Atlas Shrugged
It’s long been very clear the connections between elements of the Unionist movement and the far-right, from the loyalist riots in George Square in 2014 to the ultra-unionist campaign group A Force for Good (AFFG) and the wider tendrils of the post-Brexit spasms of un-filtered racism.

As the immaculately coiffured Lord Offord presides over a shambolic election campaign, the far-right are prominent in Scottish politics and at Holyrood elections more than ever before. But there has also long been an element, admittedly very small, but an element of far-right politics within the independence movement itself.
As Heckle recently reported:
“A new pro-independence party which counts ex-Alba politicians Tommy Sheridan and Craig Murray among its election candidates has links to the ultra-unionist far-right.”
“The Alliance to Liberate Scotland (ALS), launched in 2025 and formally registered as a political party in February 2026, initially united three fringe parties: the Independence for Scotland Party (ISP), Independents 4 Independence (I4I), and Sovereignty, previously known as Restore Scotland. It has now absorbed significant parts of the Alba Party, which has gone spectacularly bust following founder Alex Salmond’s death. Since its launch, ALS has fractured with the ISP’s withdrawal last weekend.”
“All of ALS’ current and former constituent parts are influenced by reactionary politics to varying degrees … However, Sovereignty and at least one of its leading figures also have historic and current links to the British far-right and anti-migrant street politics, which have apparently gone unnoticed within the wider independence movement.”
Heckle continues:
“Dr Alan McManus, the Sovereignty candidate for the Cumbernauld & Kilsyth constituency and the Alliance to Liberate Scotland’s lead candidate on the Central Scotland regional list, is a regular attendee and speaker at rallies organised by A Force for Good (AFFG), the ultra-unionist campaign group which regularly stages counter-demos to independence marches and rallies.”
“AFFG was founded and is led by Alistair McConnachie, a former Scottish organiser for UKIP prior to his expulsion for Holocaust denial in the early 2000s. A long-standing climate change sceptic, McConnachie stood in the 2021 Holyrood election alongside two former members of the neo-Nazi British National Party (BNP) under the label “Independent Green Voice”, which may have cost the pro-independence Scottish Green Party two seats by confusing voters.”
Heckle are not alone in pointing out these problems.
Blood and Soil
The blogger James Kelly has pointed out that Sovereignty have a unique position where they want no economic immigration at all, but simultaneously want a ‘right to return’ for the Scots diaspora. In other words, their objection to immigration is not on the basis of what perceived problems it might cause for services and housing etc but is based purely on race.
See: “Alliance to Liberate Scotland” angrily defend their pact with the far-right
He also notes that ‘the far-right have almost totally taken over the “Alliance to Liberate Scotland” fringe party in the Highlands & Islands region’.
He lists the following Sovereignty candidates:
None of this should come as a surprise, though it does need some unpacking.
Strange Bedfellows
How are such strange bedfellows possible at all? How did Craig Murray and Tommy Sheridan end up in a party with such far-right candidates and ideas?
Part of it is about desperation, the endless search for validation and a platform for promotion often supercedes political thinking or principle.
Second of all, there’s a sort of reductionism to all the language that renders them virtually meaningless:
‘Independence, Nothing else. Nothing less.’
‘Outcomes not incomes.’
Or you have the repeat of the venerated Alex Salmond:
‘Scotland is a country not a county’
…as if it was some great insight or oratory rather than an utterly banal statement.
Or you have rheumy-eyed men ending speeches with ‘The dream shall never die.’
Such reductionism is reflective of an empty political project. It might have vestiges of radical policies but they are contained within a deeply reactionary vessel. ‘Independence, Nothing else. Nothing less’ leaves many unanswered questions and – as we have seen – the door open to absolutely anybody.
The same phenomenon can be seen when the project was ‘Get rid of the Tories’. The problem was always, yes, and then what?

If Alba acted as some kind of containment device, all bets are off now that it has disintegrated. The nativist, ethno-nationalism politics of the far-right, which have blossomed in England have washed over the border, and the same logic works here too.
The multitude of tiny parties, projects and campaigns that best express these tendencies have some things in common: a disabling sense of victimhood; a reactionary puritanical sense of ethnic nationalism; a cultural conservativism that’s often deeply reactionary; communications that are riddled with anti-English sentiment; and a nostalgic commitment to fossil fuels. In short, it’s back to the 70s.
Right to Reply
We offered the Alliance to Liberate Scotland a right to reply. Here’s their leader, Hazel Lyon:
“Alliance to Liberate Scotland notes the media enquiry concerning one of the organisations that participates under our banner, the Sovereignty Party. Alliance to Liberate Scotland is a single-issue alliance. Our sole policy and purpose is to achieve Scottish independence through democratic means. We bring together individuals and groups from across the political spectrum who share that one objective. We do not adopt, endorse or campaign on any other policy positions.
*
A Nationalist Melancholy
*
This is what you might call a Nationalist Melancholy, similar to the idea of a Left Melancholy. This idea was coined in 1931 by Walter Benjamin who used the term to criticise revolutionary intellectuals who were more attached to a specific political ideal or “things” than to seizing possibilities for real change, likening this mindset to “constipation” and a “negativistic” quietism.
*
Wendy Brown has written: “… in his study of Baudelaire, Benjamin treated melancholia itself as something of a creative wellspring. But “Left melancholia” is Benjamin’s unambivalent epithet for the revolutionary hack who is, finally, not serious about political change, who is more attached to a particular political analysis or ideal — even to the failure of that ideal — than to seizing possibilities for radical change in the present. In the context of Benjamin’s enigmatic insistence on the political value of a dialectical historical grasp of the time of the Now, Left melancholia represents not only a refusal to come to terms with the particular character of the present, that is, a failure to understand history in terms other than “empty time” or “progress.” It signifies as well a certain narcissism with regard to one’s past political attachments and identity that exceeds any contemporary investment in political mobilization, alliance, or transformation.”
[ see Resisting Left Melancholia | Verso Books].
*
I think the groups described here are riddled with such cultures, dominated with what one nationalist friend called ‘angry old men talking to each other over and over’.
*
The accusation against people calling out the far-right or the Alt-Nats is that this is some form of ‘puritanism’ or ‘gate-keeping’. I think it’s more like developing some critical thinking and trying to develop a political project that a) is future-focused and inclusive b) has political coherence and authenticity c) in such desperate times needs to be specifically anti-fascist d) in such desperate times needs to be specifically focused on the climate catastrophe e) says something (anything) to the young.
*
These shards of shards of parties are unelectable, and in five weeks time we will see lots of sair heids and lost-deposits, but the wider issues of lack of political direction or coherence are withstanding.
*
It could be said to be a failure of the influence of the Left that such projects are tainted by the far-right. That might be in part true, although the personal responsibility of individuals with big platforms engaging unquestioningly in such projects has to be stated. The real sadness is that there is still potential for a movement that is genuinely populist, disruptive and insurgent and that draws energy and ideas from the radical roots of the Green Left, and in doing so recognises the complexity of our present crisis and the failures of the past.

I don’t want to keep repeating what Machiavelli warned about alliances (slightly updated), so I won’t:
https://blog.sleepingdog.org.uk/2026/03/machiavelli-on-alliances.html
And if you have a common cause, why do you need a formal alliance?
Brian try and get a counter point posted here, would be good to see Bella broaden it’s editorial.
“Hold your nose” is increasingly the cry of the forlorn and the desperate. From the gutter to the high tower.
Vote for none of them.
Pretty much what Sarwar is saying!
Read the article here, now read https://sovereignty.scot/news/sovereignty-beyond-left-right-dogma-a-pragmatic-path-for-an-independent-scotland/
Different view point, a more balanced one perhaps?
I have read their 2024 manifesto. You can read it, too, if you have time.
https://sovereignty.scot/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Action-on-Independence-The-Sovereignty-2024-Manifesto-v-2.pdf
A summary might help:
anti-gay rights,
anti-trans rights,
anti-human rights, given their ECHR position
anti-net zero,
pro-fossil fuels,
pro-Christian,
anti-immigration,
anti-asylum,
anti-science,
anti-smart cities,
a Trumpist obsession with manufacturing,
weirdo sovereign/sound money from the conspiracy blogs,
pro-Brexit and for the removal of adopted EU rules.
There’s more but I don’t want to drone on.
There are so many policies of the far right here that it is hard to see it as a party not obviously guided by far right dogma.
“Nationalist fiend”? Really?
No. Friend.
“… there’s a sort of reductionism to all the language that renders them virtually meaningless.”
You are correct about that.
But these fringe groups are hardly any worse in their sloganeering for simpletons than the main party of Independence, namely the Scottish National Party.
The SNP have been variously busy “standing up for Scotland” and “standing stronger for Scotland” for the last dozen years. These are particularly galling since the reality is that they have actually been bending over for Scotland whenever it comes to any mild confrontation with Westminster.
Their election materials have included “vote SNP to make Scotland Tory-free” without explaining why getting rid of Tories as apposed to, say, Labour political representatives would bring Independence any closer. Similarly, “Both Votes SNP” is another meaningless mantra without any substance as to how their supposed primary goal of independent statehood is returned to Scotland.
The truth is that none of these ‘pro-Independence’ parties are serious about Scotland’s cause. They have no plan to restore Scotland’s full self-government.
They are all merely using ‘Independence’ as an electioneering tool for garnering votes.
Yes banal slogans are everywhere its true.
But we are on a specific subject here, and the whatabouttery doesn’t help.
Eh?
The reason why people are attracted to the extremes and mad cap ideas & plans is because they look at the mainstream and see people using ‘Independence’ as a means of conning people to vote them lucrative pay, pensions and perks at their expense.
true
We thank Mike Small and Bella Caledonia for publishing our previous statement in full and for offering us this further opportunity to respond.We respect the passion that many bring to the cause of Scottish independence, even when we disagree on tactics or analysis.
Our alliance exists for one reason only: to advance the democratic case for restoring Scotland’s national sovereignty through independence. That remains our sole policy and our only focus.
We are a broad coalition of people who share that single objective. We do not require participants to agree on any other matter — whether migration, human rights conventions, climate policy, or anything else. Those are legitimate debates for a future independent Scotland, not preconditions for working together now to achieve the democratic mandate that independence requires.
We do not endorse or adopt the specific policy positions of any individual group or candidate within the alliance. Views expressed by Sovereignty, or by any other participant, on economic migration, the ECHR, or any other issue belong to them alone.
They are not Alliance policy, and we have no collective stance on them.We note the concerns raised about certain individuals and their past associations. However, we judge people by their commitment to peaceful, democratic progress towards Scottish independence — not by guilt through past associations or by attempts to label them in ways that shut down dialogue.
Our door remains open to anyone who prioritises Scotland’s right to self-determination above all else.
Scottish independence has always been a big-tent movement. It has succeeded historically when it has been inclusive and outward-looking, not when it has narrowed itself through purity tests. In these challenging times, with the independence cause needing renewed energy, we believe in building the widest possible coalition of democrats who want Scotland to take its place as a normal, self-governing nation.
We continue to focus our efforts on speaking directly to the Scottish people about why independence offers the best path to a fairer, more prosperous future — whatever our differences on secondary issues.
We wish all those involved in the independence movement well, and we hope that debate can remain respectful and focused on the shared goal that unites far more of us than divides us.
Hazel Lyon
On behalf of Alliance to Liberate Scotland
I was fascinated by your observation that independence is at its best when it is outward looking.
Is withdrawal from ECHR and ending economic migration “outward looking”? If it’s not, then I do wonder why you teamed up with candidates are very much not outward looking.
cf Benjamin on the creation of ‘national interest’ – – very good work Mike, I’m at least pleased to see this articulated as have been wondering about it increasingly over recent years
I am disappointed to see some of your writing in this article falls into the same kind of incoherence as that of the far right that you are criticising. It could have done with one more pass through, making changes. To me it reads of of a person deeply involved in the variety of political movements, with less care than usual to explain rather than quote the absurdities you illustrate. It is a difficult read for those not deeply involved in politics.
My view of course.
What did you think was incoherent Stephen?
Hi Mike, I think you mean “James Kelly” as the person who runs scotgoespop rather than “Stuart Kelly” given above.
Thanks cherson, I’ve done this before : (
Fixed, thanks
I suppose there are people (who want independence) who get fed up with the Left’s insistance on political purity before we will share a stage, a march, a rally or a room with them. People who see themselves as ‘old-fashioned’, ‘unreconstituted’, ‘non PC’, ‘old school’ etc. They want one thing and they can’t be arsed with all the other details.
I’ve always felt that the real fight will begin after independence. The struggle to build a just, fair, eqitable society. It may well be that an independent Scotland seems an attractive place for wee mini-Kings who want to take us back to the good-old-days and become big fish in a wee, parochial lochan. There could be a rush to seize power from day one. It could end up worse than the UK.
I take the view that there are always a small number of these heid-bangers in any movement of any political stripe. Hopefully there are so few of them that they aren’t really worth bothering about.
However, the danger nowadays is that they may well attract the patronage of some foreign billionaire heid-banger who is happy to fund them to promote a return to serfdom and Kingdom and strip Scotland’s resources more efficiently.
There’s almost nothing more boring that listening to political people slag each other off. A total turn off for most of us. Not saying it’s unimportant though.