Broken Britain: Flux, Collapse and Stasis
A snapshot of the past week on Britain’s dramatically changing politics.
Reform surge in England and talk about how young people need “moral re-education” about how great the Empire was and how to “love Britain.”
Labour collapses in the local elections in England and Keir Starmer’s response is to talk of doing the same “further and faster”. Blue Labour / Red Wall MP Jonathan Hinder has suggested that Labour need to ape Reform’s position on immigration (even more) and leave the ECHR (‘Hyper-liberal’ Labour ignoring working-class immigration concerns, says Red Wall MP’). Any notion that Labour’s electoral ‘shock’ (Ed – nobody was shocked) would create a policy corrective is absurd. The Labour leadership are doubling down in the face of electoral defeat.
A second nationwide poll has Tories under 20% & heading for an electoral wipeout, finishing fifth in seats behind SNP. And Reform winning ZERO seats in Scotland. REF 27% (+1) LAB 26% (=) CON 19% (-2) LDEM 13 (+1) GRN 9% (=)
30 April-2 May
A poll by Diffley partners showed the SNP projected to finish 32 seats ahead of 2nd place Labour in Scottish Parliament elections; with the Greens on 10 seats that would give a pro-indy majority: 67 to 62.
SNP: 57 (-7)
Lab: 25 (+3)
Tories: 17 (-14)
Reform: 12 (+12)
Green: 10 (+2)
Lib Dem: 8 (+4)
Change from 2021
Via
@diffleypartners
This poll has Alba on 1% in the Constituency and 2% on the List suggesting they would make no impact:
Scot Parl voting intentions: Constituency SNP: 36% Labour: 22% Reform: 14% Tories: 13% Lib Dems: 9% Greens: 5% Alba: 1% List SNP: 28% Labour: 22% Tories: 16% Reform: 12% Greens: 10% Lib Dems: 9% Alba: 2% Other: 1% Via
Meanwhile, the Conservatives, in complete disarray are seriously suggesting changing their leader again, because of the chaos – with the option of the equally deranged Robert Jenrick.
At the same time Scottish Labour continues to lean-in to its British nationalist identity and offers little as an alternative to the London leadership, abandoning its commitments on so many fronts, whether that be to workers at Grangemouth, or to the WASPI women or their attack on the long term sick and disabled by slashing social security payments.
And yet, for all of this, as the writers HERE recently have explored, what is the point, and what is the road map to independence? Beyond all this flux and chaos we are also, as Gerry Hassan has recently pointed out in the doldrums he doldrums with a “lack of dynamism, direction and purpose.”
Hassan writes (The Road from 2014 is over, a New Road map is Needed for Scotland and Independence): “One huge issue that needs to be faced in Scottish, as in UK, politics is where is the substance. Where are the politicians, leaders and ideas that can face up to, and deal with, the huge challenges we face as a society and planet? Mainstream politics in Scotland and the UK is defined by miniaturised, managerial politicians with small attention-spans seeking ideas mostly irrelevant to the big issues. The longer this chasm continues the more it plays into right-wing populism the world over. Scotland is no exception.”
This gets us to the heart of three adjacent problems/dilemmas. First, to what extent is Scotland immune to the Reform momentum? Second, how can the independence movement capitalise on the collapse of two-party politics in England, and the crashing lack of popularity for mainstream politics? How does any of this affect people’s material reality?
The Farage Effect
Neil Mackay believes (‘English nationalism will be the death of the union‘): “The rise of Reform’s virulent form of English nationalism endangers one political pillar more than all others: the union.”
“Whilst Tory mayhem drove the Yes vote in the past, now it’s despair at Labour. Since last autumn Yes has mostly been ahead of No thanks to Starmer’s failed promises to bring change.”
He continues: “What could fuel Scottish independence more than a Reform government in London?”
The sequence that Mackay lays out is that a huge pro-independence majority will be delivered next year due, in part, to the prospect of Reform taking power in England.
Mackay cites polling from John Curtice (‘Almost inevitable’ SNP will form next government‘) which are even more positive than the Diffley Partners I quote above. Curtice is quoted saying: “…without fundamental change” there was little chance of Labour being the largest party in the Scottish Parliament.”
So What?
Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire
Stirling and Strathallan
Glenrothes and Mid Fife
Airdrie and Shotts
Dunfermline and Dollar
Hamilton and Clyde Valley
Midlothian
Mid Dunbartonshire
East Renfrewshire
Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke
Rutherglen
Lothian East
While this is good news it is a very low bar.
This week the pressure is mounting for the Scottish Govt to take urgent action on child poverty and its root causes, excessive household debt. An open letter from a range of anti-poverty charities to the First Minister said: “The Herald, together with Scotland’s leading children and anti-poverty charities, calls on you to take urgent action by raising the Scottish Child Payment to £40 per week – a step that could lift thousands of children out of poverty and change lives.”
The open letter to Mr Swinney states: “This increase to £40 would be life-changing for families. The Scottish Child Payment has already been a game-changer. Parents have told us this support is a lifeline, allowing them to buy essentials and even share small moments of joy with their children that would otherwise be out of reach.”
“This policy is working – but it now needs to work harder and reach further if we are to protect all our children from poverty.”
“First Minister, you have the power to make a profound and lasting difference to the lives of Scotland’s children,” the letter adds.
“By urgently increasing the Scottish Child Payment, you would not only provide vital financial relief to families struggling to make ends meet but send a clear message that your government is committed to turning the vision of eradicating child poverty into a tangible reality.
“The time for decisive action is now.”
The point is that there is no value in revelling in the descent of English politics to the far-right if there is not a credible alternative, both socially and constitutionally. The likelihood of Reform not making significant inroads to Holyrood is to be celebrated but it is unlikely to be held in check unless mainstream parties, and the party of government can make significant tangible difference to peoples material reality. This has to happen with the powers Scotland currently has.
Having said that there are some things that are within the Scottish government’s remit and capabilities and there are some that are not.
The same charities have said removing the two child benefit cap – which limits means-tested benefits to the first two children in the family – would lift an estimated 250,000 children in the UK out of poverty.
An open letter has also been sent to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer urging him to lift the cap, which has been described as “one of the most significant drivers of child poverty”.
The letter to the Prime Minister states the cap “punishes children for circumstances entirely beyond their control and entrenches hardship across generations”.
It adds: “We believe the removal of the two-child limit would be one of the single most effective measures your government could take to reduce child poverty swiftly and significantly.”
“Prime Minister, we urge you to seize this opportunity for moral leadership,” the letter to Sir Keir states.
“A fair and compassionate society does not discriminate against children based on the size of their family.
The schisms and collapse of the mainstream parties [are they still mainstream? – Ed] can only be of benefit to Scotland if the dissaray and shift to the far-right is met with a dynamic response from the Scottish government. If they do not respond, then the politics of hate and scapegoating perfected by Farage will have more traction here, as their false narratives take hold and people facing the despair of grotesque social inequality look for someone to blame for the crisis they face. Britain is broken and descending into further chaos. But Scotland is in stasis and needs transformative change lest we be dragged into the abyss offered up by the Union.
I fear that the only response we will see from John Swinney is more fatuous First-Ministerial cosplay.
SNP baaaadd ! Give it a rest.
I would be delighted if the SNP were to up its game, but I see no sign of it.
I guess child poverty rates will be related to some extent to teenage pregnancy rates and attitudes to abortion and contraception in deprived areas especially, and nativists like Reform tend to push policies that negatively impact the health of mothers and children in their pursuit of native (white, Christian, English monolinguistic perhaps) population growth.
But the story that captured my long-term opposition to party politics, which is essentially unsuited to bringing about good governance, and demonstrates another flaw in democracy, is:
‘The hypocrisy is staggering’: will swift bricks fall prey to government fears of Reform?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/05/the-hypocrisy-is-staggering-will-swift-bricks-fall-prey-to-government-fears-of-reform
Now, under a biocracy, birds (as part of the natural world) would have representation in government. This is not a theist-animist or left-right, but a way of doing politics that should be common sense.
#biocracynow
Reform UK pose a greatest threat to Tories and Labour in Scotland at 2026 Holyrood election.
Neil McKay is correct IMO in calling Reform UK English nationalists as they appear to concentrate on issues of most importance to voters south of the border and have no specific policies for Scotland.
Calling them out as English nationalists is probably the most effective attack parties in Scotland can use against Reform UK. It will be interesting to see if Labour or Tories in Scotland will use this form of attack? They would probably have most to gain by doing so but it will leave them in a difficult position in run up to 2029 GE if Reform UK look as though they may gain enough votes to be in government in some form of other.
I keep saying, we are going round in circles. We keep trying to pretend to ourselves that the SNP / Greens / Alba will deliver meaningful independence even if they can work together. They won’t.
Everyone keeps asking for some positive vision or manifesto we can believe in but expects someone else to provide it. Nobody wants to lead the charge. Perhaps we really are too wee too poor too stupid to do anything for ourselves.
But Scotland does have a different culture to England. It is the product of its colonial history. On the one hand it has developed a radical tradition, but when it comes to the point, the Scottish cringe takes over. And too many people are too afraid of any change at all. It’s a sort of Stockholm syndrome.
The sad truth that has to be faced u to is that Scotland is an utterly corrupt country where power and authority are unaccountable and we all do as we are told. Project Fear has always been just how it works.
The only way we are going to change anything is by setting up a new political movement with some agreed principles and goals. If others want a different sort of independence, that’s fine, but we get nowhere by trying to appease or appeal to die-hard Unionists – any more than Starmer or Badenoch can do anything for themselves by merging with Reform. Let there be a variety of Yes movements, with different visions and let them compete on those while agreeing on the principle of self-determination. To me, though, a so-called ‘independent’ Scotland that looks and works much the same as at present isn’t truly independent at all. It’s not worth having.
I propose a new movement. Let’s call it ‘People and Planet together’ because this about more than independence from Westminster: it’s a planet-wide, existential crisis we are in. Let it stand candidates in 2026. The independence vote cannot be split. Whatever your vision of independent Scotland, we all agree on the principle of self-determination, and that means the power to change direction if we as a sovereign people so decide.
This movement I suggest should have a few key principles and then within those the flexibility to discuss and debate details.
1. Commitment to the Claim of Right.. That is fundamental.
2. Reject ‘neoliberalism’ outright. It is just a euphemism for corruption. Governments, and elected representatives and unelected public servants at all levels have a primary duty of care to the public they serve, and no-one else. There needs to be an ethical code for government that is both meaningful and legally binding. Shareholder value can never come before the public interest, under any circumstances.
3. Government at all levels must be accountable (it currently isn’t). So I propose a National Legal Service, free at the point of use like the NHS; because justice is a rich man’s game and the poor still have no lawyers. This would replace all our Ombudsmen and industry regulators are hopelessly compromised.
4. Empowerment means decentralisation and subsidiarity. Small is still beautiful, in fact even more so than ever. We need a complete overhaul of our over-centralised system. As Lesley Riddoch points out we could learn a lot from our Scandinavian neighbours. And don’t forget that the north and west of Scotland were once part of the kingdom of Norway. Decentralisation should include regional and local tiers that can explore and celebrate the different cultural and linguistic traditions of Scotland and bring out the riches of diversity. One problem with our over centralised, Central Belt based system is that the rest of Scotland never gets the respect or real investment it deserves.
5. We need a mixed but localised economy and that includes decentralised public services and utilities, back under local democratic control and run for public benefit before private profit. Water, electricity, gas, road and rail networks, health and care – hand them back to new local / regional authorities. If a postcode lottery develops, that’s when the centre can step in to balance things. And remember domestic water is free in Northern Ireland. It should be here too.
6. Scrap the techno-fascist digital dystopia. We don’t want or need a digital central bank currency, ‘smart’ cities’, mass surveillance, etc. Privacy is a human right. And let’s incorporate the ECHR fully into Scots Law as the British remove it elsewhere. Re-establish the precautionary principle.
7. Internationally Scotland needs to be neutral, like Ireland. No nuclear power, no nuclear weapons. No to NATO. We would be much better off without all that.
There anyway are a few starters. I think that – or something like it – might be very popular and change the whole landscape on independence.
What do you think? No negative doom-mongering please, let’s see some positive engagement, whether you agree or not. I think the most important thing is to signpost a direction of travel and not to be trapped into endless arguments about points of detail.
But in the 1980s we were able to rouse and organise ourselves when the politicians had failed us. The strength of the ‘Yes’ campaign in 2014 lay in the creativity and enthusiasm at grassroots level. We need to rediscover that spirit now.
Indeed we did and we can again
‘In the 1980s we were able to rouse and organize ourselves when the politicians had failed us’.
My recollection of that decade is of industrial Scotland collapsing. Industrial towns such as Greenock, Kirkcaldy and Clydebank have never fully recovered. The same applies to much of Dundee and Glasgow. Whatever organizing was done, it failed to protect the working class.
There was the Poll Tax campaign of non payment, a grassroots mass action of solidarity, there was the mass boycott of apartheid, and there was a movement that ultimately led to the creation of the Scottish parliament
There was also a very substantial cultural revival – in literature, music and theatre.
I would imagine that there would be similar protests by people forced to pay for replacing their gas boilers.
‘The Poll Tax campaign of non-payment’ led to the Tories ditching the tax and its creator and winning another five years in power.
The movement which ‘ultimately led to the creation of a Scottish Parliament.’ After nearly three decades of a Scottish Parliament, Scotland’s huge economic divisions remain largely unchanged. The post-industrial status quo has not been seriously challenged.
The ECHR is integrated into Scots Law via t Human Rights Act.
The Human Rights Act is all very well but in practice completely useless. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has been working on a new Human Rights Bill for Scotland, but the Scottish Government is very reluctant to take it forward. It looks as though it has been kicked into touch until after the 2026 election.
Have a look at https://www.scottishhumanrights.com/projects-and-programmes/incorporation-a-new-human-rights-law-for-scotland/
I notice that no-one seems to be interested in discussing what we might actually want an independent Scotland to look like. What is the point of endless arguments about whether Farage will help of hinder independence? The fact is surely that if there is no alternative vision on offer anywhere, as in England people will vote negatively because they are sick of the lot of them. And Reform will – as in England – pick up that protest vote. Just to upset the apple cart. And folk will vote in haste and repent at leisure. As I said we have to come up with an alternative, positive proposal. So come on let’s have some input. What sort of Scotland do you want to see? And just saying not Farage, not Labour, not Tory, not Green(wash) etc isn’t good enough.
@John Wood, if you want radical answers, I suggest you start with fundamental questions. Like: what is government for?
Perhaps this would best be addressed from an article dedicated to that question…
Google AI overview says:
“Government exists to provide order, security, and essential services to a population, while also establishing laws and policies. It’s essentially the system that steers a country or region, making decisions on behalf of its citizens. ”
which is maybe a good starting point, because I disagree that this is the only kind of government we could look forward to.
You make my point for me. Your comment comes over as petty negative: “I disagree that this is the only kind of government we could look forward to.” What kind of government do you propose?
I proposed a decentralised form of government. I would hope that in the longer term this might become more and more decentralised, if a culture of honesty and trust could replace the current opposite. I think the present electoral systems we use have failed us. However I think some form of representative democracy is likely to be most acceptable to the majority. At the moment I think a case could be made for Scandinavian style local government, with a regional tier, all on the basis of single seat constituencies, elected by STV. I personally would like to see a second chamber chosen on the same basis as Jury service, but maybe that’s too radical a proposition for many just yet.
@John Wood, well, technically a negative but actually an expansive statement. There are other options, which is essentially a positive message. But you didn’t answer the question: what is government for?
Rather than tack an answer on here, I think it might help if Bella opened a series on fundamental questions, perhaps starting with that one. An article could simple be a collection of widely-available definitions.
What is government for? Well, it seems to me that it’s a question that sends us off piste when I hoped we be discussing the things we might like to see in an independent Scotland. But here goes, from my perspective as an archaeologist.
Human beings have deep seated fears. They / we fear disease, violence, old age, loss of loved people and things, and above all, death. I think such fears are just part of being alive and in one form or another they are felt by every living being. These fears drive our need to understand our environment and situation and try to prepare for a future. It means a wish to perpetuate what we like and end the things we do not like. Above all, we crave safety for ourselves and those we love.
We have therefore looked for protection and a sense of control in a universe whose unpredictability is scary. Anything or anyone who can offer these things is likely to attract support. Like at least some of our primate cousins we naturally form extended family / kindred groups of individuals we know and are probably related to. Group members help each other face and deal with hunger, thirst, shelter, sickness, accidents, old age and death. Hunter gatherer societies living in forests where resources are abundant can live healthy, happy lives; but as populations grew, and natural resources became depleted, the need to secure resources gradually drove the development of gardens, managed herds, and small farms. The arrival of agriculture was therefore not some great upward step on the march to ‘civilisation’ but an attempt to make nature provide a reasonably reliable food source. This in turn led to the need to protect crops and other resources, introducing a land-based element. The herdsman had to keep his animals off the farmer’s crops.
Populations continued to grow, and more land was required to feed them. And a bad harvest in one district might mean starvation unless you could raid your neighbours who had plenty to spare. A certain amount of give and take is possible- they might raid you this year, you might need to raid them next year. It might be possible to barter or exchange; but better if possible to build up stores of your own.
So people looked for people to protect them from physical and psychological or spiritual harm – shamans / priests and chieftains, military leaders or kings – two distinct roles, represented in the medieval doctrine of the ‘two swords’, that might be combined in one god-ike emperor. To provide these services these people needed the co-operation of the people. They created storehouses of resources that were the basis of the first cities. These in turn needed management and protection. Increasingly complex systems of government evolved in which such leaders competed for greater power. This led to urbanisation, centralisation, and technology of various kinds.
So the first function of government is protection of the people. That protection might be from physical violence, or from starvation, sickness or homelessness. Sadly all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. very soon the reciprocity between the powerful and the powerless started to disappear and became effectively a protection racket in which the powerful would extend their power through violence and fear. But always, there was an uncontrolled ‘other’ to be feared, whether psychological, spiritual or physical. And if need be that can be invented.
The question arises therefore as to whether we now need ‘government’ at all, since we have advanced technologies that could be put to use. Technology is power and the powerful have always tried to monopolise it for themselves, but they never succeed. For them, life is an endless arms race. However, even if we all have access to guns for example, it does not make us safer. We need to develop new forms of collective government based on power with rather than power over. For me that means small is beautiful. If we build a society based on abundance rather than scarcity we can develop skills of sharing, co-operation and trust rather than endless struggle for dominance. That is perfectly possible because actually ecosystems work by symbiosis and co-operation at oeast as much as by competition; and we are all walking talig ecosystems. hell is not other people.
Well that’s how I see it anyay. But we can’t just ditch our existing systems completely. There’s a path for us to explore but I can’t see this change happening overnight. Our collective thinking will happen, unavoidably, as the existing 19th c ideology collapses. As far as I’m concerned the sooner the better.
Health.
https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/www.snp.org/uploads/2021/05/Social-Justice-Fairness-Commission-Final-Report-.pdf
I agree we need social justice abd fairness but ’20 years from now’? Jam tomorrow?
There is no social justice or fairness in Scotland at the moment, and that is not entirely the fault of Westminster.
We need an independent, socially, economically and ecologically just Scotland now, with some specific commitments.
Well said.
Neil Mackay says “If – when? – Farage is ever in power, expect support for independence to rocket into the high 50s or even low 60s. Soft No voters will move to independence, just as many soft No voters moved to independence after Brexit.”
That’s is just so much complacent nonsense.
1. Farage/Reform
Brexit was going to send YES sentiment ‘soaring’ and ‘surging’. Then Boris Johnson was going to make support for Independence ‘shoot’ and ‘sky-rocket’. In the event nothing happened apart from a short-lived spike in opinion polling before people realised that our would be political liberators had neither the will nor the guile to do anything about it.
Why would the reaction to the prospect of Farage as PM be any different?
2. Switching of “Soft Nos” after Brexit
The truth is that underlying levels of support have not changed since the final quarter of 2014:
There were 5 surveys in 2014 post-Referendum with an average of 50.4% in favour. (They comprised two each from Survation and Yougov and one from Panelbase). in 2025 there have been 6 polls to date, with an average of 49.5% in favour. (There were two each from Find Out Now and YouGov and one each from Panelbase and Survation).
Sure the polls have oscillated – they always do – in response to shocks like Brexit and the pandemic but these were relatively short-lived, with spikes upward followed by offsetting dips soon afterwards.
So even if there were an increase among mythical ‘soft NO’ supporters that has been cancelled by movements in the other direction.
I suspect that as long as there is no clear process adopted by the political parties and candidates then nothing much will change.
Duncani – would you accept that there are people on both sides of independence debate who are fixed Yes or No and will not be swayed regardless of debate and there is a significant section of society who are not fixed or don’t see independence as a priority?
For that section of society that are persuadable their views can be influenced by the actions of Westminster making them more or less open to independence. You have identified Brexit & Boris Johnson as being factors in that direction as would the prospect of Nigel Farage in power. The other side of the coin is how enthused these people feel about independence. This depends upon several factors:
a)a competent independence supporting Holyrood administration which improves the lives of the country. This gives this section of voters the confidence an independent government could make a difference.
b)understand what issues prevented voters from supporting independence in 2014 and formulate clear policies to answer these doubts. The fact that this was not done post 2015 GE is a major criticism of NS administration.
c)an energised independence movement to help promote benefits of independence both socially, democratically and culturally. This will help raise the priority of independence to voters.
d)a workable strategy for achieving independence that is acceptable to majority of voters. There is no doubt that the lack of an acceptable strategy has reduced importance of independence in many voters minds. It is a tactic successfully employed by political opponents hence why they refuse to state what their criteria for independence vote would be. In their minds it is most beneficial to them if voters do not believe independence can be achieved.
e)the distance of time from previous referendum. The longer the period of time since 2014 the less resistance there will be amongst many voters to another referendum.
Scottish politics and society is stuck in a rut post 2014 because the independence question will not go away due to demographics of support. The media is almost overwhelmingly hostile to independence, its supporters and political advocates.
The rise of Reform UK is an opportunity for the independence movement but whether the political advocates or independence supporting movement are going to be able to take advantage of this opportunity is unclear at present.
John,
“would you accept that there are people on both sides of independence debate who are fixed Yes or No and will not be swayed regardless of debate and there is a significant section of society who are not fixed or don’t see independence as a priority?”
Some people have rock hard views. You identify these and ignore them as ‘they’re in the bag’, whichever side.
Some people don’t see Independence as a priority as the parties are selling it as though it were any other policy. Or time-share option. It’s not – it’s an overarching constitutititional matter. It sits above everything, all solutions fotr Scotland’s ailments flow from that.
“For that section of society that are persuadable their views can be influenced by the actions of Westminster making them more or less open to independence.”
Where is you evidence for that assertion? Maybe just as many are switched off by the ‘it’s all Westminster’s fault’ as are angered/enthused? Perhaps just as many folk will say ‘if it’s all Westminster’s fault what are YOU going to do about it?’ If the answer is ‘not much really’ then the next question is ‘well what’s the point of YOU?’
“You have identified Brexit & Boris Johnson as being factors in that direction as would the prospect of Nigel Farage in power.”
No I didn’t. I identified that this is what we were TOLD by those complacent persons who think all we have to do is wait and Westminster will do the job for us by their scornful treatment of Scotland and Scots. Well, time is not on our side as Nicola Sturgeon and her ilk would complacently have us believe. We are being asset stripped daily!
Where I do agree with you is on the following:
“understand what issues prevented voters from supporting independence in 2014″
The other side of the coin is how enthused these people feel about independence. This depends upon several factors:
a)a competent independence supporting Holyrood administration which improves the lives of the country. This gives this section of voters the confidence an independent government could make a difference.
We’ve done the ‘competent government’ routine pre-2014. It worked. But we’ve only had incompetence since and Holyrood is clearly seen as a glorified regional council now.
Plus: Time! (see above) We don’t have the luxury. We’ve been getting done in since 2014 as a consequence of voting No. The Brits will only
b)understand what issues prevented voters from supporting independence in 2014 and formulate clear policies to answer these doubts. The fact that this was not done post 2015 GE is a major criticism of NS administration.
I agree that no lessons were learnt. The answers must NOT be about economics and statistics:
i) People don’t understand them – neither is mandatory on the school curriculum.
ii) Every ‘answer’ to every bogus question put by the Unionists (including the press and mass media) will spawn 3 further questions. This is all designed to sew doubt. Don’t fight on Unionist ground!
c)”an energised independence movement to help promote benefits of independence both socially, democratically and culturally. This will help raise the priority of independence to voters.”
That is the 2014 Campaign in a nutshell. And it did pretty well. But this is 2025. Let’s call it Project Promise. This will consolidate support garnered from the upbeat campaign run during 2012-14.
We need more.
We could highlight the promises of the BT campaign of 2014 with their lying outcomes. There are plenty of them! That’s Project Black. That should impact those that have some regret about voting NO in the referendum.
In addition we should scare the bajesus out of them if we stay in the UK by emphasising the basket case that is the UK hammering home the points about cost of living, energy prices. lowest pensions in Europe going further South, food banks and all the rest. Our very own Project Fear. That should assist in the conversion of waverers and the undecided.
d)a workable strategy for achieving independence that is acceptable to majority of voters. There is no doubt that the lack of an acceptable strategy has reduced importance of independence in many voters minds. It is a tactic successfully employed by political opponents hence why they refuse to state what their criteria for independence vote would be. In their minds it is most beneficial to them if voters do not believe independence can be achieved.
I don’t know what you mean by an “acceptable strategy”. One that is acceptable to Westminster and the British state?
We need a strategy that shows a clear path to the return of Scotland’s nation-state status. This is one that must necessarily exclude British interference with, influence over and involvement in that process. If you allow a foreign state to have a say then you are undermining Scottish sovereignty.
I do agree that it is in the interests of the British state to have folk believe that there is no path to restoring Scotland’s full self government. That is why they are blocking access to our right of self-determination. And that is why it is essential to have our own process that is supremely democratic, achievable and timebound. Hence, the #ManifestoForIndependence.
e)the distance of time from previous referendum. The longer the period of time since 2014 the less resistance there will be amongst many voters to another referendum.
We don’t know that. There is no evidence that I am aware of to support that theory.
“The rise of Reform UK is an opportunity for the independence movement but whether the political advocates or independence supporting movement are going to be able to take advantage of this opportunity is unclear at present”.
England’s difficulty should always be Scotland’s opportunity, I agree. But there have been so many wasted opportunities in the last 10 years … I surely don’t have to list them.
With regards Reform it is VERY CLEAR that Swinney is not going to attempt to take advantage. John Swinney’s enterprise was really just a cynical diversion, distraction and deflection at a time when he should urgently be pursuing the restoration of Scotland’s full self-government and return of Scotland’s independent statehood.
Be Honest, John (Swinney).
Do what it says in article 2a of your party’s constitution. Do what you said you would do. Do what you were elected to do.
Duncani – thank you for your comprehensive response. A few additional thoughts:
a)Take your point about constant finger pointing at Westminster turning people off but there can be little doubt that Brexit, Johnson’s handling of Covid , Liz Truss etc did lower trust and confidence in Westminster government. This in itself makes people more open to the idea of independence though may not necessarily change their mind on its own.
Competence in governance by Holyrood as a way of building confidence in independence is best assessed by electoral results. In 2016 and 2021 the SNP constituency vote increased both in total numbers and as a %age of vote. It has dropped dramatically post 2021 so to say that Holyrood has not had competence since 2014 is a personal opinion not necessarily backed by electorate in Scotland who appear to think Holyrood has not been do competent post 2021. I do accept that some of the problems post 2021 arose from poor decision making prior to that date.
d)when I mentioned acceptable strategy to achieve independence I meant acceptable and believable to electorate in Scotland.
e)I don’t believe it is unreasonable to state that the further away from 2014 the more amenable the electorate would be to holding another independence referendum. Most polls on this subject I have observed indicate voters in Scotland support having a referendum within next 10 years with support higher for later than sooner within this timeframe. Having said that I personally think that the only democratic way to assess this is by Holyrood elections.
All the best.
John,
“a)Take your point about constant finger pointing at Westminster turning people off but there can be little doubt that Brexit, Johnson’s handling of Covid , Liz Truss etc did lower trust and confidence in Westminster government. This in itself makes people more open to the idea of independence though may not necessarily change their mind on its own.
Competence in governance by Holyrood as a way of building confidence in independence is best assessed by electoral results. In 2016 and 2021 the SNP constituency vote increased both in total numbers and as a %age of vote. It has dropped dramatically post 2021 so to say that Holyrood has not had competence since 2014 is a personal opinion not necessarily backed by electorate in Scotland who appear to think Holyrood has not been do competent post 2021. I do accept that some of the problems post 2021 arose from poor decision making prior to that date.”
Time! You are putting off for another 10 years … imagine the further damage done to Scotland in that time!
“d)when I mentioned acceptable strategy to achieve independence I meant acceptable and believable to electorate in Scotland.”
The #ManifestoForIndependence provides this. A simple 6 step plan which
a) asks the electorate to approve legislative competence for the Scottish Parliament on constitutional matters (step 2) and b) requests ratification of the Scottish Parliament’s proposal to end the Union (step 5) in a national plebiscite (step 6).
[https://newscotlandparty.scot/manifesto-for-independence/]
“e)I don’t believe it is unreasonable to state that the further away from 2014 the more amenable the electorate would be to holding another independence referendum. Most polls on this subject I have observed indicate voters in Scotland support having a referendum within next 10 years with support higher for later than sooner within this timeframe. Having said that I personally think that the only democratic way to assess this is by Holyrood elections.”
It may not be “unreasonable” but, more to the point, your observation about “support having a referendum within next 10 years with support higher for later than sooner within this timeframe” is hypothetical.
Answers to speculative questions are notoriously unreliable in psephology. People were responding to the question you posed i.e. the prospect of a second referendum positively 10 years ago. The proportion in favour is around the same now as then. Theoretically it should be near 100% for ‘in the next 10 years’ by now. The question is irrelevant and the answers meaningless.
That kind of ‘finding’ only serves to permit our pathetically pusillanimous political ‘leaders’ and would be liberators to procrastinate still further.
@duncani, what ‘bad’ Independence scenarios can you envisage, where formal Scottish Independence is achieved, but the results are ‘poor’, unstable, chaotic, highly contested, evidently reversible, bitter, overshadowed, informally dependent, undemocratic, captured, diplomatically isolated or unsatisfactory for other reasons?
Sleeping Dog:
“what ‘bad’ Independence scenarios can you envisage, where formal Scottish Independence is achieved,”
I’m not sure I envisaged Independence scenarios at all in my comments so I’m not sure I understand the relevance of your question.
Maybe you could elaborate?
@duncani, so, why do you appear to be ignoring the quality of Independence (indeed, its stickiness, durability, orderliness, completeness, integrity, robustness, resilience, ie health and so on) in your planning? Is the state of Independence to be reduced to a simple binary, like the Yes/No of a referendum? And what is the point, for you, of obtaining self-governance? And in what sense do you consider that the *way* we achieve formal Independence will affect its *quality* and the *purpose* for which we should wish to have it?
WhyI want independence is all about what independence means.
1. I reject the democratic mandate of the Westminster government to represent Scotland. All government must be by the consent of the people and I utterly reject the actions of the Westminster government both at home and abroad, in particular the genocide in Palestine. They do not act in my name.
2. Scotland is not an equal partner in a union freely entered into. It is a colony, ruthlessly exploited for private profit, where democracy and the rule of law are a hollow sham. It appears to me that the present Scottish Government collaborates with the colonial power. Any supposed ‘independence’ delivered on its terms is unlikely to be worth having.
3. The self-appointed, so called king does not rule by the express consent of the sovereign Scottish people. I do not believe his continuation as our ‘head of state’ is in Scotland’s interest.
4. For me at least, independence is not just about Westminster. Self-determination, real sovereignty means freedom from rule by international organised crime as represented by the World Economic Forum, the Bilderberg group, the Atlantic Council and other bodies. We and our land cannot be bought and sold like factory farms or treated like Palestine.
Independence must me genuine independence that empowers Scotland to make its pwn decisions on the basis of power with rather than power over.
@John Wood, I think we agree on the difference between being ruled (the current condition of being subject to the British Empire with its USAmerican master empire and adjuncts, though I disagree that Scotland is a colony in fair comparison to current and past British colonies overseas), and being governed.
If you accept the concept of maldevelopment, which is something the British Empire has done to Scotland albeit to a lesser extent than its colonies, you accept that the health of a polity can be significant, comparable, measurable and in principle ethical.
We may agree that the aim of good government is health (thank you for showing your working), but I would expand that concept far beyond human health (individual, group, public, physical, psychological, thriving) to the health of the living planet and all its systems. Humans can and do degrade the health of the living planet at scales from below organism to global, and human health is a lesser concern governance-wise than the living planet we depend on. We should not idealise a particular form of individual human health that is not generally achievable (I think we know where that leads) but we can make sound judgements on sustainable and non-cruel nutrition, sanitation, developmental health and so forth.
So, in short, my view is that Will does not feature as a component of good governance. Health in the broadest sense is what we should aim at (our core ethics is shared with other lifeforms). Ask not what our planet can do for our country, but what our country can do for our planet. And always be careful what you wish for.
We see the extreme perils of nations ruled by religions, humanisms, and by the worshippers of secular demons such as Profit. We need and should aim for a different kind of governance, one which in principle is perhaps very old, but stripped of superstition and equipped with the best that humans have been able to devise in service of the world on which we live.
Thanks for this, much to agree with, although I do think ‘colony’ is an apr description for Scotland and that this is still expressed in terms of attitudes both in Holyrood and Westminster. And that this arises from 1746 which was a military conquest followed by ethnic cleansing.
I think the basic role of the chief / king / government is to protect and also benefit the population and this has expressed itself in various ways in different cultures or ideologies. I do not think the state should withdraw in favour of the ‘market’, in fact one of the key functions of the state must be to protect those who participate in markets from violence and exploitation by setting and maintaining rules. A market without rules is not a market at all.
So yes to health, though different cultures might interpret that, differently. The other giants’ of the Beveridge Report could probably do with updating – I think people have a right to be voluntarily ‘idle’ if they wish, and a free legal service that would provide everyone with access to justice and the ability to hold authorities to account is a curious omission. But surely the key thing is government must be a facilitator that works by genuine popular consent and not a coercive dictatorship. For me that surely means decentralisation and subsidiarity and ‘small is beautiful’.
My core belief at the root of all this us that power must be power with rather than power over. And the larger the polity the bigger the potential for oppressed minorities and over-powerful majorities. However using power with, it is possible to create larger groupings.
Sleeping Dog
“why do you appear to be ignoring the quality of Independence (indeed, its stickiness, durability, orderliness, completeness, integrity, robustness, resilience, ie health and so on) in your planning?”
On the contrary the process outlined in the #ManifestoForIndependence provides a durable, orderly, complete, integral and robust means of restoring Scotland’s full self-government.
You cannot future proof everything to perfection … you end up talking and not acting.
In any event the “quality of Independence” (as you put it) in the returned independent state of Scotland will be determined by future generations of Scotland’s people.
“And what is the point, for you, of obtaining self-governance?”
It is to correct an ancient wrong – the Treaty of Union which effectively annexed Scotland and made it part of the England as the UK project. Greater England if you will. Independence is the norm. It is Union that is the anomaly. In England the Westminster Parliament is sovereign (Bill of Rights 1689). In Scotland the people are sovereign as depicted in the democratic tradition from the Declaration of Arbroath (1320) and Claim of Right (1689).
An independent Scotland, its constitution and the policies it pursues should reflect the values and priorities of its people. That is something that has not been apparent since 1707.
@duncani, thanks for you reply, although I recognise a hero narrative when I see it, and I’m not sure how many people living in Scotland are going to be enthused by legalistic echoes from centuries back into our patriarchal past when there was no popular mandate for anything. If take that route, then we should address reparations for Scottish crimes as well before Independence.
My own preference is for a ‘high-bar, path-smoothed, no-fault’ route to Independence which comes from a codified constitution ending (or at least optionalising) the British Empire, although I don’t begrudge pursuing other paths in parallel, though support should grow organically and not forced through arbitrary hoops to arbitrary timescales.
A high bar will help with stickiness and durability (plus reassure the electorate that their vote for Independence won’t be part of a tiny majority).
A smoothed path will remove obstacles, delay and costs, and improve orderliness and resilience should events threaten to derail progress.
A no-fault recognition of a vote for Independence as normal and natural will remove penalties and help with diplomatic integration.
All these will help towards a Scottish Independence that is more complete and robust.
A new codified constitution will allow us to stipulate health in the broadest sense as our prime directive.
You can claim your preferred method does all this but those are just words and I see no supporting arguments. I am not talking about perfection (if you are, it is a sign you are arguing in bad faith). Health has a developmental component, and if we botch the birth of an Independent Scotland we cannot necessarily patch it all better (we need to avoid a puppet government, a captured Establishment, military entanglements and a polluted environment for example), and the result may be a monster in the image of an imperial parent. Or as Shakespeare’s Macbeth (A3s2) says:
“Things bad begun make strong themselves by ill.”
Sleeping Dog
“My own preference is for a ‘high-bar, path-smoothed, no-fault’ route to Independence which comes from a codified constitution ending (or at least optionalising) the British Empire, although I don’t begrudge pursuing other paths in parallel, though support should grow organically and not forced through arbitrary hoops to arbitrary timescales.”
followed by
“You can claim your preferred method does all this but those are just words and I see no supporting arguments.”
betrays a total lack of insight, irony and self-awareness.
At best it’s authentic gibberish
@duncani, so what you are really saying is that any kind of Scottish Independence is a good result for you, even if it lasts like snow in summer? It’s a binary 1–0 job’s-a-good-‘un? There’s no bad case scenario? (I take it the ‘lack of self-awareness’ is just Internet ad hominem or quite likely projection from a received rebuke)
Negotiation will be needed for a political settlement. The kinds of gains I mention can be achieved through negotiation, and diplomats might be able to exchange a high bar for a smooth path. It’s not a zero-sum game. We’d be fools to build our house upon the sand if we can hold out for a rock.
Sleeping Dog
“@duncani, so what you are really saying is that any kind of Scottish Independence is a good result for you, even if it lasts like snow in summer? It’s a binary 1–0 job’s-a-good-‘un? There’s no bad case scenario?”
What I am saying is that there is one way to restore Scotland’ nation-state status and that it the #ManifestoForIndependence. You would do well to read it. It has 6 simple steps from where we are to where we want to be. These are tangible and measurable. You previously talked of ‘word salad’ without the slightest sense of awareness of the language you use actually amounts to. It is meaningless.
The only ‘bad case scenario’ is remaining an extension of England as the UK.
“Negotiation will be needed for a political settlement. The kinds of gains I mention can be achieved through negotiation, and diplomats might be able to exchange a high bar for a smooth path. It’s not a zero-sum game. We’d be fools to build our house upon the sand if we can hold out for a rock.”
The act of restoring Scotland’s nation-state status is non-negotiable, if the people so choose. That is, if you believe the people of Scotland are sovereign in their own land. If you believe, as may be the case, that the people are only sovereign subject to the agreement of a foreign power then you do not believe that they are sovereign in any sense at all.
A ‘political settlement’ may be negotiated thereafter regarding assets, liabilities, trade, borders etc. The will of the Scottish people is not a bargaining chip.
John Swinney appears to be the main advertising machine for Reform in Scotland. I wonder if that is deliberate?
As for child poverty, I don’t think there is any way that anything like the amount of families cited in the Scottish governments figures for child poverty would qualify for child benefit, which is the means test used by the Scottish government for their own child benefit scheme.
The prospects are ominous, the opportunity is tremendous, the solution is simple!
The prospects are ominous! –
People are demanding change from years of decline in living standards and, for many , continued poverty.
In England, the majority seem inclined to choose Reform as the vehicle for change and therefore imposing same change on Scotland!
The opportunity is tremendous! –
The people of Scotland have the unique opportunity to choose Independence as a different path – real change!
With all that people have previously relied on, believed or believed in , fundamentally failing to deliver better future prospects, the people of Scotland can take responsibility to build a new approach for themselves .
The solution is simple! –
Encourage all those seeking a new direction to join the SNP and make that new direction a reality by participating in shaping an even better Scotland and then voting to deliver it.
Not any individuals vision of an Independent Scotland but the fruit of everyone’s labour!
We don’t need a new movement, route or anything else we just need to enerhise and use more effectively what is already there …gie it wings !