After Hamilton, Scottish Politics and the Cause of Independence
Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehall has proven to be a consequential Scottish by-election. Not of the mythical levels of Hamilton 67 or Govan 73, but contests like that are few and far between. Yet in a world where by-election aren’t what they used to be, it has thrown significant light on Scottish politics and the major protagonists.
Labour gained a seat from the SNP, against the expectations of the commentators and prevailing wisdom which says much about both. The SNP and Tories suffered major reverses – a shock for the former which really should not have been a shock. Reform proved they can have an impact and win votes, achieving the highest ever parliamentary level of support in Scotland for a Farage party. What does all this mean? How should the parties respond? And what does it mean for the future of Scotland – and for independence?
Politics is about expectations; because the SNP and media class talked themselves into believing the Nationalists would win the result came as a shock. Yet in actual fact the Labour, SNP and Tory falls were all on trend and in line with the polls. All three parties are falling back compared to where they were previously and are struggling to adapt in Scotland – as Labour and Tories are across the UK.
The SNP spectacularly misplayed the by-election and the national mood. John Swinney’s anti-Reform summit seemed at the time, and was proven in hindsight, to be counterproductive and illustrative of Scottish liberal establishment attitudes. More specifically, John Swinney’s strategy of talking up Reform, claiming that only voting SNP could stop them, backfired. Compound this with, post-election, Jamie Hepburn making the unfounded claim that the SNP had never stated that the contest was a “two-horse race” and the party’s confusions are self-evident.
Labour fought a campaign with local nous, prepared to take hard choices in its best interests – such as shielding its eventually victorious candidate Davy Russell from TV and debates. Anas Sarwar has had a reprieve but is not out of the woods yet. He is Scottish Labour’s tenth leader since the onset of devolution and four years into his stint has yet to work out anything resembling a strategy and will face a tough contest in the 2026 election. He and Labour have gained time from this unexpected victory and can gain some succour from SNP visible problems, but little else.
If the SNP and Labour have problems, then the Tories’ existential crisis threatens their very existence. This is nothing unique to Scotland but as in many things the decay and decline is more advanced here, and the party has less resources to draw upon to do anything. In a quarter century of devolution the Scottish Tories have yet to strike a convincing stance and critique of the Parliament and its goings on. And now they find the uncontested ground on the right where they have planted their flag and behaved unconvincingly is under threat from a new force – Farage and Reform UK who threaten to sweep them away.
Reform’s vote challenges Scottish complacency and exceptionalism. But while post-election Reform are winning media plaudits their lack of their professionalism is evident. This was an election that Reform could have won and it is highly likely that their nasty, vicious, racist attack on Anas Sarwar (which they doubled down on and refused to withdraw) cost them votes and potential victory. It clearly did not help while the resignation of UK chair, Zia Yusuf, indicates that the party is still going through birth pains and divisions in how it grows and evolves and questions whether Farage has the attention span for the long haul.
Many in Scotland are surprised at the size of Reform’s vote but this has been a long time coming. The trend in local by-elections has been clear this year. The party won 26% in Clydebank Waterfront and just below 26% in Fraserburgh. 38% of Scottish voters backed Leave in 2016 and as John Curtice pointed out on the BBC election night special Reform are winning approximately 50% of this group in England and 40% in Scotland. They are picking up one-fifth to one-quarter of the 2021 Tory vote and one-sixth of Labour’s 2021 vote.
For too long, many Scottish voices have dismissed the appeal of Farage north of the border. They have branded him exclusively an English nationalist which ignores the consistent appeal of all Farage’s serial parties – and of Brexit in Wales. And it has tended to caricature Farage which is not a uniquely Scottish response. Michael Crick, author of a serious biography on Farage, One Party After Another, takes the view that “illiberal liberals who tut-tut at the mention of Farage’s name” have merely added fuel to his appeal by their condescension and dismissal.
The future after Hamilton
Where then does Hamilton leave Scottish politics, its future course and the cause of independence? Some unintended consequences emerge from Thursday. For starters Reform will come under more scrutiny from the Scottish media. A glimpse was seen after Thursday’s count with deputy leader Richard Tice facing cross-examination in light of Yusaf’s resignation; he was clearly on the backfoot and for a party which has played and been aided by the media for years he clearly found it uncomfortable. Add to this that Reform have to put together a serious Scottish operation for next year, select candidates and develop a few keynote policies – whilst there will be plenty of opportunities for slip-ups.
The SNP’s confusion after the result underlined an entire cohort of SNP politicians, advisers and payroll vote who have never really experienced tough times and now must adjust to the wind slowly leaving the party’s sails. Some seem like fish out of water in such circumstances. Besides this, the generational churn at next year’s election, a patchy record in office, tiredness and lack of direction make it a heady, troublesome mix.
This comes to a head in terms of the future direction that the SNP should take towards 2026 and after. John Swinney has steadied the ship after the turmoil of Sturgeon’s resignation, the Yousaf Premiership and shadow of Branchform. One vocal perspective says that Swinney and the SNP must put independence front and centre of everything to reignite the passion. Another says that the country needs policies and actions which deal with the problems people face and which in key places, such as land reform, might even be bold and eye-catching.
The dilemma for the SNP is that it confronts this strategic choice after eighteen years in office. It is no longer fully in control of events. If it embraced the independence road it would have to do work it has not undertaken post-2014 on why Yes lost and update some of the core offer. It would also have to deal with independence being well down the list of voter priorities. And if it concentrates on policy it must realistically, like any long-time incumbent, address mistakes and shortcomings in its own record and draw up convincing policies which speak to voters. In the real world, the SNP under Swinney will in all likelihood fudge this choice and go quiet on independence, while pretending they are not, and offer a few select policies to cause maximum embarrassment to Labour in Scotland about what Starmer is doing in Westminster. None of this is a strategy for renewal but for vote retention and defensiveness.
The Labour Party have been given a breathing space by this victory but privately, there will be no pretence they are advancing. After eighteen years of opposition Labour still have not adapted to how to combat the SNP, and Anas Sarwar has not shown in four years that he has any capacity to find such a strategy. Sarwar rode the brief Starmer honeymoon (if it can even be called that) when UK Labour was in opposition and public opinion north and south of the border was desperate to get rid of the Tories. But he did nothing to reset Scottish Labour’s appeal – such as declare independence from the British party – and now it is in all probability too late for him.
The Tories have even less room for manoeuvre in Scotland and it may well be that their days as a nationwide force are coming to an end. Scottish Tory leaders come and go now with little traction in the way Scottish Labour leaders used to and none of it makes any difference. There is a centre-right constituency yearning to be championed in Scotland and even allowing for the uncomfortable truth that part of this opinion has historically been in the SNP and Scottish Labour, the rise of Reform offers a very different, disruptive and unapologetic politics of the right.
Where then does this lead post-2026? A lot of hot air has been expended on the possibility of a SNP-Labour “grand coalition” if Reform surge next year. The likes of Kenny Farquharson have made this case, as has Dani Garavelli in more qualified tones. But this is the sort of accommodation that part of polite Scotland want; putting aside the major divides of our politics and uniting against the threat of the supposed vandals. It just is not going to happen this side of independence.
Another fantasy parliamentary politics of some is that next year’s elections produce a diminished SNP and inflated pro-union majority with the latter coming together despite its divisions. In this situation one scenario floated is that Anas Sarwar becomes First Minister with the permission of Farage’s newly empowered Reform contingent. Again this will not happen and would not be in the interests of Labour or Reform.
What then of Scottish independence? Where is it in a world where one poll put it 54:46 ahead last weekend while SNP support drifts downwards? This environment is one where pro-independence opinion suffers from the lack of debate and pluralism in its ranks and that of the SNP since 2014. Too many parts of independence have had to endure the various fables, myths and deceptions which successive SNP leaderships have employed since 2014 and hence had their own judgement corroded or incorporated.
Several facts need to be squared here. First, independence is the major long-term dividing line of Scottish politics. But that does not mean it operates as the defining issue in each and every election. Like every single issue it is susceptible to ebbs and flows. Second, next year’s election will not be an independence election unless some major, transformative change happens to Scottish public opinion. Voters have in recent surveys put it eighth in priorities; it is only third in the priority list of SNP voters.
Third, all the above operates in the fantasy land that there is somehow somewhere an independence offer sitting secretly ready to be realised. There is not. Independence is in no state to launch itself as a major election theme next year. Fourth, thinking that independence can just spring magically from a conjurer’s hat minimises the real work and heavy lifting that needs to be done – which has conspicuously been missing since 2014. Without this, all talk of an independence election and exiting the UK as soon as possible is a pipedream which aids the current status quo, the conservative hold over Scottish politics and the stasis prevalent across all the mainstream parties.
There are no quick fixes to the above. There are no easy escape routes involving gaming the Scottish Parliament electoral system to produce a super-independence majority on a much smaller share of the vote. Similarly, the idea that the UN will ride to the rescue of Scotland and advance independence – something which has not happened anywhere in the world in a stable, political democracy, is just not reality. Worse such fantasies allow too many to collude with the unsatisfactory state of Scottish politics.
The road to change in Scotland is harder and more straightforward. It entails talking about the obvious shortcomings and failings of devolution and of the SNP in office and addressing it. The scandalous state of health and education, the perilous state of local government, Scotland’s shocking record of drug deaths are but a few.
More than this it requires a different kind of politics not about politicians, institutions and vague abstracts. But rather about how we advance and nurture a different kind of society which addresses powerlessness, voicelessness and learned helplessness which scar so many Scottish communities – which devolution was meant to tackle and has failed to do so under Labour and the SNP.
Our politics must deal with the big questions of who we are, how we relate to one another – and support and look after one another. Doing something this fundamental would make the politics of self-government and self-determination real and human, and about changing lives for the better. No one ever said change was easy, but at least we should try and break out of the conservative grip and imagination which has defined Scottish politics for too long – independence included.
Imagine if the revolutionary leaders of pre-rising Ireland had followed a similar miserable vein of thought as displayed in the analysis above, basically ‘jings, crivens, help ma boab (or it’s equivalent in Irish Gaelic) and found themselves paralised in the way described above. Would they have retreated to discuss baby box policies and how to avoid doing anything meaningful on land reform? Like hell, they grabbed the situation and made it happen. They had visionaries, we have wee tim’rous beasties.
never new where Gerry appeared from to be such an expert, he doesn’t seem to have a clue about anything.
The article clearly states that polling experts and pundits do not really know what is happening in Scottish politics. I would concur with that sentiment but would make one other observation not mentioned in article namely events move and change very quickly nowadays which makes predicting the future even more difficult and probably futile.
Revolutionary change–which independence assuredly would be–comes always from the small, the local, the often unreported, actions of groups of people who may not be identifiable as a party. It is in this sense that I think focusing on the parties per se is a bit misleading–understandable, but still misleading. Independence will not and cannot issue from the proclamations and parliamentary maneuvers of bureaucrats, leaders, or media darlings. If you want to ask the key question in real terms, it is the homely interrogatory, “Well, what do you want to do about it?” The answers are as multifold as they must be generalized; independence is never dispensed from above–it is the venue of the media-neglected and too often, the despised, commoners whose rightful province it is.
There was little to inspire in this election campaign. Perhaps its high point was how John Swinney unreservedly condemned Reform’s racist attack on Anas Sarwar. This was the only glimmer of the forward-looking alternative, progressive alliance required to defeat Reform.
To take on Farage in Scotland should be very simple- call him what he is an English nationalist. Then spell out how not only does he have no policies that benefit Scotland but also how he wishes to diminish Scotland both politically and economically and effectively turn us into another English shire.
It might be crude and a bit nasty but I am sure it would be effective. Alex Salmond wouldn’t have balked at a political fight like this.
We don’t just need a new kind of politics. We also need to clarify what we mean by ‘independence’ in today’s world. More than just political independence we need independence from big corporate financial power. Westminster is merely its fifth column. That is where the Co-operative Party’s recently released Report, “Power In Our Communities” may be an indicator of something really significant.
It’s an important, if tentative, first step in a direction whose logic is a transition to a radically different form of ownership of Scotland’s energy, energy generation and distribution and, by implication, also our nation’s land. That, I would argue, sows the seeds for a divergence of Scotland’s long standing co-operative/communitarian movements away from centralised Westminster Labour’s beholdenness to big finance in our hopelessly corrupted world economic system.
Voters are feeling this intuitively but don’t know where to turn. The really bold thing for the SNP could would be to endorse and help build on this Report. In order to achieve its vision it might just be realised that the best route would be through Scotland having the status of an independent nation in the eyes of the international community. Within that context we could come from a position of strength in renegotiating our relationships with the rest of these islands. More importantly still we in Scotland could provide a catalyst for revitalising the co-operative movement globally. Also, there’d be the added bonus of bringing back those Reform voters who are essentially ‘localists’ who have been lured by promises of ‘peoples assemblies’ as a way of re-empowering them.
I reject this idea of Gerry’s – increasingly prevalent in the MSM – that we should seriously engage with Farage, the man who tried to cast Sarwar and Humza Yusaf as anti-white racsists more or less, which is a total falsehood and a complete lie.
How DO you engage with a serious charlatan and swindler like Farage? If he turned up on your doorstep selling something, you’d slam the door in his face…
The idea that democracy means anything goes, has to be challenged. Erica Benner puts it like this:
“Democratic freedom isn’t the same as my personal freedom. It’s not an open invitation to chase your dreams unchecked. It’s a give-and-take scheme that protects my personal freedoms within limits that leave space, opportunities and decent options for everyone else. This way of seeing democratic freedom makes it clearer how to adjust other values to the basics of democracy. Crucially, schemes of shared freedom are more likely to survive when no one has so much power that they have far better chances and options than others. It follows that democratic freedom needs a commitment to some kinds of equality. Not the kinds that strike dread in some freedom lovers’ hearts; forced economic levelling, indoctrination in ‘woke’ egalitarianism, etc. Just equal respect for all, equal consideration for their concerns, equal voice, equal freedom. And clear-eyed recognition that significant inequalities pose one of the deepest threats to democratic freedom.” (Adventures In Democracy, pp133)
Again, how to engage with a pathological liar like Farage, a nasty intriguer and shit-stirrer? He is not somebody you want to engage with because he doesn’t follow the basic rules of democracy…
As for Swinney, he got it wrong. Big time. Just like Steve Clarke…
One of the things Erica Benner bemoans in her readable and enjoyable enough book is the lack in modern of English of a distinction between different types of freedom which existed in the ancient world. So, Benner points out there are two different concepts of freedom for the Greeks and Romans.
The virtuous, responsible or respectful use of freedom was known in Latin as “libertas” and to the Greeks as “eleutheria”.
The second form of freedom, the irresponisble, headstrong, I can say what I like kind of freedom, was known as “licentia” to the Romans (which survives in English as “licentious”) and “exousia” to the Greeks, and looked down on in both societies…
The right to freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can shout “fire” in a packed cinema, as the old saying goes.
Likewise, I would suggest that Farage questioning the motives of the leader of the Labour Party here, and the former FM Yousaf, because they happen to be coloured, is something that should have seen Farage and his party barred directly from the election…
In Germany, they are moving to ban the AfD directly I believe I read…
It’s a bit like this idea of personal, individual freedom (non political freedom I mean), the freedom to get rich. Well, if you accept that getting as rich as you want is an absolute right, then OBVIOUSLY, you are going to end up with billionares like Trump and Musk running democracy into the sand. How could it be otherwise?
But even suggesting that personal, individual freedom should be limited is seen as akin to Communism these days…
Of course there are or should be limits as to what you can say in an election campaign, just as there ought to be limits on personal wealth…
As it was, from what I saw on TV, the press corp were much harder on the Labour candidate than they were on the Reform candidate, who brazenly said in the aftermath of the result that the “next step” was to put some “flesh on the bones” of Reform UK in Scotland, ie, to actually come up with some policies tailored to Scotland, the only conclusion being that they really didn’t have any policies at all the other day…
The idea that Anas Sarwar and Humza Yousaf, two elected leaders of their parties, are both actually some kind of fifth columnists trying to skew things in favour of Scots of pakistani or other Scots of enthic descent against white Scots is about the most scurrilous thing I can remember anyone saying in an election campaign in a long time…
The SNP should have been saying, “The liar Farage is the next PM of Unionist Britain, vote SNP for independence”, but as we know, they refused to even mention the I word, you wonder why…
Clearly, it is way out of the bounds of normal democratic politics and completely unacceptable, and the question I put to you, Gerry, is how would you have dealt with it? How do you engage with such a bad faith actor as Nigel Farage? It’s not as simple as you make it sound…
I think the media were harder on the Labour candidate because he was consistently hidden from view, ducked out of interviews and media appearances which was both bizarre and undemocratic
That seems to have been the case, but what Reform did was much more scandalous, surely?
Farage comes up, stirs the pot, and buggers off.
Not a word about policies, eh?
He openly states that Sarwar and Yousaf are “two of the same kind”, subtlely playing in the racist trope that all non-white people are indistinguishable, and then heads for home.
Invidious, nasty and unacceptable.
I don’t think I believe in banning parties per se, but disqualifying a candidate is a different matter, and in this case, Farage clearly has broken all the rules and largely gotten away with it…
We need higher standards and tougher rules maybe, I don’t know…
But the point I am making is in response to Gerry’s theory that somehow we should engage with Farage.
How can you engage with a guy claiming stuff like that?
As for the SNP, as lost as Scotland were last night.. which is to say, very lost…. (out of ideas, uninventive, stale, passionless, just going through the motions…)
Agreed, Reform’s behaviour was far worse. Labour were massively incompetent and disingenuous, Reform were openly racist.
I’m not sure that Gerry is advocating ‘engaging’ with Reform as much as he is taking them seriously?
Absolutely brilliant analysis of where we are on Independence and I agree with it all. We know from 2014 that Alex Salmond was left wanting on Currency, Border and Pensions. Astonishingly absolutely NOTHING has changed on these issues. The Scottish people need to brought into discussing these issues. When they are brought in or they join in, we will become Independent.
The Scottish Currency Group is “shovel ready” – how many people know this?
Gerry if you read these comments; to what extent if any, do you think the ‘churn’ of the next election will allow space for the current version of the SNP to change and grow, or do you see a strategy of ‘vote retention and defensiveness’ as inevitable? Or to put it another way, would you speculate ion what sort of future has too happen in order for the party to change?
Your are confusing electoral shenanigans with politics, and your ridiculous statement that the SNP “is no longer fully in control of events” in Scotland reveals your elite-insider position. No political party can ever approach being in control of events. And you even contradict yourself with Scotland’s drug deaths, which have long been a problem for the SNP in office. You are focused on a tiny, warped aspect of politics that has little or nothing to do with the health of the nation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory
The really significant political events will not occur in elections but in places where business-as-usual are challenged, such as mutiny in the armed forces, or a spate of whistleblowing from trusted civil servants at the heart of permanent government, or the rise of school activism if the Climate Strikers become unteachable in class, or from a generally unexpected area (though typically from people considered politically quietist or apathetic or disempowered).
Clearly you are in the “conservative grip and imagination” you (fairly enough) demand we break out of.
Gerry Hassan notes the rise of Reform and the ‘patchy’ record of the SNP since 2014.. ( I would say ‘abysmal’.) He fails to explain why Reform – widely seen as an English nationalist party – should prosper in places like Clydebank, rather than any of the established political parties.
One major reason is that the Scottish political establishment has engaged actively in identity politics in a way which is seen by many voters as (a) pointless virtue signalling, (b) ignoring their more substantive grievances. The prize exhibit of this was the policy of trans self-identification. SNP, Labour, Greens and LibDems were all onboard enthusiastically. It was left to a (mostly) non-political person, J K Rowling, to lead the rout of the establishment.
The political result has been to allow a populist party on the right to embed itself. Meanwhile, as the Larkhall, Hamilton and Stonehaven by election showed, electoral support for the left is minimal. The left lacks a credible party, decent leadership and ideas which appeal to voters.
The decade since 2014 has been squandered by the pro-independence left. The following decade looks set to be more of the same., except with the real possibility of a revived right in Scottish politics.
Agree it is essential that the snp revise and renew their approach to winning independence from the roots to the tip of the highest branch.