Pages tagged with "Featured"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 The current democratic mandate is stronger than 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

The UK Supreme Court in London is considering whether Scotland can have a referendum on its constitutional future.  The case will be heard in the Supreme Court on 11-12 October 2022. 

This week, lawyers acting on behalf of the Scottish National Party submitted a written case as to why the Scottish Government has the legal right to call a vote.   Here are five key points it makes. 

1 Scotland is a country within the UK

Scotland has a long history as a separate country. The laws of the UK recognise the UK is made up of four countries. When King Charles III acceded to the throne he had to make separate declarations in regard to Scotland. The written submission says: 

“The Union With England Act 1707 refers expressly to ‘the two kingdoms of Scotland and England’....the 1707 Act makes express provision for Scotland’s separate legal, educational, and ecclesiastical systems to remain separate from those of England.” 

Many recent laws, including the Scotland Act 2016, recognise Scotland as a separate entity within the UK. This section of the legal response concludes there is ample legal proof that: 

“The people of Scotland are ‘a people’ for the purposes of the right to self-determination.”

2 In Scotland, the people are sovereign

The UK Government argues that it can decide whether or not Scotland is allowed to hold a referendum because it is ‘sovereign’ over the whole of the United Kingdom. Its lawyers argue that Westminster effectively holds all power to make law and only lends some to Holyrood. 

Scotland’s lawyers argue that this is an English idea; it does not respect the traditions of Scotland where sovereignty rests with the people.  It quotes a famous judgment by Lord President Cooper in MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953:

‘The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. It derives its origin from…considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England, and replaced them by a new Parliament. I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done.’

3 The UK has argued strongly for the inalienable right of self-determination of all peoples

The UK government has made strong representations to the UN to support “the inalienable right of self-dermination”. One example is over Kosovo, leaving union with Serbia. Another is the Falkland Islands. That archipelago was recognised as having the right to self-determination and chooses to be an overseas territory of the United Kingdom. The UK called on other nations to support this right after the Falkland war.

The UK representative to the UN General Assembly in 1983 said: 

“The Committee has repeatedly declared its belief in the inalienable right of self-determination. Inalienable is a very strong word. It means birthright; it means you cannot get rid of it; it means that the Falklanders have a right of self-determination which no one can take from them. The United Kingdom shares that view.”

In 1984, the UK representative told the UN: 

“Self-determination is not a one-off exercise. It cannot be achieved for any people by one revolution or one election. It is a continuous process. It requires that peoples be given continuing opportunities to choose their governments and social systems, and to change them.”

The Scottish submission concludes that:  

“The United Kingdom’s position, therefore, at least on the international stage, appears to be clear in that ‘a people’ has an inalienable right to self-determination which cannot be taken away from them, and that ‘a people’ can exist within a state boundary.”

4  The Scottish Government has a mandate to deliver a referendum

The UK’s lawyers argue that a manifesto commitment is a matter of party politics and has no standing in law. But Scotland’s lawyers argue that the people have a right to expect their elected representatives to do what they said they would do. It says:

“A people is entitled to expect its government to seek to govern on the basis on which it sought to be elected. That is a fundamental principle of government and to find otherwise would wholly undermine the legitimacy of any executive branch of government and the trust of the public in government as a whole.”

When the SNP (and the Greens) fought the recent Scottish election:

“Holding a referendum on Scottish independence is, and was understood by the public to be, at the core of its policy offer and programme of government.” 

5 If the Supreme Court says no, it means Scotland has no effective right to self-determination

The UK argues that the issue of Scottish independence is a matter for the whole UK to decide and not for Scotland alone. But Scotland’s lawyers argue that self-determination can’t depend on what another country wants. It quotes a judgement by the Canadian Supreme Court which allowed Quebec to hold two referenda on independence. 

  “The Advocate General, in his written case to this court, has suggested … that the Union of Scotland and England is, ‘par excellence’, a UK-wide matter and that is why it might be reserved. The clear implication of that is that the Advocate General believes as a matter of law that, should Scotland wish to become an independent country but the remainder of the United Kingdom does not want that, the remainder of the United Kingdom should have the ability to prevent Scottish independence.

“A right to self-determination is not dependent or conditional on others agreeing with that decision. The right to self-determination of a people is exercised by that people and that people alone.”

It concludes that if the Supreme Court rejects the right of the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum, it effectively will be saying that Scotland does not have the right to self-determination. 

“Of the 650 seats in the House of Commons, 59 are for Scottish constituencies. MPs from Scottish constituencies account for less than ten percent of the chamber. The UK leaders of the Conservative and Labour parties have indicated they will not countenance a further referendum on Scottish independence. There is accordingly no practical way in which the right to self-determination can be advanced through that legislature. If there is no way in which to exercise a right, it is no right at all: ubi jus ibi remedium.”

Conclusion

After the Scottish general election of May 2022, the Scottish Government published a draft bill for a referendum. That was passed by the Scottish Parliament. The Lord Advocate of Scotland submitted this to the Supreme Court rather than waiting for the UK Government to rule it out of order, which could have meant a long delay. 

The UK government originally tried to have the case thrown out, but it will now be heard. Scotland has a strong case for being allowed to hold a democratic referendum. 

Further reading

Read the written response on behalf of the Scottish National Party, of September 26  here

Read the Scottish Government’s original submission, of August 10 here

As the UK Labour conference gets underway the party is again hopeful that it will, for the first time in a generation, be able to lead the next UK Government - probably with no overall majority. The next general election is scheduled for 2024; it is possible it will come sooner than that. But whenever it is, it will be fought in Scotland on a single question - Does Scotland have the right to self-determination? 

The Labour Party leadership continues to give a resounding “No” to that question - regardless of how the people of Scotland vote in that election. Their rhetoric on the issue is aggressive and likely to upset many potential voters. The Observer (the Sunday Guardian) reported on Sunday: 

“He [Starmer] is especially vehement about not making any deals with the SNP. People may have underestimated just how fervent he is in his conviction that the United Kingdom must be kept together…In the event that the SNP tried to blackmail a minority Labour government, he believes he can call their bluff. "We will get them to blink. If they want to bring down a Labour government and introduce the risk of another Tory government in Westminster, they can go and explain that to their voters in Scotland. We wouldn't do a deal and I don't think we need to do a deal."

Labour's policy is that if they ended up holding power after the next election, they would refuse to support a referendum on Scottish Independence, as the UK Conservative/Lid-dem Government did in 2012 with the Edinburgh Agreement. Instead, they want to set up a commission on reforming the House of Lords, a manifesto promise they have been making for over 100 years and not acted upon when in Government.

This seems at odds with the latest Social Attitude report, showing 4 in 10 Labour supporters in Scotland and 3 in 10 in England support independence for Scotland.  

Here are three reasons why the Labour Party should reconsider its position on Scotland. 

1 If the Labour Party gets a lower share of the vote than the SNP,  they will have no mandate in Scotland.

In the 2019 general election, the Conservatives got 43% of the UK vote. But the SNP actually won 45% of votes cast in Scotland. The 2021 Scottish general election then delivered another mandate for an independence referendum, with independence-supporting parties securing 48% of the vote. 

Next election, Labour has a mountain to climb, but it may get enough votes to lead a minority government in the next Westminster Parliament. How would a Labour Government be able to argue that they have a democratic mandate but the SNP doesn’t? They will end up with a significantly lower vote share than the SNP. 

Refusing a referendum under those conditions would suggest there is one law for Scotland and another law for the rest of the UK. 

2 Refusing a referendum suggests Labour has abandoned its core values

The Labour Party often voices support for self-determination for people in other parts of the world. It is a basic democratic principle that the party has long signed up to. Why break that commitment when it comes to Scotland? What does that say about Labour values? 

In the Good Friday Agreement, the UK Labour Government explicitly recognised the principle of self-determination for the people of Northern Ireland. A combination of the underlying demographic trends and the political fallout of Brexit means that a referendum is likely to be held there in the next five years and the agreement states that referendums may be held every seven years.

A decade has passed since the Edinburgh Agreement - why should Scotland have to wait so much longer? 

3 Arguing that Scots don’t have a right to hold a referendum undermines the case for the Union

Even Margaret Thatcher said that all Scotland had to do if it wanted independence was to vote in a majority of SNP MPs. David Cameron also argued that the Union was voluntary and that the case for the Union was based on mutual respect. 

That was the basis on which Scotland voted No in 2014. Of course, the day after the poll, Cameron went straight into campaigning for the 2015 general election. He announced that Scottish MPs would no longer be able to vote for most of any likely Labour agenda in Westminster under EVEL (English Votes for English Laws) - much to the Labour party’s chagrin. What would be the point of voting for a Scottish Labour MP under those conditions? 

In that election campaign, the Conservatives then pursued a narrative of calling any progressive alliance involving the SNP “a coalition of chaos”. In 2015, the Labour Party allowed itself to be bullied into renouncing plans to cooperate. That is the playbook the Conservatives are still pursuing today and the trap that Labour are once again walking into.  

Labour lost most of their Westminster seats back in 2015 - but they have stuck with the same policy. It still doesn’t make sense to many. Where does the Labour Party's opposition to a referendum under any circumstances say about the case for the Union?

It means that the basis of the 2014 Better Together campaign - that Scotland should vote to remain in a strong and successful - and voluntary - partnership has effectively been abandoned.

Conclusion

At the end of his warts and all account of the 2014 Better Together campaign ‘Project Fear’, political journalist Joe Pike concludes:

“A surprising number of pro-UK politicians and advisors I spoke to said something along the lines of: ‘There’s going to be a second Scottish independence referendum and we will lose it.’ “ 

Is the real reason that the Labour Party doesn't want to recognise the mandate for a referendum that they think Scots will vote for independence? 

Has the Labour Party essentially given up on the possibility of getting more than a couple of MPs in Scotland ever again - and their current anti-Scotland rhetoric is intended just for voters in England?

Those are not good reasons. Pushing against a clear democratic mandate undermines their own position in the long term. The Labour Party should support the principles of democracy and self-determination, at home as well as abroad.

Ice hockey player Wayne Gretzky famously said “I skate to where the puck is going, not to where it has been.” This is much-quoted by business people - because it says in a line what they spend much of their time trying to do.  

They aim to get ahead of underlying trends, and focus on the opportunities that those throw up. And anybody living and working in Scotland - and the UK today - would do well to take a leaf out of Gretzky’s book and start to plan for Scottish independence. 

Sociological study looks for trends, not snapshots

The latest Social Attitudes Survey, released this week showed a majority of Scots want independence. But the significance of this gold-standard sociological study is more than a simple snapshot poll on voting intentions. It is carefully calibrated to monitor trends.

The same question is asked of a randomly selected sample each year and the results can be plotted on a graph. This survey is based on research carried out almost a year ago. But it reveals the fact that for more and more Scots, the current constitutional settlement is no longer acceptable.

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 data goes back still further and confirms the trend. In 1979, on the eve of the first devolution referendum, support for independence stood at just 14%. It gradually rose to around a third by the millennium and stayed there until a decade ago, when another upward trend started to appear. 

Some key points from the survey:

• Over the last decade, support for independence in Scotland rose from 28% to 52%
• A third of Labour supporters in England think Scotland should be independent
• Almost four in ten Labour supporters in Scotland support independence
• 65% of Remainers in Scotland now back Scottish independence, up from 44% in 2016
• 37% of people in Northern Ireland think it should be either part of Ireland or independent, up from 17% in 2015

(It's also worth noting that 8% of people in Scotland want to abolish the Scottish Parliament, thus demonstrating that not all that do not yet support independence are on the same page.  The majority of those who would abolish Holyrood are supporters of the Conservative Government in Westminster and that demonstrates that devolution is not in safe hands if Scotland were to vote No to independence again.)

Support for independence was boosted by Brexit

The way the UK government enacted its hard Brexit appears to be boosting support for independence. Two-thirds of people who voted to Remain in Scotland now back Scottish independence, a big rise from around the time of the Brexit vote in 2016.  That is a large group as 62% of Scottish people voted against Brexit in the 2016 referendum. It’s not surprising that they are scunnered with what has happened since. 

Every council area in Scotland voted to Remain in the EU. Then, the Scottish Government offered a compromise to the UK Government, by which Scotland would stay in the single market under a protocol similar to Northern Ireland's. That was rejected out of hand and the UK government chose to force a hard Brexit on an unwilling Scotland. Since then it has:

• Brought back powers from Brussels to Westminster, refusing to consult Scotland.
• Passed the Internal Markets Act without the consent of Holyrood. 
• Refused to replace the EU funds that Scotland’s fragile rural communities received. 
• Got Scottish scientists banned from Horizon, the world’s biggest scientific research fund.
• Refused the visas that Scottish farming, hospitality and care sectors need to replace EU workers.
• Passed trade deals that threaten Scottish businesses, without consulting Scotland.

Democracy matters - the survey’s conclusion

The survey, whose authors include polling expert John Curtice, concludes that in a democracy, what people think matters: 

“To secure the compliance of citizens with decisions with which they disagree, democracies need the consent of the governed, and that consent is more likely to be forthcoming if there is widespread public support for the rules under which political power is attained and exercised.” 

Conclusion - keep pushing, the door will open soon

In the 2021 election to the Scottish Parliament, Scotland elected parties that support a new referendum on independence. The vote share they secured - 48% - was the biggest ever and far bigger than the mandate secured by the UK government to push through a hard Brexit. 

Currently, the UK government is refusing to recognise the Scottish people’s right to self-determination. But as the curve of support for independence grows, so will the pressure. The Social Attitudes survey is another point of reference on the upward curve that leads to independence. 

They may not be making this public, but you can bet that many people who work in sectors like finance, technology and health sciences will be already making plans for their future in an independent Scotland. 

Further reading:

Read the full Social Attitudes survey report

Five reasons an independent Scotland can be confident of joining the EU

Remaining in the UK is a threat to Scottish universities

Ten ways the UK government is undermining devolution

New Zealand gradually became independent of the UK in a slow and gradual manner - one tiny step after another until one day they basically realised they were an independent nation. So much so that they do not have an independence day, because no one really knows when it was. This century-long journey to independence might seem rather rapid in comparison with Scotland, where even establishing a Parliament took longer. But there are interesting lessons to learn. 

This Sunday will mark 25 years since the historic devolution referendum on September 11, 1997, which delivered a huge ‘Yes’ ‘Yes’ for a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers. It's instructive to look back on that moment of inspiration when Scotland stood together (minus the Conservatives) to do what was best for Scotland. 

Many in the Scottish independence movement today regard independence as primarily about creating a more progressive country. But the lesson from 1997 is how support for a Scottish Parliament grew across all parties and regions, breaking down political barriers and tribalism. At that historic moment, Scotland united to demand democracy. 

“Now is not the time” - for devolution

When John Major succeeded Margaret Thatcher in 1992, his response to the increasing consensus that Scotland needed its own Parliament was to refuse devolution, saying effectively - “Now is not the time”, much like the current and all potential future UK governments on an independence referendum. 

Major's stance felt undemocratic to many - three out of four Scots had voted for parties that supported devolution. On April 10, 1992, the day after that vote - which had been a poll-defying victory for the Conservatives, hundreds of demonstrators made their way to Edinburgh’s old Royal High School and began a “vigil for Scottish democracy” that was to last for five years. 

Aware of the growing strength of feeling, Major decided Scotland might be bought off with some attention. He sited the meeting of the leaders of the European Community in Edinburgh, which filled with delegates and representatives from all over Europe. Scotland’s response to being briefly on the world stage was a huge rally for “Scottish Democracy”, where 30,000 marched up the Mound.  Neal Ascherson records in his book Stone Voices a famous speech given that day by novelist William McIlvannay. He told the crowd: 

‘ “We gather here like refugees in the capital of our own country. We are almost seven hundred years old, and we are still wondering what we want to be when we grow up. Scotland is in an intolerable position. We must never acclimatize to it - never!"

‘And then, in a tone of tremendous pride, he said this. 'Scottishness is not some pedigree lineage. This is a mongrel tradition!' At those words, for reasons which perhaps neither he nor they ever quite understood, the crowd broke into cheers and applause which lasted on and on.

"After that December mobilisation, the game was up. The Tories knew that they were doomed; Labour knew that they must deliver Scottish self-determination as soon as they came to power"

A Popular Movement 

It wasn't so much the political parties that drove Scotland's progress towards devolution but a groundswell of popular support and grassroots action across the nation. The groundwork for devolution was prepared by the Scottish Constitutional Convention (SCC) a cooperative of civic groups, churches and Scottish political parties that developed a Scottish devolution framework.

The SNP did not engage with the SCC as the other political parties refused to allow discussion on independence as an option and the Conservatives boycotted the meetings due to their objections to devolution.  The SNP did however, campaign for devolution once the referendum campaign began.

‘Think Twice’ fails to get official party and business backing backing

At the general election in May 1997, Tony Blair‘s Labour government swept to power, with a manifesto commitment to deliver devolution. The Conservatives lost all of their 11 Scottish seats. Neal wrote that the Scottish Conservatives were “still shattered” by that. “They were sick of being abused as anti-Scottish,”  

Campaigning for the devolution referendum got underway soon after that election. There was opposition but it was much less vociferous than it had been in 1979. The No campaign in 1997 was called ‘Think Twice’ and the Conservatives declined to grant it the party’s official support and business figures also failed to back the anti-devolution campaign. In contrast, the pro-devolution group Business for Scotland reached out to businesses large and small to convince them of the advantages of devolution. Scotland's future finance Minster Jim Mather said of Business for Scotland's campaign that:

"Business for Scotland made sure that the conservative business community became the dog that did not bark".  

Business for Scotland is the only surviving 1997 campaigning group and now supports Scottish independence.

Despite their opposition, it was because the Scottish Parliament is elected under a form of proportional representation that the Conservatives were able to regain some national significance and they have made full use of the platform they get from their seats at Holyrood ever since. 

A huge majority for “Yes”

The 1997 referendum is the only one ever held in the UK where there were two questions on the ballot paper, each with two options. The voter had to mark one box with an X. They were:

“Parliament has decided to consult people in Scotland on the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament: I agree there should be a Scottish Parliament/ I do not agree there should be a Scottish Parliament”

“Parliament has decided to consult people in Scotland on the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament to have tax varying powers: I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers/ I do not agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers.”

On the first question, 75% of voters supported a Scottish Parliament. The biggest ‘Yes’ was from West Dunbartonshire with almost 85%. Glasgow was just behind with almost 84%. Orkney was the lowest, with 57% in favour. 

On the second question, the overall response was a healthy 64% for ‘Yes’. Glasgow and West Dunbartonshire voted 75% yes and just two council areas had a marginal No - Orkney and Dumfries and Galloway. 

“Our only guarantee is ourselves”

In the run-up to the vote, Ascherson and McIlvanney organised a bus party of poets, musicians and writers which, rather than addressing political policy directly, attempted to boost the cultural confidence of people who had grown used to being ruled from London. The main concerns about devolution were familiar - Neal summarised them as fears that: “Maybe our small nation of Scotland no longer has the brains, skill and political energy to govern itself.” 

Neal Ascherson recalled that William McIlvanney told them:

“ ‘It is an act of self-belief to vote for this Parliament."  And that was the bus party’s line through all this, a line which no politician could dare to take. Yes, of course, this is a leap into the dark…We are asking you to take a risk and it is not a quantifiable risk. As Lech Walesa said when the Solidarity revolution began in Poland, ‘Our only guarantee is ourselves’.”

The bus party debated with the school children who would vote for the first time in the new Parliament. Neal pondered:

“They would be first-time voters at the elections for the Parliament of Scotland. If they gave any thought at all to the struggle which had brought it about, they might wonder why it had taken so long, why it had required so many false starts and hesitations to bring about something which to them was so normal and so obviously necessary.”

Conclusion

The Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, and the SNP all supported a Scottish Parliament in 1997. There were even some in the Conservative movement who campaigned for a ‘Yes’ vote. Michael Fry toured the North East on behalf of his organisation ‘Wealthy Nation’, arguing that Scotland needed Home Rule to become a more thriving, prosperous country. He recalled:

“My support for independence was rooted in my Conservatism - I felt that Scotland should run its own affairs.” 

Many people have differing views on today’s hot-button issues. These can be turned into “wedge issues” by a hostile media and used to divide and rule Scotland. An independent Scotland will of course have political parties from across the spectrum. There will be many issues to debate and make decisions on. But in order to get there, people who disagree on many things must be prepared to work together.   Believe in Scotland is the Yes campaign run by Business for Scotland and has 125 affiliated local Yes Groups and a campaign steering group with 17 locally elected representatives - the grassroots will once again drive positive constitutional change in Scotland.  

Why is Scottish Water still - largely - in public ownership while water companies in the rest of the UK are privatised? The answer is solidarity. The degree of opposition to privatisation was so widespread and so strong right across Scottish society that the UK Conservative government didn’t dare to do it.  Recently, Financial Times commentator Camilla Cavendish, in a piece entitled “Water privatisation was never going to work, recalled:

“In 1989, the sell-off [in England] was touted as the route to greater efficiency and investment. But between 2002 and 2018, Scottish Water, which remains publicly owned, invested on average nearly 35 percent more per household than English water companies, according to researchers at Greenwich University.”

Water was privatised in England under Margaret Thatcher. In 1994, the Conservative government under John Major geared up to do the same in Scotland. It was a period when demands for Scotland to have more control over its affairs were building. The plans to privatise Scottish water met a massive wall of opposition. 

Strathclyde Regional Authority decided to hold an advisory referendum to test the strength of feeling. They held a postal ballot. There was a huge turnout with  71.5 percent of electors in Strathclyde returning their papers. An extraordinary 97.2 percent wanted Scottish water to remain in public hands. No to privatisation votes numbered 1,194,667 - yes votes just 33,956

This referendum had no legal force at the time. The UK government still had the legal power to do what it wished with Scottish Water. At that time, Scotland didn’t even have a Parliament or a National Assembly. It was run by the Westminster “Grand Committee” on Scottish affairs which was regularly stuffed with English MPs from the shires because there were too few Scottish Conservatives to vote through the Government’s plans. 

The Westminster record of the time, Hansard, records MP for East Lothian John Home Robertson saying in a debate about the referendum:

“Frankly, the result did not surprise me. What surprised me was the massive turnout of electors. I am amazed that even this Government think that they can shrug it off. I have no doubt that the result would have been exactly the same if the question had been put to my constituents and those of my hon. Friends in the Lothian region.”

Home Robertson said almost nobody supported privatisation:

“The Secretary of State for Scotland prefaced his remarks by saying that we had to return to the issues of state in Scotland today and consider this controversial issue. I have news for the Secretary of State for Scotland: this is not a remotely controversial issue. It is one of very few issues about which it would be impossible to start an argument in the streets, households, pubs, clubs or anywhere else in Scotland today. There is no support anywhere in Scotland for the proposal to take the water and sewerage industries out of the control of democratically accountable local authorities”

Eventually, the local water authorities were merged to form Scottish Water, which is a publicly-owned water company subject to scrutiny by the Scottish government. WeOwnIt, a campaign to take English water back into public hands, writes in its mission statement:

“If you live in Scotland, your water is already run for people not profit - and you're paying less than the rest of us. The publicly owned company Scottish Water is the most trusted public utility in the UK. It is constantly investing, keeping customers happy and reducing its carbon footprint."

It quotes 'Jane, WeOwnIt supporter': 

"In Scotland, the water supply is still publicly funded-and long may it last. Compared to England and Wales, there are no glaring inefficiencies, no shareholders to mollify, no drive to force up charges. We pay the water charges with our council tax and it works!"  

We are seeing consternation in England at the behaviour of the water companies currently, with huge amounts of water being lost through leaks, and raw sewage being pumped into bathing water at beaches along the south coast. Last year, Jenny Jones told the House of Lords that Britain was fast returning to its pre-EU status as “the dirty man of Europe”. She was speaking at a debate about legislation to enshrine legal protections for beach quality post Brexit. EU law sets legal stanadards for clean beaches - but the UK doesn't have that now. The Conservative government rejected the protections. 

There are issues in parts of Scotland too - the River Almond has had effluent pumped into it - but upgrading work is in progress and it should be clean enough to swim in by 2024. In contrast, the Daily Telegraph reported last week that every single beach along the stretch known as the English riviera was polluted with sewage.  Water campaigner Feargal Sharkey tweeted:

“A No.10 "Spokesperson said since the industry was privatised in 1989, the equivalent of £5bn had been invested to upgrade water infrastructure.' Let me remind you during the same period Water Companies have paid out over £72bn to shareholders.”

Even the right-wing Spectator magazine recently published a front-page article entitled “Water Woes”, in which leader writer Ross Clark conceded that privatisation has failed to deliver the promised benefits:

“It wasn’t supposed to turn out this way when the water industry was privatised by the Thatcher government in 1989. It was promised that privately owned water companies would unleash a wave of investment, and that they would introduce competition, reduce consumer prices and make the industry more responsive to demand. It is hard to see how any of these objectives have been fulfilled. Nor, indeed, has the water industry become as private as critics feared. Thames Water, which services 15 million people, is still largely owned by public sector entities, just not entirely British ones. Among its largest shareholders are the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, the UK Universities Superannuation Scheme and sovereign wealth funds of China and Abu Dhabi. Almost 10 percent of Thames Water is owned by the Chinese government.”

Let's take a minute to salute the real heroes of the independence movement:

The local activists, leaflet deliverers, stall staffers, marchers, flag wavers, banner holders, micro donors, cake bakers, meeting organisers, ambassadors and persuaders.  Whilst others complain, you campaign; whilst others shout at the social media Yes bubble, you talk to the undecided.  Whilst others ego-blog to get Yessers whooping and hollering, you engage, educate and inform voters of our plan for a better Scotland.

Scotland needs more like you.  Whilst others can claim to be part of the Yes community,  you are the lifeblood of the Yes Campaign - there is a difference.  It's campaigners, local grassroots organisers and workers that will deliver Scotland's independence - so we salute you for your hard work, your sore knees and backs, fingers mangled by letter boxes, stained by  ink as you sort newspapers into delivery bundles and your sore throats after spending all day telling passers-by on the high street, just why you believe in Scotland.   

Local activists, grassroots organisers: We salute you.

On Saturday, August 13th approximately 100 local Yes groups across the country joined in our Autumn Day of Action.  Have a look at the gallery and see the rewarding work already underway by our local heroes.

Believe in Scotland is the grassroots campaign for independence and we have 125 affiliated local Yes groups:  consider joining us - even if you can't campaign yourself. Get on our mailing list by pledging your support now at www.believeinscotland.org/pledge.

When you upload campaign images to social media just remember to:

1.) Use the hashtag #BelieveinScotland.

2.) If uploading to Facebook, you can also post these into the 30,000-strong Believe in Scotland Facebook group.

If you think we have missed any images from the Day of Action, you can send them to [email protected] and we will add them to the gallery below.

Let's campaign - let's win

Well-known Unionist commentator Alex Massie amusingly told Radio 4 yesterday:

“If you were to say to me that there will be a referendum in say 15 years' time, I would probably, if pushed, expect Scotland to vote for independence,”. 

Some might have been surprised to hear Massie concede that Scottish independence is likely, although they might query the timing (*). Ironically the tipping point where support for independence hits a consistent majority is being brought much closer by the current Conservative leadership contest, and independence support will increase regardless of whether Truss or Sunak gets the keys for number Ten. 

Tipping point approaching for Scottish independence

A poll released yesterday showed that around 20% of voters said that either Sunak or Truss as PM would boost their support for independence. Only 35% of voters said they were firmly opposed to independence and that would be unchanged by the contest. That's no surprise judging by their lacklustre hustings performances in Perth last night.

Candidates vie to undermine the devolution settlement

The candidates both made clear that they plan to continue Boris Johnson’s policy of deliberately undermining the devolution settlement and both tried in vain to hide their profound ignorance of Scotland, its culture, politics and history.  The debate was chaired by STV’s Colin Mackay who said it was:

“a scary job interview…but not as scary as a general election, which is how we used to choose our Prime Ministers”.

Sunak on bypassing the Scottish Government’s spending powers

Mackay asked Sunak if he would “by-pass Holyrood for some spending”. Sunak replied:

“We have already started that and we will do more of it.”

Sunak condemned several times what he called “the civil service policy” of “devolve and forget” when it comes to Scotland. That apparently refers to respecting the devolution settlement and allowing Holyrood to run the policy areas for which it is legally responsible. 

Liz Truss effectively said there is no democratic route for independence for Scotland

Truss said that the 2014 referendum was “a once in a generation” event. Mackay mentioned the seven-year gap mandated for Northern Irish referenda and that Brexit and Covid had changed the background. He asked:

“For many people outside this room, 2014 feels like a generation. Is there a democratic route for Scotland to change its future? Is there a democratic route?”

Truss replied:

“At the time of the referendum, it was agreed by the SNP that it was a once-in-a-generation referendum. I believe in politicians keeping their promises and Nicola Sturgeon should keep her promise.” 

Liz Truss changed her mind on Brexit - why can’t the Scots change their mind on independence?

Mackay asked this question and Truss replied that she had respected the will of the people to leave the EU. She said she had been worried about disruption. But, she said, in a barefaced lie that is contradicted by authorities such as the UK’s Office for National Statistics, and the experience of many exporters and importers in Scotland, that:

“There has been no disruption [from Brexit]”

Truss boasted of trade deals she has done with Australia and New Zealand that threaten Scottish food producers by giving away all protections for Scottish and UK farmers and food producers against lower welfare imports - in a manner reminscent of “the great betrayal’ of 1921.

Sunak sneered at Scottish state education

Rishi Sunak told the audience that education was one of his family’s core values - his parents sent him to an elite private school.  He then proceeded to sneer at Scottish state education. He failed to point out that Scots children from the poorest backgrounds are overwhelmingly more likely to attend University than those born south of the border. 

Truss plans to rip up ECHR - she may not know it is the bedrock of devolution

Liz Truss gave a particularly wooden presentation with odd pauses. She talked of the UK’s economic difficulties, without mentioning the part Brexit plays - until she moved on to the “opportunity” to rip up EU legal protections for human rights and the environment. Liz Truss may not know that the European Convention on Human Rights was devised by a Scottish lawyer and is the bedrock of the devolution settlement, representing what many once regarded as shared British values. 

Truss proclaimed her determination to get rid of ECHR because it might prevent the UK government from deporting asylum seekers to countries like Rwanda. She said she was determined to expand this controversial policy to include more refugees and more third countries. 

Truss displayed weak understanding of the causes of the energy crisis

On energy, Truss promised to get rid of the ‘green levy’ - this supports insulation and investment  in renewables. It is Scotland’s renewable energy providers who supply the cheap power the UK relies on - and they could supply even more of it if the sector had not been starved of adequate investment. Onshore wind is many times cheaper than gas. 

Yet Truss proclaimed “we have to use our gas” to solve the energy crisis. What could she mean by this? Gas extracted from the North Sea is the property of the multinationals who extract it. It is sold to the UK’s privatised national grid at world prices - currently the equivalent of oil being $380 a barrel. Extracting slightly more gas would not lower world gas prices - it would just make more money for energy companies. 

Sunak and Truss may not know that 75% of voters supported devolution in a referendum

Neither Sunak or Truss appear to know that there was a referendum in Scotland 25 years ago next month in which 75% of voters supported devolution. They also do not seem to know that, while in English law and tradition, sovereignty rests with the Westminster Parliament, in Scottish law it lies with the people, in a tradition established in 1320 with the Declaration of Arbroath. 

Scottish Unionists despair of this desperate duo

On that same BBC lunchtime bulletin yesterday, presenter Jonny Dymond commented in response to a clip of some of the pair’s blunders that:

“There must be some Scottish Tories who hear those comments from Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss and just want to jump off a cliff, aren’t  there?”

 Footnote

*Listen to Massie’s comment here - 29 minutes in, closing a report from the BBC Scotland editor James Cook. However, some would argue he is simply running the Tory trope of ‘Yes, you can have independence but not yet’. Pushing the referendum down the road is a desperate tactic - they hope the Yes movement will give up and go away, because they fear they would lose one now.