Pages tagged with "Believe in Scotland"

As the candidates for the next Prime Minister continue to voice more and more extreme right-wing priorities thats are out of step with the vast majority of Scottish voters, speculation rises that there could be a general election within the next few months. But if that were to happen, almost one in ten voters could be stopped from casting their ballots.

The UK Government’s own research suggests 9% voters don’t have suitable id - that is much higher than was previously thought. Previous estimates were about 2.5%.  Low-income and marginal groups are more likely to be affected. 

This situation could significantly damage the cause of Scottish independence by unfairly suppressing the vote from areas and groups of people who are more likely to support independence. It could also hand a massive electoral advantage to the Conservatives. 

The UK Government forced through the Electoral Act requiring people to present photo id at the polling booth, ignoring the fact the Scottish Parliament did not consent to it and that many experts said it could damage democracy in the UK.

Government phone survey finds 9% without acceptable photo ID

The Cabinet Office commissioned a survey earlier this year that found only 85% of people in the UK have multiple forms of ID. While 91% of respondents said they have a passport, the surveying company pointed out that a phone survey struggles to reach underrepresented groups such as the homeless and even this could be an underestimate. 

Voter ID card legislation three months late

Most countries where photo id is demanded at the voting booth also issue free ID cards. The UK does not. The Act said that voting cards would be created and made freely available - but the legislation to create them has been delayed. It is three months behind schedule.

A spokesman for the Department for Levelling Up said : ‘It is the government’s expectation that all the measures in the Elections Act will be implemented during the lifetime of this parliament. The Voter Card system will be in operation in good time ahead of voter identification being required at polls.” He cited earlier research from the survey above, which he claimed showed only 2% of voters without ID. 

The Electoral Commission is toothless

The Electoral Commission has written to the new Minister for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Greg Clarke, requesting an urgent meeting. It pointed out that the delay in creating voter ID cards was a cause for concern. But there is nothing the Electoral Commission can do to ensure that the UK’s elections are free and fair. 

A spokesperson said: “The Electoral Commission is responsible for enforcing the law, but not for making it”.  A report said the Act risks damaging trust in the UK’s electoral system, instead of protecting it. 

The Electoral Commission no longer has the power to enforce election law

The Elections Bill also removed the power to prosecute people who break electoral law from the Commission. In future, it will be up to the various police services to decide if a breach of electoral law should be prosecuted. The law also does not allow EU citizens who settled in the UK before Brexit to have a vote in general elections. 

The Scottish Parliament is powerless to create voter ID cards

Arrangements for general elections come under the rule of Westminster and so these rules will apply to Scottish voters when they vote on MPs. 

The Scottish Government could issue its own cards - but they won’t be recognised at polling stations unless the law says they should be and that power rests with the UK Government, as far as general elections go. 

Research shows onerous registration puts voters off

Even if the UK Government does pass the required legislation to create voter ID cards, if people have to go through a bureaucratic process with their local authority, research shows it will put them off voting and reduce turn out. 

Over 60s bus passes acceptable - but not matriculation cards

The new law has been criticised for other kinds of unfairness - it accepts over 60s bus passes - but not student id cards or young person railcards or bus passes. Over 60s are significantly more likely to vote against independence and for right wing candidates.

The Wikipedia entry on the Act reads: "The act was criticised for permitting as acceptable voter identification "an Older Person’s Bus Pass, an Oyster 60+ Card, a Freedom Pass", while not allowing 18+ student Oyster cards, national railcards, or student ID cards. An amendment in the House of Lords to list these as accepted forms of voter identification was rejected by the Conservative government.” Legislation to create free voter id cards has been delayed.

There was no significant electoral fraud in the UK

What were the motives for passing this law? Protecting democracy against fraud was given as a reason - but that does not stand up to scrutiny. There is little evidence of serious voter fraud in UK elections. Between 2015 to 2019, during which three general elections were held and 153 million in-person votes cast, only 88 allegations were made of voter fraud. Between 2010 and 2018, there were just two convictions for voter fraud.

A few percentage points can swing a seat

Just a couple of percentage points can make a difference  - for example in Moray and in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine the majority for the Conservatives in the 2019 election was under 1,000 votes and in Dumfries and Galloway, Alister Jack's majority was less than 2,000. According to recent polling by Electoral Calculus, all the Conservative MPs Scottish seats are at risk, with the potential for them all to be lost.

In addition, it is likely that the next general election will be fought in Scotland on the single issue of independence. Disenfranchising large swathes of voters could make a significant difference in vote share.

Conclusion - a crime against democracy

It seems clear that the the new Elections Act risks disenfranchising many, many people. If voter ID cards are not made available  soon, that number will be even higher.  There is a question mark over the reasons for forcing through the elections act. There is no evidence of significant fraud. The Electoral Commission has also been weakened and has no power to enforce rules or to ensure elections are free and fair. Being careless with the votes of the electorate - or deliberately suppressing them is a crime against democracy. 

Since the Brexit vote, Westminster has been determined to take back control - of Scotland. It wants to go back to an old version of the power relationship that predates the era of both countries joining the EU. It is tearing up the agreed legal framework that was established on the basis of the 1997 referendum where devolution was supported by 75% of voters. 

Without consultation or consent, the UK Government is making highly political and ideological changes. Instead of standing by the convention that it should not interfere in devolved areas, the Westminster government sees itself as the owner of Scotland’s sovereignty - and it regards the Scottish Parliament as having none. Therefore it can do whatever it pleases to Scotland.

Ten ways the UK Government is undermining devolution

#1 A hard Brexit was forced on Scotland without consent

The referendum on EU membership delivered an incredibly strong Remain result (62%) in Scotland. The four governments in the UK initially agreed a process that committed them to working together in EU negotiations. This could have provided an opportunity for the views of the Scottish electorate to be taken into account and for consideration of a compromise proposal, something like the Northern Ireland protocol.  In practice, however, the form of Brexit – with the UK leaving the European Single Market and Customs Union as well as the European Union – reflected solely the views of a hardline group of English MPs, the ERG who lead the UK Government. 

#2 The UK Government’s “Brexit Freedoms Bill” - means the freedom of Westminster to do whatever it wants to Scotland

Many of the laws we take for granted, from workers' rights to consumer protection are written into UK law as part of EU laws. The Brexit Freedoms Bill will tear those up - it will effectively give the UK Government so-called Henry the Eighth powers to amend these at will without the usual Parliamentary process for making new laws. It means there could be a race to the bottom with a bonfire, not of red tape, but of citizens’ rights. 

#3 The Internal Markets Act was forced on Scotland

The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 made it illegal for any divergence between the different nations of the UK when it comes to trade. That means that even a small change by the Scottish Government - like putting a 10p deposit on glass bottles is automatically deemed illegal. It would require a specific exemption in the UK act for Holyrood to do that. The Act had to be amended last month to allow Scotland to ban cotton buds, which can end up in the ocean. That is a big change from the previous devolution settlement. Holyrood did not consent to this Act but it was pushed through anyway. 

#4 The UK’s increasingly-lax environmental standards and rights will be forced on Scotland

One example is the UK government is already planning to water down the regulatory requirements on key chemicals, and experts say the UK’s rules are now trailing the EU. One example is glyphosate - Roundup - which research suggests disrupts the immune systems of honeybees making them more vulnerable to colony collapse. It is likely to be banned in the EU but remain legal in the UK. Because of the Internal Markets Act, it would require a specific legal exemption by Westminster for Scotland to effectively ban toxic chemicals from being sold north of the border. 

#5 The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was partly struck down

Another example is the incorporation of the UN Rights of the Child into Scottish law. This was passed unanimously by Holyrood. England doesn’t recognise these rights - in part because they would apply to child refugees. As a result, it took the Scottish Government to court and struck out several provisions of this internationally agreed convention. In the course of this case, the UK Supreme Court ruled that all of the sovereignty of UK democracy rests with Westminster - the Scottish Parliament has effectively no protection in the courts - despite the massive majority of Scottish people who voted ‘Yes’ to devolution. 

#6 “Leveling up” means avoiding the scrutiny of Scotland’s elected representatives

The UK Government has defined a series of “leveling up missions” covering devolved matters – such as education, health and justice -  without the agreement of the devolved governments and has indicated it does not intend to seek consent, or even consult them over its plans.  

The UK Government also took on new powers to spend money in devolved areas that had been removed from them in 1999. Scotland has received just 3.5% of all Leveling Up funding, despite having 8.2% of the population”. The leveling up funding being distributed by the UK Government fall far short of the funding streams Scotland received from the EU, for infrastructure, remote area support,  investment in science research and more. 

This is underlined by a “UK Infrastructure Bank”, being set up to bypass the devolution settlement

The UK Government’s legislative programme announced in May 2022 includes Bills for a UK Infrastructure Bank with powers to spend directly in devolved areas, without even checking  these decisions respect the priorities of the Scottish Parliament in areas for which it is responsible.   

#7 If the UK Government secures a trade deal with the US that may impact the NHS in Scotland

Ongoing trade talks between the UK and the US include access to health data. There have also been fears that US pharmaceutical companies are seeking access to the NHS in any deal. That could impact prices for new and old drugs. Holyrood would not have the power to say no to such deals and the gradual privatisation of the NHS will impact negatively on Scotland's health budget.

The UK Government has made it clear it will not hesitate to override devolution within the context of international trade deals. A clause protecting the NHS from being on the table in trade negotiations was removed from the Trade Act.

#8 Lack of protection for Scotland’s iconic food and drink brands in the UK government’s negotiated trade deals. 

The UK Government does not consult Scotland over the impact of trade deals on Scotland, even though Scotland is responsible for a third of the UK’s food and drink exports.  The EU recognises 15 protected geographic indicators for food and drink from Scotland - they are special food categories that belong to all the producers in a specific area - like “Shetland lamb” or “Scottish salmon”. Australia does not have these for food, though it has some for wine. Other legal ways to protect iconic brands, like Scotch whisky are expensive and complicated. The document produced by the UK Government on the Australia deal makes clear there is no current protection for Scotland’s food PGIs. This template will be rolled over to other countries such as the USA and represents a problem for Scotland’s high-quality food producers, who could be undercut by people piggybacking on the brand and any promotion. 

#9 The Elections Act 2022 demanding photo id to vote is being forced on Scotland 

The Scottish Parliament refused to consent to the Elections Act but nevertheless, it will cover the general election rules. The UK government's own research suggests that 9% of voters do not have eligible identification. It disproportionately affects those on low incomes. A report said the Act risks damaging trust in the UK’s electoral system, instead of protecting it. Legislation to create free voter id cards has been delayed.

The Wikipedia entry on the Act reads:

"The act was criticised for permitting as acceptable voter identification "an Older Person’s Bus Pass, an Oyster 60+ Card, a Freedom Pass", while not allowing 18+ student Oyster cards, national railcards, or student ID cards. An amendment in the House of Lords to list these as accepted forms of voter identification was rejected by the Conservative government.”

#10 The Vow to maintain the Barnett Formula is being broken

In 2014, the “Vow” that contributed to winning the referendum for the Union included an express commitment to maintaining the Barnett formula. Over time, Barnett gradually reduces Scotland’s budget share anyway. It is based on a per head population count and does not recognise the huge assets Scotland shares with the UK in terms of food and energy production, or the different costs of a more dispersed population in a large area, or the issue of peripherality for the Highlands and Islands, as the EU does.  But even that promise is being broken - the Scottish Parliament’s budget is being cut. Money such as the Leveling Up money is being unfairly distributed - Scotland’s share of that should be handed over to Holyrood. The Scottish Fiscal Commission confirmed in December that: “Overall the Scottish Budget in 2022-23 is 2.6 percent lower than in 2021-22. After accounting for inflation the reduction is 5.2 percent.”  That number will be significantly higher now. 

Conclusion

Far from the promises of the 2014 referendum campaign of ‘lead us don’t leave us’, the UK Government has embarked on a a very different course. Rather than consulting with Scotland’s elected representatives - be they in Westminster or Holyrood, the UK Government treats them with growing contempt. It does not recognise any sovereignty of the Scottish Parliament. Despite the fact it has a handful of MPs and relies on proportional representation to get less than a quarter of the seats at Holyrood, the UK Government intends to bend Scotland to its will. 

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announced in Parliament today that there will be a second independence referendum to be held on Thursday, October 19th, 2023. 

Nicola Sturgeon said the referendum has already been referred to the Supreme Court, by the Lord Advocate. She hopes it will be allowed, without a section 30 order from the UK government,  but said 

“If it does transpire that there is no lawful way for this Parliament to give the people of Scotland the choice of independence in a referendum and if  the UK Government continues to deny a section 30 order,  my party will fight the next general election on this single question, ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?”” 

Here are some key points from the speech. 

1 “We say ‘Yes’ and we are the people”

There was a long struggle to establish a Scottish Parliament. Those who strived for it were committed to the right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. 

The Scottish Constitutional Convention laid the groundwork for devolution. It  asked: “What if that other voice we all know so well responds by saying: ‘we say No and we are the state?” 

Nicola Sturgeon quoted Canon Kenyon Wright’s “simple and powerful” response - “Well we say yes and we are the people”.

2 Inspired - and informed - by the example of other independent countries

Scotland should be inspired when it looks at the performance of independent countries across Europe that are comparable to it. They are doing much better on a range of metrics. This demonstrates that Scotland over generations has paid a price for not being independent.  

Westminster governments Scotland didn't elect have imposed policies Scotland didn’t support, holding Scotland back from fulfilling its potential. 

3 The Conservatives have only 10% of Scotland’s MPs - yet they ripped us out of the EU

Despite having only 6 Scottish MPs, the Conservatives have been able to rip Scotland out of the EU. Businesses and public services are struggling for staff because freedom of movement has ended, and young Scots have been deprived of opportunities. 

The Conservatives have created the worst cost of living crisis in the G7 and the second-lowest growth in the G20.  They are also demonising workers, stoking industrial strife and provoking a trade war. 

4 The Scottish Government doesn’t have the levers it needs

Many look to the Scottish government for leadership. But it doesn't have the levers it needs to shape Scotland’s economy and grow the country’s wealth 

Mitigating damage is not enough - the Scottish government can’t prevent its budget being cut. It can’t stop the UK government pushing thousands of children deeper into poverty with the stroke of a pen. It can’t protect human rights or prevent anti-trade union legislation being enacted

5 Now is the time to build a fairer, green, wealthier Scotland 

Independence will allow Scotland to chart her own course, to build a fairer, greener, wealthier country.  It will allow Scotland to be guided by values and interests that are shared by more of its people. 

Now is the time to get Scotland on the right path, the path chosen by those who live here. An independent Scotland can be outward-looking and internationalist. 

6 "Scottish democracy can’t be allowed to be a prisoner of Boris Johnson or any other Prime Minister"

The UK Government is refusing to respect Scottish democracy. The Scottish Parliament has a clear mandate for a new independence referendum. But the legality is contested by those opposed to independence. The Lord Advocate has already set the wheels in motion for the Supreme Court to decide if the referendum will be legal. If not, it won’t happen.

"If the referendum is disallowed it will end any

idea that the union is a voluntary union of equals." 

7 Believe in Scotland

Let’s make a positive case for independence. Let the opposition make the case for continued Westminster rule and then let the people decide.

Independence means trusting the talents and ingenuity of people who live here. Scotland has unrivaled energy, extraordinary natural heritage, a strong basis in the industries of the future, brilliant universities and colleges, a highly skilled and creative population.  Many independent countries don’t have the resources Scotland is blessed with. It's time to believe in Scotland!

As evidence mounts that Brexit is playing a major part in the UK’s cost of living crisis, the national broadcaster appears to be avoiding reporting honestly on the subject. Why is this? One reason is that as Scotland moves towards an independence referendum, the issue of Brexit is particularly sensitive.

Scotland voted against Brexit - it was foisted upon us.  An independent Scotland would be able to rejoin the EU as an associate member immediately, and if the referendum is held in 2023, it could reasonably expect to be a full member by January 1, 2025. 

Every mention of Brexit damage is a boost for the Yes campaign - and presumably, this is one reason why the Unionist British Broadcasting Corporation goes to Orwellian lengths to avoid telling the truth about its contribution to UK inflation - in April they edited out the word “Brexit” in the middle of an interview with Scotland’s National Farming Union President Martin Kennedy. They then blamed tailbacks at Dover on holidaymakers not extra Brexit checks, and now inflation is being blamed on the Ukraine war not the post-Brexit slump in the British pound.

Bloomberg, the Financial Times and other international outlets report the Brexit effect

High-quality, independent news media outlets like Bloomberg and the FT report the UK has worse inflation than similar G7 countries. Since the Brexit vote the pound has slid against the dollar and that is leading to extra steep inflation. It is also weakening against the Euro and Bloomberg predicts a Euro will be worth 90p by the autumn. 

“Citigroup Inc, Bank of America Corp and Standard Bank all see the UK as an outlier in the developed world because of the economic damage wrought by the decision to cut ties with the European Union. Even as price pressures start to fade elsewhere, they say UK inflation will be higher-than-normal because of immigration controls and supply chain disruption.”

Bloomberg, June 22.

The Financial Times BIg Read a day earlier explored the negative consequences of leaving the EU on the shrinking economy, the falling pound and the flatlining investment curve.  It was headlined  "

The BBC appears unwilling to acknowledge what international outlets do

But the BBC seems unwilling to report this in the same way as these respected international sources. In a long item on BBC Scotland’s flagship “Good Morning Scotland” on June 22, for example, reporters discussed the effect of higher prices on Scots. That pattern was repeated in a report by the BBC’s economics editor Faisal Islam on the BBC News at Ten on June 20. Neither show reported the Brexit effect on inflation. 

Good Morning Scotland and other news shows such as “the Bottom Line” discuss the impact of higher costs on agriculture and food prices. They do not explain to viewers why items like oil, gas, diesel, fertiliser cost more for UK buyers.  Lower trust in sterling, lower trust in the UK's direction of travel means a pound buys less on the international markets. 

Food imported from Europe costs more

Imported food - fresh fruit, salad, pork, tomatoes, jam etc - which predominantly came from the EU, have experienced a substantial Brexit effect. Brexit increased average food prices by about 6 percent last year - and that is likely to increase.

The UK has the lowest growth in the G20  bar Russia - OECD

The UK’s inflation rate hit another 40-year high in May, reaching 9.1 percent, its highest level since 1982. The Bank of England expects the inflation rate to exceed 11 percent in October.

The UK is lagging behind the rest of the G7 in terms of trade recovery - business investment, trails other industrialised countries, in spite of Treasury tax breaks to try to drive it up. Next year, according to the OECD think-tank, the UK will have the lowest growth in the G20, apart from sanctioned Russia. 

Brexit has shrunk the UK economy by £100bn a year

The Office for Budget Responsibility first predicted in March 2020, that Brexit would reduce productivity and UK gross domestic product by 4 percent compared with a world where the country remained inside the EU. It says that a little over half of that damage has yet to occur. 

That level of decline, worth about £100bn a year in lost output, means lost revenues for the Treasury of roughly £40bn a year. That money might have enabled them to inflation-proof the Scottish budget - the money “gifted” to Holyrood by Westminster which is being slashed in real terms by inflation, despite the Treasury pulling in extra billions through a windfall tax on Scotland's assets.

Sterling fell 10 percent after the Brexit referendum

Sterling fell almost 10 percent after the Brexit referendum in June 2016, against currencies that match the UK’s pattern of imports. It did not recover. This sharp depreciation was not followed by a boom in exports as UK goods and services became cheaper on global markets, but it did raise the price of imports and pushed up inflation. 

While the UK was still in the EU and during the Brexit “transition phase”, there were no significant effects on trade flows. But this has changed since stricter border controls were introduced at the start of 2021, imposing no tariffs, but significant checks and controls at the formerly frictionless border. 

Scotland makes a third of the UK”s food and drink exports so it takes the hardest hit

Scotland accounts for a third of the UK”s food and drink exports and many smaller Scottish businesses are struggling to absorb the extra costs of the non-tariff barriers. Many have stopped exporting to the EU completely. The Scottish economy is now trailing behind Northern Ireland which benefits from the protocol, which keeps a door open to the EU single market.

But BBC Scotland is failing to report the effect of Brexit on Scotland’s economy, which is worsening over time.  

The UK’s threat to rip up the Northern Ireland protocol means Scotland's universities have now been excluded from the world’s biggest science funding stream, Horizon, losing one billion Euros and the international prestige that would have brought. BBC Scotland has failed to cover this issue. 

The Scottish Highlands and Islands were particularly dependent on summer workers from EU countries. Summer visitors will notice the lack of facilities due to shortage of seasonal workers. That means those businesses will pay less in taxes. Farmers chose to plant less this year and that will lead to higher prices for food. But BBC Scotland has largely ignored the Brexit effect on agriculture. 

Is the BBC taking an anti-independence stance?

The BBC is a UK institution, at its core the BBC doesn't want change. It has now institutionally accepted Brexit and therefore despite Brexit being the foundation for mass inflation, disruption at ports and airports and loss of economic growth the BBC ignores it as "not news". The BBC is a very top-down organisation run from London - journalists who try to discuss the Brexit effect will soon be sidelined. People who want to get promoted try to please the bosses - and that means not using the B word. 

The issue is particularly sensitive in a Scottish context. Brexit was forced on Scotland without consent or even consultation. BBC Scotland now seems desperate to avoid acknowledging what international publications like Bloomberg and the Financial Times regularly admit - that Brexit is playing a major role in driving inflation. Is the BBC’s reluctance to report the truth about Brexit also motivated by concerns it will feed into support for independence?

English students face extortionate interest rates of 12% on their loans

Students in Scotland do not pay fees to attend university. They can borrow money for living expenses if they live away from home, but are charged much lower interest rates for repayment. Most Scottish students currently pay 1.5% interest on their loans. English-based students borrow both fees and living costs. Repayment of their much-higher debts are charged at 3 percent plus inflation, and interest rates are likely to hit 12% for many this summer. English students say they are “being punished” for studying. 

Scottish universities are, however, undergoing a funding squeeze. The UK Government has not increased Scotland’s budget allowance in line with inflation - and Scotland’s Finance Secretary Kate Forbes’s spending review offers a flat rate settlement for the next four years, which amounts to a real-terms cut. Brexit is set to suck a billion Euros from the sector. 

Scottish Unis to lose 1 billion Euros from Brexit fall-out 

Scotland’s universities are also facing the loss of EU funding  - they won three-quarters of a billion Euros in the last six-year-round of the world’s biggest science research fund,  Horizon. That included almost 20% of the “Excellent Science” funding stream, more than any other country in Europe. The coming round is significantly bigger and Scotland could have expected at least a billion Euros. 

But Scottish unis are debarred from applying - they had hoped they would still be eligible as "associate members" and when Scotland is independent they will get that status immediately.

Currently, along with the rest of the UK, in the first retaliation for the UK Government’s posturing over the Northern Ireland protocol and Brexit, they are barred.  

University of the Highlands and Islands a massive loser from Brexit

The University of the Highlands and Islands will be particularly hard hit by Brexit - it received more than £250 million from the EU in the last 25 years, because of its “peripherality” - its situation far from markets, serving fragile rural communities. There is very little replacement funding in view from the UK government.  

Below, we examine some of these issues in more depth. 

The UK Government’s student loan ‘reforms’ hit low-income graduates hardest

Earlier this year, the UK Government put in place major 'reforms' - the effect will be that lower-income graduates will pay more than they currently do - while higher earners pay less. A cap will come in on interest rates next year - but they will still sit around 7%.   England’s Institute for Fiscal Studies said: 

"There is no good economic reason for this. Interest rates on student loans should be low and stable, reflecting the government's own cost of borrowing."

An unfair tax that affects lower-income graduates worst

While those from the wealthiest backgrounds can pay fees and living expenses upfront, many graduates in England are already struggling.  The Observer quoted Emma Rhymer, 29, an early-years practitioner at a day nursery in London, who said that her £50,000 debt was increasing faster than she could pay it back. 

“Although I apply my degree in early childhood studies every day to my work, I find myself questioning whether it was worth it. It feels like the repayments are going to come out of my wages every month forever.  I’m very lucky to be doing a job I love, a job I trained and qualified for. But it’s like I’m being punished for going to university. I’m worried I will never be able to afford to buy a house and have the financial security I will need to start a family. It’s affecting my ability to have a future.”

Scottish students are not burdened with debt and high-interest rates

Scottish students taking vocational qualifications such as teaching or childhood studies will face a very different future. If they continue to live at home, they have a real possibility of graduating with no debt at all. Those who take out the full living-expenses loan for four years will owe in the region of £20,000. They face much lower interest rates and currently their debt will be written off after 30 years, compared to 40 in England. 

Remaining in the UK presents a real threat to the prestige of Scotland's great universities

Scotland pays University fees through general taxation. The downside of this is that universities are funded at a lower level. Despite this, they have managed to maintain a high ranking internationally. Edinburgh is consistently in the world top 20 in the QS ranking system. Glasgow and St Andrews are also in the world top 100 and several other Scottish Universities feature in the top 500. The Royal Conservatoire of Scotland is fifth in the world, according to this widely-respected ranking. 

The UK Government is now creating additional challenges for Scottish universities with its hard Brexit. In the past, they have been able to attract funding from the EU -  but now they look set to lose millions and many prestigious research opportunities through Brexit. 

The UK Government keeps the windfall tax - and fails to increase Scotland’s allowance in line with inflation

The UK Is also creating challenges because although inflation is running at 9%, the allowance they pay to the Scottish Government is only increasing by 2%. So Scotland faces a huge real term cut. That’s despite the fact that the taxes paid by the energy sector, 90% of which comes from Scotland, will amount to £17 billion this year, including the windfall tax. The UK Government will keep almost all of that money. An independent Scotland would have the levers to run the country in line with the priorities of its elected Government - rather than waiting for Barnett consequentials of Conservative policies designed for the south of England. 

Brexit damage - loss of structural funds

Scottish universities received about £3 million a year through EU structural funds. About a third of all of this went to the University of Highlands and Islands (UHI).  Over the past 25 years, UHI has received more than £250 million in various EU funding streams. The outcomes of this funding include more people staying in the Highlands as well as development of the research capacity, skills and the labour market in the region, by working closely with industry and employers in the region.

EU structural funds recognise the principle of peripherality - areas at the fringe of the EU, are considered to be disadvantaged due to their distance from markets. Rural areas also attract extra support. The UK Government does not recognise peripherality and tends to measure support in per head amounts. That disadvantages rural Scotland. 

The replacement Shared Prosperity Fund is far short of the EU’s main structural funds, and it does not even attempt to replace the other EU funding streams that contributed to UHI.

UK Government posturing over the Northern Ireland protocol will cost Scotland dear

The EU is now blocking British scientists from joining the €95bn Horizon Europe research programme — the world’s biggest — because of the row over post-Brexit trade in Northern Ireland. 

Horizon Europe is the EU’s flagship funding programme for research and innovation with a budget of €95.5 billion. It tackles climate change, helps to achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and boosts the EU’s competitiveness and growth.

Scotland won around €755 million in the €80bn Horizon 2020 round over 2014-2020.  This made Scotland the most successful nation per head. Scotland received 19.9% of funding delivered through the ‘excellent science’ pillar.  

At the same time, it has become difficult and expensive to bring faculty members to the UK - they need to pay a health supplement.  It is also no longer possible to exchange students and teachers through Erasmus. 

The UK Government is out of step with most European countries

The UK Government is pursuing its own ideological priorities down south, burdening graduates in lower income professions with a greater load of debt. Scotland is in tune with most EU countries, which fund university education through general taxation and do not throw the burden on individuals. 

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 immediately access EU funding which rewards excellence in research, and also offers support for rural areas such as the Highlands and Islands.

The New Statesman is as Unionist as any publication in Britain despite its left-wing image. That stance is evident in articles about both Scotland and Northern Ireland.

A recent issue saw the nightmarish prospect of nuclear attack by Russia in terms of the UK”s constitutional question. It argued that Scots would not wish to become independent if it meant getting rid of Trident.  Andrew Marr, now able to take a more explicitly Unionist stance having left the BBC, wrote:

“Putin didn’t start a war to damage the SNP, but that’s what he’s doing.” 

Marr did not consider whether Putin’s current nuclear threats actually do the opposite - by suggesting that the doctrine of MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - may not be as reliable a way of averting nuclear war as had been hoped. That makes the “nuclear umbrella’ an outdated concept. 

Marr claimed the Ukraine war means the Scottish independence movement risks:

“subsiding into a normal, social-democratic managerial machine in decline, just like the Parti Québécois after it lost its independence referendums.”

Marr didn’t mention the many differences between Quebec and Scotland.  Quebec’s independence movement is based on a particular ethnic identity and language. Canada’s response was also unlike the UK”s. Quebec has the right to call an independence referendum if it ever wishes to do so; it controls immigration, social security and administers more of the public spending budget than the central Government does. Quebec’s Parliament is consulted over international trade deals. Canada also has more claim to be a democracy than the UK. An increasingly sore point for Scotland is the 800-seat member House of Lords where Evgeny Lebedev and Malcolm Offord have more right to rule over Scotland than anybody elected in Scotland. Canada in contrast has a Senate with just 105 seats,  appointed on a geographical basis - Quebec has 24 Senators. 

On Labour’s performance in the council elections, in the current issue, Chris Deerin comments:

“Scottish democracy would undoubtedly benefit from a better and stronger challenge to the dominant, overweening nationalist machine, and closer political competition.”

Those who vote for Scottish independence-supporting parties don’t see it that way. In fact, since Brexit, a series of acts such as the internal Markets Act, the Nationality and Borders Bill and the Electoral Reform Act have been pushed through without Holyrood’s consent. These all threaten Scotland’s devolution settlement - which was supported by 75% of the electorate in 1997. Independence is the only way to confirm the rights of Scotland’s elected Parliament. 

Northern Ireland gets the same treatment. In a profile piece on Michelle O’Neill, the New Statesman writer Martin Fletcher quoted the Daily Mail which dubbed her:

“the beauty from a family drenched in blood,”

referring to Republican sympathisers in her family.  The piece was a cuttings job without insight. Most of it seemed lifted from a piece in the Sunday Times that attracted criticism for its focus on O’Neill’s teenage pregnancy with the sexist headline “from pregnant schoolgirl to Northern Ireland’s next leader”. (The headline has been changed on line but still appears in the URL)

In the April 27 issue, Fletcher introduces a piece entitled ‘Is a United Ireland now inevitable’  by remarking “It is a far cry from the last time I was here. That was in July 1998,”- therefore perhaps, he is not well qualified to opine on the province’s future?  

The New Statesman looks at Northern Ireland through an anglocentric, Unionist lens, much as it does Scotland. Fletcher concludes his piece with a string of wizened chestnuts:

“I have a great affection for Northern Ireland and its people. My family and I spent two happy years in the province in the late 1990s. But, as I return to London, I recall Reginald Maudling’s famous comment as the home secretary flew back from his first visit in 1970: “For God’s sake, bring me a large Scotch. What a bloody awful country.” Or Winston Churchill’s after the First World War: “The whole map of Europe has been changed… but as the deluge subsides and the waters fall short we see the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone emerging once again.” 

Fletcher uncritically reports the DUP’s analysis that: ”The UK is the world’s fifth-largest economy. It gives Northern Ireland up to £15bn a year, access to the NHS and a welfare state.” All of that is disputed - many argue that Northern Ireland’s potential has been wasted and its economy ill-served by British rule.

Fletcher does not consider the fact that unification would be likely to trigger large-scale investment in Northern Ireland from both the EU and the USA. The EU invested heavily in supporting Germany’s unification process. The USA’s Irish diaspora would be keen to see new Ireland make it. This investment could help unleash Northern Ireland’s huge productivity and development potential. 

For many who support independence, there is much to celebrate in the prospect of a new future for the islands of the British archipelago where independence for Scotland and Wales and possible unification in Ireland will bring democracy. 

There is no dedicated TV show to focus on Scotland’s detailed election results they come out today. Scotland’s council voting is on the Single Transferable Vote which is more complicated to count. That is one reason why the decision was taken to do it in day-time rather than through the night. 

Watching votes being counted, seeing the results announced live, hearing them analysed by people who have insight into the process builds trust in democracy. It is a vital role for a national broadcaster. 

Yet, the BBC’s national results show on BBC Two finishes just when the Scottish results start coming out.

On Radio Four’s supposedly UK-wide news show Today, the new political editor Chris Mason was urged to get some sleep before Any Questions this evening - no mention was made of the importance of recording and discussing the results from the devolved nations as they emerge this afternoon. 

Some people took to social media to voice their disgust. Former Labour voter and SNP supporter William Irvine tweeted his disappointment with the BBC’s efforts: “On BBC One Scotland now they are showing the same crap programmes. On BBC Alba-  nothing. BBC Scotland - nothing. Three channels and not one has a Scottish council election special on them, everything going through BBC England.”

Channel Four,  Sky cover Scotland like a foreign country - STV shows load of old cobblers

Channel Four will be showing Countdown, as usual. Despite its claim to be less Londoncentric than other UK broadcasters, it spends 4% of its budget in Scotland, and has one news correspondent. It employs more staff in Vietnam than Scotland.

STV is showing an antiques show and two quizzes this afternoon. Sky has a rolling news channel and will no doubt scroll Scottish results across the bottom of the screen - but they have one Scottish correspondent and cover Scotland like a foreign country. Everything will be filtered through London - where many commentators are unfamiliar with the Scottish scene and do not appear to understand proportional representation. 

There may be some newspapers who offer a bit of coverage on YouTube - but, unlike the English, Scots won’t have the privilege of seeing their democratic results taken seriously, discussed and analysed by experienced commentators who can grasp underlying trends and put the results in historical context.  

Refugees voted - and canvassers joined in a successful protest to stop a deportation

There are unique features of the Scottish election - for instance, refugees were able to vote many for the first time. In an extraordinary protest in Edinburgh yesterday, many people involved in local elections stopped their canvassing to participate in an intervention where a crowd formed to prevent Home Office officials deporting someone from a local restaurant. 

Chief Exec of Scotland’s refugee council Sabir Zazai tweeted: “Tonight I am even prouder of a big decision I made 5 years ago today to move to #Scotland. Today #refugees voted in #LocalElections for the 1st time and a Home Office enforcement van was sent empty, thanks to #NicolsonSquare protest. Couldn't have wished for a better anniversary.”

The London Bureau Chief of German TV station ARD Annette Dittert commented: “They did it again. Scotland is quite something,” with video footage of the crowd. The demonstration was not covered on the evening TV news in the UK.

Other unique features of the Scottish election are that 16 and 17-year-olds were able to vote, as they are in Wales. 

Another feature of the STV system that Scotland uses in local elections is that it is more likely to lead to coalition councils, because it is a proportional representation system which tries to reflect the preferences of the electorate in a fairer way.

Boris Johnson will carry on regardless - Scotland doesn't count

Scotland is likely to elect a large majority of independence supporting councillors. And when the results are assessed on a national basis, Boris Johnson’s party is likely to slide into third place north of the border. But these results will have no effect. Senior Conservatives have already proclaimed that Boris Johnson will survive as leader, after the party performed better than expected in England. 

The UK’s London-centric politicians and media groups have united to disparage Scottish independence supporters, proclaiming that the war in Ukraine makes a referendum impossible. They do not want to know about the growing anger in Scotland and so prefer to ignore it. Scotland’s results will be given an item on the evening news, and then dismissed. 

Scotland’s sense of engagement and interest in the results of its democratic election could be damped by the feeling that it is being relegated to an afterthought.  A strong democracy should be accessible, transparent and accountable to the public. The lack of coverage and analysis on mainstream TV on our democratic systems contributes to Scotland's democratic deficit.

There are many Scots who distrust the robust voting system we have, but that trust could be renewed by being able to see more of the process. Mainstream TV coverage is a vital access point.

Another experience of having to accept this treatment from anglocentric broadcasting organisations that don’t understand Scotland’s needs will likely feed into a desire for independence. The sooner broadcasting is regulated by Scotland's democratically elected Parliament the better. 

The House of Lords contains more peers that are than it does peers who support Scottish independence. It is an out-dated antidemocratic institution packed with cronies of the UK's ruling elite.

Some peers - led by Scottish Labour's Baron Foulkes - are now putting forward a new law which would make it illegal for the Scottish Government to hold an independence referendum - here we answer questions about what this move means and the possible consequences.

Q What has been proposed?

The proposal is for the UK Government to pass a law making it illegal for the Scottish Government to spend money on anything outside a tightly-defined remit. 

Q What other effects would it have?

The primary purpose would be to stop a new referendum. But this law would mean that Westminster would very much dictate what the Scottish Government is allowed to do, on a wide range of issues. 

The bill would make it illegal for civil servants to work on post-independence planning, or for Scottish Government representatives to travel abroad to meet their counterparts in other countries, It would no longer be permissible for anyone employed by the Scottish Government to spend time on issues like defence, the post-independence Constitution or mitigating the effects of Brexit in international trade. 

But the law could go further than this. Under the Internal Markets Act any measure which create a different trading environment north of the border are out of order. So even Scottish Government officials planning to put a 10p deposit on a bottle of Irn-Bru could be ruled illegal.

Q Who is behind this?

This proposal comes from members of the House of Lords. The main proposer is Labour Peer George Foulkes. Foulkes is drafting a Private Member’s Bill which he will put forward to the Conservative government after the Queen’s Speech on May 10, hoping that Boris Johnson will pick it up and decide to make it law. 

Foulkes has reportedly won the support of Conservative Scottish peers Michael Forsyth and Liam Fox. The Daily Express called them a “Dad’s Army” of veteran politicians, referring to the Second World War TV show. 

Q Do the rest of the Labour group in the Lords support this? 

The Scottish Labour group in the House of Lords has 27 members. It is not clear how many of the rest of the group support this plan, but so far none of them has disassociated themselves from it. 

There are 167 Labour Lords. Few of these understand much about Scotland - but they could be instructed to support this Bill if it passes to the next stages. 

Q How many Scottish members of the House of Lords are there? How many support independence? 

The current membership of the House of Lords is around 800. There are no geographical criteria for membership, unlike Canada which has an appointed upper house of just 105 members selected from each territory of the federation. 

Around 87 members of the current House of Lords could be regarded as Scottish Peers, according to research by MP Tommy Sheppard in 2020. They are largely privately-educated males over 65. A quarter of this number, 22, are hereditary peers. The rest include Tory donor Malcolm Offord who was ennobled and appointed to the Scottish Office after failing to win an election in Scotland. 

The bill for Scottish peers services has been calculated as around £3 million a year. Not one single Scottish peer is apparently in favour of Scottish independence. 

Q How many members of the House of Lords support Scottish independence?

There are more people in the House of Lords bankrolled by Russian oligarchs than there are supporters of Scottish independence. Evegeny Lebedev is funded by his father Alexander, a former KGB agent who acquired a large stake in Gazprom. There are no peers at all among the 800 strong membership of this exclusive club who have voiced support for Scottish independence. 

Q What could the Scottish Parliament do to prevent a Bill like this becoming law? 

Very little. The House of Lords has the power to debate and amend legislation which affects Scotland - but Holyrood does not.

Despite being fully elected, by the Scottish people under a fairer proportional representation system, the Scottish Parliament gets no say at all over controversial laws that affect Scotland. In the post-Brexit settlement, the UK Government decided to remove powers from Holyrood under the Internal Markets Act. Holyrood refused consent for this as it has for other draconian new laws such as the Nationality and Borders Bill and the Elections Bill, which may disenfranchise 100,000 Scots.

But Westminster repeatedly ignores the wishes of Scotland's elected Parliament. The UK Supreme Court recently ruled that “Westminster has merely lent powers to the three devolved territories, which can be reclaimed at any times.”

Critics of this position argue that because the devolved Parliaments - especially Scotland’s where 75% of voters said Yes in 1997 - were established by a referendum with strong popular support, they should be recognised as sharing sovereignty with Westminster. However, there is no suggestion that Westminster ever would share sovereignty with Scotland’s elected Parliament. 

Q Will this become law?

At the moment, there is no clear path for the proposed bill to become law. It may be that Foulkes has been persuaded to float the idea in order for the UK Government to test the strength of opposition to it. Or the UK Government may feel they can use existing powers to dictate to Holyrood. 

The House of Commons would also have to vote to pass this law.  But if it were to make it that far, there would be little Scots could do to stop it. The majority of MPs elected in Scotland since 2011 have supported independence - but they are regularly outvoted on matters that affect Scotland, such as the Internal Markets Act. 

Conclusion

This latest attack on the democratically elected Scottish Government is another sign that the House of Lords is out of touch with the country it seeks to govern. It is unacceptable that Labour peers like Lord Foulkes feel entitled to lay down the law when they can't claim to represent the people of Scotland in any way. 

Only in an independent Scotland would be free of the shadowy hand of this unelected body.

Between 1990 and 2005, about 50% of people in Quebec said they wanted independence from Canada. But since then, that has fallen to a third. 

During the rise of the Quebec independence movement, there were two referendums. The first was in 1980 when the proposal for more sovereignty was rejected by a 59.56 percent to 40.44 percent margin. The second was in 1995 and extremely close. “No” won by a whisker - less than one percent. It secured 50.58% of the vote, on an exceptionally high turnout of 93.52%.

But now, almost two decades later, the issue of independence is no longer at the forefront of political debate. Only about a third of Quebecois still support independence, although another third supports greater autonomy for Quebec. 

So what changed? Why did two-thirds of the people of Quebec reject the dream of independence?  Here are three reasons why Quebec independence support fell away and why those circumstances differ from the Scottish independence movement. 

1 Quebec’s independence movement is primarily associated with a white ethnic identity.

In his 1995 concession speech, the Parti Quebecois premier, Jacques Parizeau, blamed “money and some ethnic votes” for the loss. 

Although there were progressive elements in the mix, Quebec’s movement towards independence was based around the Francophone community and cultural identity.  Canada is a huge country - it has a larger landmass than the USA. Quebec is three times as big as France although the population is only 8.5 million. Different areas developed quite differently. Quebec was once part of the French empire, and was settled by 10,000 French immigrants - around half of the population today are descended from them. The movement for Quebec independence centred around protecting the French language and the cultural identity they developed as Quebecois. 

In general, the French settlers had better relations with native people than other colonists. But the independence movement was not successful in bringing along the indigenous people of the area, who were embarking on their own drive for more self-determination, human rights and control of natural resources. Some First People did vote ‘Yes” in the referendum of 1980, when the question was a vaguer one about developing a new relationship between Canada and Quebec. But that changed by 1995. 

The most populous First Nation of Canada, the Nehiyawak or Cree People, traditionally moved freely across a wide swathe of the country. They were particularly vocal in resistance. On October 24, 1995, the Cree organised their own referendum, asking the question: "Do you consent, as a people, that the Government of Quebec separate the James Bay Crees and Cree traditional territory from Canada in the event of a Yes vote in the Quebec referendum?" 96% of the 77% of Crees who cast ballots voted to stay in Canada. The Inuit of Nunavik held a similar local vote, with 96% voting No. The vast majority of non-French speakers, including immigrants to Quebec also voted overwhelmingly No in 1995. The multicultural city of Montreal also voted heavily No. 

Nowadays, supporters of independence are most likely to be over 55, white and native French speakers. (This is the opposite demographic in Scotland, with the only age group not supporting independence currently being the over-65s). Within social attitudes surveys, Quebec records significantly less support for multiculturalism. In 2017, Quebec passed a law banning women from wearing the hijab in public, even on the bus. 

2 Canada responded effectively to Quebec’s desire for more autonomy - eventually

Canada’s federal system is the most decentralised in the world. It has acknowledged and responded to Quebec’s desire for more autonomy. 

It wasn’t all plain sailing - in between the two Quebec referendums, there was an attempt at reform which would have officially recognised Quebec as a nation within a nation. When that failed, support for independence surged. 

But since 2006, Quebec’s status has been officially recognised. It has the right to call an independence referendum if it ever wishes to do so; it controls immigration, social security and administers more of the public spending budget than the central Government does. Quebec’s Parliament is consulted over Canada's international trade deals. 

Canada is a constitutional monarchy like the UK, but the King’s role is more clearly defined as ceremonial. It has a two-chamber Parliament similar to the UK. But in place of the increasingly corrupt and swollen UK House of Lords, Canada has a Senate with just 105 seats. These are appointed on a geographical basis and Quebec has 24 Senators. 

The House of Commons has 338 seats, allocated to the different regions. Quebec has 78. The main independence-supporting party, the Bloc Quebecois fell back to as few as three seats in 2018 when the ten-seat grouping split into two factions. But it has subsequently recovered and now has 32 seats. 

Quebec’s National Assembly has 125 seats. Support for the nationalist Parti Quebecois collapsed at the 2022 provincial election and it lost most of its seats, retaining just 3. The main party, the Coalition Avenir Quebec, has 90. CAQ is not an independence-supporting party - it is a federalist group, which works closely with the Canadian Government at national level.  

3 A focus on the past

If the movement for Quebec independence were ever to revive, it would have to be on the basis that most of the people in the country saw it as offering something for them. In its current incarnation, it does not.

Quebec was colonised by French speakers in the 16th and 17th centuries when it was called “New France”. But these French colonists were in similar position to those caught up in the plantation of Ulster. They were arriving in a country that was already inhabited and had language and culture and traditions already. 

Those indigenous people didn’t see that there was any benefit for them in the plan to create what would be essentially an alternative monocultural state with one official language. That view was shared by most immigrants, both English speakers from the rest of Canada and the US, and non-English speaking immigrants. 

A law to protect the status of the French language called Bill 96 which was passed in 2022 is still causing controversy - not leat with the USA which is resisting product labelling requirements.

The battle to keep Montreal as a French-speaking city is also proving controversial. Combatting the drift to English from a young, international population won't be easy. Even many young people of Francophone heritage are not in tune with the aims of Quebec’s independence movement.

Conclusion

Quebec’s independence movement is focused around maintaining a language and culture which are associated with a particular ethnic group and its history in Quebec. That is going to be a hard sell to the roughly 50% of the population who don’t share that background, and even for many of the young people within it.

It is different from the Scottish independence movement, which is not based around ethnic nationalism. The Scottish independence movement is a coalition of people who feel that independence is the first step to real progress on issues like social justice and climate action. It is based on a recognition that there has been long-term political divergence between Scotland and England. Despite not voting for a Conservative Government since 1955, for most of that time, Scotland has been ruled by one. Since the last referendum, Scotland has started to experience the negative economic and social consequences of a Brexit that it didn't vote for -  a material change in circumstances since 2014.

Another difference is that the UK Government has rejected multiple chances to devolve more powers to Scotland. Instead, it has taken every opportunity to sideline Holyrood and undermine the devolution settlement, such as with the Internal Market Act. 

But the lesson to learn from Quebec's story is the importance of reaching out to all communities. The main source of immigration to Scotland is England - indeed the Scottish Government's economic plan involves trying to attract more people from south of the border. it is important that the message of the independence movement continues to be one that offers hope to new Scots of all backgrounds.

Further reading

History of Quebec - Britannica

History of Canada - Quebec separatism - Britannica

The Future of Quebec Separatism - OU podcast

The Nehiyawak/ Cree people - Canadian Encylopedia

How did Quebec’s Nationalist Movement Become so White? - Guardian, 2018

Language Bill Deepens Culture Clash in Quebec - the New York Times, 2021

"No Great Mischief" - novel by Alistair Macleod, about Gaels emigrating to Canada