.
@Tom Ultuous, I don’t think the Boris Johnson files are really in the same category. British death squads, are, I agree, and their impact is likely going to be ammunition for Northern Ireland leaving the Union, which might happen in a generation.
The public does seem interested in many revelations, like the Post Office (Horizon IT) scandal, Spycops, Hillsborough (you mentioned the gutter press but not the sentiments towards The Sun in Liverpool)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverage_of_the_Hillsborough_disaster_by_The_Sun#Merseyside_boycott
and so on.
One rather obvious point to make is that if the British Establishment were not frightened of releasing their secrets, why is British official secrecy so draconian? I did spend some time studying this, and I’m convinced that their fears have foundations.
Of course, revelations can come from all directions and perhaps it is surprising that more leaks are not used as alternatives to, say, ramping up military threats. Perhaps it’s the public appreciation of the ease of forgeries, but often there are verification possibilities. The Memory Hole is there for a reason.
When a problem is wicked, you might approach it by mapping another problem with a known solution onto it. That’s why I suggested applying information science to a political problem. I agree with John S Warren that we cannot expect to cheat (or bounce) our way towards Scottish Independence, we have to provide a clear option that breaks with what is wrong with the UK/British Empire, and without a supermajority of support the likely outcome is disaster. But I don’t think we will be able to see all the cracks that revelations cause until they reach critical point (and in terms of pattern of cracks, combine). The apparent acceleration of revelations, from typically centuries down to less than a generation is surely contributing to social unrest (and perhaps the decline of deterrence some have noted). The old generational slide towards Empire-loving Toryism isn’t going to continue (which is why I raised the trend of Anglican church attendances). Royalism is on a similar slide.
And I mentioned cut-through very deliberately to highlight that there *are* scandals which upset or anger Unionists. As the Mirror makes plain in its coverage of The Damned, many people deliberately exposed to British nuclear testing were Brits on National Service. As one of them says, ‘we had no choice’. This isn’t asking people to sympathise with the IRA. If you watched the two documentaries or read the Mirror stories, you would understand the human cost which even xenophobes and militarists will identify with.
Anyway, as revelations go, we can be sure there are worse to come. And none of it is likely to be good news for Unionists/Imperialists. What the British Establishment may fear ultimately may be mass disobedience by people who have signed the Official Secrets Act, civil servants, soldiers and archivists turning whistleblowers. This kind of tipping point has happened many times before, which is why History has so many endings in its stories. The trope ‘are we the baddies?’ is trending.
Yes, it’s great if ITV or BBC decide to do a sympathetic drama series about these things but if the SNP are uncovering things they’re far more likely to be portrayed as traitors by WM and the Tory press barons. Julian Assange wasn’t exactly given great public support or portrayed as a hero. For me they’d be doing it more as a thorn in the British establishment’s side in addition to WT’s disruption tactics.
Yes, it would be a vote loser but we’re not exactly demanding a lot. Just recognition of the fact that, if we’re not a colony, then there has to be an agreed and fixed means by which we can leave the union. After that we concentrate on winning the Scottish public over. In the meantime the SNP would just have to make do with the hardcore independence supporters.
@Tom Ultuous, well up to a point on the media angle, but surely the persecution of the Wikileaks founder to terrorise other journalists proves my point about how fearful the British Establishment are about leaks of its secrets? And British history can be dramatised and documentarised by other streaming services (and sometimes one mode can play off another in another media stream, like ‘The Real Line of Duty’), which puts a certain amount of pressure on domestic broadcasters to come up with the goods. Trying to suppress these secrets internationally can result in damaging blowback and extra publicity, as in Spycatcher. Which, as Wikipedia points out, wasn’t banned in Scotland…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spycatcher
I would say that the prospect of Scotland becoming the primary publisher of the British Empire’s secrets is the prime concern for some Unionists, which is presumably why we hear almost nothing on this aspect of Scottish Independence from their media, nor from the Scottish Establishment.
John – unlike majority of commentators on here I agree with your column.
Stephen Flynn may be too personally ambitious for some but at least he is not accepting the status quo which has left SNP and independence movement in limbo. He is also able to stand his ground in discussions and gives impression of being able to think on his feet, essential qualities which very few other SNP MP’s or MSP’s seem to possess at present. Most of them come over as on back foot and apologetic just waiting for next electoral setback.
Flynn is inexperienced and a bit naive but independence supporters who attack him for showing initiative and ambition and not playing by Westminster/Holyrood rules are IMO looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
I also fully agree with your assertion that independence can only be gained by building popular support to the point where it is impossible for Westminster to ignore. To achieve this the independence movement will require ambitous people who are willing to rock the boat and who connect with the majority of the Scottish electorate. I know it isn’t fashionable to say so in this environment but Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon did at some point connect with wider Scottish electorate and were feared by Westminster. They were consequently both attacked and demonised by unionist media (virtually all) and UK establishment and their failings magnified into being cardinal sins. Stephen Flynn is the one SNP politician who strikes fear into opponents of independence because they, unlike some independence supporters, recognise his ability.
Thank you. I do not want to turn this into a debate about the specific qualities of leaders (it is an easy indulgence in which anyone can hold an opinion without having to prove anything – which is a weakness of such political debates, or is it it just the appeal of gossip – in Scotland?). Unfortunately independence supporters too easily allow Unionists to set the agenda and rules for the independence debate; and as shown in comments here, I am afraid too often there is little desire to compromise their set presumptions of what matters (to them, not to voters who are not already committed to independence); or accommodate voters who have not supported independence, but must be persuaded, if independence is ever to be achieved. You have to carry people with you in Scotland.
Instead of tackling that uncomfortable task, there is a preference to seek an improbable solution, such as the problem of secrecy or ‘cover-up’ which it is supposed is unique to Britain, or ascribing political views to the majority of the public that they do not hold (because the politically committed independence supporter finds it more convenient to believe it, without changing their own assumptions); but in the end, you have to persuade those with whom it is much harder to find common ground. You have to offer them something they want. At the same time we are somehow supposed to believe hardly anyone has ever noticed anything untoward in Britain’s long history (but it isn’t true; the problem of slavery, for example is now rewriting British history, and that has long term, enduring implications for Britain’s amour-propre); but the idea the revelation of some buried scandal will break the mould of the politics of independence is far fetched. It is an intoxicating idea, but Unionists are not going to abandon Britain because of an acknowledgment of some scandal. In such cases the public may wish to sack the government, or prosecute miscreants; but it is an unlikely basis for changing allegiance.
Losing 4% of your GDP every year, repeatedly mishandling major crises, from Covid to the Post Office, from the Blood Scandal to the WFA; from Grenfell to the WASPI women, or the Financial Crash to the failures of Water companies (whatever Party is in power – the Single Transferable Party syndrome – different name of the Party, same policies, same fiscal rules – same relentless decline); constant incompetence and failure, constant austerity, constant cost of living or inflation crises, a constant flatlining economy, over decades; and a decaying, crumbling infrastructure – old and failing; all that is demonstrable to all, and felt by many in their personal, sharply felt, sagging living standards. These are the matters that shake confidence. Over time, the sense of a decaying, unmanageable State cannot be ignored: that is what changes minds.
John – thanks for your reply.
I completely agree that independence supporters need to look outwards and talk to the significant number of people who, though they do not currently support independence because they are not convinced of benefits, are not opposed to it on principal. There will be no independence unless these people can be persuaded and you do this by dialogue and listening not by lecturing them, arguing with each other over internal matters and trying to get independence via plans that do not reflect majority of electorate’s wishes.
There is IMO a push/pull momentum to independence and you have identified the UK issues that are detrimental to Scotland that can pull Scots away from UK. Independence supporting parties at Westminster have a key role in highlighting these issues and their relevance to the electorate in Scotland. What is also required is a credible, positive vision of an independent Scotland that can push undecided people towards supporting independence. This a role for the whole independence movement though there is no doubt that an independence supporting government at Holyrood that improves the lives of Scots with effective policy delivery that ties in with public’s priorities is also an important factor in pushing more voters towards independence.
@John S Warren, but I am not arguing that “the revelation of some buried scandal will break the mould of the politics of independence”; I am arguing that this is merely one kind of phenomenon, and the cumulative effects of many phenomena are eroding the foundation of Unionist propaganda (we are the good guys etc). Which straw will break the camel’s back? We cannot say, and any case it is all the straws that have piled up before that really count.
I’m talking about destruction of faith in a system, not the more obvious case of a scandal toppling one set of rulers to be replaced by another. In the psychology of conversion (or deconversion), which has been studied quite a lot in the religious sense without perhaps a broad consensus emerging, each contrary weighted fact creates dissonance with a belief system, and while an individual has coping strategies to maintain cherished beliefs, these are vulnerable to specific shifts, specific angles. You might remember Bella running multiple stories on Moving to Yes (or My Journey to Yes or whatever), for example.
I would appreciate it you would refrain from mischaracterising my argument as if it was some kind of magical thinking. You still haven’t answered my points about why the British Establishment is so obsessed with official secrecy and persecuting investigative journalists and whistleblowers, if it doesn’t fear considerable consequences from disclosures. And yes, British secrecy laws are extreme by international standards, centring around the capstone of royal secrecy (despite all those popular but largely toothless ‘royal secrets’ television documentaries and dramas). Much of British secrecy is itself secret, which is surely why it isn’t discussed as much in public as it should be.
https://www.declassifieduk.org/what-is-prince-andrew-hiding/
“Which straw will break the camel’s back? We cannot say…..”
No, you can’t. That is because you are creating a man of straw. What you are focused on hasn’t, and doesn’t change anything. You are talking only to the converted, and expecting the unconverted to fall in line because you have to be right. I am not prepared to continue going round in the same circle. I have engaged as much as I can with commenters. I have made my case, and even read to your opinions; found them unconvincing, and will not change my mind by you endlessly repeating it. And it is a little rich for you to complain about how I misrepresented your argument, when I am commenting BTL on my own article to comments principally made by others, not by you – you were incidental; and your comments, from the beginning effectively ignoring my article altogether to offer your unsolicited argument to other commenters, or the thread you decided to join. You are entitled to say your piece, but this is not your show. If you want to find out what it is like writing and defending an opinion – write your own Blog.
@John S Warren, wow, you’re really doubling down on this. So after accusing others of positions supporting unionism, your advice to those wrestling with their consciences and the consequences of blowing that whistle is: “Keep Quiet and Carry On” (because it “hasn’t, and doesn’t change anything”)?! Obviously I am not ‘talking to the converted’ since I explicitly cover psychological conversion, and I made considerable pains to talk about disclosures which cut through to unionists, even militaristic and xenophobic ones. Feel free to avoid engaging with any of my substantive points, of course. These issues are better addressed in another forum. Maybe it is obvious to others, if not yourself, that I have studied topics like British political secrecy at tertiary level and beyond.
What a pompous and hilariously crass response. Frankly, I don’t think there is a pea in your whistle. Yes, the unconverted are queuing up to be lectured about “psychological conversion” from a “tertiary” educated, anonymous writer who does not even care to stand behind his opinions here, in his own name.
@John S Warren, then I recommend a few books on British official secrecy.
The State of Secrecy: Spies and the Media in Britain by Richard Norton-Taylor
p1 “The culture of secrecy is the root cause of many, perhaps most, of Britain’s deep-seated ills.”
One of the secrets Norton-Taylor mentions is “The Thatcher government offered to hand over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands at a clandestine meeting with Argentinian officials less than two years before the Argentine invasion.” with 99-year lease.
The Secret State: Preparing for the Worst 1945-2010 (2nd edition) by Peter Hennessy
Written by an establishment insider, perhaps, the still-secret relationship between royals and nukes is explored, but the edition is a little out of date.
The History Thieves: Secrets, Lies and the Shaping of a Modern Nation (2016) by Ian Cobain
A very useful summary of how a history of secrecy lead to our century’s official secrecy regime.
There are too many useful books on historical secrecies to mention.
I refer to these in the context of what might be exposed through mechanisms such as Parliamentary privilege, why engaging with even Westminster’s resources and protocols may bring more useful information into the public domain, and raise the question of the potential of a devolved or Independent Scotland to become the publisher of the UK’s/British Empire’s secrets. I believe it was Scottish Labour who recently raised the question of legislating for Westminster-style parliamentary privilege at Holyrood, presumably to use as a weapon against an SNP government.
Despite your attachment to Stephen Flynn, it appears your Great Man has admitted his dual candidacy campaign was a mistake, according to STV News.
https://news.stv.tv/west-central/stephen-flynn-admits-ive-got-this-one-wrong-as-he-ends-dual-mandate-bid
Well, perhaps it does show a certain amount of character to publicly admit one’s mistakes, instead of trebling down on them.
I agree except for one thing which takes it further than you suggest. Not everyone is a nationalist or a unionist. Arguably the majority are neither. Even if you have a view on independence it does not make you either; labelling people an ‘ist’ is in many cases both reductive and demeaning. People are far more nuanced than this. Only the fanatics see the world as populated by one or the other, and they are wrong, very wrong. And when it comes to ‘Britain’ what you ignore is that many like and identify with things British without even thinking of it like that, not because of ignorance or brainwashing but for the same reason – they do not see everything Nationalists label as British as intrinsically bad – why would they, it would be illogical and ignorant? Despite what the vast majority of posters here might think, the ‘BBC’ is not simply an evil Unionist mouthpiece just because it is has British in its title, and actually the majority of people understand this even when they perceive bias.
Therefore, I actually think the idea the way to achieve independence is to undermine, denigrate and trash all things British, Unionist etc is wrong. It will almost certainly fail if that is the main argument.
The way forward is in what John says – a positive vision for an independent Scotland that makes leaving Britain behind worthwhile.
Now you can work with the positive, and that seems right, up to a point. The “vision” requires a big leap of faith, when it isn’t accessible without breaking up the existing order. People do not care to take such big leaps when the leap is into a ‘vision’, with an unknown landing (independence). It is not a matter of “trashing” Britain; it is recognising that the UK model no longer works, and is seen to be failing (which is demonstrable). People do not often make big leaps into the unknown, unless they already feel insecure about the present and future. States only break-up when people feel very insecure about the future. Sentiment doesn’t do it.
Niemand is correct when he says that the majority of Scots do not define themselves as nationalist or unionist which means we are more nuanced and not as divided as some commentators like to make out (which is surely a positive). I think there is less a natural affinity to Britishness than there was when I was young for a variety of reasons (proximity to WW2, fewer nationalised industries, effect of having Holyrood, Brexit etc). There is also the rise of a more strident British/English nationalism, encapsulated by Reform, which is antagonistic to majority of Scots though by no means all.
For independence argument to succeed it needs to convince the majority of electorate in Scotland they would be better off and better governed from Holyrood than Westminster. I would suggest the rise in support for SNP post 2007 was a combination of disillusionment with Westminster, driven by financial crisis, and Holyrood government being more relevant to electorate and appearing competent. I would suggest this is still the combination of actions that are required to increase support for independence. SNP support has dropped partly because their
policies have not appeared so relevant to majority of Scots and problems with delivery and infighting have affected public’s perception of competence. The opponents of SNP and independence including Westminster have also been far more aggressive in fighting them since 2014 but SNP have given them some help. I also think the electorate do not like Holyrood blaming Westminster, regardless of this being a factor under devolution, as they expect Holyrood to act and take responsibility. This is why I say it is better for independence movement as a whole and MP’s to highlight how Westminster is adversely affecting Holyrood and Scottish electorate.
I do think that in 2014 the majority of electorate thought they would be worse off by being independent rather than being positive about being in UK i.e. opting for the devil they knew. Independence supporters can paint a vision of a better country but it is very difficult to reassure about all potential problems so maybe it does come down to electorate becoming completely scunnered with Westminster rule?
Richard Rotberg wrote a practical analysis of what makes States weak or strong; “Why State Fail” (2004). His analysis, novel at the time was of real failed States, so predominantly sourced in the developing, not developed world. But that was twenty years ago, in a world in which the developed world was more stable, and committed to globalisation, for better or worse. The test cases were not applicable to current circumstances in the West, but the principles he established; what leads to weakness, have much broader application.
States require security, personal freedom and participation to work well; following these broad expectations Rotberg provides a list we can all recognise, and recognise that Britain’s delivery is becoming weak, too weak for the demands of the 21st century, and the expanded technical ability to provide them;
“Other political goods typically supplied by states and expected by their citizenries (although privatized forms are possible) include medical and health care (at varying levels and costs); schools and educational instruc- tion (of various kinds and levels); roads, railways, harbors, and other physical infrastructures—the arteries of commerce; communications networks; a money and banking system, usually presided over by a central bank and lubricated by a nationally created currency; a beneficent fiscal and institutional context within which citizens can pursue personal entrepreneurial goals, and potentially prosper; space for the flowering of civil society; and methods of regulating the sharing of the environmental commons. Together, this bundle of political goods, roughly rank ordered, establishes a set of criteria according to which modern nation-states may be judged strong, weak, or failed.”
It is one of the ironies of this failure, that it is British unchallengeable conventional wisdom that the money cannot be spent to repair fourteen years of inadequate investment in the State; in order not to burden future generations (negative inertia as a policy for growth). It is not debt that will burden future generations (most of Britain’s history has operated at far higher Debt/GDP ratio than applies now), but an inadequate and decayed infrastructure for which we are responsible, that will destroy their children and grandchildren’s prospects.
I would just add that whilst I agree the attachment to ‘British’ has lessened (true in England as well), the fact remains many cultural and societal things are not especially English, Scottish or Welsh but common to all (with national / regional tweaks) and up to a point, enjoyed and appreciated by all. You can call these British or nothing at all but they are real and do not need to be British to have the power of common parlance of the island that is Great Britain. I do not think you can relabel everything British (or Scottish, or whatever) for political purposes and people will buy it. There is actually a danger of that backfiring and having a reverse effect.
Though one can argue the only serious thing preventing independence is the British State, I am unconvinced. Equally as big is not just a lack of vision of what the actual point of an independent Scotland would be in the early 21st century (other than getting away from the evil British / English and its ‘colonial’ occupation’ – another mountain of delusion), but very acrimonious disunity between those who desire it most. The disunited almost never win.
@ Niemand, but the disunited can still effect change (especially if they are similarly disgruntled). I wouldn’t put political goals into simple win/lose categories (especially when you think what ‘winning’ the 2014 referendum on a wafer-thin majority might have resulted in).
The most obvious case I can think of is revolutionary state of Russia in the early 1900s. We have a royal scandal in Rasputin, a real one exacerbated by rumour. As Wikipedia puts it:
“Historians often suggest that Rasputin’s scandalous and sinister reputation helped discredit the Tsarist government, thus precipitating the overthrow of the House of Romanov shortly after his assassination.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Rasputin
which is similarly to the picture we were taught in politics class. The final straw for many, perhaps, this cut through to conservatives (religious, royalist, social…) not just people who disliked the Tsars anyway (you can have a popular revolution *and* a civil war, for example).
And it had a cascading effect on secrets. One version of events is that George V refused asylum for the Romanovs in Britain — but wanted Prime Minister Lloyd George to take public responsibility — fearing revolutionary popular anger against his regime (a case of British official secrecy about preventing a revolution here). And when the revolutionary Russian government came in after October 1917, they captured, analysed and released damaging secrets from the British embassy (this is a major source of disclosure danger for states) including publishing the Sykes–Picot Agreement in Izvestia and Pravda (later reprinted by the Guardian, apparently) which was very destabilising to the international order.
However, as my old British politics lecturer said, and it bears repeating, there are plenty of open secrets among small groups of people: often researchers, scholars, academics, sometimes published in relatively obscure journals, that the general public is quite unaware of. This is where political censorship and propaganda comes in. And of course, the British Establishment keep a watchful eye on the desecretisation pipeline, to preempt and prepare for foreseeable disclosures (that they cannot redact or burn or lose or hide or prevent in other ways).
If you have been watching the second series of Wolf Hall you can see dramatised versions of similar cases to the Rasputin one (complete with rumours and court villains) which are used to foment rebellions in England, which I believe is based on a widespread pattern, historically evidenced.
Interesting thoughts as always SD, and yeah win/lose is binary though at the end of the day there is either full independence or not. The idea of a very narrow win is indeed potential trouble.
Though he could be a pain, ‘number man’ had a point when he asked what does independence really mean in such a globally interconnected world? Why not look more towards localised autonomy? Those questions do not invalidate the desire / push for independence as a nation at all but they are still a good ones if independence simply meant more of the same but fully directed from Holyrood instead of Westminster (and that includes the points you make about secrets, hardly a stranger to those who run the show at present!).
@Niemand, well, a multicellular organism still has a hierarchical structure (organelles, cells, tissues, organs, organ systems) and there’s something to be said for organising politically in a similar way, as long as each contributes to overall health. This might have been a common metaphor in the past (in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus, Menenius’ Story of the Belly is one example). Different problems are best resolved by different levels of organisation. But I think it is clear that superpowers are unhealthy (and maybe lethal).
Although we are disunited in terms of Will (as social media at least reveals, if not creates fragmentation), we are united by our common biology as humans (at least, until and unless transhumanism and autonomous robots appear), and we share a great deal with other lifeforms who have also evolved to the conditions of our planet (currently changing). This is the Unity of Health, which I advocate basing our political systems around. Local autonomy cannot address our global polycrisis, though. Our ideologies must be concerned with planetary health.
Any state wielding nuclear weapons cannot be a democracy (Elaine Scarry makes the argument better than I can). That is something worth aiming for: an Independent Scotland without nuclear weapons (and maybe ditching the British Empire’s nukes too). The idea of having nuclear weapons at all may pall for many previous supporters in the near future.
My impression is that the British Empire is increasingly only defended publicly by lightweights, cranks, psychopaths, racists, zealots, charlatans of various stripes… The trick of many British Unionists is to pretend that the Empire is over (it isn’t), because of quite familiar reasons. But loyalists find ‘betrayal’ by authority difficult to stomach: they have their own sense of a social contract (when written, a covenant), and if that is broken, the ancien régime may find its defenders melt away.
One thing John (the author) is correct about, devolution is a unionist tool. This is what we are up against.
From today’s Daily Mail. “SNP-controlled health service in Scotland is WORSE than NHS in England” (similar story appears in the Telegraph and will doubtless appear in the Express & GB News over the next few days). The story is based on an IFS report
[The report focused on how both nations have improved compared to their own previous record, rather than comparing the performance of the two to each other, which cannot be easily done due to differences in collecting data.]
It compared data from 2020 to 2024.
Talk about sleight of hand. It’s easier to improve things if you hit rock-bottom as was allowed to happen to the English NHS and, with the much better funded Scottish NHS having funding cut it’s easier to slide downwards. The truth is, the huge gap between the Scottish NHS and the English NHS has narrowed slightly. It’s also a lie that comparing the two cannot be done easily.
To get at the SNP the gutter Tory press are slagging off our NHS staff and anyone giving them the response they hoped for is a total fool. Of course the yoons are lapping it up although I doubt many of them look beyond the headline. They IFS could probably have used a similar method to suggest NHS England was doing better than the German or French healh service.
The truth is somewhat different.
Compared to Scotland England has (per capita) NHS waiting lists 25% longer, 30% less full time GPs, 40% less nurses, double the waiting time on calls to NHS24, charity dental vans, 1.6 hospital beds less per 1,000 of population, paid for prescriptions, 27% less police, 25% less firemen, 70% more polluted rivers, 30% more children in poverty, £900 less spent per pupil, less teachers per pupil, tuition fees, 67% less children’s playgrounds, twice as many homeless, poorer NHS & public sector pay, the list is endless.
e.g. (atypically from the Daily Record)
[The UK has fewer nurses per head than its European neighbours, according to SNP-commissioned analysis. The House of Commons library research showed the UK has lagged behind its European neighbours since the turn of the century. Every other country in north west Europe had more nurses per head than the UK as a whole. Only Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Iceland, the Republic of Ireland, and Germany had more per head than Scotland. The UK had fewer than nine practising nurses per 1,000 people in 2022. In England there were nearly seven nurses per 1,000 people, while there were nearly 12 per 1,000 in Scotland.]
People who go on about winning moderates over to the independence cause by showing “competence in govt” should tell us how they think this can be done. If you’re doing a job and those reporting on your work hate your guts to the extent 99% reports on your work are totally negative, how can you demonstrate competence?
The only way we will ever break free of WM is to make the English hate us. At some point the Tories or Reform will be so desperate for votes they’ll turn us ‘ungrateful Scots’ into one of their classic smokescreens to the extent the English will be baying “Let them go. Let’s see how they do on their own”. In the meantime, if that means we’ll lose the moderate vote then so be it. We’re losing them anyway.
SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE BIAS WATCH
Independence related articles on MSN since referendum date announced
Anti-Neutral-Pro = 1084-32-37
Tom – independence can only be achieved with majority support of Scottish electorate.
I find it difficult/ impossible to see how it can be achieved without an independence supporting majority in Holyrood. With a high level of support an independence supporting government can follow Neil Acherson’s tactic of non cooperation with Westminster to force them to grant us an independence referendum (better pass the legal right to hold one to Holyrood). Independence supporting MP’s could also disrupt proceedings at Westminster. Both of these tactics could also lead to electorate in England supporting Scotland leaving UK.
These tactics do need majority support from Scottish electorate to be successful. I cannot see this level of support being achieved by the current administration with 17 years of incumbency to defend. I am beginning to think that, due to electorate cynicism and media hostility, that this level of support can only be achieved by independence supporting parties by being out of power for a few years and having electorate focus discontent on discontent on unionist parties in power at Holyrood & Westminster. This disillusionment could then lead to an upsurge in support for independence support and political parties to level required to enable the tactic of non cooperation with Westminster to be effective. This level of support would also mean there would be a high likelihood that any subsequent referendum would be won.
John, I agree with a lot of what you say but don’t you think there is enough hardcore independence supporters (many of whom would be won back by disruption tactics) to keep the SNP as top dogs in Holyrood (without a majority) and with enough MPs in WM to cause disruption? Unless we get WM to agree to an exit method then all is lost.
Tom
Disruption tactics need to targeted on issues that have majority support in Scotland. They may cause some response from Westminster that could be detrimental to public in short term. To be able to implement this tactic effectively Holyrood will need strong public support at its back. IMO this can only be achieved by a government with not only a majority but also more than 50% of electoral vote.
To try and implement these tactics with a minority government or minority electorate support would I think be more counterproductive and haemorrhage support for Holyrood government and potentially independence.
The recent GE and polls for Hollywood would indicate to me that the independence supporting parties are considerably short of level of support required. Support for independence is higher but I would suggest that to many this is indicative of a preference rather than seeing independence as a priority.
@John, disruption tactics in legislatures have proved particularly unpopular both here and elsewhere, and are often associated with the kind of grandstanding Westminster is (in)famous for anyway, really reinforcing the brand rather than offering an alternative. Grabbing the mace (what Marina Hyde called “the ultimate dick move”), filibustering, howling and all that. Disruption is a favourite Silicon Valley tech-bro term, of course.
Whereas using available protocols like parliamentary privilege can bring important information into the public realm. Here Green MP Caroline Lucas uses parliamentary privilege to expose spycop agent-provocateur/false-flag testimony (which is obviously topical):
Undercover policeman ‘fire-bombed shop,’ MPs told (13 June 2012)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18423441
which is maybe one reason we are having the Undercover Policing Inquiry today.
SD – as Neal Ascherson wrote Hollywood would be wise to be disruptive with Westminster on issues where there was substantial public support eg poll tax, WFA would be examples from past and recent times.
Scottish MP ‘s could be disruptive in Westminster on bills that did not adversely effect Scottish electorate to force Westminster to agree to a Holyrood request to hold another independence referendum or on specific issues eg energy transfer to England.
Targeted properly it can upset Westminster and potentially electorate outside Scotland but to be frank that would probably help independence case.
The key is to have majority support in Scotland, choose the issues carefully to reflect, maintain and grow the support. I believe the Irish Nationalists used this tactic successfully at end of 19th century.