Pages tagged with "Believe in Scotland"

The UK Supreme Court jugment that the Scottish government doesn’t have the legal right to hold a referendum is a huge milestone in the road to independence. It gives clarity over the nature of the Union; it ends this potentially time-consuming legal stage promptly and puts the question of Scotland’s independence firmly back into the political sphere. Here are ten takeaways from the judgment and First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s statement in response. 

1 Scotland’s independence movement respects the judgment of the Court

The judges were ruling on a matter of existing law. They don’t make the rules - they only apply them. Unlike the infamous attack by the Daily Mail on three judges involved in a High Court challenge to Brexit, when it ran their photos under the headline “Enemies of the People”, Scotland’s independence movement respects the rule of law. The First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon said in her response to today’s judgment:

“We must be clear today that the Supreme Court does not make the law – it interprets and applies it. If the devolution settlement in the Scotland Act is inconsistent with any reasonable notion of Scottish democracy – as is now confirmed to be the case – that is the fault of Westminster lawmakers, not the justices of the Supreme Court.” 

2 Only a lawful, democratic and peaceful approach will achieve successful independence

Nicola Sturgeon said that maintaining respect for the rule of law is vital for Scotland’s eventual success.

“That principle also reflects a practical reality – the route we take must be lawful and democratic for independence to be achieved.”

3 The Supreme Court did not rule on whether Scotland should become an independent country

The question the Supreme Court was asked - was: Does Holyrood have the power under the Scotland Act to hold a consultative referendum? The court decided unanimously that it does not without a section 30 order, like the one agreed for the 2014 referendum.

Presiding Judge Lord Reed said: “The Court is not asked, and cannot be asked, to express a view on the political question of whether Scotland should become an independent country. Its task is solely to decide on the provisions of the Scotland Act”. 

4 The democratic mandate for independence is as strong as ever

In her response, Nicola Sturgeon said the judgment means that without a Section 30 order “the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate for the referendum the people of Scotland have instructed it to deliver. That is a hard pill for any supporter of independence – and surely indeed for any supporter of democracy – to swallow.” But she went on to reiterate the democratic basis for the request. 

“The Court was not asked to decide if there is a democratic mandate for a referendum. The mandate and parliamentary majority for a referendum is undeniable. Nor was the Court asked if Scotland should be independent. Only the Scottish people can be the judge of that.”

5  Any referendum on Scottish independence would carry great democratic weight 

The Scottish government argued that a referendum that was simply about consulting the people of Scotland and was not binding on the UK government could be allowed. But the Supreme Court disagreed. It said that while it may not be legally binding, it would be of huge political significance and could weaken the UK Parliament’s sovereignty over Scotland. 

Lord Reed said:

” A lawfully-held referendum would have important political consequences relating to the Union and the UK parliament. Its outcome would possess the authority -  in a political constitution and culture founded upon democracy - of a democratic expression of the view of the Scottish electorate. It would either strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the Union and of the UK Parliament's sovereignty over Scotland.”

6 A majority vote for independence in a general election will carry the same democratic weight

That presumably will also apply to the next general election. If more than half of the voters in that contest vote for a party standing for independence, that will also carry the weight of a democratic expression of the will of the Scottish people. 

Nicola Sturgeon reiterated the SNP’s determination to seek a way for Scotland to express its democratic will on this question:

“We must and will find another democratic, lawful and constitutional means by which the Scottish people can express their will.In my view, that can only be an election The next national election scheduled for Scotland is the UK General Election, making it both the first and the most obvious opportunity to seek what I described back in June as a de facto referendum.” 

7 The Supreme Court ruled Scotland can’t claim the international right to self-determination

The Scottish National Party made separate submissions to the Supreme Court in the case. It argued that Scotland could claim the right to self-determination under international law and that this should affect how the Scotland Act is interpreted. They quoted strong representations that the UK government had made to the UN in support of the principle of self-determination in other cases, such as Kosovo and the Falkland Isles. 

But the Supreme Court rejected that. They interpreted cases over Quebec, Kosovo and the Falklands to mean that this right only applies to former colonies or where a people is oppressed under foreign military occupation,  or where a defined group is denied equal access to government. The court said this position did not apply to Scotland. 

8 So an ancient country with a voluntary Treaty has less right to self-determination than a colony?

So on the one hand, the Court said Scotland is not like a former colony, but on the other that it does not have the sovereignty to hold a referendum on its independence from the UK. That is a paradox.

Scotland is not a colony but a country with a long history, which entered into an international Treaty of Union with the UK. Surely that should make it easier, not harder to leave the Union?

9 The Supreme Court’s judgment changes the nature of the Union

The Supreme Court’s judgment means that it appears that the United Kingdom can no longer be seen as a voluntary Union. In her response, Nicola Sturgeon said that while some Unionists would crow over what they saw as a victory, others would be concerned. 

“That is because they will understand that this judgment raises profound and deeply uncomfortable questions about the basis and future of the United Kingdom. Until now, it has been understood and accepted – by opponents of independence as well as by its supporters – that the UK is a voluntary partnership of nations.

“The Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs back in 1950 said this: “Scotland is a nation and voluntarily entered into the Union as a partner”. That sentiment was echoed nearly 60 years later by the cross-party Calman Commission which described the UK as “a voluntary union and partnership”. And it was reinforced in 2014 by the Smith Commission which made clear that “nothing in its report prevented Scotland becoming an independent country should the people of Scotland so choose. What today’s ruling tells us, however, is that the Scotland Act does not in fact uphold that long-held understanding of the basis of the relationships that constitute the UK – on the contrary, it shatters that understanding completely."

10  Independence is the only way for Scotland to become an equal partner in Britain's "family of nations"

Back in 2014, Scotland was told to "lead not leave" and that it was voting to remain in a partnership of equals. telling Scotland it now has no choice is likely to increase support for independence.

Independence support has already been increased by the disastrous Brexit that has been foisted upon Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon's statement said that, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, Brexit is costing public revenues in Scotland upwards of £3.2 billion a year. Low-income households in the UK are now 22 percent poorer than their counterparts in France, and 21 percent poorer than in Germany. Independence is needed for Scotland to achieve its potential - the UK is holding Scotland back. 

Let’s be blunt: a so-called partnership in which one partner is denied the right to choose a different future – or even to ask itself the question —cannot be described in any way as voluntary...And that exposes a situation that is quite simply unsustainable. In the words of former Tory Prime Minister, John Major: “No nation could be held irrevocably in a Union against its will Indeed, perhaps what today’s judgment confirms more than anything else, is that the only guarantee for Scotland of equality within the British family of nations is through independence – that fact is now clearer than ever before.” 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court’s judgment ends the legal stage of the fight for Scotland’s independence. Scotland is a country with a long and proud history. If her people want to leave the Union that was entered into by a political treaty, then that is a democratic right. 

The Supreme Court made clear that the voice of the Scottish people will carry huge political weight. If there cannot be a specific referendum on independence, that voice will be heard at the next General Election. 

Almost two-thirds of Scots say the UK will break up within a decade, and half think it will take just five years, according to a new poll by Ipsos Mori. 

Half of Scots want Scotland to vote for independence, with another 4% saying they don’t mind either way.

And despite the constant onslaught by Unionist politicians and media, most Scots say an independent Scotland will be either more prosperous or equally as prosperous as it is under Westminster rule. 

Independence on 50% - with 4% saying they “don’t mind either way”

Asked if they would prefer Scotland to vote for or against independence, 50% of Scots said ‘for’, 43% ‘against’ with 4% saying they don’t mind either way and 2% ‘don’t know’. 

In Northern Ireland, less than half - 43% said they would like Scotland to vote ‘against’ independence with 26% saying they ‘don’t mind either way’ and 28% saying ‘for’. In Wales and England, a slim majority of 54% wanted Scotland to vote against independence. 

Only a quarter of Scots think the UK will last a decade in its current form

Asked if the UK will still exist in its current form in ten years, just a quarter of Scots, 26%, think it will, with 13% saying they don’t know, and 61% saying it will have broken up. And in just five years, less than half of Scots (42%) think the UK will still exist:  49% say it won’t still exist and 9% don’t know.

A majority of people in Northern Ireland, Wales, and England agree that the UK will have ceased to exist in its present form within a decade. Even in England, less than half - 46% - predict the UK will still exist in its current form in five years - down from 51% six months ago.  If you take the timeline to 20 years, only around 20% in England and 11% in Northern Ireland say the UK will still exist in its current form. 

Independent Scotland will either be better off or the same, say most Scots

More than half of Scots say that an independent Scotland would be either more prosperous (43%)  or equally as wealthy (10%)  as under Westminster rule, with less than half, 43% thinking independent Scotland would be worse off and 4% ticking ‘don’t know’.  

In England, however, 58% of people think an independent Scotland would be worse off - but only 50% of those surveyed in Wales and 45% of those in Northern Ireland agree. The percentage of ‘don’t knows’ was higher in the other three UK countries than Scotland, at between 12 and 14%.

The rest of the UK more likely to be worse off when Scotland becomes independent

In all four nations, people are more likely to think the economies of the rest of the Union would be worse off (37%) than better off (20%) if Scotland became independent, with 45% of Scots saying that the rest of the UK will be worse off after independence.

There is widespread concern about the current state of the UK economy: 80% of Scots expect the general economic condition of the UK to worsen in the next 12 months, compared to 73% in February 2022. They are only slightly more optimistic about Scotland: 73% expect Scotland’s general economic condition to get worse over the year ahead, compared to 68% earlier this year.

Independence support is higher than average in this new poll. 

The poll did not ask the standard Yes/No question on Scottish independence, opting rather to ask if people would prefer Scotland voted for or against independence.  This will be due to the fact that it was a UK-wide poll.  The figures for Scotland were 50% would prefer Scotland voted for independence versus 43% against. 4% had no preference and 2% were undecided.  Now that adds up to 99% and we don't know where the rounding effect impacts so we can’t be 100% certain but we can estimate that this would result in 53% Yes 47% No as things stand.   

This data was collected by Ipsos’s UK Knowledge Panel, a random probability panel which provides gold-standard insights into the UK population.  Ipsos interviewed a representative sample of 6,944 people over the age of 16 in the UK online from 13th to 19th October 2022. 

The findings echo other recent polls showing Scotland moving towards independence

The polling echoes recent findings that most Scots have much more trust in the Scottish government than in Westminster. A poll by Panelbase for Believe in Scotland in October found that 50% of Scottish voters had more trust in the economic competence of the Holyrood government than in the UK Government. Only 28% had more trust in Westminster’s economic competence and 22% answered that they didn’t know.

Also published last month, the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey shows that Scottish voters increasingly say they don’t trust Westminster to act in Scotland’s best interests. Two-thirds of respondents think that they can trust the Scottish Government to work in Scotland’s interests, compared to just 22% who say the same about the UK Government. 

It also confirms the long-term trend towards independence. Over the last decade, the number of Scots supporting independence has gone from around 28% to above 50%. The Social Attitudes survey began in 1997 and can map the trends since then.  Ipsos Mori confirms the trend, with polling starting back in 1979, when support for independence stood at just 14%. 

This recent data shows that Scots are growing in confidence and starting to look towards an independent future, where it will elect its own governments all of the time. 

Believe in Scotland will share summaries of main parties' priorities for an independent Scotland as their proposals are released. 

The Scottish Greens produced the first in a series of “green papers” setting out its vision for an independent Scotland last week, titled: "Independence: For people, for planet". The Greens are a junior member of Scotland’s government - but the “Bute House Agreement” recognises each party’s “right and duty to set out its own vision of independence”. 

In an independent Scotland, of course, the Greens would set out their policies, like other parties, and put them to the people. The first booklet in the series entitled: “Independence: For People, For Planet” puts the environment and climate change front and centre of the Greens’ agenda. 

Building on Green achievements

The Greens want to build on what they see as their achievements in government.

“We are tackling the climate crisis, with an active travel revolution, an unprecedented £500m Just Transition Fund and record investment to make homes warmer, greener and easier to heat. We are tackling the cost of living crisis, with the rapid rollout of free school meals, the massive expansion of the Scottish Child Payment and unprecedented action to protect tenants with the rent freeze and the eviction ban. But devolution isn’t enough.”

The Green paper argues that with “all the powers of a normal, independent country”, Scotland could achieve a lot more. 

1 Funding a Just Transition

The Scottish Greens argue that an independent Scotland could be a leader on climate change. Currently, Holyrood has no power over the regulation and taxes of the oil and gas sector. 

Under independence, the Scottish Greens would look to ban further fossil fuel exploration and to hasten the transition to green energy, developing capacity in renewables, the grid and energy storage technology such as pumped hydro. They also want to massively increase the effort to insulate homes. The report says: 

“Only with the powers of an independent country can Scotland deliver the radical climate action we need. Currently, power over the oil and gas under Scottish waters sits at Westminster. Holyrood doesn’t have the financial powers we need to properly invest in the transformative green infrastructure we need to tackle the climate crisis.”

2 Increased environmental protection

The UK government is promising a bonfire of EU environmental protections. The Green party believes that will damage Scotland. They argue Holyrood needs the powers of independence to properly protect nature and the environment. 

“With independence, Scotland can undo the damage done by Brexit deregulation and make sure Scotland is a world leader in environmental standards and protection. With a written constitution, Scotland can enshrine rights for nature in law, recognising our responsibility to look after our natural world.”

3 A European Scotland

When independent Scotland rejoins the EU, Scotland’s Greens will look to work with other green parties across Europe on shared priorities such as climate action and social justice. 

“Scotland has always been a European nation. In 2016, we voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union - yet despite this, we were dragged out of the EU. With Brexit, we lost our rights to free movement and the ability to live, work and study across Europe. We lost the chance to cooperate across a continent to solve the biggest challenges we face. With independence, Scotland can rejoin the European Union and retake our place in the European family of nations” 

4 A Welcoming Scotland

Scotland currently has no control over immigration. It has an ageing population with an average age of 42, two years older than England, and a low birth rate. But as part of the UK, Scotland has no say over who can come to live and work in Scotland. The Scottish Greens would like to see an independent Scotland reject the “hostile environment” created by the UK government and create its own immigration policy.

“For decades, from the Glasgow Girls to the Kenmure Street protests, people have resisted the racist tactics of successive UK Governments who sought to divide our communities and turn neighbours against one another. With independence, Scotland can end the hostile environment and build a country which is welcoming to all. Scotland can treat refugees and asylum seekers with the respect that they deserve, and we could uphold the Refugee Convention, playing our part in the global community.”

5 A fairer, happier Scotland

The Scottish Greens want to put well-being at the heart of the economy. They support replacing welfare payments with a guaranteed basic income that citizens could not fall below. They would also like to see Scotland move to a four-day working week. They also want to see wages increase.

“Scotland can shift the balance of power in our economy by taxing wealth fairly, protecting trade unions and paying workers what they deserve with a Real Living Wage for all.” 

Devolution is not enough - independent Scotland could do more

The Scottish Greens want to see Scotland become one of the greenest and most climate-conscious countries in the world. 

They argue that in order to create a just transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewables, independence is necessary. It is also a first step to creating a more equal society.

In this paper, the Green Party is setting out a vision for what independence could mean. It is a valuable contribution to the debate.  After independence, Scotland’s people will get to decide on their government and what its priorities are. 

Labour leader Keir Starmer set out his pitch to Scotland on BBC’s flagship politics show “the Sunday Show” at the weekend. It was widely regarded as a car crash. Columnist Lesley Riddoch wrote: " a stumbling Keir Starmer hit the brick wall of Scottish political reality with a bang on TV on Sunday".

Starmer denied that Scotland has a democratic right to a referendum - while at the same time arguing that the damaging Brexit which as rejected by 62% of Scottish voters, is the "will of the people". Asked by interviewer Martin Geissler if the Union is voluntary, Starmer agreed - but then said that even if the Supreme Court rules a referendum is lawful, he would oppose one. He revealed the incoherence of his position - and doomed Labour to continued failure in Scotland. 

Given that polling shows at least a third of Labour voters support a referendum and that the party has longstanding commitments to self-determination; this seems like a historic error. At the next general election, unless Labour changes their position on a referendum for Scotland, they are unlikely to improve their performance much (they currently have one Scottish MP).

Thus the next general election is likely to be the first time in history where the UK elects a Labour government which is rejected by Scottish voters as Scotland essentially votes for independence. At that point, will Labour really be able to argue that it has a mandate to govern Scotland? Will it be able to continue to deny the democratically-expressed wishes of the Scottish people?

The parting of ways 

In his interview, Starmer said the reasons for the decline of the Labour vote in Scotland were essentially no different from in England. But this moment has been a long time coming. Scotland and the UK have been on different paths for a long time. Here is a look back at some of the points on the journey. The pattern has been that at 9 out of 13 elections since 1970, Scotland has ended up with a government it did not vote for.

1970 - Scotland votes decisively Labour but the UK elects a Conservative government 

In June, 1970 the polls suggest a Labour win, but in fact the UK elects a Conservative government under Edward Heath. By contrast, in Scotland, the Labour party takes 44 seats out of 71, with the Conservatives getting only 23.  (At an earlier election in 1959, when the UK voted Conservative, Labour took the majority of seats in Scotland but the Conservatives still got the largest share of the overall vote). This is the moment when Scotland and the UK diverge politically. 

A commitment to more powers for Scotland turns into a lengthy Royal Commission

The Conservatives come into power that year with a commitment in the Queen's Speech to increase Scotland's say over her own affairs. The Conservatives have already felt the sands shifting under their feet. The old, Presbyterian, working-class Tory vote is moving away from the party  - losing the douce suburb of Pollock in 1967 was the first inkling of the coming change. 

So in 1968, with the Declaration of Perth, the Conservatives commit themselves to introducing Home Rule. That commitment turns into a long Royal Commssion, which does not report until 1973 - and nothing gets done. 

“It is essential to maintain the system”

In his new book Scotland Rising, Gerry Hassan quotes the evidence that the Labour Party gives to the Royal Commission on devolution in May, 1970.

John Pollock, Labour MP, said: “The only effective way of solving the Sottish problem is to have a Labour government at Westminster, but we are prepared to put up with a short period in which a Conservative government might be the administration because we can more than make that good in our next administration. It is essential to maintain the kind of system in which a Labour government at Westminster in the future is able to control the country in the interests of all the people in the UK”

1974 - a Labour Government is elected but fails to deliver devolution

When the Labour Party comes to power in 1974, they are also committed to delivering Home Rule. They examine various ideas in a White Paper on devolution in 1975 - one of which is to replace the House of Lords with smaller chambers outside London,  in the four nations of the UK (more radical than their current proposals). Nothing much happens for three years. 

In 1978, the Scotland Act sets out the grounds for a referendum.  In 1979, both the Labour Party and the SNP don’t confidently campaign for an Assembly with extremely limited powers. Important sectors such as the Universities turn against it. On the eve of the vote, former Conservative PM Alec Douglas Home invites Scots to vote ‘No’ promising the Tories in government will bring forward “better devolution proposals”; this never happens.

In fact, the people do vote ‘Yes; to a Scottish Assembly - by 52% yes to 48% No. This is similar to the Brexit result of 2016, which the Labour Party now accepts as a democratic mandate to “make Brexit work”. In contrast, the Labour Government of 1974-79 fails to deliver any change for Scotland and leaves power with the country’s affairs still in the hands of the Grand Committee.  

Asked by the Royal Commission in 1970 if the Grand Committee has “adequate power of control” in the event of a Conservative Government , John Pollock, for Labour, said:

 “If you accept the United Kingdom structure, as we do, such a situation may be the inevitable outcome of it.”

1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, Labour wins hugely in Scotland - but the UK votes Conservative

In these four elections, the Labour Party never gets fewer than 40 of Scotland’s 71 seats. In 1987, Neil Kinnock wins 50 of them. But in the context of the UK electing Conservative governments in a first past the post system, there is nothing Scotland’s Labour MPs can effectively do to challenge the Conservative Party’s agenda.

Iain McWhirter’s book, the Road to Referendum, charts the unfolding disaster of these years in Scotland. Industry is starved of investment. Decision-making power is centralised to London. The process culminates in the UK government deciding to use a hostile Scotland as a testing ground for the Poll Tax. 

The Grand Committee ends up being packed with Tory MPs from the Shires, as there are too few Scottish Tories to ensure Conservative policies get pushed through.

1997 - the Labour Party takes power in the UK, continuing through 2001, 2005  

In this election, Tony Blair sweeps to power and the Labour Party runs the UK until 2010. 

During this period, they make some positive changes - but are unable to bring back the industry that was decimated. The generation that grew up in poverty and hopelessness in much of Scotland in the 1980s has been damaged - many will never fully recover - and the drugs pandemic that still rages through some of Scotland post-industrial wasteland should be understood in this context. These are ‘diseases of despair’. 

Both the Labour Party and the Lib Dems signed up to the Scottish Constitutional Convention while in oppoition and are committed to devolution.  In 1997, Labour holds a referendum, where there is a massive ‘Yes’ vote and the Scottish Parliament is reconvened after a 300-year pause in 1999.

2010 - Scotland votes Labour - but gets a Conservative/ Lib Dem coalition

Scotland now has fewer seats at Westminster - 59 instead of 71. Labour under Gordon Brown wins 41 of these, but the result is a coalition between David Cameron’s Conservatives and Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats. The first referendum on Scottish independence is held and lost, Joe Pike's book 'Project Fear' gives a warts-and-all account of the Labour party's role in Better Together and how Scotland was misled and bullied into voting no by Labour scaremongering. 

2015 - Scotland elects an overwhelming majority of SNP MPs 

The first independence referendum is held a matter of weeks before the 2015 general election. The day after that vote, the Conservatives announce that Scottish MPs will no longer be able to vote on most things in Westminster (EVEL - now repealed). Labour under Ed Miliband says it will not work with elected SNP MPs on shared priorities.

For the first time, Scotland rejects the Labour Party’s prospectus that long periods of Conservative rule are inevitable, but that the Labour Party will make good the damage whenever it gets back in. In that election, the SNP wins 56 out of 59 seats. 

Hard Brexit forced on Scotland - despite those Better Together promises

The next year, the UK holds the Brexit referendum, and Scotland votes decisively to remain in the EU. Despite a central promise of the 2014 Better Together campaign being that Scotland should ‘lead not leave’, that it was a respected member of a voluntary Union, and that staying in the UK was the best way to protect EU membership, the UK government refuses to negotiate with Scotland. 

2017 - the SNP wins a large majority of Westminster seats despite Unionist tactical voting

In 2017, the Unionist parties work more closely together - for example,  the Daily Mail issues a supplement instructing its readers to vote Labour in certain constituencies to defend the Union. The Conservatives under Ruth Davidson stage a revival. Nevertheless, the SNP holds onto 35 of the 59 Westminster seats.  

However, Scotland finds itself again being ruled by a Conservative government that Scotland did not elect. 

In 2019, Boris Johnson is decisively rejected by Scots

The 2019 general election is regarded as having delivered a landslide for Boris Johnson to "get Brexit done". Ironically, the Conservatives UK vote share at that election (43%) is less than what the SNP gets in Scotland (45%), so it must be an even bigger landslide for the SNP, which wins 48 of the 59 seats. 

But the UK Unionist parties - Conservative, Labour, and Lib Dem, claim that this election simultaneously delivers an incontrovertible mandate for a hard Brexit - but no mandate whatsoever for an independence referendum. A hard Brexit is forced on Scotland. The Office for Budget Responsibility calculates that Brexit will shrink the UK economy by 4%,  the equivalent of more than £100 billion a year. 

Even after the Scottish general election of 2021 delivers a Parliament that strongly supports a referendum on independence, Labour and the Conservatives argue there is no mandate for one.

Starmer and Labour's position is unfair to Scotland

Keir Starmer's position that he respects the democratic will of the people of the UK - but not the democratic will of the people of Scotland is unfair. He cannot point to any way that Scotland can find a democratic path to a referendum on independence. 

The UK Labour Party has not confronted the reality that many of their own potential supporters believe in self-determination for the people of Scotland. Some may plan to vote 'No" in the next referendum on independence - but they still recognise there is a democratic mandate for one. 

If the Labour Party were to change its stance on an independence referendum, that could positively impact its electoral chances in Scotland. If it doesn't, that will ensure that every vote cast for Labour at the next general election will be read as a vote against self-determination for the people of Scotland. That simple fact means that we are approaching a historic moment.  For the first time, the UK may elect a Labour government - but Scotland will voice a different preference. Independence. 

An independent Scotland can have the governments it elects all the time, not just occasionally. It can pursue its own priorities, use its own assets and build its own future. 

Would an independent Scotland have to use the euro? The answer is “No”. Nicola Sturgeon was correct when she told Douglas Ross this today - but that doesn’t prevent Scotland’s Unionist politicians and media doing their best to spread confusion. 

The Times headline today was “Join the euro or your EU dream dies, Sturgeon told”. It is technically correct that Scotland will have to pledge to being open to joining the eurozone. But Scotland will control the timeline on that. It may not decide to join for decades.

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. 

So, if the question is worded:

“Would an independent Scotland joining the EU as a full member using the process for joining as a new member have to commit to using the Euro at some undefined point in the future?” Then the answer is yes.

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. 

Scotland’s currency future will be Scotland’s choice

Last week’s Scottish Government report “Building a Stronger Economy” includes a section discussing comparable European countries’ currency choices. It says:

“Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Finland and the Netherlands share a currency – the euro – while Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland have their own currencies. However, Denmark pegs its currency to the euro (meaning that it shared a fixed exchange rate with the euro) and shares it with Greenland and the Faroe Islands. The decision to peg to the euro is a policy choice: Denmark’s main trading market is the European Union, so pegging provides price stability for trade.

“All of those countries, regardless of currency choice, have higher national incomes per head than the UK.”

The best way to explain the euro position is to quote the European Union itself:

EU advice: Are the Member States obliged to join the euro?

"In principle, all Member States that do not have an opt-out clause (i.e. Denmark) have committed to adopting the euro once they fulfill the necessary conditions. However, it is up to individual countries to calibrate their path towards the euro and no timetable is prescribed."

The Member States that joined the EU in 2004, 2007 and 2013, after the euro was launched, did not meet the conditions for entry to the Euro area at the time of their accession. Therefore, their Treaties of Accession allow them time to make the necessary adjustments.

So it is clear that:

• To use the euro you have to meet the necessary conditions set by the EU and Scotland would not do so immediately on independence
• Scotland would be empowered by the EU to decide the timetable to meet the conditions and as quoted, no timetable is prescribed – in other words, we could be on an indefinite path to adoption.
• Some EU nations were told on joining that they did not yet qualify to use the euro.

Other EU members that are not using the Euro

• Croatia joined the EU in 2013 – On January 1, 2023, Croatia will become the 20th country to use the euro, ten years after becoming a member. It will join Schengen the same day. 
• Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007 – Bulgaria’s coalition government plans to switch in 2024, 15 years after becoming a member
• The Czech Republic joined the EU in 2004 – it has no plans to join the euro
• Denmark joined the EU in 1973 – the Danish Government has fixed its currency to the euro. It shares its currency with Greenland and the Faroes
• Hungary joined the EU in 2004 – Its semi-dictator leader Victor Orban has many issues with the EU - but the country is currently exploring joining the euro waiting room (ERM) as a way to stabilise their fluctuating currency. 
• Poland joined the EU in 2004 – whether or not to join the euro is a subject of lively political debate. The country is unlikely to join any time soon. 
• Romania joined the EU in 2007 – their target year to join the euro is 2024 - but they won’t be allowed to if they don’t meet the criteria. 
• Sweden joined the EU in 1995 – Sweden held a referendum in the early 2000s on euro membership, and the country rejected it. Sweden is obliged by treaty to join, as are other newer members but they have just said no. Swedes have a positive view of the EU; but most still don’t want to join the euro.

Conclusion

When an independent Scotland joins the EU as a full member state the EU will agree that it is not possible for Scotland to adopt the euro immediately and will give the Scottish Government full control over the timescales to meet the criteria. 

The Scottish Government would therefore be able to indefinitely postpone joining the euro. However, it is technically possible (however unlikely) a future Scottish Government might decide to join the Euro voluntarily - the point is that such decisions are able to be made by a sovereign independent country. As the report “Building a Stronger Economy” points out, even now, far more of Scotland’s manufactured exports go to the Eurozone than to the UK. 

These issues will no doubt produce political debate in the decades after Scotland has achieved its independence from the failing UK. 

Scotland is at a crossroads - should it remain as a region of a stagnant, Brexit-bound UK economy - or step out confidently into an independent future? Last week the Scottish government published a report on how an independent Scotland can build a strong economy, one that is fairer, greener, stronger and considers the wellbeing of the nation as well as its economic growth potential. The report itself was barely covered by the Unionist media - who confined themselves to reporting on the press launch and trotting out the usual attack lines.  However, it has been well received by those who have actually read it. 

The report looks at how Scotland is performing at the moment; where are the barriers to growth and offers a road map for an independent future. Scotland starts from a position behind that of the UK - it has a lot of undeveloped potential; rejoining the EU will be a huge boost; and an independent Scotland can make the most of its natural and human resources. 

Here are some of the ways Scotland can build a better economic future for all. (Unless otherwise linked, facts and figures are drawn from the report.) 

1 Scotland’s economy is on an upward trajectory compared with the UK

When the Scottish Parliament was reconvened in 1999, Scotland’s economy was lagging behind England’s. Wages were lower, the productivity of Scottish workers was far below that of English workers, and there were few opportunities. In those days, the public sector was the biggest employer.

Now, the biggest employer is business services and finance, at almost 30%.  Scotland is the only part of the UK where productivity is increasing significantly. While productivity has barely changed in the UK, Scotland has gone from being 8% behind to just 2% behind. Average wages are also rising at a faster rate in Scotland and have come from a lower base to equal the UK average. Scotland is now one of the wealthiest parts of the UK, with the highest GDP per capita of any of the UK’s nations or regions, outside London and the South East.

Devolution has helped Scotland but there is still a long way to go. Westminster still controls most of the economic levers, and imposes policies that don't work for Scotland. Scotland and the UK are now falling behind EU countries in terms of average income, income inequality and the situation of the poorest in society. An independent Scotland could regain some of the ground lost since Brexit by focusing on a well-being socio-economic approach. 

2 Scotland already leads the UK in terms of green jobs and growth

The Green Growth Index by Oxford Economics, commissioned by the Lloyds Banking Group, places Scotland first in the UK for green economy opportunities. This reflects Scotland’s existing green industrial base with a growing number of green jobs and innovation activity, access to skills and training, and development of the renewable energy infrastructure. 

With independence, Scotland could make longer-term planning and investment decisions - ones that are no longer dependent on the ‘Barnett consequentials’ of ever-changing policies made by Westminster governments Scotland didn’t elect. 

3 Vibrant sectors include life sciences, space, and gaming

The professional, scientific, and technical activities sector is now the largest sector in Scotland in terms of the number of businesses, and is growing 1.5 times faster than the economy overall. 

Scotland has one of the biggest life sciences clusters in Europe with world-leading expertise in drug discovery, medical technologies and agri-tech.  Almost 20%  of all UK jobs in the space sector are based in Scotland. Scotland currently produces more small satellites than any other country in Europe.  Another strong area is gaming, centred on the Dundee video games cluster. These sectors are all international - they will benefit from Scotland rejoining the EU and the return of free movement. 

4 Scotland’s population is the most highly educated in Europe

Scotland has a higher share of the population aged 25 to 64 years with a tertiary (degree level) education than any country in the EU.  It stands 8 places higher than the UK in the table, reflecting a broad education, and greater equality of access than in the rest of the UK. The University sector will benefit from rejoining Erasmus which used to see thousands of Scots study abroad each year; and from rejoining Horizon, the world’s biggest science fund. 

5 Independent Scotland will be in a stronger economic position than as part of UK

The current assessment of Scotland’s financial position is called ‘GERS”. Unionists often say that it shows a deficit. About £75 billion in raised in total from tax in Scotland; and roughly £56 billion of that comes back to Holyrood. Westminster says it spends the remaining £19 billion, plus another £20bn or so, on Scotland’s behalf, on things like welfare, defence, and servicing the national debt, leaving a nominal ‘deficit’ of £20 billion. 

But this sum reflects the fact that the UK government controls policy and regulation. So for example, the UK chooses to tax oil and gas lightly at source - but to take in a lot of revenue at the petrol pump (£26bn), which is almost all tax raised in England. The pattern is repeated with other assets like whisky and renewable electricity.  Under independence, Scotland will control tax policy and can ensure it works to Scotland’s advantage rather than Westminster’s. 

6 Rejoining the EU will deliver massive benefits to trade

The economic opportunities for Scotland of re-joining the EU as a member state in her own right for the first time are potentially enormous. The EU is the largest single market in the world. The most recent available data, for 2019, shows that the value of Scotland’s manufactured goods exports to the EU and the rest of the world was £19 billion - almost double the value of exports to the rest of the United Kingdom - £11 billion. 

If Scotland can increase export levels to the same as other comparable high-performing countries, that will deliver a boost to prosperity and tax revenues. The top target countries for increasing exports are almost all within the European single market. 

7 independent Scotland will control immigration

Scotland's immigration needs are different from England’s. Scotland has an older population, particularly in the Highlands and Islands. In the Western Isles, the average age will soon reach 50, and the rest of the Highlands is not far behind. Scotland’s average age is 42. The shortage of younger workers is impacting the economy - there is just not the pool of people available that are needed by local businesses, health and social care and so on. 

Scotland’s population at the time of the Union in 1707, was about one-fifth of England and Wales’s. But today the figure is about one-twelfth of the overall UK population. Free movement will increase the pool of workers. Independent Scotland will also be able to set its own figures for things like the salary levels needed for a visa,  the number and cost of agricultural visas,  student work visas, and so on, at an appropriate level for Scotland’s needs. 

8 Independent Scotland will have one of the largest marine zones in Europe

As an independent member state of the EU, Scotland’s marine zone would be the fourth largest of EU member states’ core waters; larger, for example, than those of Ireland, France or Portugal.  These waters are not only significant geographically, but are also among the richest in the world in terms of fisheries, marine biodiversity, and offshore renewable energy potential.

9 Independent Scotland can make the most of vast renewable potential

Scotland’s renewable energy potential is vast. In 2021, Scotland generated enough renewable electricity to power all households in Scotland for three years, and exported electricity with an estimated wholesale market value of £2.4 billion. And in the coming decades the potential to create and export energy from onshore, and offshore wind, hydrogen, carbon capture, solar, pumped hydro is enormous.

Currently, the UK government and the privatised National Grid decide how energy is regulated, paid for and taxed. An independent Scotland could ensure the long-term affordability of electricity, as its offshore and onshore wind farms provide electricity at a lower cost than nuclear or gas power plants, which the UK relies on.

10 Independent Scotland will set up a £20 billion investment fund 

The report from the Scottish government sets out plans to take oil and gas and other windfall income out of day-to-day spending and instead invest it “for the long-term benefit of the Scottish people.” 

The aims of the “Building a New Scotland Fund” would be to enable the transition to net zero - it will be used, for example, to fund investment in insulating existing homes and to build new ones that are easier to heat. 

Conclusion

Scotland has so many reasons to benefit from independence. Scotland’s constitutional  choice has become much starker than it was in 2014. To stick with a chaotic, Brexit-bound, increasingly unequal UK suffering from a collapse in political governance and international credibility? Or set out on the path towards becoming more prosperous, sustainable and fairer, like most comparable European countries? 

We think most Scots will choose the latter. 

Further reading

Read “A Stronger Economy with Independence” report 

Polling by YouGov has indicated that if a snap general election were called, the SNP would be the official party of opposition in Westminster following a crushing defeat for the Tories. 

This is based on opinion polling for the UK and Scotland which shows Labour would win 529 seats with a majority of 408, the SNP would become the second largest party with 51 seats and the Tories would be relegated to third having won only 30 seats.

Even if an independence referendum was not granted before a general election, there is simply no way it can be denied if the SNP forms the Official Opposition and is the second largest party in the House of Commons. However, if there were a snap election the SNP would fight it on an independence platform so their MPs would only be going to Westminster to negotiate the terms of independence. 

Our calculations are based on two polls conducted by YouGov at the beginning of October of UK-wide and Scottish voting intention at Westminster. When the results of these polls are converted to Westminster seats, some interesting things happen: 

• Labour wins a landslide victory with 529 seats and a 326-seat majority in the House of Commons.
• The Tories would experience a total collapse, with their seats dropping from 365 to just 30.
• The SNP would win a massive landslide of 51 seats in Parliament, overtaking the Tories in Westminster.
• The Lib Dems would only win 16 seats. 
• This means that the SNP would in fact be the second largest party in the UK Parliament and would form the Official Opposition. 

It’s also important to keep in mind that we used Electoral Calculus for the seat projections and two of the seats in Scotland predicted to swing to Labour are currently held by MPs that defected to the Alba Party. Our analysis is that the SNP would almost certainly win these constituencies, bringing the potential total of SNP seats up to 53. 

It’s important to note that these polls predate the resignation of Less Truss and the complete collapse of her Conservative Government. As a result the situation now may well be worse for the Conservatives and better for the SNP. After just 44 days in office, Liz Truss has become the shortest serving UK Prime Minister, with her tenure making all of the disasters of recent Tory administrations seem like minor gaffes. She oversaw a mini-budget offering such unsavoury levels of unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy that even the most steadfast Thatcherites found difficult to stomach.

The subsequent turmoil in the sterling and gilt markets forced the Bank of England to intervene to save the pensions sector from total collapse, leading to the resignation of the Chancellor. Her premiership came to an embarrassing end when she missed a vote in the House of Commons on fracking, which may or may not have been a vote of confidence in her own government. 

Through all this, Mrs Truss’ premiership might be best known for inducing the total collapse of the Conservative party as one of the pillars of the two party system. 

These results demonstrate that, above all else, now is the time for an independent Scotland. The people of Scotland deserve better than the current farce at Westminster and have a right to distance themselves from this calamity. 

(more…)

Clearly, there are no direct comparisons between the way Jamaica became part of the British Empire and Scotland. Many British businesses and individuals participated in the slave trade and huge profits were brought back. Scotland's participation in that trade has only recently begun to be acknowledged . Nevertheless, Scotland has strong links to Jamaica - both positive and negative. It is important to recognise these.  

A country with a population of under 3 million, Jamaica has a big influence, famous around the world for music, sport and food. Jamaica has serious economic and social issues to contend with, many of which are bound up with its complex history, but it has made remarkable progress on some of these in recent years - such as reducing infant mortality.  

Despite facing huge hurdles, Jamaica has been able to take on the challenges of governing itself. It has built a network of strong international relationships, particularly within the Organization of American States. Jamaica has made impressive progress in reducing uneployment and poverty rates while also tacking its high public debt thanks to the country's "Herculean efforts". 

Looking back at a connected past and forwards to its own independent future, Scotland can learn lessons from Jamaica’s example. 

Links between Scotland and Jamaica

Many people would assume that the country outside of Scotland with the highest percentage of Scottish surnames might be Canada or New Zealand, but it is in fact Jamaica. It has been said that up to 60% of names in the Jamaican telephone directory are Scottish in origin. The most common name is Campbell. 

Glasgow’s first Afro-Caribbean elected representative is SNP Councillor Graham Campbell, who represents Springburn and Robroyston. Councillor Campbell, a cultural producer, musician and dub poet, is a veteran political activist and as part of “Flag-Up Scotland-Jamaica” has worked to build awareness of the links between the two countries.  

As part of its commitment to reparative justice, the University of Glasgow has committed to raising and spending £20m on the Glasgow-Caribbean Centre for Development Research, which is based jointly in Glasgow and Kingston.

One of the centre’s priorities is working to reduce the rates of diabetes type 2 and other chronic disease, which affects both Scotland and Jamaica. Another is supporting technological transformation of the economy.  This kind of partnership working can be a source of strength for both countries in the future.

Understanding and acknowledging the past 

Many Jamaicans got their names from slave owners and overseers, in Jamaica many were Scots. Some imposed their names; others fathered children with slaves - including some of Jamaica’s most celebrated radicals and anti-slavery campaigners.  But there were others such as the nurse Mary Seacole, whose father was a Scottish soldier stationed in Kingston and whose mother was a landlady.  

Scottish prisoners of war from both the Cromwellian wars and the Jacobite rebellions were exiled to Jamaica, as were some Covenanters. Many of these exiles were indentured servants working alongside slaves of African descent in the sugar plantations. At the end of the eighteenth century, Colonel John Campbell from Inverary left the failed Darien experiment and came to Jamaica where he had a large family, which initiated the spread of the Campbell name all over the island. 

Campaigner Sir Geoffrey Palmer, whose mother was a West Indian woman with the Scots name Lamond, wants Scotland to engage more openly with the legacy of slavery. He said:  "I think a lot of West Indians want to know about their Scottish heritage. Perhaps they can even take some pride in it. For a while, there was a movement towards dropping these names, but I think that would be to lose something real, a real record of our history."

One of Jamaica’s best-known anti-slavery campaigners was Robert Wedderburn. When Robert, whose mother was a slave, traveled to Scotland to visit his father James at Inveresk Lodge, he was turned away with a cracked sixpence. That was part of his journey to radicalism - he later became a prolific speechmaker, writer and protestor. 

Becoming independent

The island of Jamaica was first conquered by Spain in 1509 and then Britain in 1655. The island’s First People, the Taino, were of South American origin. They took refuge in the mountains where over time they were joined by escaped slaves, exiled Jacobites,  and other fugitives. They formed a multi-racial group of rebels called the Maroons. The well-known Jamaican dish ‘jerk chicken’ comes from Maroon cooking techniques of cooking meat in mounds to keep the smoke from giving away their position to British soldiers. 

The slave trade was abolished in 1807, but existing slaves were not freed. Slavery was finally ended in Jamaica in 1838. After that, the plantation system gradually collapsed - leaving much-needed agricultural land abandoned by its owners. 

The Morant Bay rebellion was sparked when a black man was arrested for ‘trespassing’ on a long-abandoned plantation. Its leaders included George William Gordon, the son of a Scottish planter and a slave woman, and Paul Bogle. They were both hanged by the British Governor. Jamaica’s Assembly was abolished and replaced as a Crown Colony where only the Governor had decision-making power. 

By the 1930s, dissatisfaction was growing. The economic depression led to economic hardship and there were riots. At this time, many Jamaicans were prevented from voting by poll tax requirements. Universal suffrage was not brought in until 1940. In the post-war period, the island began to pressure and prepare for self-government under unofficial leader Alexander Bustamante, who became the first Prime Minister. 

Between 1958 and 1962 most of the British-controlled Caribbean was integrated as the new West Indies Federation in an attempt to create a single unified future independent state. The West Indies Federation fell apart when the largest island, Jamaica, withdrew from the federation and declared itself independent in August 1962, closely followed by Trinidad and Tobago.

The Jamaican dollar

Jamaica started a central bank two years before independence. The Bank of Jamaica became the sole issuer of currency for the island and it continued to issue British pounds and shillings. Seven years after independence, in 1969, it moved to the Jamaican dollar. George William Gordon features on the $10 note.

The Jamaican flag

The only national flag apart from that of Scotland that includes the saltire is the flag of Jamaica. As the time of independence in 1962 approached, an initial design for the flag with three vertical stripes in green, black and gold was deemed unsatisfactory. A Presbyterian minister, Rev William McGhie, who had become a friend of the Prime Minister Alexander Bustamante, suggested that the national flag should reflect Jamaica’s status as a Christian country and have a cross in it. At Sir Alexander's request, he drew out the Scottish flag substituting the blue and white of Scotland with the green, black, and gold of Jamaica. This design was accepted and the Jamaican flag has become one of the best-known in the world.

The Jamaican National Dress includes vibrant reds and yellows and a plaid-like design. This red and white chequered costume is often called the bandana costume, which is a mixture of African kente and Scottish tartan. 

Conclusion

The links between Scotland and Jamaica go back a long way. Important figures in Jamaican history such as Robert Wedderburn and George William Gordon should be better known and studied in Scotland, the country which influenced their journeys to radicalism. Scotland is finally beginning to understand and acknowledge the part it played in the story of slavery. 

Jamaica is working to overcome the challenges linked to its complex past. Its people and culture are influential across the world. Jamaica has a wide network of international partnerships and Scotland should look to be part of that. 

As Scotland looks to its own independent future, it will be able to build stronger connections with Jamaica in the future, working together to confront shared issues. Glasgow University is showing the way, with the co-located Glasgow-Caribbean Centre for Developmental Research. 

NEXT WEEK the Supreme Court will adjudicate on the Scottish Parliament’s right to hold an independence referendum. The case comes almost exactly ten years after the signing of the Edinburgh Agreement, setting out the basis for a referendum on Scottish independence. 

Prime Minister David Cameron and the then Scottish Secretary Michael Moore met First Minister Alex Salmond and his deputy Nicola Sturgeon at St Andrew House in Edinburgh on October 15 2012 for a ceremonial signing of the document.

A breezily-confident Cameron stood in front of the Edinburgh skyline on that sunny autumn afternoon and told the assembled press that he was showing respect for the Scottish people and their decision to vote for a party with a manifesto commitment to a referendum.

The backdrop was that SNP had won a landslide victory in 2011’s Scottish general election. In response, the Conservative/ Liberal UK government published a consultation on “Scotland's Constitutional Future”. Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg wrote: 

"We will not stand in the way of a referendum on independence: the future of Scotland's place within the United Kingdom is for people in Scotland to vote on."

Here are three lessons for today’s situation from that historic event

1 Respecting the “Union of equals” was part of the UK’s case

Asked what he had got in return for giving Salmond control of both the date and who could vote in the poll, Cameron replied: "What we have is what I always wanted, which is one single question, not two questions, not devo max, a very simple single question that has to be put before the end of 2014, so we end the uncertainty.”

Ironically, Salmond and Sturgeon did not want a third question either. But saying they were prepared to accept one was part of their negotiations. Giving in gracefully was part of Cameron’s show of respect. (This however was revealed as sham when the day after the ‘No’ vote in 2014 he emerged from Downing Street to announce that Scottish MPs would henceforth be treated a second class, unable to vote on most domestic issues.*) 

Cameron’s view that the United Kingdom is a voluntary union of equals, established by the Treaty of Union of 1707,  is in contrast with the “muscular unionism” of the current Conservative government, which regards itself as having the right to rule over the Scottish people and deny a referendum indefinitely. 

Many Unionist commentators fear that this approach is unlikely to be a winning strategy in the long term, and could push support for independence even higher than it currently sits. Writing in the Spectator recently, Alex Massie argued: 

“The nationalists would love few things better than a British government determined to in some strange sense 'put Scotland in its place'. Nothing could further or more fully demonstrate the SNP’s belief that Scotland and Britain are no longer compatible entities.”  

2 The Labour Party tried to hold back the tide for too long

The backdrop to that moment in 2012 had actually been five years of negotiation. After the SNP became the largest party in Holyrood in 2007, the Labour Party misjudged the reaction to blocking a referendum on Scottish independence. Feeling that Scotland was being denied rights that the Labour Party trumpet for countries all around the world only made the calls grow stronger. 

In 2008, on BBC Scotland's Politics Show, Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander declared: “Bring it on”. Later, she clarified her position, saying she supported a referendum on Scottish independence if it also had a question on more powers for Holyrood, and if it happened before the end of the year.

Alexander believed a ‘No” vote would damage the SNP and lead to Labour regaining power in Scotland. She was certain that the middle option of more powers would win the ballot. Even in 2008, it was obvious that the trend showed support for independence rising -  so there was little point in waiting. 

Scotland’s Unionist establishment, including the Conservative and Liberal Democrats, were furious. Alexander was immediately denounced for “misjudgment and political naivety”. Leaks - possibly from within the Labour party machine - led to claims that donations had not been properly declared. Alexander resigned just a month later. Kicking the can down the road by refusing a referendum did not make the issue go away. Instead it laid the way for the landslide victory for the SNP in 2011. 

3 The current democratic mandate is stronger than 2011

The SNP went into the May 2011 Scottish election with the top line on the manifesto being a promise to legislate for a referendum on independence. The balance of support was such that they took 53 constituency seats but they still were able to gain 16 additional members on the regional lists. The upshot was that the SNP ended up with an overall majority of 69 out of 129 members in a system that was designed to make that all but impossible. 

They had 45% of the vote in the first, constituency voted, and 44% in the second. At that time, the Scottish Green Party was not signed up to a manifesto commitment to a referendum on independence and they got just 2% of the second vote and two seats. 

In 2021, the SNP got almost 48% of the first vote and won 62 constituency seats, ten more than in 2011. They had 40% of the second vote and won two of those seats. The Scottish Greens, who had by this time moved to supporting independence, got 8% of the second vote and eight seats, giving the independence movement 70 seats in total. 

The democratic basis for a referendum is even stronger than in 2011. The change in material circumstances caused by Brexit, which was imposed on Scotland against its democratic will as expressed in the 2016 referendum is another strong argument for a referendum. 

The baseline support for independence is far higher now than it was in 2012. An Ipsos Mori poll that week showed support for independence running at 28%.

The UK government now argues that it does not recognise Holyrood’s right to call a referendum on Scottish independence. That could backfire and increase support for independence.

Conclusion

For both sides, October 15, 2012, was the beginning of a campaign for hearts and minds. The ceremonial signing was not really necessary; they wanted to take the opportunity to set out their positions to the waiting media.

Blocking a referendum after the Scottish people elected a government with an independence-supporting majority would have been likely to backfire.

Agreeing on a democratic arrangement set a precedent that should apply a decade later when the mandate is even stronger. Now the UK government has abandoned this commitment - how will it make a positive case for the Union? 

* That policy known as EVEL - English Votes for English Laws - has now been rescinded but it doesn't much matter now - it was a successful attack on Labour in Scotland. SNP MPs don't vote on purely English matters.