This is what community looks like
You could hear it before you could see it. Having stepped off the train from Glasgow Queen Street for merely a few seconds, the sounds of joyful drums, cheering, chanting and singing rang out around the station. Had anyone taken a right directly into Buchanan Street, you might have thought you were missing a carnival of celebration.
In one sense that’s exactly what it was. Having heard of a fascist “pro-UK” rally gathering in George Square, Scotland’s trade unions, faith groups, anti-racist organisations, socialist and pro-independence activists united in a counter protest to celebrate a vision of diversity and inclusivity. The rainbow coalition was immediately evident from the thousands of progressives carrying flags, ranging from Palestine, Pakistan, Ukraine, Scotland, LGBTQ+, Antifa, Extinction Rebellion, trade union logos and many I did not even recognise.
“We’re in really good spirits,” Craig Anderson told me, as the crowd danced to Bella Ciao in the background. Craig came with his colleagues from the Communication Worker’s Union (CWU). “We’re here with different organisations and trade unions, including organisations supporting foodbanks, and various other community groups. It’s been a really good atmosphere, quite relaxed and all in good spirits giving an important message.”
What truly caught my eye from the richly diverse crowd was one dominant group of people – the youth. Young people were the heart and soul of the anti-fascist rally, and their passion was on display for all to see.
Morgan Lewis-Wilson, a member of Scottish Socialist Youth and the Radical Independence Campaign, expressed a deep sense of responsibility: “For me, this is a demonstration against the ideals of Britain… against what was originally called a unionist rally and has now been co-opted by fascists.” For Morgan, the event was not just about opposing fascism but also standing up for a vision of Scotland’s future—one rooted in independence and social justice. The event, in his eyes, is part of a broader movement to transform the country into an independent, humanitarian and socialist republic.
“Why have I joined radical independence, the socialist bloc and the red bloc? It’s because I believe that the pathway in our future, has to be coordinated and has to be organised. If we are going to change the fabric of this country, whether to be a humanitarian socialist republic, and hopefully a Scottish republic, we need to have some kind of strategy, we need to have some guiding principles that will lead us towards that future.”
Kirsten Murray, chair of Scottish Socialist Youth, echoed this sentiment, emphasising the historical legacy of Scottish solidarity with global struggles. “I remember hearing stories by my gran and grandpa going to a protest for the release of Nelson Mandela… that’s just such an important part of Glasgow’s history.” For Murray, the rally was a continuation of this tradition, reinforcing that Scotland is a place where “people should feel welcome,” and that the ideals of independence are deeply intertwined with inclusivity and fairness.
A Unite representative, who wished to remain anonymous, echoed these sentiments, emphasising that the turnout symbolised Scotland’s commitment to supporting vulnerable people, including refugees. “It’s fantastic seeing so many people coming out to oppose racism in Scotland, and support refugees and people who are facing the worst conditions you can imagine,” they said. This strong sense of solidarity with oppressed communities was shared by all.
Photo credit: Clare Francesca
Opposite the rally of progressives was an entirely different story. A much smaller gathering of predominantly middle-aged white men had little to celebrate or even smile about. The two most dominant flags they had to share was the Union Jack and the flag of Israel, waved with cries of “we are the people” and “god save the queen”. With each cry they attempted to give an impression of confidence, only to turn a gammon red with frustration as progressives sung in a far louder, happier and united voice. Regular Glaswegians were left aghast at the sight of these men, proudly proclaiming their love for Zionism and King Charles, standing next others who frequently gave Nazi salutes throughout the day.
Whilst progressives beamed with positive energy, many spoke of the dangers of complacency, warning that silence in the face of injustice can have dire consequences. For Kirsten Murray, the rally was about showing that Scotland’s values were ones of inclusion and fairness. She believed that by standing up now, Scotland could begin to build the kind of country it wanted to become in the future. “It’s for everyone. It’s for fairness, for standing up for what is right,” she said, reiterating that Scotland’s independence movement should be aligned with a vision of inclusivity.
The importance of personal participation in such events was also highlighted by Clair Lowe from Amnesty International’s Glasgow West branch. “It’s not just something you can say at a dinner party, it is something you need to show up, show your face, shake hands with people and look them in the eye.” For Lowe, the rally wasn’t just a symbolic gesture but a necessary demonstration of Glasgow’s commitment to being a welcoming city. She remarked that, despite the far-right presence, “the people on the other side of that line are a tiny minority… and the people they’re against are not the ones arriving in boats, but those flying in helicopters.”
“I think it’s really exciting to see a lot of people that I haven’t seen a protests or solidarity gatherings before. I’ve met a few people today who are like ‘What do we do? This is my first time at a solidarity Gathering!’ which is fantastic. I think people in Glasgow really realised we cannot be complacent and we have to show up, and we are a huge, huge majority in Glasgow.”
Jenni Gunn from the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) emphasised the long-standing role trade unions have played in resisting fascism. “We’ve got a long and proud history of standing up against racism, standing up against fascism.” Gunn pointed out that fascists often target trade unionists and working-class communities, making it even more critical for workers to stand united. “It’s not just about standing up against racism and fascism, it’s also about standing up for our members… many of our members work in the asylum service and have come under attack by the far-right in these demonstrations across the country.”
Gunn also shared a similar message to Lowe, telling me “The real enemy doesn’t come by dinghy boats, he comes by limousine. He comes by private jet. And I think that’s the message that we need to get out of these people. That we understand a lot of our communities are suffering, but that’s not the fault of refugees and it is not the fault of migrants, who bring a lot to our society.”
Despite the incredible turnout by progressives, not every organisation was keen to participate. One group was Believe in Scotland, the largest pro-independence campaign in the country. Despite commanding tens of thousands of members across Scotland, they made the decision not to join anti-racist organisations and trade unions in Glasgow. Their absence did not go unnoticed.
Photo credit: Clare Francesca
Kirsten Murray expressed her disappointment, pointing out that the values of independence and social justice should go hand in hand. “I just think for me that is not what independence is about. I think independence started as a way for us to feel like we were being heard from feeling so disconnected from Westminster. It’s quite rich for them (Believe in Scotland) to turn around and not show that same respect for other people in the world.” For Murray, attending the rally was a way to demonstrate that an independent Scotland should be open and inclusive, welcoming to all.
Clair Lowe from Amnesty International was similarly perplexed by their absence. “I’m quite surprised they didn’t come because if you believe in Scotland, then you should believe everybody in Scotland should be part of it,” she said. For Lowe, the rally was about more than just opposing fascism; it was about demonstrating the values of a progressive Scotland. She speculated that perhaps Believe in Scotland had fears of being targeted by the far-right but reassured them, “You are welcome here. Believe in Scotland, please come next time because we would love to have you showing that you are supporting a diverse Scotland.”
Craig Anderson took a more direct approach, urging organisations like Believe in Scotland to actively participate in future demonstrations. “We’re here for all our members. What I would say to the people on the other side of the demonstration is to open their eyes to the full argument.” Anderson’s message was that those who envision a fairer, more equal Scotland must be visible and vocal in opposing far-right narratives, not only for refugees but for their own members, many of whom come from diverse backgrounds.
“We’re proud to actually work with organisations in supporting Asylum seeker charities. At the end of the day what I would be saying is to other organisations is come out, be seen and be heard.”
Whilst members of Believe in Scotland did consider attending in an official capacity, the organisation’s founder, businessman Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp, opened their monthly meeting by discouraging official attendance. After citing reasons for potential violence, members eventually agreed not to attend.
No large-scale violence occurred, as most groups in attendance already suspected would be the case. “If you’re scared, that’s fine, that’s human. It’s okay to be scared. A lot of us are scared. But terrible things happen when good people stand by and do nothing.” Said Morgan. His message was clear: inaction could lead to a future of greater inequality, with Wilson warning of “disruption in our way of life, if it means climate change, resource scarcity, geopolitical tensions.” He stressed that change was inevitable, but the question was whether that change would be for the better or worse, depending on whether people stood up for their values.
Jenni Gunn further encouraged collaboration between groups like Believe in Scotland and the trade unions, noting that difficult conversations are often necessary but worthwhile. “We talked to our branches, we talked to our reps, we talked to our activists and asked them to go up to their members and have those quite difficult conversations about why it’s important for us to be here today.” Gunn saw the unions as playing a pivotal role in engaging other groups and believes there is much to learn from how unions mobilise their members for such events. “When working-class people stand together, we can make things better. That counts for challenging racism. It counts for building better lives for our communities.”
Believe in Scotland have recently struggled to pull in an active youth base in their organisation, which they want to lead in setting up a national Constitutional Convention. Whilst Believe in Scotland are keen for civic Scotland to participate in a large discussion on democracy, it seems odd that they were less than willing to support civic Scotland in standing up against racism.
Other independence leaders did not share this same thinking. Large contingents of the Scottish Green Party, including their co-leader Patrick Harvie, proudly gathered amongst progressives. There was no fear or concern amongst their ranks, only joy and laughter.
As I left to take the train back to Stirling, it suddenly struck me that the events in George Square were far more than a rally. It was a glimpse into the Scotland of tomorrow. The last time I had felt such hope and optimism was in the summer months of 2014, where similarly thousands of activists sung, danced and cheered together in a campaign to build a more democratic, inclusive, and equal Scotland.
In a previous article I spoke about the need for the independence movement to grow, and instead become a national movement, writing:
“Deep in our country’s beating heart is an army of activists who share the same vision of Scotland as the mainstream independence movement. It is the thousands social justice campaigners who rallied with Black Lives Matter and Scotland’s LGBTQ+ community, and sent the Home Office to think again during the Kenmure Street protests. It is the thousands of climate youth activists, bravely standing up against oil giants and face frequent arrests to save our environment from collapse. It is Scotland’s international community, who have rallied on an almost weekly basis to condemn the genocide in Gaza and campaign for Scotland’s return to the European Union. It is the trade unionists who formed Enough is Enough, selling out venues for political rallies and marching in the tens of thousands for better pay and conditions.”
That was exactly what we saw in George Square. For one day we saw the potential for a national grassroots movement that could transform Scotland into the progressive nation so many of us want to build. What we saw was a progressive front that, united, would have unrivalled political and activist power. And whilst our political elite at Westminster look set to continue their demonisation of refugees and asylum seekers, along with their austerity agenda, my heart still holds fiery hope that the Scotland of tomorrow is more than a distant dream.
Cameron – thanks for this report – it is heartening to see how my fellow Scots overwhelmingly rejected the people espousing anti-immigrant views in Glasgow yesterday
I note from reading the Guardian yesterday that Libby Brooks reported that the anti-immigration supporters were primarily draped in union flags and saltire. This does not correlate with your observation of the anti-immigrant supporters displaying mainly union and Israeli flags?
Hi John. There were a few saltires on the fascist side of the rally. However there was clearly a large majority of Union Jacks, and a handful of Israel flags. Some flags were split in half between both Israel/UK flags. Saltires on the fascist side were minimal.
Thanks Cameron – the picture in Guardian also did not reflect Libby Brooks report on this issue.
Flags are not a big issue to me but accurate, unbiased reporting is.
A heart warming article Cameron.
Compare this to BBC reporting of the same event
Similarly, I’ve seen absolutely no mention of it on MSN from the likes of the Telegraph, Mail & Express who churn out anti-SNP / anti-independence articles like confetti. It’s almost like they’re disappointed and the loyalists have let the side down.
Yes, They wanted riots like there were in English towns.
I remember various columnists and politicians (eg Iain McWhirter & ACH) quickly telling everyone that lack of riots in Scotland was nothing to do with nationality but differing circumstances. What they didn’t think through is that many supporters of independence would agree – we are not particularly different in Scotland but there are different circumstances in Scotland which require different political solutions eg drug deaths. Unfortunately we often cannot implement the different policies required because of Westminster influence and power hence we consider independence the most appropriate political solution for the 21st century.
Ill health sadly prevented my getting through to Glasgow for the rally but it is so heartwarming to see the thousands of people who turned up to show what an inclusive caring Scotland can be. This was a shining example of the society we can develop in an independent Scotland, well done all !!
Yet there is no such thing as the LGBTQ+ community, and nothing in the L*G*B*T constellation that I can think of as progressive. Just a few hundred kilometres across the North Sea, the far-right anti-immigrant party of Geert Wilders topped the polls in the Netherlands.
“According to Wilders, the LGBT community in Europe is threatened by mass immigration from the Muslim world. He said that ‘We were always one of the top parties that were supported by (the gay) community. We believe that like Christians and Jews and women and journalists, gay people are also one of the first to pay the price of … Islamization.'”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders#Views_on_LGBT_community
The grubby clinging to power of the Greens leadership is anything but progressive (“will nobody think of our careers!”). The closed-door anti-science machinations of the BMA is anything but progressive. Fascism has historically been very gay, and links between militarism, unionism, Empire and male homosexuality in Britain have been strong (indeed encouraged in British elite schools).
As for trade unionists, who is making all those weapons that the British sell to the likes of Israel?
I have no idea who Believe in Scotland are. But I don’t see any communities here (unlike the actual communities who rallied to defend their local asylum centres against far-right rioters, and those didn’t seem to have spokespeople for all).
What? This is incoherent nonsense, pal. Maybe stick to your day job.
That post is a shocker SD. Why should LGBTQ+ people carry the can for gay fascists any more than white people carry the can for white fascists?
@Tom Ultuous, that is exactly my point: they shouldn’t. The idea of a LGBTQ community, according to Huw Lemmey and Ben Miller (Bad Gays: a Homosexual History) was invented as power bloc (they attribute this to Harry Hay, founder of Mattachine Society) to present fictitious unity at a scale to mobilise (positive) social change, which was then betrayed by factionalism once one group got what it wanted. In reality, LGBTQ groups are no more ‘progressive’ than trade unions: they are interest groups. Some trade unions are highly reactionary and right-wing, and many trade unionists make the weapons that Israel uses to carry out genocide. What is controversial about that description?
Now, the political power behind the notion of a LGBTQ community starts to fade as soon as distinctions emerge. I understand that the BBC reported LGBTQ identity of staff as a bloc to Ofcom, but Ofcom wanted to break that down, and look at role-and-rank patterns. Once that picture appears, it is unlikely that the idea of a LGBTQ community within the BBC will survive. The fall from grace of trans-era Stonewall is likely to provide another salutary example.
I am saying, in simple terms that seem to have escaped you, that whatever Geert Wilder says about the LGBTQ community in Europe is as false as what anyone else says about the LGBTQ community, because it doesn’t exist. Therefore there can be no reflection on individual LGBTQ+ people, who will likely have as varied political outlooks as society as a whole (while some LGBTQ people will deny or not admit being part of any such community anyway, or make distinctions that are not currently held to be ‘mainstream’).
Where the concept of an LGBTQ community serves Western politicians internationally is to use LGBTQ rights as a rod to bash other countries, as Qatar was bashed during its hosting of the football World Cup, despite the USA being a fouler country in almost every imaginable way and hosting the next one without such opprobrium (while being allied to grotesquely oppressive regimes). For European countries like the Netherlands, they have appalling colonial histories, racism, environmental destruction… so they are flailing around for diplomatic capital. This despite those same European colonial powers imposing patriarchal Christianity and anti-gay laws in the very countries they now criticise. Which is why the British Commonwealth and ex-colonies have some of the most severe jurisdictions in the world. Were the LGBTQ community of Qatar asked first about the advisability of Westerners beating down on their country? No they were not (partly because that community doesn’t exist either).
This is the Observer view on the BMA, for reference:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/sep/07/bma-stance-on-cass-review-of-transgender-care-has-damaged-its-reputation
Try addressing some of the factual statements in my comments next time.
From what I read Greet Wilders is a ‘non-weeshter’ (along the lines of Laurence Fox) who’s anti-trans whilst “greenwashing” himself with comments about the trans movement giving “decent gay and bisexual people a bad name”. Does that ring a bell with you? And that isn’t the Observer view on the BMA, it’s the view of a “leading member of the BMA”.
FFS, making out the LGBTQ+ group and trade unions were hypocrites to attend because there were gay fascists (were they members of LGBTQ+) and some trade unions represent people working in the arms trade doesn’t sound like the inclusive Scotland I’m hoping for.
@Tom Ultuous, once again, you (deliberately?) miss the point. I wonder… if you identify as autistic, or have been diagnosed such? If so, I would break down the argument differently and use different examples. I went on a course, and was told an autistic joke: “Once you’ve met one autistic person, you’ve met one autistic person.” which is a warning against stereotypes. I repeat the same warning, whether for valorisation or demonisation. Incidentally, I’ve noticed online trends for autism separatism and autism supremacy which are predictable outcomes of stereotyping victimisation and valorisation. As Bart Simpson says, “I thought they were supposed to be better than us!” A dangerous conditioning.
I already made it clear (I thought) that what the popular Dutch politician Geert Wilders says about the (non-existent) LGBTQ community cannot be credited, but polls have reportedly found his party is very popular with gay men there. Go check for yourself.
The Observer article was written by their Health Policy Editor, Denis Campbell, quoting “a leading member of the BMA, Jacky Davis”. If I’d linked instead to Jacky Davis’ article, you would certainly be correct. But yes, I could have worded that better to avoid giving the impression that the Observer’s Health Policy Editor was taking sides, which is one literal interpretation (and one reason I asked if you were autistic). But there are factual statements in that report so feel free to dispute any of them.
You seem to want a community of unity in an Independent Scotland, which sounds a little bit totalitarian to me. Why not accept plurality of opinion and, yes, diversity? There’s nothing detectably hypocritical in a trade unionist consistently opposing the arms trade in word and deed (we cannot know their innermost thoughts), but they cannot do that while working for the arms industry that they know sells arms abroad.
A significant problem with the way you are arguing is that you represent people as hypocrites (perhaps even ‘class’ traitors) for dissenting from positions they never professed in the first place, on grounds of belonging to a community which doesn’t exist. And now you’re falling even further into your own categorisation errors because you feel you have to resort to the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy to decide post-hoc whether somebody *really* belongs to the ‘LGBTQ community’ (which as I’ve said repeatedly, doesn’t exist, so therefore isn’t warping my judgement).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
You’ve become an unbearable pub bore since you took up the Women-Won’t-Weesht stance SD. Where did the BMA come from anyway? Were they represented at the protest?
@Tom Ultuous, ah. So how much misogyny is there in your ‘LGBTQ community’?
I wasn’t the the one standing with the union jack wavers with their “Sturgeon Out” posters. It’s no coincidence your opening post was aimed at the LGBTQ+, the Greens and the BMA. Again I ask, how did the latter enter your equation? I was even requested to debate their stance.
@Tom Ultuous, my point was directed against the phrasing and false uses of ‘community’, which as Wikipedia says can be a ‘weasel word’, as in:
“Another example from international politics is use of the phrase ‘the international community’ to imply a false unanimity.”
On the notion that trade unions somehow comprise such a community, none less than Mick Lynch has written to disabuse the nation of the notion:
“This fantasy that has been concocted in the minds of corporate media editors is a fiction that ignores a boring truth: trade unions and their members and general secretaries are patiently and methodically setting about the task of getting the best deals they can for their members. …
“It is the most normal and most important function of a trade union, as anyone with an iota of experience in these matters will tell you.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/sep/02/trade-unions-workers-rights-labour-mick-lynch
Why shouldn’t those “middle-aged white men” flying “the Union Jack and the flag of Israel” have attended as loving couples, or in hope of a tryst with a soul-mate, or plan an evening at the drag club, or just hoping to relax post-protest with a quiet evening listening to the soothing homoerotic football commentary of arch-unionist Ally McCoist? It was the Conservative and Unionist Party which brought in same-sex marriage, after all. Some things are orthogonal to customary left–right conceptions of political ideology.
So, if the Editor had heeded my earlier appeal to deprecate such use of ‘community’ I wouldn’t have bothered commenting here. But as it stands, ‘community’ is being used as a weasel word, sometimes banal but sometimes apparently as a dog whistle to imply, as Wikipedia says, a false unanimity. After all, communities can have spokespeople, and collective moods, even leaders etc. In most uses they clearly exclude as well include. I used the BMA example because it is illustratively intersectional: the conflict between two communities, one fictitious and the other (due to objective closeness like membership of a single professional body) less so.
You can’t just write an overly convoluted spiel, and then call anyone who doesn’t immediately understand it ‘autistic’. Are you even autistic yourself? If you are, okay, but that is not representative of autistic thinking. If you aren’t, you have no right to use that type of labelling of someone. Deeply ableist comment.
@C, some people prefer a more structured argument to explore complexity, rather than an argument relying more on nuanced abstraction. If the former, I would explain using some framework like intersectionality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
If the latter, I would ask why ‘progress’ is such a problematic word given its historical associations with white European Christian colonialism. Those unionists may argue that the British Empire was ‘progressive’, for example, and maybe even that white people are ‘progressive’ (bar the odd bad apple etc). This is about making arguments accessible by adapting to different preferences.
Social conservatism is relative and to some extent generational, and I don’t use it in the opposing sense to ‘progressive’. The Red Guards in China’s Cultural Revolution, which I’m currently reading about, are an interesting example, largely young people professing to defend a revolution that their parents’ and grandparents’ generations took part in. Were the Red Guards socially conservative, then? Could they be described as a ‘community’, or did their factionalism (among other divisions) falsify that categorisation?
When I do talk about social progress, I generally mean the philosophical sense of metaphorically progressing towards sunlight from the depths of the Cave of Shadows. That is, in the sense of throwing off superstitions, biases, deceptions and national myths (and so on).
You are correct in the sense there is no generalised LGBT community. But it is is a bit more nuanced in that as there are communities of LGBT people who coalesce to some degree around particular world views. What is wrong is to assume that that grouping represents the LGBT people as a whole as that is clearly nonsense but is indeed what those who use the phrase are attempting to do. And by doing so they are in fact excluding LGBT people who do not share that world view, almost disowning them and certainly, be default, excluding them.
@Niemand, I’m sure I’ve referenced the Guardian and Observer style guide before on this:
“community
“the subediting community is encouraged to weed out examples of this shockingly overused word”
OK, it’s jokey, but the point is about being professional (communicators).
https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-c
I accept your reasoning (though I would still reserve ‘community’ for more objectively sound cases).
To take an example as far away as I can think of, in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, is Shylock part of the same community as the Christian merchants of Venice he talks to (given that Jews are forced to domicile in the ghetto)? Here’s what Shylock says:
“I will buy with you, sell with you, talk
with you, walk with you, and so following; but I
will not eat with you, drink with you, nor pray with
you.”
The main uses of ‘community’ in the above article are all too reminiscent (to my mind) of the ‘middle Scotland’ fake community pushed by unionists, Spectator writers and Lord Parakeet the Cacophonist (although I accept that a food bank may serve a community). I’d advise Bella to deprecate its usage (sub-editing can improve speech).
Sadly the cat is well and truly out of the bag though. ‘LGBT+ community’ is used across the board in nearly all media.
In my experience these sort of blanket categorisations are increasingly used for all sort of things. My own bugbear is the use of named generations – Gen Z and all the rest.
Such ghettoisations are regressive.
@Niemand, language changes, and Bella can set its own examples of what the editorship thinks best practice, but yes, I agree (and your ‘generations’ is an example of unnecessary divisiveness and stereotyping, and probably related to marketing).
One thing to consider is that I think the reason for the idea of an LGB community is that if you go back several decades (to the 80s say), homophobia in society was much more prevalent so I think it is right to say LGB people were a community of the oppressed and it mattered not what other world views. politics people had. The now pretty broad acceptance of homosexuality in society and the addition of the ‘T’ and ‘+’ to the ‘constellation’ (causing disquiet among many LGB people in fact) has rendered that idea of a community as now meaningless and for some, the complete opposite.
(And btw, I totally agree with you about the BMA – their recent statement about the Cass report was shockingly unscientific and pandering to debunked criticisms, and it is was good to see many doctors speaking out against that statement).
“A glimpse into the Scotland of Tomorrow.”
A few hundred folk in Glasgow?Seriously?There were more people in the Weatherspoons.
That reminds me,what happens to Tennents Lager in this new Scotland?Judging by the censorious nature of the SNP I’m not hopeful.
Seething loyalist (NAP).
Thank you Cameron! It’s good to read such a positive, upbeat piece.
I share your disappointment that Believe in Scotland chose not to take part. Unfortunately, if my own Yes group is anything to go by, the view that the independence movement should keep its distance was widespread. I fear that, by opting out from the wider mobilisations in civil society such as this one, the independence movement risks becoming irrelevant.
Paddy – I agree with your comment. The far right anti immigrant supporters would not contain many people or supporters liable to support Scottish independence (recent Youguv poll on social attitudes in Scotland demonstrated this).A presence from the independence movement amongst the much larger number of people demonstrating against the far right would help enthuse some of those present and observing to independence cause.
The SNP do appear somewhat cowed by events of last few years and lacking in confidence and I wonder if this is also becoming prevalent in wider independence movement?
There’s no need for this to descend into slagging.
Can people try and respond to issues of substance, or I’ll disable comments on this post. Thank you.
Cameron Archibald makes the same mistake that R I S E made a few years back. He extrapolates from a gathering (mainly) of activists. If he looks at the recent General Election result, he will see that the losers are the SNP and the Tories. The winners are Labour who increased their vote by 16.7%, Reform, who increase theirs by 6.5% and the Scottish Greens whose vote went up by 2.8%.
There is little comfort in these figures for the Scottish Left.
Florian – under FPTP system the only winners were Labour, the main losers were the SNP.
SNP voters either switched to Labour, stayed at home or a small number switched to Greens.
The Tories voters either switched to Reform or Labour and some stayed at home.
I would say that overall there was a redistribution of votes amongst so called left and right of politics rather than a switch between left and right.
Overall the right (Tories and Reform) attracted a considerably smaller section of electorate in Scotland than England as per previous General Elections.