Pages tagged with "Featured"

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

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

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

“Straightforwardly false” headlines altered in the online edition

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

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

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

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

“Deeply unserious people”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Times owner Rupert Murdoch predicted Scottish independence

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

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

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

The report concluded:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court wrong to dismiss the issue of self-determination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Union is an ongoing agreement between two independent nations

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

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

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

Scotland must demonstrate support for independence

Douglas-Scott argues that:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Further Reading

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

A proposal that Scotland’s Secretary of State Alister Jack should postpone taking up his controversial peerage until the next general election in order to avoid a by-election in his marginal seat of Dumfries and Galloway is being condemned as an attempt to play the system, in a new scandal for the UK’s unelected Upper House.

Disgraced former PM Boris Johnson is handing out 20 more places in the “Lords”, which will take the number of sitting members above 800 (830 total). The House of  so-called “Lords”, the second-largest legislative chamber in the world behind the Chinese National People's Congress, is so undemocratic that it could potentially bar the UK from rejoining the EU in the future.

Johnson used his “resignation honours” list to nominate the former cabinet ministers Nadine Dorries, Nigel Adams and Alok Sharma, and Alister Jack, the Scotland secretary, to the “Lords” but arranged for them to defer taking their peerages until after the next election. The SNP.s Mhairi Black spoke for many Scots when she told Jack in a recent Commons debate “I won’t take lessons on democracy from a soon-to-be-unelected ‘Baron’.” A tweeted video of her comment went viral and was listed on Trendsmap as a top global tweet. 

Experts have warned that Jack and the other Ministers’ by-election avoidance plan could have wide-ranging constitutional implications. The Times reported that “Lord” Cormack, a Tory peer, said it showed a “cavalier disregard for the constitution”.

The new list includes former editor of the Daily Mail Paul Dacre, despite Dacre being blocked by the House of “Lords” Appointment Commission on a previous list, and David Ross, the multi-millionaire Carphone Warehouse founder who was forced to quit as a City Hall aide over a share-selling scandal.

Scotland diverges from House of so-called “Lords”

Scottish political life has diverged from the House of “Lords” in recent decades - not one single peer supports Scottish independence, for example. Scottish MPs from the SNP do not sit in the “Lords” - unlike those from the Unionist parties. There are 27 members of the Scottish Labour group in the unelected Upper House.

Members don’t get a salary but they claim an allowance of £323 plus expenses for each day they attend - about the same as Universal Credit pays per month for a single person. Last year the House of “Lords” cost almost £120 million - a population share of which is charged to Scotland’s accounts and fattens Scotland’s notional “deficit”.

“Lords” does not meet the “Copenhagen Criteria” for EU membership

In 2010, the then Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg described the House of “Lords” as a “democratic aberration” and said it could prevent the UK from joining the EU. Back then there were only 700 members.

Clegg said “It’s totally preposterous that we have a second chamber which is basically a plaything for political patronage – if that existed in other countries that were applying to the European Union, we would be saying ‘sorry you can’t have that because it doesn’t conform to European standards of democracy'”.

The criteria for countries joining the EU today are set out in the “Copenhagen criteria” and it is hard to see how a country ruled by the House of “Lords” could meet the bar. It states that:

“Functional democratic governance requires that all citizens of the country should be able to participate, on an equal basis, in the political decision making at every single governing level, from local municipalities up to the highest, national, level. This also requires free elections with a secret ballot.”

The half-reformed House of “Lords” put shadowy patronage in place of heredity

The House of so–called “Lords” has never been democratic but in recent years it has become more and more subject to the PM’s personal patronage, with little in the way of checks and balances. Since the 1999 Reform Act, when the Labour Party under Tony Blair abolished the rights of 600 hereditary peers to sit in the Upper House, new peers have been entirely appointed, largely by the head of the ruling party. (What was touted as a democratic reform was seen by some as a Labour power grab, as hereditary peers tended not to support Labour.) 

The advice of the appointments committee has been overruled by Boris Johnson more than once. He ennobled Evgeny Lebedev, who is bankrolled by his Russian oligarch father, Alexander; and Peter Cruddas who the “Lords” appointment committee said was not fit for office. Tory donor Malcolm Offord  was made a peer and appointed to the Scottish Office after failing to win an election in Scotland.  

The Labour Party’s plans to reform the House of so-called “Lords” are already facing push-back. Labour peer “Lord” Mandelson objected to them on the BBC’s flagship “the World this Weekend” and the current issue of Labour magazine Prospect carries an article by influential think-tank member Meg Russell arguing that tiny-footstep small-scale changes would be more realistic. 

An independent Scotland could get out from under the weight of the House of “Lords”

The Labour Party’s attempt to reform the House of “Lords” in 1999 actually left it worse than before - Boris Johnson has demonstrated how the leader of the ruling party can appoint peers without any democratic oversight. 

Members of the House of so-called “Lords” have the constitutional right to debate and amend laws affecting Scotland. The Scottish government does not. That is not fair, it is not democratic and it is also an expensive waste of taxpayers’ money. 

There will be no unelected second house in an independent 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. 

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…)