Pages tagged with "Believe in Scotland"

When Shell announced the biggest profits in its history - £32.2 billion pounds for 2022 on Thursday - the BBC morning news flagship, the ‘Today’ programme gave listeners misleading information about how much tax it is paying in the UK compared to other countries. 

The show’s journalists gave the erroneous impression that the UK is getting a similar amount of tax from Shell as elsewhere - but in fact, because of the UK’s tax regime, Shell made no ‘taxable profit’ in the UK in the first three quarters of the year 2022 and paid no windfall tax at all. It may pay a small amount of windfall tax to the UK for the last quarter but the figure is so far unclear.  

Shell produces about 120,000 barrels of oil a day equivalent from the UK continental shelf, 90% of which is in Scottish waters - but it makes no taxable profit on that. 

FT energy correspondent David Sheppard wrote: “A windfall tax that raises a big fat doughnut from one of the UK’s largest oil and gas producers at a time of record prices is, by its very definition, imperfect, even if Shell has indicated it expects to start paying tax in the UK... A system that taxed oil and gas production first rather than zeroing in on profits would ensure the government’s take from the exploitation of an irreplaceable natural resource was never zero.”

Robinson: “It’s a little bit higher in other countries” - hmm, no - it is SO much higher in other countries!

Presenter Nick Robinson said: “There is a lot of tax being paid by these companies already. Shell is paying 75% of its UK-based profits in tax - it is a little bit higher in other countries but not much. We are talking of companies that are paying a lot more in corporate taxes than most.”

Robinson did not mention that Shell, which moved its HQ from the Netherlands to London a year ago, has made no taxable profit in the UK since 2017.  In contrast, Shell paid £3.7 billion to the Norwegian state in 2021 for example, far more than it paid in the UK. where since 2016, its subsidies have outweighed the tax it has paid.  

Shell also distributed $26bn to shareholders in 2022 including $18bn in share buybacks. Tax expert Dan Neidle argues that it would be appropriate for the UK to levy a one-off tax on Shell’s UK-based global HQ. “Shell is crying out to be taxed more,” he told the Financial Times.

“It’s not easy to design a windfall tax”, Today’s business apologist - sorry, business editor - explained

Business editor Simon Jack implied that Shell should be allowed to keep its massive profits - the highest a UK headquartered company has ever made - because it “got no subsidy” when oil prices fell. 

Simon Jack told listeners: “It’s not easy to design a windfall tax. Its not the highest in the world - its higher in Nigeria and Norway but it’s one of the highest in the world, and just a reminder that Shell makes 95% of its money and that is taxed elsewhere in the world not here in the UK"

Robinson asked Jack: “How do governments deal with these record energy profits which may be just short term?”

Jack said: “It's very volatile prices. For example, when the price of oil collapsed, Shell will say ‘No-one offered to subsidise our losses when we lost billions in those years so this is the flipside of that’. There is obvious outrage at these numbers, but, like I say, designing a windfall tax is not straightforward for a UK-domiciled company which makes 95% of its money elsewhere in the world and is taxed elsewhere in the world."

Not true - since the oil tax regime changed, Shell has benefited from taxpayer support!

If you look at GERS, the account of Scotland’s finances, you can see a change coming through after 2015/16, when the UK government started to tax the sector differently. The effect of the UK’s tax changes were that many private companies and their shareholders became net recipients of taxpayers’ money.

This was ostensibly done to increase investment and to protect jobs as the oil price fell – but Aberdeen was hit harder than Norway, which continued to tax energy firms at its usual high rate. Rebates were not specifically linked to any commitment to save jobs. In 2016 Shell, having benefitted from tax rebates from the UK Government and having made many thousands of workers redundant, went on to declare the world’s largest shareholder profit dividend that year. 

Could there be a political reason for under-taxing oil production from Scotland?

The UK Government now takes much more tax on oil and gas at the pump or when heating oil is purchased. In 2022-23, fuel duties are expected to raise £25 billion. Very little of that is credited to Scotland’s accounts. 

Some suspect that one reason for changing the North Sea tax regime is to lend weight to the Unionist argument that Scotland is too poor to become independent. 

Energy taxation is reserved to Westminster

Shell is not doing anything illegal - it is the UK government's political and ideological choice to give Shell tax rebates and subsidies. This is reserved to the UK government - the Scottish Parliament has no say on it. 

Westminster gives tax rebates to large oil companies to cover the cost of decommissioning rigs and fields and to explore for new oil fields. These tax deductions include an effective subsidy for any fossil fuel production -  but not for green investment. Writing in the Financial Times, Professor Michael Devereux at the Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation argues this has, in effect, created a subsidy for fossil fuel projects that otherwise would not go ahead.

Conclusion - BBC flagship news show sounds like propaganda

The BBC has come in for criticism recently for being too close to the Conservative Party, and to the world of big business. It has lost the trust of many in Scotland, where 1 in 7 people no longer pay the licence fee. Today’s misleading reporting of Shell’s historic profits, which in the UK came from exploiting Scotland’s energy resources, will do little to rebuild trust. 

The UK government is attacking workers’ rights in draconian new laws, which will be imposed on Scotland -  despite fierce opposition from Scotland’s democratically elected Parliament. 

The UK is also ripping up many workers’ rights that depend on EU laws - such as mandatory rest breaks and holiday pay for part-time workers. 

Meanwhile, the UK has slumped seven points to its lowest-ever place in an international ranking of government standards on honesty.

An independent Scotland would be able to get on with building a stronger, fairer country without being dragged down by the UK.

Nurses, teachers could be sacked for refusing to cross a picket line

The controversial “Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill”, which was voted through by the House of Commons this week, will apply to Scotland. An amendment which would give the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments a say was rejected by the Conservatives - the Labour Party abstained.  The Labour Party does not believe that employment law should be devolved to Holyrood.  

Under the Strikes Bill, some employees in the rail industry and emergency services would be forced to work during industrial action. They could be sacked if they refuse. There will be no right to appeal for workers who lose their jobs for refusing to cross a picket line. 

The Bill gives the UK government the power to expand this provision to education, nuclear and broader health services, if the government fails to reach voluntary agreement with these sectors. 

The new law will also give employers the right to seek a court injunction to prevent strikes, or to seek damages afterwards if they go ahead.

"Henry VIII clause" gives government ministers enormous power

The bill also contains a controversial "Henry VIII clause", which would allow UK government ministers to amend the legislation after it has become law without full parliamentary scrutiny. 

It was passed by the Commons on Monday with 315 votes to 246 but will face further scrutiny in the House of Lords before it becomes law. 

Bonfire of EU laws includes holiday pay for part-time workers and much more

The UK government plans to review or revoke all EU laws left on the UK statute book by the end of 2023 - which now amounts to around 3,700 regulations. The plan has attracted fierce criticism from business groups, legal experts, trade unions and environmental groups. They warn that rushing the review will create costly and destabilising legal uncertainty.

Unison warns that : “Many legal improvements to workers’ rights in the UK, including UNISON’s recent Supreme Court victory that won new holiday rights for part-time workers, are reliant on the courts’ interpretations of EU law, and could be lost. Without the shield of EU law, workers in the UK will be exposed to an Americanised, hire-and-fire culture that makes work more insecure and dangerous.” 

Legislation due to be binned by the UK includes: working time regulations which give workers the right to legal rest breaks; rights for part-time workers to be treated equally with full-time workers; maternity and paternity leave (a recent case giving these rights to Uber drivers depended on EU laws); rights for workers whose company is acquired by another firm, and many more.

The UK slumped to its lowest-ever rating on the Transparency International Corruptions Perceptions Index. 

Meanwhile, with the UK government mired in sleaze, Britain’s international ranking for uncorrupt and honest government is the lowest it has ever been.

There have been a series of scandals, from Nadhim Zahawi’s sacking over his tax affairs, to the BBC chair Richard Sharp’s involvement in the financial affairs of Boris Johnson at the time Johnson appointed him to the job. There have also been allegations of corruption around public contracts given out by UK government ministers.

In the latest Transparency International Corruptions Perceptions Index, the UK’s score dropped by 5 points to 73, resulting in the UK’s position falling from 11th to 18th in the global table - behind countries like Estonia and Uruguay.

Only five of the 180 countries assessed for the 2022 Index saw their year-on-year scores drop by five or more points: the UK (-5), Qatar (-5), Myanmar (-5), Azerbaijan (-7) and Oman (-8).

An independent Scotland can build a brighter future

Scotland is saddled with a right-wing UK government it did not elect. This new battle over basic rights is going to consume time and energy that would be better spent elsewhere. 

As part of the UK, Scotland is now being dragged down the international rankings for honest government. Scotland doesn’t need that.

Meanwhile, the Labour Party opposes devolving employment law to Holyrood. It has the same tired old offer for Scotland - long periods of Conservative rule are a price worth paying to be part of the UK. That’s a bad deal. Scotland can do better. 

With independence, Scotland can build a stronger, fairer society, more like the Scandinavian model than what the UK is offering. 

The start of the year has seen keynote speeches from the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and a response from opposition leader Keir Starmer. Both proclaimed they were setting their visions and their priorities for UK governance. One glaring similarity between the two speeches is that they both largely ignored Scotland and the other devolved nations, even implying that Scotland as no more important than an English region.  In particular Starmer's clumsy attempt to suggest similarities between Brexit and Scottish independence demonstrates that he and his New Labour Party have zero understanding of Scotland nor any interest in working in the interests of Scotland.

Sunak did not even manage to say the word “Scotland”

Sunak didn't even mention the words Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland. He used the term “our Union” just once and talked about his priorities being enacted across the UK as a whole, implying that Scotland and the other two nations are no different to the English regions. Far from the previous 'family of nations' narrative or that 'Scotland should lead the UK not leave it', he failed to acknowledge the existence of devolution and ignored the different electoral priorities of the Scottish government.

Sunak did not acknowledge that the policy areas covered by many of his pledges are devolved and he did not discuss mending fences with the Scottish government. 

Nor did he mention dealing with the Northern Irish protocol - surely one of the most pressing issues facing the UK Prime Minister. Getting this wrong could precipitate retaliation from the EU that could deepen the cost of living crisis. The Northern Ireland Assembly (Stormont) is currently suspended and the people of Northern Ireland are engulfed in a constitutional crisis that is a direct result of Brexit.

Sunak’s priorities are anglocentric. He has no understanding or interest in the specific issues affecting Scotland and this speech confirms that he views Scotland merely as an unimportant region of England. 

Stamer tried to conflate support for Scottish independence with support for Brexit

Meanwhile, Keir Starmer claimed both the Brexit vote and the Yes vote in the first independence referendum were motivated by the same political goals. He said that both would be addressed in a “Take Back Control” bill - a bill which has nothing to offer Scotland.

Starmer says of Brexit: “As I went around the country, campaigning for Remain, I couldn’t disagree with the basic case so many Leave voters made to me. People who wanted public services they could rely on. High streets they could be proud of. Opportunities for the next generation. And all of this in their town or city. It was the same in the Scottish referendum in 2014 – many of those who voted ‘yes’ did so for similar reasons."

By likening Brexit to independence, Starmer hopes will put Scottish voters off - and he won't acknowledge that the 2014 'No" campaign told Scots that was the best way to retain EU membership, or that the vision of an independent Scotland in the EU is raising support for independence now. At the same time, he is committing his party to the impossible task of making Brexit work, while suggesting the UK has too many immigrants, in another attempt to curry favour with English right-wing voters. 

Starmer’s “Take back Control” bill offers nothing to Scotland

Starmer made no acknowledgement at all of the disastrous consequences of Brexit for the UK economy, for freedom of movement, for exports, imports or the loss of opportunity for both young and old.

Aping clarion calls of Brexiteers Farage and Johnson, he said his proposed “Take Back Control” bill would devolve powers over “employment support, transport, energy, climate change, housing, culture, childcare provision and how councils run their finances” - most of which are already devolved to Scotland - so either he doesn't know how the UK operates or he is announcing a full scale assault on devolution. 

Starmer also did not mention how he would negotiate with Scotland over its desire for full autonomy and for control of policies such as immigration, foreign policy, energy regulation and borrowing powers. 

Starmer talked about setting up a British energy company - “Great British Energy”. He talked about “clean British energy” being nine times cheaper than imported fossil fuels.  He did not acknowledge what is becoming an increasingly sore point of many Scots - that Scotland is one of the most energy-rich countries in the world - yet we pay some of the highest energy bills in the world. Scotland produces a large proportion of all of the energy produced in the UK but sees little benefit from that. 

The use of the sloganised name Great British Energy is based on his wish to distract people from the fact that a great deal of that cheaper renewable energy is actually Scottish. We also wonder if he is aware that there was a company called British Energy and it was the UK's largest electricity generation company by volume, before being taken over by EDF (Électricité de France) in 2009?  Nothing says Great British energy than selling your biggest energy provider to the French governments publicly owned energy monopoly!

Starmer referred to Glasgow and Dundee in his speech, but only as part of a list of dynamic UK cities. He made no reference to Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales as separate countries with separate governments, different issues and electoral priorities.

Two sides of the same coin - the UK parties have nothing to offer Scotland

The priorities of both UK Unionist parties are policies for England that chime with the electorate south of the border. The leaders not discuss or acknowledge the growing rift with Scotland, the increased support for independence or the Scottish dimension to the energy crisis, where Scotland produces enough renewable energy to power itself and also exports 39% of our electricity to the rest of the UK and yet Scots pay higher bills. 

Starmer addressed the fact that the UK’s economic problems are worse than comparable European countries but he failed to acknowledge the damaging reality of Brexit.  It seems that no matter who the next UK Prime Minister is neither will govern for the benefit of Scotland’s economy, environment, or our communities. 

The right-wing, ultra British nationalist Daily Express is not normally the first to make the case for Scottish independence - but an article calling Scotland “an energy goldmine” can only strengthen support for the country to run its own affairs. The headline  “UK handed energy 'jackpot' as Scotland's huge goldmine could export £25bn a year to EU” was an own goal for the Unionist propaganda sheet.

It seems the cat is out of the Unionist bag. Scotland is hugely rich in energy resources boats the Express - although in truth Scots currently see little benefit. In fact, thanks to a combination of UK government privatisation, poor regulation and general mismanagement, Scots pay some of the highest energy bills in the world and that is fuelling support for independence. As an independent country, Scotland could manage its own resources and achieve levels of prosperity similar to other energy-rich countries like Norway. 

“Scotland could soon lead the way in developing hydrogen”

The Daily Express reported that Scotland’s hydrogen exports will be worth a huge sum:

“The UK is set for a major energy boost, as Scotland's green hydrogen plans are set to be worth £25billion a year in exports alone by 2045. As the UK looks for ways to reach its legally binding commitment of net zero carbon emissions by 2050, while also ensuring its energy security, many have pointed to hydrogen as an answer. 

“The gas - which can be split out of water by electrolysis - can be used for cooking and heating and when burnt only produces water as a byproduct, rather than fossil fuels. According to Angus Robertson, the SNP MSP for Edinburgh Central and Constitution, External Affairs and Culture Secretary, Scotland could soon lead the way in developing hydrogen.”

“Scotland gifted with abundant energy resources”

The newspaper admits for once that Scotland is exceptionally rich in energy - although the country has little to show for the huge reserves of oil and gas that have been harvested from its waters.

“Scotland has been historically gifted with abundant energy reserves in the form of North Sea fossil fuels and is regarded to be the largest producer of oil and the second largest producer of gas in Europe.”

Now Scotland is embarking on a new era of potential energy wealth, the Daily Express reports.

“But as the world shifts away from dirty fossil fuels, the region has also been developing renewable energy potential, which Mr Robertson notes is enough to "satisfy our own domestic requirements and also be exported".

“Given the vast potential for offshore wind, Scotland recently launched the world's biggest licensing round for floating offshore wind energy with the potential to deliver 27.6 gigawatts (GW). “He wrote in the Edinburgh Evening News: "The 'ScotWind' project opens up the exciting prospect of making Scotland a world leader in hydrogen production, which can be used in fuel cells to generate electricity or power and heat buildings."

Yet the Daily Express constantly paints Scotland as “too poor” to be independent

Despite reporting in Scotland’s vast potential energy wealth, the Scottish Daily Express frequently carries articles suggesting that Scotland is too poor to be an independent country

For example, in October under the headline “Nicola Sturgeon 'insulting our intelligence' say Scottish Express readers who'll not 'vote for poverty' with the SNP”, the Express was scathing about the Scottish government’s report detailing economic plans for an independent Scotland Building a New Scotland: A stronger economy with independence. 

“Nicola Sturgeon claims it is a “careful and responsible phased approach” but a Scottish Daily Express reader said: "Careful and responsible - That's Sturgy-speak for careless and irresponsible". That was just one in a series of articles similarly scoffing at Scotland’s ability to run its own affairs. 

So why has this good news story about Scotland's renewable potential been published? Well, we wonder if the holiday season has meant that the political editor wasn't around to spike the economics editor's factual reporting and os the truth has slipped through the paper's propaganda firewall.

Scotland will be a prosperous independent country

Scotland has little to show for the huge fossil fuel resources harvested from the North Sea. Now that the renewable energy potential of Scotland is clear, many Scots see that as a second chance they do not want to see squandered by a UK government Scotland didn’t vote for. 

Even the Daily Express admits that Scotland is an energy goldmine. Many Scots will question why, although some can look out of their windows at oil rigs and wind turbines, they can’t afford to heat their homes. Scotland has no ability to regulate, tax or otherwise manage the country’s vast energy resources at the moment.

Independence can’t come soon enough. 

Scotland faces a media that in many cases is completely hostile to independence. News stories are spun to suggest Scots could never be trusted to run their own affairs. Good news is minimised, or just simply not reported and bad news for Scotland overblown and taken out of context.  Contrast that to the measurable and quantifiable damage of Brexit where the UK national news almost never acknowledges that Brexit is one of the root causes of inflation and economic damage. That’s why increasing numbers are turning to “Believe in Scotland” and its sister site “Business for Scotland” to find news stories that are put in context and explained from a pro-independence viewpoint. 

Most of our campaigning and engagement takes place on social media, via shareable graphics and on the streets and through leaflet drops etc but our blogs remain core to what we do. The most-read blogs on both our sites are shared far more often than almost all of the news stories on traditional, mainstream media. Take a look at the Facebook pages of The Times Scotland, The Scottish Daily Express, The Scotsman or BBC Scotland News and you will see that most stories are barely shared at all. 

In contrast, the most popular Business for Scotland post in 2022 generated 9,000 likes and shares on Facebook alone with hundreds more shares on Twitter, LinkedIn, and other social media platforms. One of our blogs that is updated every year has now been shared more than 81,000 times on Facebook alone. All of the others on this list got above 2,000 engagements on Facebook alone, most were higher than that.  Obviously, the blogs get a lot more reads than shares, as only a small percentage of people share articles but its a good way to gauge the popularity as well as readership.   

#1

Business for Scotland, June. Facebook shares - 9,263

The Scottish media was filled in the summer with stories about ferries being late or overbooked, and issues with two ferries ordered from Ferguson Marine. This article looked behind the banner headlines to add some context. 

Key points

• Scotland pays much more for its share of UK infrastructure projects which overrun or get into difficulties than it has for the 2 ferries
• Investment in Ferguson Marine is bringing it up to date as a publicly-owned yard with a future
• Flexible fares on CalMac ferries cost less than half similar ones in England
• The expansion of Road Equivalent Tariff (a popular policy) has massively increased traffic, demand and wear and tear on the ferry network. 

Read the article

#2

Believe in Scotland, June. Facebook shares - 4,787

Unionists like to talk about the cost of independence - but staying in the UK is costing Scotland dear, both financially and in terms of lost opportunity  This article looked at some of these.

Key costs of remaining in the Union

• The windfall tax on Scottish energy assets is bailing out the UK
• Scotland’s economy is visibly shrinking due to Brexit
• The UK has the worst economic growth in the G20 bar Russia
• The pound has lost 20% of its value – pushing inflation upwards
• The UK Government broke its promise on the triple lock, exposing pensioners to inflation (restoring it later has still left a lag)

Read the article

#3

Believe in Scotland, March. Facebook shares - 4,510

Norway with its sovereign wealth fund is one of the richest countries on the planet. But it has only been an independent country since 1905 –  for 500 years before that it was it was in a union with Denmark and then with Sweden. 

When Norway finally took the step of having a referendum on its independence, “there was no disagreement over arrangements as to borders, currency or trade. Norwegians had the confidence to believe they could they work those things out successfully – and they did.”

Key reasons why Norway became independent

• Norway’s people wanted to take control over foreign policy, after being dragged into other countries’ wars
• Norway had become a puppet state where power and control moved to an effective capital outside its borders, and the country suffered a long brain drain
• In a technologically advanced and innovative country, Norway’s people thought they could make better use of their rich natural assets.

#4 The Great British electricity swindle

Business for Scotland, March. Facebook shares - 4,059

With higher standing charges for energy and higher charges for Scottish energy companies to connect to the UK’s privatised and outdated National Grid, Scotland is paying too much for both creating energy and using it. 

“That doesn’t seem fair because it isn’t fair. But regulation of the energy market is reserved. There is no way to change this without independence.” 

Read the article

#5

Business for Scotland, August. Facebook shares - 3,389

Scotland has huge potential to produce renewable electricity. At the moment, that is constrained by the UK’s energy policy and producing more electricity won't noticeably affect Scots' bills

“An independent Scotland could operate as a zone, setting a price for electricity across Scotland, while still exporting to the rest of the UK through hubs, charging a higher price. That could tip the market balance towards more renewable production north of the border.” 

#6

Believe in Scotland, June. Facebook shares - 2,826

In an independent Scotland, the elected government would be able to manage the university sector in a more stable and financially responsible way, without the hiccups due to waiting on Barnett consequentials of policies deigned in another country with different priorities. It could access the EU fund Horizon, and also get EU support for peripheral areas such as the Highlands and Islands. 

Read the article

#7

Believe in Scotland, April. Facebook shares - 2,752

This article compared the size of Scotland’s broadcasting sector with other independent EU countries. Scotland is powerless when it comes to how public sector broadcasting is regulated and funded. An independent Scotland would be in a much stronger position to support public service broadcasting. An overwhelming majority of Scots (75%) according to a recent poll would like to see power over broadcasting move from Westminster to the Scottish Government.

#8

Believe in Scotland, October. Facebook shares - 2,713

This article explains which countries in the EU use the Euro and which don’t and looks at Scotland’s options. 

"Yes, Scotland would have to pledge to being open to join the euro at some point in the future. It could take 15 years, like Bulgaria which is adopting the Euro in 2024, or much longer. Sweden, Denmark, the Czech Republic and Poland have no current plans to switch. But whether or not to join the Euro and the timing of that will be a matter for future governments. It will be a matter for debate after Scotland has: achieved a referendum, voted for independence, established a central bank, a Scottish currency and rejoined the EU. It’s a way down the road.

Read the article

#9 5 Things You Need to Know About Labour’s Latest Vow on Constitutional Reform

Believe in Scotland, December. Facebook shares - 2,702

Keir Starmer, flanked by former-PM Gordon Brown, unveiled Labour’s plans for "UK constitutional reform".

"There is a clue in that first sentence as to why it’s not going to blunt moves towards Scottish independence. This report is about Labour reclaiming its so-called ‘Red Wall’ seats from the Tories and it offers nothing new for Scotland. In fact, it confirms that Labour are committed to Brexit and therefore the power grab that goes with it."

#10 Scots caught up in UK energy disaster look enviously at independent Nordic states

Business for Scotland, July. Facebook shares - 2,493

Anger mounted in Scotland across 2022 as energy prices soared for consumers while energy producers announce record profits.  Scotland now pays the highest electricity bills in the world. This article compared the Scottish situation to Nordic countries such as Finland where bills are much lower thanks to plentiful, cheap renewable energy. Scotland has the capacity to produce even more energy than the average of the Nordic countries – and it could export this to the UK and EU. 

Read the article

Other content that generated around 2,000 likes and shares includes: 

• The day Britain died - rights ripped from Scotland's devolution settlement - 2,023
• Independence offers an alternative to chaos at Dover - 2308
• Mainstream media ignores Scottish health service patient safety success story - 2,118
• Scottish water - a victory for the Sottish people v the UK gov - 1,964
• The new economic case for independence – Five Key Takeaways - 1,857
• Media watch - Scotland's poorest students 50% more likely to get to Uni than in England - 1,577
• Five reasons why Scotland can be confident of rejoining the EU - 1,701
• - 1,608
• Too wee, too poor? Malta didn't think so - 1,567
• HOL report says “Anglocentric British nationalism” could end the union – We agree - 1,828
• Keir Starmer's "car-crash interview" dooms Labour in Scotland - 1,632

 

BREAKING: A poll released this morning shows support for Scottish independence has soared to 56% in the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s ruling against a second independence referendum. These results demonstrate that the writing is on the wall for Unionism as a political project- the people of Scotland are both ready and willing to support independence.

The Scottish Political Monitor poll, conducted by Ipsos Mori for STV found that support for independence had risen by 6% between May and November. The results account for those who are likely to vote and when they are examined in detail, the majority for Yes becomes even clearer. Including those who voted ‘Don’t Know’ in answer to whether they would support independence, Yes retains a majority at 53%, with No at 42%. 

The poll also surveyed voting intentions at Westminster. If a General Election were called tomorrow, 51% of respondents would vote for the SNP, maintaining their majority share of MPs in Scotland. When these results are run through the Electoral Calculus model, 58 of 59 potential seats in Scotland would be won by the SNP, a larger proportion than even the party’s landslide victory in Scotland at the 2015 General Election. This is also remarkable stability for the SNP, who have been the main party of government in Scotland since 2007 (15 years in total).

However, the Scottish Government has announced that they intend to run the next General Election as a de facto independence referendum, after plans for a 2023 referendum were undemocratically blocked by the UK Supreme Court. Once these conditions are factored in, support for the SNP rises further to 53%, with the Greens at 2% and Alba at 0.47% meaning a total pro-independence majority of 55.5%. Voters in Scotland are not just rejecting a Conservative government, they are rejecting rule by Westminster altogether. 

Many people had denounced the strategy of a de facto referendum as risky, with Westminster leaders ridiculing the idea. This however does not seem to have dented support for independence in the slightest. In fact, the Supreme Court’s subversion of the people of Scotland’s democratic wishes appears to have instead galvanised support. 

Above all else, these results confirm what the independence movement already knew. Westminster did not just block another referendum because they thought Scotland legally was not entitled to hold another one, they blocked it because they knew that they would lose. Ironically, their attempts to stop it means that now they almost certainly will. 

Believe in Scotland supports 127 local Yes campaigns

Back the grassroots Yes Campaign

In Leeds today, Keir Starmer, flanked by former-PM Gordon Brown, unveiled Labour’s plans for UK constitutional reform. There is a clue in that first sentence as to why it's not going to blunt moves towards Scottish independence. This report is about Labour reclaiming its so-called 'Red Wall' seats from the Tories and it offers nothing new for Scotland. In fact, it confirms that Labour are committed to Brexit and therefore the power grab that goes with it. The key recommendations are focussed on England and the English regions, with the devolved nations as an afterthought. Included in the report is the abolition of the House of Lords and further powers for the English regions. For Scotland, we can expect more promises of increased devolution for the Scottish Parliament, a tune we’ve heard played by Brown and Labour time and again.

5 Things to know about this report and what it means for Scotland:

1. Scotland gains no new major powers

The report says that Labour will not abolish the Scottish Parliament, a condescending statement as they already promised that in ‘the Vow’ in 2014, and the people of Scotland would not accept its closure under any circumstances.  The report says that Scotland would be able to enter into international agreements when it comes to devolved matters. Devolved matters however do not include issues of EU membership, retention of nuclear weapons/participation in illegal wars, trade deals and immigration - all the actual powers that would help Scotland's economy. Scotland would also have access to regional support through the British Regional Investment Bank. Not only is Scotland not a ‘region’, this is also a policy that is only required because of decades of Westminster mismanagement of Scotland’s natural and economic wealth. In fact, Scotland already has its own National Investment Bank- evidently Labour is having trouble coming up with original ideas for devolution. 

2. It doesn’t lay a path back into the EU for Scotland

Central to Labour’s plan for the next election is to rebuild the ‘Red Wall’ in the North of England. This requires a full commitment to Brexit that the Scottish people will never accept. 

With 72% of Scots saying they would vote Remain if the vote was held today and with Labour offering no path back into the EU, it is clear that Scottish voices will once again be silenced on this issue. 

Labour have said we need stronger economic growth but won’t rejoin the Single Market, the one thing that would guarantee this. Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning to promote the report, Starmer made the remarkable claim that rejoining the EU and being part of the world's biggest single market wouldn't boost economic growth, saying: “I don’t think it would. And there’s no case for going back to the EU or going back into the single market.” Starmer has previously claimed the opposite, so is he lying now or was he lying then? The OBR has forecast the UK faces a 4 per cent fall in economic growth compared to if we had remained in the EU - so no one can take such claims seriously. Clearly independence is Scotland’s only route back into the EU. 

3. There’s no commitment to the reforms they’ve promised

Labour is proposing what they say are radical solutions to a widespread constitutional crisis facing the whole of the UK. However, when these policies are examined in detail, the end result is underwhelming. There is a promise to abolish the undemocratic House of Lords, within Labour’s first term. That is a promise they have been making for a century and have failed to deliver on every time they have been in office and had the power to act. The House of Lords represents a serious issue in the political structure of the UK but the proposed reforms are still subject to further consultation - so they will be watered down. If Labour are serious about offering long-term, systemic change as soon as possible, why can they still not commit even now to the most important proposal from this paper?

4. Federalism is unworkable for Scotland

This report once again presents federalism/devolution as an alternative to Scottish independence but this is a pipe dream. England has 84% of the UK population and federalism cannot work under these conditions. To sell Federalism to the wider UK public would require major parties to concede that the UK system is broken beyond repair and commit to truly radical solutions. This would also require a UK wide referendum and England won't vote for it. Also to say they have a mandate to change the constitution with a Westminster General Election majority but that the SNP can't change the constitution as it refers to Scotland with a majority of MPs is just dishonest and antidemocratic. 

Independence is normal but Labour still refuses to give countenance to that fact. Once again, they offer a bland unworkable compromise between unionism and independence, which is actually err…more unionism. While federalism is championed by Labour as the winning democratic solution to save a broken Britain, in practice they do not offer the radical solutions they promise.

5. Labour will ignore the wishes of the people of Scotland

The plans announced by Labour today require that the Scottish people abandon their commitment to independence and accept a bland list of recycled constitutional reforms that should have been implemented last century, dredged up by an ex-Prime Minister who never won a General election and has lost all credibility when it comes to making promises to Scotland. Labour cannot accept that everything changed after the first independence referendum and Brexit which followed.

While this conference and paper did acknowledge the UK is broken, they refuse to admit that blocking a second referendum is the most high-profile example of the British state’s disregard for democracy. Keir Starmer as PM would not listen to the people of Scotland and if any extra powers offered to Scotland don't allow us back into the EU or at least the Single Market then they do nothing for Scotland.  At the press conference for the launch of this report, Gordon Brown stated that Labour would push on with these proposed constitutional reforms even if the people of Scotland reject them at the ballot box - which they will.

In the end, isn't that all you need to know about Brown and how far Labour have fallen?

Frontpage headlines rarely cause laughter - unless on comics like the Broons.  But listeners to the press review on BBS Radio Scotland’s Sunday Show last weekend may have chuckled as reviewers joked about the Sunday Times Scotland's latest anti-independence splash.

Separately, a law professor condemned the editorial team behind the weekend’s splash headlines as “deeply unserious people” “more interested in scandal-mongering than checking the accuracy of their stories”.  

The story, which was later altered online, fell below the standards of a quality newspaper. On occasion, Times Scotland reads like an anti-independence propaganda sheet. It claims to reach 1.3 million Scots through its print and digital outlets, so this kind of bias is concerning. However, as support for independence rises, the paper may eventually have to change its stance. Proprietor Ruper Murdoch has stated publicly that Scottish independence “feels inevitable”. 

“Straightforwardly false” headlines altered in the online edition

The front page banner headline on the print edition read: “SNP’s indyref spending may be unlawful”. Law lecturer Andrew Tickell told listeners to BBC Radio Scotland’s flagship "Sunday Show" that it was “straightforwardly false”. He said:

“This is the idea we should never have had the court case in the first place, that the SNP should have ignored its mandate and never have gone to the Supreme Court and asked the question. The headline is straightforwardly false. It is not unlawful for them to spend money on this, that is not how the Scotland Act works, and they would know that if they had asked any experts in law to resolve it as Aileen McHarg a professor at Durham University was pointing out on Twitter earlier today.”

Tickell, a lecturer in jurisprudence at Glasgow Caledonian University and a columnist in the National, added, sardonically:

“Their legal source for this story was Alex Cole-Hamiton, who doubtless has many merits but legal education is not particularly among them.” 

“Deeply unserious people”

Professor of Public Law and Human Rights, Durham University, an expert in Scots & UK public law, Aileen McHarg condemned the idea that money spent clarifying a point of law could be retrospectively ruled unlawful if he case was lost, tweeting that It: “only requires a moment's thought to know that it's a ludicrous position to adopt.

“This is a cheap line advanced by people who obviously don't expect that they will actually be in a position where they would have to try to govern under these conditions any time soon. Deeply unserious politicians. And, I might add, a press more interested in scandal-mongering than checking the accuracy of their stories. Also deeply unserious people.”

Later, the online headline and story appeared to be changed to “Spending public money building case for independence ‘may be illegal’” and the story was dropped from the ‘Scotland’ section of the online edition. 

Later in the week the Times carried the headline “Whitehall investigates independence planning by Scots civil service” saying that Sue Gray is to look into the role of civil servants in independence planning. Further down the article the story’s importance was diminished by the explanation that: “the talks…are not seen by Whitehall as a formal review that will lead to reports being published.”

The Times Scotland falls below standard of “newspaper of record” 

The Times Scotland has always been an anti-independence paper - but presents itself as a source of reliable information. Recently, it appears to have sunk to the level of a downmarket tabloid. The headline last weekend was politically biased and not worthy of a newspaper that presents itself as a “newspaper of record”.  

Times owner Rupert Murdoch predicted Scottish independence

For pragmatic reasons, the newspaper may eventually change its stance.  Back in 2015, its owner Rupert Murdoch  Scottish independence was inevitable. He tweeted: 

“Scots may be crazy or not wanting self rule, but who can deny right of self determination? Feels inevitable over next few years.”

The newspaper reported that the first poll conducted in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling showed voters who favoured independence rose to 49 percent, an increase of five points compared with its survey in September 2021. Unionist support fell by two points to 45 percent.

The report concluded:

“The poll mostly made happy reading for the first minister, who has said that she will run the SNP campaign at the next general election as a single issue “de facto referendum”. If pro-independence parties win more than 50 percent of the popular vote, Sturgeon would assume this to be a mandate to begin negotiations with Downing Street about breaking up the UK.”

If the Times wants to continue to expand its readership it will need to reach out to younger audiences who primarily support independence. 

Rising star in the field of Scottish and UK law Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, who is a fellow at Princeton in the US, argues the UK government risks undermining the rule of law and should change its stance to allow a referendum on Scottish independence. 

In a hard-hitting legal analysis in the current issue of Prospect magazine, Douglas-Scott writes: "The UK government’s refusal to negotiate the independence issue with Scotland (including to permit a referendum) is unreasonable". She goes on to argue that:

“By ignoring the mandate of a lawful government, the UK government’s conduct in this context also undermines the rule of law."

Douglas-Scott, who is also a chair of law at Queen Mary University in London, argues that democracy is a key constitutional principle. She writes:

“The UK government has undermined democracy by ignoring the SNP’s 2021 manifesto pledge to hold another referendum, the endorsement of that pledge by the Scottish people, as well as the vote in the Scottish parliament in January 2020 for a further referendum.”

Supreme Court wrong to dismiss the issue of self-determination

Douglas-Scott argues that the Supreme Court under its current President Lord Reed defined devolution too narrowly:

“The Reed Court inclines toward legal formalism—in that it takes a narrow reading of the rule of law, adopts a close reading of legal texts and eschews arguments which stray into broader issues (such as those relevant to Scottish independence which rest on the principle of democracy).”

Many Scots would have been surprised to read that the Supreme Court summarily dismissed the argument that Scotland has the right to self-determination under international law. It said that this right only belongs to a colony, that Scotland is clearly not a colony and has no right to “secede”. 

That begs the question - what is Scotland then? Is it merely a region of the UK or is it an ancient country which entered by agreement into a voluntary union?

Douglas-Scott argues it is the latter. She writes that “time and time again” the UK government has indicated that Scotland is a voluntary partner in the Union and has the right to consider its future.

“Through its own conduct over many years, the UK government has generated an expectation allowing for independence in principle. If the UK government refuses to countenance any new independence referendum, it will undermine the characterisation of the Union as voluntary. 

“Its behaviour will also fly in the face of history, reducing Scotland to the status of a colony or a region with no history of independent statehood, while undermining any claims (made by UK government ministers) for the exceptional, “family” nature of Union.” 

The Union is an ongoing agreement between two independent nations

Douglas-Scott argues that the Treaty of Union was not a one-off act but the basis for an ongoing agreement between two nations. 

“Constitutional relations between Scotland and England have existed for over 300 years, since the UK was established by a Treaty of Union between two sovereign states, which was then ratified by two Acts of Union in the respective parliaments. 

“But this relationship, and the issue of consent of both parties to it, is an ongoing one, not something over and done with thanks to an Act of Union three centuries old. Since 1707, Scotland has maintained its own distinct civic institutions, legal system, church and cultural heritage—all factors which point to the Union as a continuing agreement between two independent nations.”

Scotland must demonstrate support for independence

Douglas-Scott argues that:

“All these arguments must be supported by evidence that the Scottish people desire to exercise their right to self-determination and leave the Union.”

Douglas-Scott acknowledges that Scots were misled in the 2014 referendum:

“During that campaign, the pro-UK Better Together alliance conspicuously argued that Scotland could only retain its EU membership by remaining in the UK. This was not so; and since then, Brexit has taken place. In the 2016 EU referendum, Scotland voted 62 percent in favour of Remain. Although the Scottish government protested that it was undemocratic for Scotland to be taken out of the EU against its will, this argument was ignored by the UK government, and the whole UK exited the EU on 31st January 2020.”

A referendum would be the clearest way to demonstrate the desire for independence, but there is precedent for using a general election to give voters a voice on a single issue.

“The 1910 general election was fought on the issue of the Liberal government’s “People’s Budget”. The 1918 general election was fought by Sinn Féin on a manifesto commitment to establish an Irish Republic.” 

Conclusion

According to Douglas-Scott’s analysis, the UK government is acting unreasonably when it refuses to negotiate over a referendum on Scottish independence. The Supreme Court took a narrow, procedural view in its judgment and refused to consider the broader issue of democratic principles.

Denying Scotland the right to self-determination and to consider its future “flies in the face of history”. The Union is an ongoing agreement between two independent nations. 

Douglas-Scott still argues that the UK government should change its mind and allow a referendum on independence. But if the referendum route continues to be blocked, the Scottish government can legitimately use the next general election to test support for independence. 

Further Reading

The UK Supreme Court has not settled the Scottish independence question by Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, Prospect Magazine