Possible Futures
This week saw John Swinney lay out his “renewed strategy for independence” with a three-point plan about how to move things forward. It was, perhaps inevitably, met with a mixture of derision, glee and (some) positivity. Let’s unpack what he said and what he didn’t say and separate the constituent parts of this curate’s egg.
Swinney started with a declaration of intent: “Scotland’s interests are best served only when Scotland’s future is in Scotland’s hands. Our nation will only fully flourish when the people of Scotland are in charge of our own destiny with independence.” He then went on to make his own personal case, arguing that he had ‘steadied the ship’, and that he had been able to “restore the credibility of my party and my Government so that we could make – and importantly win – the argument for Scottish independence.”
Looking at the polls, this is largely true, and Swinney is right to make the claim that under his leadership the SNP, over the last 12 months, has won 13 local government by-elections, a big shift after a 20-month period without a single victory. However, the irony is that they have achieved this by attempting to tackle the cost of living crisis, rather than focusing on independence. Swinney is right to assert the claim that: “We restored Winter Fuel Payments for Scotland’s pensioners when Labour chose to scrap them. We are taking bold action on child poverty by lifting the cruel two child cap that pushes thousands of children into poverty – a decision which been welcomed by every anti-poverty charity in the country and which Labour, to their shame, have failed to take at a UK level.”
But on other matters, the SNP’s claims to be ‘tackling the cost of living crisis’ seem a lot weaker. For example, Swinney claims that: “We are offering solutions to the ongoing cost of living crisis – with new policies such as the removal of peak fares on our railways. Our cost of living guarantee delivers savings for Scots that aren’t available elsewhere. From council tax that is 30% lower than in England, or water bills 20% lower, or no charges for essentials like prescriptions.”
But the big ticket items, like housing and energy bills are absent, and only last week the SNP missed a huge opportunity to back zonal energy pricing, and the SNP’s housing policy has made no dent in the massive, urban and rural housing crisis. Swinney has steadied the ship but it is still taking water, and the sextant, compass and maps are all gone.
But the point of all of this is to manage a range of constituencies, tribes and demographics, to ensure electoral survival and persuade people that, somehow, the SNP is still the only show in town and the best vehicle to achieve independence, and/or govern a pre-independent Scotland more competently than anyone else. In some ways this is an impossible task, in other ways this is a low bar.
On the one hand Swinney needs to manage this transition while operating within the fiscal restraints of devolution, with an overwhelmingly hostile media around him and with severe and vocal dissent from within the nationalist movement. This makes the task one that is just immersed in hostility and negativity. On the other hand, he is faced with opponents and opposition so abject and hopeless that it makes the SNP rise, Lazarus-like like over and over. Swinney has a dual task, to speak to those who want (and need) good governance and those who want movement-building. He is far better at the first than the second.
His strategy, such as it is, is broadly to (re) build trust, then build an unstoppable coalition amid the rubble and decay of the debris of Late Britain for an independent Scotland. I would like to take this opportunity to examine this approach and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses.
Building a Coalition for Yes
To his credit, Swinney shows some humility saying: “Our renewed unity and sense of purpose is clear for all to see, and that too is giving people confidence once again in the SNP, as the leading advocates of Scottish independence. Some good and necessary first steps have been taken, but they have only brought us to the starting line.”
But, rather grandly he writes: “We are on the precipice of a new global age and that demands a bold new path for Scotland.”
I don’t really know what that actually means?
Speaking to the opposition, he writes: “Others speak glibly of a new direction or for the need for reform, but the change Scotland needs is more fundamental” before declaring: “To meet the challenges of this new age, we need a Scotland that is reborn.”
We do.
He continues to lay out his case, arguing: “Last time, many people gave the UK the benefit of the doubt, many believing that an incoming Labour government might put things right. But an incoming Labour government has only made things worse.”
*
He says: “…we have to challenge the democratic outrage that Westminster – right now – refuses to acknowledge Scotland’s right to determine her own future.”
The Plan
Swinney lays out his ideas very clearly saying: “First, it will be a campaign designed to build the highest levels of support possible for Independence as the best future for Scotland. I will be saying to those who voted Yes in 2014, and who have become independence supporters in the years since, that what they believed in then is just as valid today. They saw that Britain was fundamentally broken, that Westminster couldn’t deliver on their dreams and aspirations, and what they saw has come to pass. And now it is time to do something about it.”
“Second, that means building public pressure around Scotland’s fundamental national rights. The UK parties speak of a partnership of equals, but those are empty words if Scotland does not have the ability to determine her own future.”
“During the next parliament, we reach the point where there will be one million people eligible to vote who, last time around, were too young to do so or not even born. A generation has now clearly passed.”
*
Future Focused
Much of the dismay about being trapped within the Union is the overwhelming sense of decay and decline that pervades Late Britain. If this feeling reached its apogee at the death of the monarch, it can be seen daily in the appointment of ridiculous people to the House of Lords, the overarching power of the government within Westminster (as witnessed by the actions of Starmer’s Whips Office against twelve of his own party this week), or the immersive deference inculcated by being subjects of a Monarch in the 21st C. The feeling of being trapped in an ancient regime that is unreformable and corrupt at its core is overwhelming and debilitating. Beyond this fusion of cronyism and decay though, is the reality of collapsing living standards, grotesque social inequality and elite grandeur. The response is a populist movement of the far-right that eulogises a mythical past.
*
This has two consequences. First, we begin to sweep aside the fragile excuse that the Unionist community have hidden behind for repressing basic democracy in holding up the phrase “for a generation” and assert that that time has passed. Second, we go to, engage with and inspire the generation that are now eligible to vote, and who are, overwhelmingly pro-independence. To do this properly, and to begin to explore the generational issues I touched on, would require a break from 2014 and an effort to re-imagine the case for independence in a much more expansive timeframe. This wouldn’t be another ‘campaign’ with slogans and attack lines, it wouldn’t be a politics of resentment, it would be a politics of imagination and possibility.
*
Remaining in this Union means being engaged in the ‘slow cancellation of the future’ For Scotland to be ‘reborn’ demands that we step out of that paradigm and away from the hyper-nostalgia and denialism that characterises British nationalism.
“Vote for us and there will be jam tomorrow. And this time we actually really mean it. Also, if anyone has the recipe for jam, DM us.”
It’s more like “We have the only credible recipe for jam, but we need to convince the shop owner to let us use the kitchen, first”.
Not really. Just commenting on how inter-generational betrayal has existential consequences. Also, I think we all know how to make jam.
Independence..by definition …implies freedim from impositions of policies by a larger globalization which is a narrowing of ideas and freedom of opinion and ideas
..aligning with europe must take into consideration and resolve inherent dangers of losing the very power over our decisions that we seek to achieve…
It should surprise no-one – but it will – that the SNP’s 2026 campaign in terms of independence boils down to, ‘Vote for us so we can pressure Westminster into giving Scotland the power of an Indyref’, but also, “vote for us to protect Scotland from Labour and a subsequent Reform government’.
The Indy stance is not going to inspire and is more likely to keep some voters at home come ballot box time, as it did in 2024 at the General Election.
What is far more likely to work however is going to be the ‘Don’t lose the pro-Indy majority and let the others in by not turning out to vote.’
There is the frustration of this stance meeting the reality of the situation. Holyrood cannot call a referendum on independence. Therefore, there is, as far as the SNP – and indeed the Scottish Greens – are concerned, only the ‘keep the pressure up on Westminster’ route, and shame them into change.
It’s not inspiring, it’s not sexy, it is what it is. And if you were expecting more, you should ‘calibrate your enthusiasm’.
What however has really irked me has been the rhetoric about voting SNP being the only “credible” route to independence.
There are two reasons to challenge that; the first is that there is no clear route currently for independence in the here and now of British politics, so how can the SNP have a credible route when there is no route?
The other is that this is an indirect undermining of the the Salvo/Liberation Scotland case to the UN. Instead of at least showing tacit or actual support for a non-party political route to Indy (which is what the SNP want, right?), the SNP are throwing shade by essentially saying it isn’t credible, as only they are credible, even though they don’t have a route to Indy that actually exists.
If the SNP think the Liberation Scotland case is not credible, it should do the movement a favour and publicly state why they think that is so.
If not, I am going to take the absence of such evidence as speaking volumes about both.
Liberation Scotland ? Whose ranks include Sovereignty, a gaggle of Brexiters, anti-abortionists? Who would fit in the Scottish Family Party.
I am surprised that SNP has not been more supportive of zonal energy pricing as it would appear to benefit Scottish customers and businesses by cutting energy costs. Is anyone aware of what reason they have given for this?
I noticed that Stephen Flynn was bigging up the benefits of renewable energy to the future of the Scottish economy this morning on tv. This is fair enough and a good strategy to attack Reform as being hostile to Scottish economic interests but it doesn’t have the immediate widespread popular appeal that attacking Westminster for keeping energy bills in Scotland artificially high would have if they endorsed zonal pricing.
Am I missing something?
Personally, I’m in favour of everyone paying the same price for electricity and gas thoughout the nation. You want them deregulated like the price of petrol. That’s free-market capatalism.
As opposed to Scotland paying more standing charges as at present?
Regional pricing of energy works well in other European countries- why not UK?
Regional pricing would actually help to rebalance the UK economy which is tilted towstdd the SE of England.
We currently have a private market running a cartel. Most of the arguments against regional pricing seem to be by energy companies (Octopus excepted) so pardon me if I am highly sceptical about their opposition.
Thanks for this article, Mike. I absolutely agree that we need to re-make the case for a better future, of which Scottish independence could and should be a part. I do not believe independence would in and of itself bring the necessary social and political improvements about, but it would create fresh opportunities and scope to achieve those. But whatever the merits(?) and demerits of the SNP and its current leadership, the fundamental flaw in Swinney’s supposed cunning new plan, is that it is not for any parliamentary party to lead or shape a renewed movement for radical independence. Real change always has to come from below – a mass grass-roots movement – which in turn would push any electoral party supporting independence in that better direction. It is not clear at the moment how a refreshed radical movement can be galvanised and co-ordinated, but I’m quite certain the MSPs/MPs of SNP, Alba, Greens. Corbyn/Sultana’s new party or whoever can’t do it for us, though they can be part of the effort. We have to lead it ourselves and try to keep ’em honest!!
Yes I agree with this Cathie
We don’t need yet another ‘case for Independence’ or to ‘re-make the case’.
What we need is a process that describes HOW to achieve the restoration of Scotland’s full self-government.
John Swinney’s so-called strategy is not a plan. How can it be? A proper plan has actions … with consequences. A proper plan is SMART – specific, measurable, assignable, realistic and timebound.
John Swinney’s effort contains none of these attributes.
John Swinney is simply trying to defraud you of your ballots.
John Swinney is a vote swindler.
I mean given that there are 1 million people who didn’t/couldn’t vote last time we DO need to re-make the case. Also, the world is a very different place in 2025 than it was in 2014.
Don’t be daft – the additional 1 million that you and John Swinney refer to didn’t come of voting age overnight. Just like at every other period in history these folk will be as politically aware/agnostic/ignorant as those that went before. Probably more so given that they won’t be oblivious to the national question which has been front and centre of Scotland’s politics since at least 2011 and probably 2007 if not before i.e. since childhood if not before they were born.
‘Making the case’ for Independence was done in 2012-14. The low hanging fruit has been picked. We need to learn the lessons of why we LOST and adopt a different approach.
And, yes, it is 2025. So stop trying to remake it as 2014.
I’m not quite sure how in a post advocating a different approach you castigate me and argue we need to ‘adopt a different approach’, and when I argue for a break from 2014 you say ‘stop trying to remake it as 2014’.
Then you call me ‘daft’ for stating the fact that there is a million people who could now vote. The stats for views of younger people are through the roof. You know this, right?
@ BC Editor
” The stats for views of younger people are through the roof.”
Presumably you mean that pro-YES sentiment is “through the roof” among this cohort.
Then why the need to “re-make the case”? Your argument contradicts itself.
With regard to your suggestion to “re-make the case” on the basis of “imagination and possibility”. I have already pointed out that this was done in 2012-14. And it failed.
As you say, 2025 is not 2014. But your suggestions are a straight lift from that time.
Some of us have moved on from that old thinking.
Maybe take a tip from this Albert Einstein: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”.
You’re just repeating yourself. I think you’re a bit confused.
@BC editor
You’re evasiveness cannot hide your intellectual deficiency.
What am I evading?
@BC Editor
You say “What am I evading?”
You could make a start by answering this previously stated question:
”The stats for views of younger people are through the roof.”
Presumably you mean that pro-YES sentiment is “through the roof” among this cohort.
Then why the need to “re-make the case”? Your argument contradicts itself.
Have a go.
It doesn’t contradict itself at all. My argument is for a future-focused strategy and project in order to maximise and inspire the vote of our future citizens and younger generation.
You seem to be arguing simultaneously that we both MUST and MUST NOT ‘re-make the case’.
Have a go.
@ BC Editor
I’ll make it easier for you:
If, as you claim, YES support is “through the roof” among young folk why do you need ” to maximise and inspire the vote of our future citizens and younger generation.”?
They’re in the bag by that – your – argument.
And the way you “inspire the vote of our future citizens and younger generation” is describe a process that leads to the realisation of Scotland’s Cause. Otherwise they’ll just think ‘that’s more bullshit from some pseudo intellectual, I’m off to the pub’.
Your ‘inspiration’ is just a variation of ‘the vision thing’ from 2014.
You seem to have some problem believing that polling is very high among young people. Is that right?
@ BC Editor
Stop evading and answer the question.
I think that the tactics I have laid out are the right things to do, the essential thing to do but also leans in to where there is energy and purpose in our society. I don’t think we should take younger generations support for independence for granted and think that you have to respond to that support with some actual tangible plans that will make a material difference to peoples lives.
Is that clear?
@ BC Ediitor
I understand what you are saying. But “tangible plans” (i.e. policies) can only be implemented AFTER independence. And these would be implemented by an elected government, a government whose hands will not be tied by what was stated. All that can be done is to provide a description of how things would be better in general terms e.g. Scottish folk getting the government that they vote for, using Scotland’s plentiful natural resources, industries and skills which we will be used for the benefit of our own people first and foremost and having a written constitution based on sovereignty of the people and Claim of Right/Declaration of Arbroath.
Essentially behaving like any normal country and running our own affairs making your own decisions based on the Scottish people’s own values and priorities.
But this would only shore-up support garnered during 2012-14 and consolidate it from those, such as the youth cohort, who are already pre-disposed to independent statehood for Scotland. Call it Project Promise, if you like.
However, rather than place the emphasis on a segment of people who are already overwhelmingly in favour of restoring Scotland’s full self-government a campaign needs to be much more nuanced and tackle those that didn’t vote for Independence or who are resistant to it now.
That is currently around 50% of the population.
We need to highlight the broken promises of the BT campaign of 2014 with their lying outcomes:
• EU Membership Guarantee v Brexit
• HMRC Jobs v Cumbernauld Closures
• T8 Clyde-built Frigates: 13 Contracts v 8 Orders
• Home Rule/Federalism/Devo-Max v Smith Commission Whitewash
• etc
That should impact those that have some regret about voting NO in the referendum – Project Shame.
In addition we need to scare the bajesus out of them if we stay in the UK by emphasising:
• Cost of living – better swap Waitrose and M&S for Lidl and Aldi
• Energy Bills – you think they are high now, just wait till next winter
• Pensions – these are lowest in Western Europe and will go lower in real terms
• Foodbanks – there will be more of these with less items in stock
• Military – never ending wars, militarisation
• etc
That should assist in the conversion of waverers and the undecided – Project Dread
In essence put the Union on the defensive. Frame the Union as the risk and, therefore, Independence as the opportunity to avoid that threat.
No doubt there are other angles but they must be hard hitting and target at least a significant proportion of those currently on the other side.
But most importantly of all we must show them that there is a way to get to the desired end point. A credible process would, I believe, reignite interest in those who have given up and walked away as they see no prospect in Independence actually happening regardless of the highfalutin promises of politicians and posters.
Without a pathway to self government restoration talking about BEING independent will remain just that – talk.
@duncanio, and this backward and speciesist thinking is exactly why Scotland is so nature-depleted and have grouse moors and other deserts for idle pleasure of human bloodsports. Hopefully most Scots have moved on from this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being
Where’s the alternative to the SNP? I don’t mean the microscopic so-called independence parties who couldn’t get arrested let alone voted for.
https://manifestoforindependence.scot/manifesto-for-independence/
Please read and consider before commenting.
I’ve read and signed. However 690 ticks with a target of 100,000 isn’t impressive to be honest.
@ Alex Lomax
Well done and thanks.
It is the only coherent plan that has been articulated, with identifiable steps down a logical pathway. It provides a unity of purpose rather than unity of parties. So they can all retain their own identity, their own policies … all they need to do is have a common approach on the constitution.
Confrontation with the British state is inevitable. By “confrontation” I mean they will have to be faced down, hence the Scottish parliament asserting its right over all matters constitutional (once the people have so indicated that is their desire). After all, when have the British ever given up anything voluntarily?
But you are correct, it is a paltry total. None of the parties and candidates have signed up. They prefer to utilise vacuousness and waffle in order as an electioneering tool to harvest the ballots.
Ask any of them – SNP, Alba Party, ‘Liberate Scotland’ or their constituent parts – what their plan is after winning the election and the response you receive is variously, pusillanimous platitudes, meaningless mantras and simpleton slogans or some combination.
It is a clear and reasonable strategy.
It begs a number of questions:
What would the criteria be for a ‘successful’ election plebiscite to trigger the rest of the strategy?
How could it be justified that *all* ensuing elections would be such a vote, given that people elect politicians to run the country effectively. How could all election campaigns be sustainable when fought on a single issue? It could be a recipe for serious inertia, decline and malfunction (even more so than now!). The ‘Declare one or all future Scottish Parliament or UK Parliament elections’ hedges bets rather transparently. Which is it? One or all, and which one?
How would an inevitable lack of co-operation from non-nationalists (politicians and public) be dealt with? E.g. any unionist MPs refusing to leave Westminster and more importantly, a serious boycott of any ‘dissolve the union’ referendum? Would you have a turn-out requirement? It would seem that such a vote would not be legitimate if it did not, and acting on it to leave the union could trigger serious unrest otherwise.
@ Niemand
You say that “It is a clear and reasonable strategy.”
If the “strategy” is so “clear and reasonable” why have you got so many questions regarding its efficacy?
@ Niemand
Ignore my previous comment in response to you … I thought you were referring to Swinney’s 3 points. My mistake.
In answer to your questions:
1. What would the criteria be for a ‘successful’ election plebiscite to trigger the rest of the strategy?
Answer:
A single criterion: a simple majority of votes for parties/candidates signing up to the #ManifestoForIndependence. Ideally a majority in both constituency and region to provide a ‘super-mandate’ but the list takes precedence as that is the ‘non-personal’ vote. (Remember the ‘plebiscite election’ you are referring to is not on the question of ending the Union – that’s for the subsequent referendum (step 6) – but on the question of the Scottish Parliament re-taking control over all matters relating to the constitution (step 2).
2. How could it be justified that *all* ensuing elections would be such a vote, given that people elect politicians to run the country effectively. How could all election campaigns be sustainable when fought on a single issue? It could be a recipe for serious inertia, decline and malfunction (even more so than now!).
Answer:
In the first place the people elect politicians on the basis of the manifesto that they stand on. That is all the justification required. (Sometimes they think they do this but in reality that is not the case … I cite the British Labour party at the 2024 UK General Election manifesto commitments versus the subsequent broken promises).
Secondly the election campaigns won’t be fought on a single issue. The ‘legislative competence’ position will be common to those in favour (and adopted in their respective prospectuses) but, as the parties are not unified and retain their separate identity, their policies for government remain separate (and different).
3. The ‘Declare one or all future Scottish Parliament or UK Parliament elections’ hedges bets rather transparently. Which is it? One or all, and which one?
Answer:
All
4. How would an inevitable lack of co-operation from non-nationalists (politicians and public) be dealt with? E.g. any unionist MPs refusing to leave Westminster and more importantly, a serious boycott of any ‘dissolve the union’ referendum? Would you have a turn-out requirement? It would seem that such a vote would not be legitimate if it did not, and acting on it to leave the union could trigger serious unrest otherwise.
Answer:
Firstly the people have indicated their preference. Scotland’s popular sovereignty trumps politicians’ personal preferences. They represent us. We are the boss.
Secondly if people don’t turn out then that’s their choice – you can’t force people to participate. Unless a law is passed to make voting (in elections) mandatory. As the #ManifestoForIndependence states, the referendum would be held under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament with control and criteria set by agencies that the latter deem appropriate. No doubt there would be UN oversight of the vote for transparency, fairness and legitimacy. But there will be no British involvement in, interference with or influence over the process.
Thirdly, the threat of violence. The ultimate strand of ‘Project Fear’ and the last resort of the British scoundrels. You can’t pander to that. We would have to call their bluff and press ahead. You either believe in Scottish popular sovereignty, our right to choose and, having made that choice the right to carry out the people’s wishes or you allow the British a permanent veto. You can’t believe in both simultaneously. Finally, a faint heart never won a fair maiden.
Thanks for the detailed reply.
It would be a rocky road I think but as you say, boldness and daring must be the approach.
What strikes me regarding arguments about ‘re-making the case’ is that they are a bit moot, as the case will have to made during the process you out line by default, for it to be successful anyway. The elephant in the room is the same one as always – whatever strategy is used the people can still turn round and say, ‘naw’ and this is what boldness requires – to take that risk. It isn’t even that big a risk really as things are going nowhere anyway no matter the attempt to suggest the union is about to collapse (it isn’t).
That points about futurity and possibility are really well made I think. The future of the UK itself is not a mystery. Its economic and political trajectory is already set in stone. London has always had the advantage of incumbency in respect of the parameters of the economic narrative, de haut en bas, but that’s now a liability.
The independence movement need to hammer the UK economy as never before, day upon day. The UK future has been here for some time; and economic predictions are factual and immediate, not speculative or rhetorical. Plain as day, they amount to economic paralysis, the inexorable tide of authoritarianism, the perma-quest for scapegoats, collapsing resources, both environmental and institutional, and the fatal venom of structural inequality. That’s the present future of Scotland too.
By contrast, “a politics of imagination and possibility” is practically thinkable for Scotland in a way that it is not for the UK, and above all in macroeconomic development. At this moment, Swinney can adopt neither of the positive or negative strategies above because he’s constrained to pursuing the good favour of the flighty 10% of swing voters that makes pressure for a referendum slightly less easy for London to ignore. But it’s ponderous and prudential, and it’s killing the off the practical means to independence (focus, cohesion, co-ordination) even as support for it remains steady.
He and the wider movement don’t need to abandon that basic technical ambition but they do need to take a walk in the daylight and “away from the hyper-nostalgia and denialism that characterises British nationalism”, just as you’ve said. It is well overdue.
Thanks Innes, good comment
Innes I agree with everything you have written and would add that the current situation has led to a degree of torpor and scepticism in independence cause. I personally think that the cause needs something to break out of the current malaise that relates to people’s everyday life. I would have thought that campaigning on the unfairness of current energy pricing system is to Scotland, an energy rich country, would have been very popular across large swathes of society. A campaign by SNP and wider independence movement for fair energy pricing in Scotland could be a way of showing benefits of an independent Scotland to the vast majority of populace and would also re-energise (pardon the pun)the independence movement.
Energy policy is a good example I think because it intersects with everything else. It’s an inequality issue, an inflation issue, a monetary policy issue, a competitiveness issue, an autonomy issue, an infrastructure and investment issue, a headline issue about the resources available to economies, and that’s just what I can remember off the top of my head.
So it is possible to synthesise complex fire-points in arguments about it that are eyecatching and overwhelming. And on the other hand, it’s worth considering whether a price-fairness campaign, even one that does real good by being successful, can project as forcefully how that relatedness needs independence, per se. Scottish parties demonstrating their virtue on single issues on the assumption of a warm glow in the electorate are not always rewarded that way, or even remembered. For example, few or none can recall who was responsible for the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004, yet it was a momentous crack in the dam of monolithic labourism.
It’s not either/or, of course.
Energy policy is a good example. At the moment just 0.2% of Scotland’s current wind power is owned by communities through a shared ownership arrangement, compared to 52% in Denmark.
But in 2009, the Danish Renewable Energy Act has required at least 20% ownership for all new wind projects. See here:
https://www.iea.org/policies/17800-denmark-community-ownership-of-renewables
Energy is a big issues we could be moving now and realising under indy
@Innes_K, but it isn’t “the UK”, it’s the British Empire, itself the bottom to the USAmerican Empire in the NATO neoliberal necro-wagon.
Remember the signicant timing of the EU’s crackdown on tax havens before Brexit and note the significance of Margaret Hodge being packed off on an ‘anti-corruption’ crusade, and the curious absence of mainstream reporting from these British territories. As a recap, remember the role of tax havens in neocolonialism.
https://taxjustice.net/faq/how-did-tax-havens-emerge/
Where is the British Empire supporting Israel’s genocide of Palestinians from? Where does the British informal Empire stretch to these days? What is the British imperial economy based on?
The point is framing Scottish independence as leaving the UK is false, and possibly even attractive to reactionaries and imperialists, when the optimimum progressive and planet-friendly framing must be leaving and rejecting the British Empire whilst acknowledging Scotland’s full-blooded participation in it. I cannot understand why Bella doesn’t push this framing more, as I’m sympathetic to much else of the editorial stance. The Empire is now. It isn’t just ‘history’.
Yes, I know what you’re referring to. The historian Ellen Wood spelled it out a couple of decades ago in her book ‘Empire of Capital’. She made a couple of interesting points about the “new” imperialism in it about the continuing (somewhat counter-intuitive) dependence on the necessity of territorial States with, by contrast, a completely new doctrine of infinite war directed at no definite objective. This purely capitalist imperialism replaced the classic imperialism but it’s curious how quickly it became less straightforward when rivals to US hegemony appeared after the book was originally published.
Scotland was certainly a full-blooded imperial force, and it makes no sense to deny it, and indeed no academic historian does. An independent Scotland with its own central bank will obviously be faced with the same moral and (geo)political pressures from capitalist imperialism as other territorial states, and it will have to develop its advantages and allegiances such that it doesn’t become just one more neo-feudal vassal delivering its captive population to the transnational automatons of private equity.
“Let’s unpack what he said”
1. Build up support for Independence.
Comment: In the 5 opinion polls post-Referendum in 2014 support for YES averaged 50.3%. In the last 9 polls (during 2025) YES has posted 50.1% on average. Clearly generating support for Scotland’s full self-government has been a real strength of John Swinney and his party over the last decade plus.
2. Terrorise Westminster by complaining that it’s all so unfair that they have denied Scotland the means to exercise our right of self-determination.
Comment: That approach has had successive British Prime Ministers during the last 10 years shaking in their shoes and knocking their knees, ultimately forcing them to respond variously, ‘now is not the time’, ‘you’ve had your referendum’ and ‘you’ll be having a laugh mate’.
3. Vote for the SNP or Independence gets it!
Comment: Blackmailing your own target voter audience is a sure fire way to garner and maintain support. Genius.
Clearly this is just a tried, tested and tired electioneering technique that the SNP leadership have employed in order to defraud the voters of their ballot.
Don’t fall for it (yet again)!
” But somehow, somewhat improbably Swinney has stumbled on an idea:
*
“During the next parliament we reach the point where there will be one million people eligible to vote who, last time around, were too young to do so or not even born. A generation has now clearly passed.”
*”
Yes, let’s put it off again.
Genius idea.
What? I don’t understand the point you’re making?
Eh?
It’s pretty obvious:
Swinney states that a million people will come of voting age “during the next Parliament”.
You want to “re-imagine the case for independence in a much more expansive timeframe. This wouldn’t be another ‘campaign’ with slogans and attack lines, it wouldn’t be a politics of resentment, it would be a politics of imagination and possibility.”
That amounts to delay and deferral. It is starting again.
And if you wish to base your pitch to these new voters on the basis of “imagination and possibility” you have to make it real i.e. show folk how Independence can be achieved.
If you can’t do that people lose interest and walk away.
True, but ‘re-making the case’ isn’t in opposition to showing how independence can be achieved, is it?
It’s not in opposition.
But it’s a distraction.
Talking about BEING independent is easy. The Independence ‘movement’ was doing that in 2012-14. And has simply been doing the same thing for the 10 years plus since then. Everybody has a vision. Sometimes double vision. If you’re John Swinney it’s a blurred vision.
Enough!
Devising and adopting an actual plan – not those of the SNP, or the Alba Party or ‘Liberate Scotland’ – in order to realise Scotland’s cause is more difficult. And that is why politicians and commentators don’t wish to discuss it.
It will require guile and guts.
But in the end, if we are to be successful, we will have to adopt a credible process and see it through.
And sooner, not later.
Excellent nothing to disagree with here
Cool, thanks
The author states: What would that look like? It would mean really taking-on the multiple problems faced by younger (and future) generations, which have been a dark inheritance passed on to them. A mammoth impossible task? Yes but one worth trying. Where to start? I would start with the crisis of affordable housing which is life-altering for millions of people. I would face the existential crisis of climate breakdown and create deep and radical action plans that would give hope and meaning for a liveable future. I would create the outline of what an ‘ethical foreign policy’ (to use Robin Cook’s words) would look like for a future Scotland. I would begin to meaningfully address the crisis of social alienation and the epidemic of loneliness and mental health that has spooled out of lockdown, late capitalist anomie and digital culture, and particularly affects younger people.
It would be handy if he could also give an inkling as to how all this would be paid for in indy Scotland. I say this as a lifelong indy supporter.
Hi MacGilleRuadh – I mean our housing crisis isn’t a net gain for society it just enriches a minority of people who own properties. Making affordable housing would mean that people have more disposable income, but it’s also just a human right. ‘How would we afford housing’ is therefore a strange framing. House building, boosting public housing, rent controls and strict controls (like other cou tries have) on Air BnB and second homes would also work here as elsewhere. Having the semblance of an ethical foreign policy again wouldn’t necessarily be a cost and could in fact be a a net gain, but separating ourselves from genocidal regimes isn’t ultimately a question of economics, is it? On the issue of improvement of mental health issues – this is not a huge cost it would be hugely beneficial to people through the relief of stress, anxiety, reliance on alcohol and drugs etc etc and ultimately cost-saving to the NHS and auxilliary services. In terms of tackling the climate crisis for a liveable future, investment in community-owned renewables creates low cost energy (tackling fuel ;poverty) as well as resilient energy supplies independent of external forces and factors, while home insulation can create jobs and improve peoples health (with warmer drier homes).
Scotland is broken and in a morbid state. It’s politicians are incompetent, clueless, and entirely underwhelming. There is no sign that independence would change that. But you can always wring votes out of nationalism.
The same applies, and very much more so, to the UK. Perhaps we should give up voting and leave things to Farage ?
Mini mouse – your name is very much in line with the towering intellect of your comments. You have chosen a very apt moniker!
When I studied political science, we covered fairly strong objections to opinion polling, some of which features in this recent article:
Should we ban opinion polls?
“They claim to reflect public sentiment. But they’re better thought of as just another species of misinformation”
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/jul/20/should-we-ban-opinion-polls
The cycle of opinion polling, ‘news’ reporting on them, calls for tactical voting based on them, pollsters announcing corrections for their last set of errors, etc. is another set of anti-patterns against even the extremely enfeebled kind of ‘democracy’ which is the most we can hope for in our current systems.
If you’re wondering why we don’t have the kinds of radical political public discourse called for in this article between elections, you might consider the role of opinion polls in narrowing the Overton Window.
I read a book about this not very long ago that opinion polls and surveys are not just unreliable but often false because people do not answer honestly even when it is totally anonymous (the book goes into some details as to why). The author is a ‘big data’ analyst and found this a much more reliable source of information. What was particularly interesting was what counted as big data and there are some surprising sources of that data. One example is google searches which though never linked to individuals can be used on a regional basis. The book is called ‘Everybody Lies’ by Seth Davidowitz.
@Niemand, yes, there’s no cost for choices, often no way of reliably weighting answers (despite Likert scales), a false context, a slew of biases, and as you say the issue of honesty (I haven’t read that book), but also of the very limited mental and temporal resources people are prepared to give to such pollsters. There’s a ton of assumptions in the selection and calibrations, and many potentially confounding factors. Some of these are acknowledged by pollsters, some not. Essentially being presented by wishlists or menus is a rubbish way of determining someone’s political red lines.
We did cover some inbuilt error-checking methods, like asking positive and negative versions of the same question, or the same question worded differently twice, but these can often just show how flawed and contradictory the responses are, as I think the article mentions.
And I think we are familiar with the saying about the first casualty of war, which reminds us that events change minds and big events overshadow petty activities like answering polling questions. Even if pollsters were completely honest, incorruptible and competent, we know from empirical studies that deliberative collective decision-making produces very different kinds of political expression (with dynamism, interaction, persuasion, models, priorities, agency factors and complexity) from these simplistic menu options, which is why there is a demand for citizens’ assemblies and so forth.
One advantage of big data on people’s actual decision-making without political questioning is that it may reveal patterns that even the person is unconscious of, over a sustained time period that can take into account cycles, fluctuations, trends and events. However, some people will be (or become) more guarded about their data than others, and there are many similar problems with analysis as with polling. That approach might be better at predicting approaching tipping points and modelling accumulation (snowball) effects. Of course these effects are often driven by opinion polling (the ‘what are all these other people thinking?’ influences). Although people being prepared to be arrested for publicly protesting is probably both an indicator of greater political commitment and greater source of influence on others.
This is exactly what is wrong with the SNP and Swinney in particular. He clearly has no idea at all except ‘business as usual’. It is simply not good enough, a dispiriting waffle that won’t win the party many votes here in the Highlands.
The SNP have got too complacent, thinking that ‘owning’ the independence vote is enough to keep them in power. There will be a protest vote next year. We need independent candidates who will pick that up, otherwise Farage will be aiting to promise the earth and pitch us out of the frying pan into the fire.
The SNP are currently presiding over a Scotland run by a parcel of rogues, bought and sold for mainly US gold, people and corporations who are above the law and somehow ‘entitled’ to do as they please, at our expense. It is a culture of bullying colonialism. I and many other people no longer believe the SNP will ever deliver real independence for Scotland. In the extremely unlikely event that they held and won another referendum on Westminster’s terms, any independence would be in name only. The real power would remain with the billionaire robber barons and their fascist friends. We need independence from Westminster and Washington too. John seems like a nice, genuine chap but frankly that isn’t good enough anymore. We need new leadership we can actually believe in, not people like him who are betraying us all to corporate greed.
If any party or candidate wants my vote next year they will:
– Condemn genocide, boycott Israel and its American funders, get some practical help to the Palestinians before they all die in misery. And it’s time that Trump, Starmer and Charles III faced the ICC.
– Scrap the coercive, mass industrialisation of the highlands for corporate profit. We need a full public enquiry into this disgrace which makes a mockery of democracy and the planning process. Scrap the corrupt ‘Freeports’
– Scrap ‘Crown Immunity’ and properly incorporate the ECHR into Scots Law so human rights can be exercised and defended; legislate if necessary that in Scotland, all are equal before the law. In practice, the rule of law simply does not apply in Scotland and this is completely unacceptable.
– Make public bodies openly and genuinely accountable to the public. At present they cannot be held to account at all, and this has got to end.
– Kick the private, so-called water companies right out of Scotland. There is no justification for them here (or anywhere), and it is outrageous that we should be forced to subsidise their unearned profits at public expense.,
– Nationalise the electricity grid; introduce Zonal electricity pricing and invest in community energy
– Scrap the ‘smart’ cities and surveillance capitalism / techno-feudalism; decentralise and empower local communities. Redesign local government on a Scandinavian model
– Forget the winter fuel payment debate and just give pensioners a decent pension in line with other European countries
– Above all, start standing up for the people of Scotland against UK / US fascism. Assert and commit to the Claim of Right, and let’s just have some referendums. Why are we apparently too wee too poor too stupid to hold them? On any subject we choose, for example on the future of the monarchy – the king in Scotland is supposed to rule by consent not divine right. And who in Scotland seriously wants Trump anywhere near this country?
All this is perfectly possible but all we get from Swinney is pathetic whingeing about how powerless he is. I think there must be a Holyrood bubble that has no idea about how angry a growing number of highlanders, at least, are.
Thanks for this, constructive while raising important issues. Nothing to disagree with. I think that several perspectives on independence can coexist, without this precluding working together on a common core. But I was surprised to read Jonathon Shafi in today’s National arguing that this is not the time for action. I think it’s always the time for action, if you think the issue warrants it.
Future-facing is exactly the total refresh we need to apply because we seem to be totally bogged-down in a 2014 nostalgia syndrome which fuels needless distracting debate on the could a’ should a would a backward-looking navel-gazing. It also messages a kind of exclusion/exclusive zone which, a bit like marches at times, gives off a kind of ‘we’re ahead of you all and you have to just catch up and follow our experienced lead’ – rather than a come on in and let’s make a new beginning together.
I’d like to see us highlighting UK Gov’s increasing stealth intrusion by way of more and more excuses for automatic state access to personal bank accounts, particularly of welfare claimants and least well off pensioner tiny savings, interventions on spending habits, collaborating with supermarkets to make supermarkets not make cheap products available and stock only more expensive (but probably healthier) food products. For those who know what’s healthier but can’t possibly afford these items right now, it will cast another cloud over what for some is already an anxiety inducing dignity destroying experience in these really difficult times. The always implying that all those on low incomes, welfare and only basic pensions set out to cheat those ‘hard working’ taxpayers is appalling and a mere excuse to raid the vulnerable who are less likely to have ready access to or are already made to feel ashamed at their reduced circumstances and don’t have the courage or contacts to advocate for them.
We need a complete future-facing shift. We are carrying far too much often destructive baggage from the past and it’s that which keeps us in a holding pattern of constantly re-fuelled cynicism, distrust and in an imposed on everyone else cul-de-sac from those whose comfort zone is the imagined glory days nostalgic past. It has created an us and them atmosphere and we need to get back to an everybody matters level playing field.
Well said. The biggest reason for us to determine our own future is to make it possible to do things differently.
Our sincere and profound congratulations and thanks are due to Mr Mike Small for presenting an article that many of us would be proud of. More in this style will always be welcome.
Thanks Ewen!