New Parties, Old Cultures
It seems like there’s been a re-set to the 1970s. Scottish nationalism used to be a fringe phenomenon confined to the back-rooms of pubs and the electoral margins, glorying in ‘Scotland’s Oil’ and venerating romantic heroes.
Now, the political landscape feels to have gone back to those days.
Clusters of people join online to discuss with handfuls of the faithful about how traitorous the SNP are – mysterious pathways to independence are concocted (‘go to the UN’) – and Scotland is declared a ‘colony’. Frequently there’s talk of ‘House Jocks’ – the independence movement is compared to the US civil rights movement and people think its appropriate to shout “traitor” at someone attending a memorial service.
Now, added to the Alba Party and the Independence for Scotland Party, is the New Scotland Party led by Peter Bell. There may be more that I’ve missed. The New Scotland Party held its launch event at the Salutation Hotel, Perth. It has no policies and no plans to stand at elections.
These parties all have something in common in that they want to influence the SNP. Bell explained that: “The idea we can do without the biggest party is a nonsense. We can’t. You [instead] work within the SNP to get [our] manifesto adopted.” Others demand that voters use their second vote to support them – and urge the SNP to advocate for this.
There’s a couple of wild contradictions here – the first is that these parties never let up from denouncing the SNP as turncoats and traitors, sellouts and has-beens. Which is all fine but don’t then turn around and ask for their cooperation. The second is that these parties denounce the SNP for not having moved to independence NOW – yet they are also embarking on a political journey that may take decades. Finally the common idea is to have grand unity, and that somehow bringing together these tiny fragments of parties will make a difference, rather than convincing those that don’t already support independence.
These parties won’t ‘split the independence vote’ because they average around 0.5% of the vote. They will however do damage to how the independence movement is portrayed.
There’s a sort of comfortableness about all of this. The backrooms of pubs, the settling with people you have known for years or with people who already agree with you and will support your worldview, however cranky and oddball it is. It’s a throwback to a simpler world and a retreat from reality, it’s a reduction to a sort of caricature of nationalism. The world is divided into ‘traitors’ and ‘heroes’ who shall be put on a pedestal and venerated and romanticised in death.
None of this will have any impact on gaining independence.
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
Pot calling the kettle black mike, how relevant are you! keep up with your easy listening stereotypes, it’s what unionists were doing 20 years ago. As to time scales you have to start somewhere, what’s your solution! at least their trying.
I lay no claim to relevance, just doubting this is a credible way forward.
ach weal, least it’s gitn the ald dodgers oot the huis, always easy tae forget the snp stands for national rather than ony -ist party, the number of times I’ve had folk from way down south new tae the northern reaches express their confusion on this makes ye wunder if the rise in english or british -ism which was always there but hud bin kept in check fur long inuff wis not reinvigorated in a sort of brit anglaise crusade tae teach the jocks wance & fur a’ that engerland exists & shall prove so by daen as the Cameronian instigated wie his evel ken evel approach tae inglish votes fur inglish laws tirade hot on the tails ae indyref wan & seen tae be expressed in the wonderful post european world that is brexitica, ’tis a tangled web that hus bin weaved indeed & I for one feel greatly relieved tae huv ruled masel oot ae gien ony ae the charlatans a tick nivirmind a cross in ony ae thir doctored aforehand boxes
I agree. I was surprised by the BTL comments on my recent article in Bella, ‘Devolution: can it serve more than Unionism alone?’ (18th November, 2024); it seemed to me that the independence supporters commenting were far more interested in their own theories of politics, than in understanding or compromising with the Scottish public, or the Scottish voter; and that is a self-defeating programme designed to lose independence public credibility. Ironically, this is a detachment from compromise that increases inversely with any public disenchantment with the SNP, even when independence supporters – too often apparently unable to see themselves as the voter sees them – prefer arguing among themselves, in vexation with each other, than finding common ground with the public mood.
John – there is a lot of Judean People’s Front etc about these new ‘parties’ and some commentators.
This is another spin off from Labour & Tories refusing not only to permit an independence referendum as requested by Holyrood but refusing to state under what circumstances they would agree to one. There are short term political benefits to Labour & Tories with this denial policy:
1)Why would voters vote for an independence supporting party when there is no chance of a referendum? This partly explains fall in SNP support at GE.
2)Reduces the prioritisation of independence in some voters minds. This partly explains the SNP to Labour switching at GE.
3)Enables Labour/Tories/Lib Dems to say that talking about independence is a waste of time and money.
4)This enables the unionist parties to say independence question is dead and shut down any discussion and debate about independence referendum (ACH of Lib Dem’s tactic)
5)With no feasible route to independence the unionist supporting parties hope that the Indy movement will turn inwards and blame each other – seems to be happening.
It is a cynical policy that may rebound on them but it appears quite successful at the moment.
John, people are fed up.
People want independence not wisecracks from the likes of Flynn. There has been no movement on independence since 2014. What do people expect others to do? Wait around for some SNP numbskull to say something approaching a different strategy than asking for a Section 30? Or suggesting we pretend that we are independent with an ‘as if’ approach? Is that the best we can hope for? Is breaking up the UK revolutionary or not? Are the SNP revolutionary? Or are they part of the system?
@ WT,
What do you have in mind: UDI; riots; worse?
Its not the SNP who circled the wagons; the Unionists did that.
You’re coming across as Mr Angry because there hasn’t been any progress; but you’ve said absolutely nothing about what that progress should be. How would you break the impasse?
I think your attitude is at the core of the issue. The Yes movement thrived because it was, overwhelmingly, positive. (It had flaws too). People worked hard to engage with doubters to persuade, challenge and educate. Now nobody seems to care that people still are not persuaded. At the core of the Yes movement were people of different political persuasions who shared one belief and came together to work for it. The opportunity to do so came about because the SNP won in Holyrood.
The truth of the matter is that, currently, the SNP are the only party that is in a position to put independence on the agenda. However, it cannot do that without the broad support in wider Scottish society and without serious financial backing comparable with the multi million £s that uk parties and the No campaign could back themselves with. (Who remembers the Tories being blasé about Russian money? Labour receiving financial support through LFI? Now we have the megalomaniacal Musk offering Farage £100m).
Most of us saw views on the Yes side in 2014 that we chose to ignore. We face the same choices today. We make up the movement (if it exists as such). Can we hold our nose long enough to finish the job? Do we really have a choice? I’m putting what I can afford to the SNP, not because I think they’re the bees knees but because I don’t see any realistic prospect of any other party being able to gain sufficient standing in the general population to be in with a chance of winning elections in the near future. Believe me when I say that I hold my nose.
I’m 71 and time is short for me but there are no shortcuts to independence without a majority of voters supporting it and ‘it’ can’t be as divided as it so obviously is now.
Persuade a convinced and convincing majority of Scots first that independence is in their best interests; and it will happen. That has not happened. Britain is going to make leaving as difficult as possible, and they can and do make it difficult. The 2014 referendum only happened because the British state convinced itself it couldn’t lose; and almost did lose; so they will try not to make the same mistake again.. But they can’t stop a convinced and decisive majority for independence – but it doesn’t yet exist.
That is what requires to be done, and these are the rough old rules of the game. You can’t make up your own rules, and there is no easy way to achieve it. If you want quicker results, try a sport; this isn’t for you.
@ John S Warren,
I think the idea of using a UK general election as a de facto referendum is worth trying again; but properly, in future. Single issue: should Scotland control its own destiny? Candidates drawn from all parties and none.
The SNP’s “its oor ba’…'” approach, in the July election, was a disaster. It alienated potential support and left them wide open to accusations of continued troughing; hogging the short money and padding their pensions.
I’m struggling to see an alternative that breaks, or even tests, the impasse. As you indicate, leaving [I’d go for “ending”] the Union will be made as difficult as possible. But it has to be an omni-alliance, with short money going straight to the independence movement, not SNP funds.
It depends on whether the SNP can be persuaded that this is in their best interests too, of course.
Drew – a few questions asked in good faith
1)What is definition of a Yes vote – >50% of seats, >50% of total votes.
2)Assuming a Yes majority how do you justify it being the settled will of electorate if the total votes is less than No or Yes total in 2014 Referendum? Lower turnout at GE make this very likely.
3)What happens if other parties and Westminster say they do not recognise this as a valid vote on independence?
I am not against this strategy in principle but I can see a lot of potential problems arising from this approach. Most obvious one is Westminster parties do not acknowledge this tactic as a valid approach prior to election.
4) Are voters going to vote for an outcome that is not accepted by Westminster? I doubt it – the electorate in Scotland are not naive, they didn’t buy this strategy at GE I see little indication they will buy it in 2026.
I agree with John W that there are a variety of ways to get independence without Westminster direct consent but they all critically rely on there being a large and sustained majority for independence in Scotland. I am afraid that the current level of ~50% (with 40-45% certain) in polls is not sufficient for any of these strategies to be successful.
A combination of all the options might work, I guess? Never mind!
John, The franchise was the problem, 53% of Scots voted yes, allowing no Scottish residents the vote pushed it back, like the poll tax the powers at B we’re keeping watch, and made sure the significant other didn’t get a vote, if resident EU nationals had the vote then Brexit would be lost, given the polls are more in favor of independence than in 2014 then there must be close to 60% of Scot’s who support it, unless you except the reality the we’re being colonized if people can’t work it out like some boiling frog, just as they are with Environmental collapse, but then we’re all consumer citizens now so no wonder civic nationalism is in the doldrums.
Provide the hard evidence of 53%. There was one survey, the data for which is now very hard to find. The mantra that 53% of ‘Scots’ voted Yes has taken on mythical status but clear evidence is never shown. One survey does not ‘prove’ anything and even less without any evidence of it.
Niemand even if it is true it is irrelevant unless you are advocating a form of ethic nationalism which would turn off myself and many others.
If you live in the country, pay your taxes in the country and obey the laws of the country you are a citizen of the country and deserve a voice in the future of the country regardless of where you happen to have been born.
civic nationalism has already turned off many others, not notice the gap between support of independence and the support for the greens and SNP. Just saying.
There is no such thing as pure civic nationalism nor, arguably, ethnic nationalism. But the latter will never secure independence though will generate a sick, fractured and hate-filled society.
Below the line on Wings is a good indication of what such thinking looks like in Scotland i.e. a mentality that hates everyone bar a tiny group of the like-minded.
As this article mentions, the language is of house Jocks, traitors, quislings, bastard English, vermin English and then a whole host of hate towards all migrants especially those of colour (the idea of anyone of colour qualifying as a Scot, ever, is dismissed), all backed up by pseudo-intellectuals (e.g the risible Alf Baird) talking not just about Scotland as a colony (‘colonised’ by people simply moving to Scotland), but about Scots being colonised in their minds, brainwashed (the real zombie House Jocks). Throw in a mix of the usual conspiracy theories and warped understandings (The Great Replacement, Covid was a hoax, vaccines are poison, Putin and his allies, good, NATO, the West, Zelensky (Nazis), evil ; Trump, Le Pen, Orban, Musk all great; Salmond was murdered by MI5, the SNP are MI5 stooges, MI5 stole the referendum; blanket hatred of all environmental protection policies, rewilding,, green energy etc).
Tbf to Stuart Campbell, he does not condone or support such attitudes, but he allows them to be said on his site, and they make up the majority of commenters. He is compromised at best by the fact he relies on donations by them to continue. (This is a problem for the blogosphere generally – there is much much talk of MSM bias but there is a deep hypocrisy in those bloggers who claim that and never even think about balance).
You will find toned down but very similar extreme attitudes and views on other ethnic nationalist blogs (or those that have more recently embraced it). In other words the face of ethnic nationalism is a cesspit of hatred and warped thinking that verges on near madness.
I agree completely.
On the question of balance I think most media outlets have a political outlook, but some at least are up-front about it. We clearly have an agenda and aren’t shy about it. We are unapologetically left / green / pro independence. I do however publish articles I don’t agree with and try and maintain a good level of discord in the Comments section.
You’re on the net to much Mr nobody
Stuart – the fall in support for SNP have little to do, if anything, with civic nationalism. The main reasons are:
Incumbency for 17 years
Economic hardship
Public services especially post covid
Policy failures
Internal shenanigans
Leadership changes
Hostility from Westminster
All hyped up by an overwhelmingly hostile media
If the independence movement goes down the ethic nationalism route the fall in support will be steep and longstanding.
Ethnic nationalism is wrong in principle and wrong strategically in 21st century Scotland.
There’s nothing ethically or moraly wrong with ethnic nationalism it’s been part of the movement through many of its supporters from the start. It’s the only reason for it to exist in the first place.
@Stuart Jackson, a better question might be: is ethnic nationalism healthy? And does it make less sense today than it did in the past? And then you can get on to some of the effects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_nationalism#Role_in_discrimination
One of the clear effects is a distortion of history into self-pleasing national myths (‘Scots invented everything’ etc), which create blindspots (Scottish complicity in some of human history’s worst atrocities) and a kind of maudlin inertia where vices are if anything celebrated (like Scotland’s very low historical marriage age for girls, and resultant child marriages; or the national relationship with alcohol).
With reflection, we should be able to see that Scottish ethnic nationalism is a fake cover for historical patriarchy, religious intolerance, nature crimes, an imperial sub role as enforcers and worse, deep hierarchies and a perverse inclination to poetry (we may have the worst poets in the world, hurrah). And tacky tourist shilling.
Whereas, perhaps Scottish culture is best is when it tends towards universalism (as the successful games industry demonstrates).
Got you excited
Wow sleepy puppy I thought that degree of Scottish cringe was for unionists and NS
Too many Huffies.
Meanwhile Reform are polling above 10% with the prediction of a potential 12 MSPs in 2026.
I read this too although John Curtice said they were taking support from Conservative voters (especially in North East) and socially conservative Labour voters.
Yes, the small, but maybe increasingly larger surge for Reform in Scotland is worrying – especially because Mr Musk has decided Reform’s a thing upon which he can spend his ridiculous amounts of lucre – https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1983055/elon-musk-donation-reform-uk-nigel-farage
You say that none of this will have any impact on winning independence: I hope not. I fear that any impact these cranky micro-parties have on public perceptions of independence is likely to be negative. What’s really needed is to strengthen and diversify the social movement for self-determination.
Agreed
None would be needed not would they exist if the SNP were trusted to push for independence. They have done nothing. It’s fine to look at these parties as something to laugh at or ridicule, but they display the widespread discontent with a party that seems disinterested in pursuing the policy that attracts people to vote them. Bell isn’t my cup of tea, but come on should we laugh at him? Should we laugh at ALBA? Should we laugh at ISP? Or should we be be demonstrating our anger at the SNP?
I’m not laughing at him, indeed his critique of party structures is well founded, as his critique of the SNPs many failures, but these parties with no funding nor strategy are doomed and there is a sense of the comfort blanket about them. You can critique them without supporting the SNP.
now this really is an odd one, the snp have done nothing for independence, on what planet is that a reality, what they have been imo is too nice, it is time for a nasty scottish national party, oh yes cov
Why not laugh at them? They are fully deserving of ridicule. Bell would start an argument in an empty room. Consider the Kafkaesque treatment meted out to James Kelly by the Alba hierarchy.
I missed this. What happened?
https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2024/12/no-due-process-please-were-alba.html
Thanks. What a shambles.
Peter Bell is a legend on his own sandwich board.
Hi Bella
Hoping you are going to cover the Supreme Court case against the Scottish government.
The issue to be decided is “what is a woman?” and how the Scottish Government et al argued that a GRC was just a small admin change with no impact on women sex based rights
Shouldn’t a site named Bella be interested in this case?
hmm, I do agree, and I also notice there seems to be a lack of comments by women on these pages which given some of the macho nutjobs commenting on a regular from the comfort of their ain armchairs nay doot, I am not surprised by, I do wonder if bella caledonia being named in part as tribute to the character in Alasdair Gray’s book & that particular artist and writer’s affect on impressionable minds has led the scottish government & a lot of scottish thinking into a bit of a cul de sac, there are some very odd male character narrators in Alasdair Gray’s work and I really don’t believe many of them were representative of his own take on the world around him
A timely article. Last night I listened to a podcast discussion between six pro indy commentators. It was a thoroughly depressing experience. The contribution by the host, (domiciled in Catalonia), was little more than a prolonged anti-SNP rant. Move on to gender critical remarks. It hardly surprised me that the host used a headline from a right wing London based tabloid to bolster his vitriol. When one of his guests, a former TV ‘personality’, denounced the Assisted Dying Bill it was time for me to change channels, so to speak. If this is an indication of the state of the Yes Movement then God help Scotland!
Yes I watched that too. Deeply depressing people.
Have you read the process laid out by NSP for restoring Scotland’s full self-government and independent statehood?
No. Where can we read it and how will it come about?
You could start here: https://peterabell.scot/2024/11/07/the-substance/
This gives the background and context to the new thinking behind NSP. I would draw your attention particularly to the #ManifestoForIndependence towards the end – this outlines a plan containing 6 stages with ending of the Union as the destination. The initial step is to abandon the Section30 approach and gain the public’s backing for asserting the Scottish Parliament’s assuming sole control of all matters relating to the constitution based on the premise that the people of Scotland (and not British Westminster parliament or the British monarch) are sovereign in this country (as per the Claim of Right, 1689) and that we have the inalienable human right of self-determination (as laid out in the UN Charter, 1945).
It is unrealistic to expect parties to merge since they differ over policies but as they supposedly have the return of nation-state status for Scotland in common they can coalesce around this. The idea is that all pro-Independence parties adopt the same 6-step #ManifestoForIndepenendence plan and that a vote for any party standing on this basis is a vote for this plan.
Once a pro-Independence majority parliament is achieved at a future Scottish election, the MSPs can vote for Independence, a law that would be subject to a ‘Made in Scotland’ ratifying referendum, one that excludes British interference, influence and involvement in the process determining the question posed, answer options, franchise qualifying criteria, plebiscite timetabling and vote counting inspectorate. (The latter all being set by the Scottish Parliament or such bodies as it deems fit to oversee the process).
https://peterabell.scot/2024/11/27/a-true-constitutional-referendum/
Hmmm. In my view, you have to understand political parties as a manifestation (a symptom) of ill health: either sick people join political parties, or healthy people join political parties in the vain hope of curing society; or sick people join political parties to further social sickness. If Westminster was the ‘mother of all parliaments’, then parliamentarianism was the desperate (and often self-interested) attempt to cure one of the worst political systems of all time (European theocratic hereditary monarchy tending towards absolutism). You have to view this as maldevelopment. See: History of the British Empire. And of course, in the British Empire, it largely failed to take.
Of course, I agree with the tenor of the article: the emblematic personalisation of politics is typically the Great Man (Occasionally Woman) View of History writ in parasocial flesh. It is instructive that political parties developed in the monarchical era, see Richard II and all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblem
The path to a healthy society is not through partisan politics, but a sloughing off of it. Expect that view to meet some resistance.
the telly i.e., one eyed god & before that newsprint media has an awful lot to answer for, I guess a lot of folk like myself who grew up pre internet & arrived at the keyboard late maybe hoped that interaction between folk formerly kept at a distance might help matters but to be honest things seem much the same, all that changes in my life at least are the price of everything goes up, over the course of the past decade for example the price of the national newspaper has very nearly tripled, wish I could say my income had done likewise, thanks for your comment which I did find illuminating
@m, Wikipedia has some historical European examples of political parties:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party#History
which in Britain emerged from court factions.
But if the question here revolves around Scottish Independence, how can membership of a political party be consistent with an independent mind?
I must say I eagerly await my gude friend Yosepi Francesco’s detailed report on the virulent strains of racist, xenophobic, & anti-working class rhetoric & propaganda from all sides that have thus far informed & dominated the 2010 -2024 political discourse in these islands & beyond. I do hope Bella’s current crop of Ruperts shows him & his large family all the luv they have thus far shown myself. Could I just extend my warmest gratitude to all that have thus far proffered & offered their allegiance to the cause. It is a wonderful thing indeed when one realises how far we as a nation have empathically & intellectually progressed since those dark days when the nation’s capital was said to be all fur coat & no knickers.