Pages tagged with "Featured"

The UK Government published a Brexit Benefits Policies Document this week. It sets out a vision for the whole UK post-Brexit - which will not take account of Scotland’s unique situation or separate democratic voice. 

The glossy brochure mentions Scotland only in passing. The UK Government plans to legislate over the UK’s post-Brexit direction without consulting with, or gaining the consent of, the Scottish Parliament. The devolved governments were not consulted over this document or the “Brexit Freedoms Bill” that goes alongside it. 

The report is not honest about the issues the UK is facing as a result of Brexit - it slaps whitewash over the well-documented difficulties many are experiencing. There is no awareness of the different needs or views of the four nations that make up the UK. 

Some of the “benefits” the dossier claims the UK has already achieved are things that could have been done in the EU

• Blue passports - EU countries can have different coloured passports if they wish - Croatia does.
• Crown markings on beer glasses - these kinds of marks are allowed in EU countries 
• Freeports - many EU countries have freeports. 
• - the document doesn’t make clear that all but one are rollovers of deals that were already in place with the EU.
• The Turing system - this replacement for the EU Erasmus exchange programme is much more limited and doesn’t fund students and teachers to come to the UK
• Protected Geographic Indicators - the EU already protects food from specific areas. The report doesn’t mention that the trade deal with Australia doesn’t protect these. 

And some of the “benefits” are politically-motivated objectives

1 Replacing free movement with a points-based immigration system 

It has been well documented that Scotland’s food and farming sectors, care, hospitality, and health have all been damaged by the end of free movement. Crops lay rotting in the fields last year; care homes lost key workers; hotels had to cut their hours. 

An immigration points system designed in line with the needs and political colour of the south of England does not meet Scotland’s needs. 

Free movement also allowed Scots to live and work freely across Europe - the report does not mention this or the 90 day limit for visiting the EU. Neither does it mention the reintroduction of mobile roaming charges or the forthcoming charge for a visa to holiday in the EU. 

2 Replacing EU restructuring funds with the UK Shared Prosperity Fund

The EU focused restructuring money on areas at the periphery of the EU with high need. In Scotland, they partnered with the Scottish Government to decide how to use that money. The Brexit Benefits document says the replacement, the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, “will better align to our priorities”. These are the priorities of the UK Conservative Party, not the Scottish Government. 

It will be up to Westminster to decide where and how - and even if - to spend that money. The UK Government was accused this week of a “straightforward breach of its commitment” to spend the same sums as the EU, by Vaughan Gething, the Welsh economy minister. By convoluted accounting, the UK Government appears to be planning to underestimate what the EU spent, the FT reported. 

3 “Committed £180 million to modernise and streamline our import and export controls”

This is listed as a benefit of Brexit. But much greater sums will have to be allocated to mitigate the snarl ups and snafus caused at Britain’s borders by leaving the single market. Since new import controls were imposed on Jan 1, 2022, queues of lorries entering and leaving the UK have stretched for miles. Many small businesses are now unable to import or export to the EU and Scotland’s economy is suffering particularly, because of its strong food and farming sector. 

The document also lists “taking back control of our waters”. It doesn’t mention that many in the fishing industry feel they were mis-sold and the reality has been little change to fishing rights but much greater difficulty in exporting the catch. 

The report does not recognise the barriers to trade that Brexit has imposed on business. 

4 “£57 billion more for our NHS” 

The report controversially claims that a post-Brexit benefit is increased spending on the NHS. “We are spending more money on our NHS. By the 2024–2025 financial year our yearly expenditure on our NHS is projected to be £57 billion higher in cash terms than we spent in 2016–17, or over £1 billion more per week.” This is misleading. Talking in cash terms hides the effect of inflation. 

The Government plans to raise more money for the NHS budget from its new health and social care levy. It says that will help the NHS catch up with its Covid related backlog. This new money has nothing to do with Brexit - it is a tax increase. 

The document says the UK Government can afford to spend more on health because it doesn’t have to pay money to the EU now. But the loss of easy trade with the single market means that the UK economy is expected to shrink by 4% - that’s more than Covid and that means the Government gets less money in from taxation.

5 A bonfire of regulation

From “reforming and simplifying our public procurement rules”, to reducing driving licence standards for HGV drivers, to changing financial regulations for big mergers and freeing up international capital markets, to getting rid of the EU data protection for private citizens known as the GDPR, the document promises a bonfire of regulation. 

The UK Government plans to replace standards on the environment, animal welfare, chemicals, safety at work with its own regulation-lite approach. The document says the UK Government wants “Regulation only where absolutely necessary. .. This means making the best use of alternatives to regulation.” They want industries to check up on themselves. 

As Ben Chapman in the Independent pointed out: “If ministers want to understand how disastrous and counterproductive this approach can be, they should watch the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.”

Conclusion

The document is vague and lacking in detail. But in general terms it sets out a post-Brexit vision for the whole UK, in line with the values and ambitions of the government in Westminster 

Most of the changes it promises are unlikely to get consent from the Scottish Parliament. The report’s writers seems unaware that parts of this programme (such as the UK Shared Prosperity Fund) are already controversial in Scotland. They do not acknowledge any political differences with the Scottish Government. 

Over time, the approach of imposing unpopular laws on Scotland against the wishes of the democratically elected Government may lead to the sense that the UK Government is ruling without the consent of the Scottish people. That can only increase support for independence. 

In January, we polled 5,943 Scottish independence supporters to seek their opinions on a range of issues impacting the movement. We recruited respondents through Twitter and Yes supporting Facebook pages, generating a wide cross-section of the Yes movement. When we research public opinion, we use Panelbase to generate representative samples but that was not our intention here. In our last Yes movement poll in September (3,226 responses) we were able to identify the motivations of around 200 No to Yes switchers. 60% of them identified Brexit as the key motivation to switching sides and that theme holds true in this much larger sample.

Our new poll found that 97% of No to Yes switchers want an independent Scotland to become a member of the EU. Thus, rejoining the EU must be a key plank of the indyref2 argument. Not only does Brexit (against Scotland's wishes) justify a second referendum, but it is also the key motivation for No to Yes switchers and the expectation of the majority of the Yes movement.

When you look at the overall attitudes towards joining the EU from the whole Yes movement there is still a supermajority of 88% support for rejoining. In fact, when the old unionist trope that joining the EU is "swapping Westminster rule for Brussels rule", the Middle 30% of voters (who could go either way on the independence question) are likely to feel motivated to Vote Yes. This shouldn't be a big surprise as "Vote No to stay in the EU" was arguably the most effective weapon the 2014 No campaign had (even though it turned out to be a lie).

In 2014 the Yes side had a valid case that if Scotland, being an EU member, were to become independent it would remain an EU member and not have to rejoin. Unfortunately, Brexit happening whilst Scotland was still in a political union with the UK means that an independent Scotland would have to rejoin the EU and that could take up to four years. Many have therefore suggested that joining The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) would allow swifter access to the EU market but although many would see that as an acceptable compromise it isn't the game-changer that full EU membership represents.  

You might think well 66% being happy with EFTA is a good result but frankly, it's not because thats means 1/3 are unhappy and its the most important third. When we delved deeper into the figures, we found that 100% of No to Yes switchers would be unhappy with joining EFTA versus joining the EU. Add to that, not even one single person who said No to rejoining the EU listed that policy as one that would make them less likely to vote Yes or even less likely to campaign for independence. 

Let's be 100% clear, Yes will not win indyref2 if there is any ambiguity about our intention to rejoin the EU as an independent nation. A vote for independence is a vote for Scotland rejoining the EU.

This is backed up from our general population research which identified majority Yes support amongst non-Scots-born voters (with specific policy offers) and rejoining the EU is fundamental to that as EU born citizens will vote Yes in big numbers to rejoin the EU, whereas last time they feared a Yes vote meant leaving the EU.

Instead of trying to shortcut access to the EU and especially the European Economic Area (single market) via joining EFTA Scotland should seek Associate Membership of the EU, beginning on independence day which will follow a two year transition period. Associate membership could include access to the single market, no voting rights but immediate involvement in multiple policy areas such as, membership of the Europol policing agency and the Erasmus student exchange scheme. Associate membership is the EU's new big idea and Scotland could be the successful case study.

This is the first of several articles that will come from our Big Yes poll. Join our campaign now simply by pledging your support for independence and we will email future articles.

Fears Are Growing for England’s NHS

Former Conservative PM John Major famously said that the NHS would be as “safe as a pet hamster in the presence of a hungry python” if Boris Johnson and Michael Gove rose to power after Brexit. New developments are causing many to fear that he was right and that bars are being bent on the hamster’s protective cage. 

How does this affect Scotland - surely health care is devolved?
At the moment, health care is devolved to the Scottish Parliament - but the UK Supreme Court has ruled that Westminster only ‘lends’ powers to Holyrood. The UK Government can overrule the Scottish Parliament whenever it wants. There is little that can legally be done to protect Scotland’s NHS without independence. 

FIVE recent developments are causing concern

#1 The Internal Markets Act mandates that any international trade deal the UK Government signs will cover Scotland

The UK Government has made it clear it will not hesitate to override devolution in regard to international trade deals. The Internal Markets Act, which became law a year ago, has the specific goal of ensuring that these deals automatically cover Scotland. 

The UK Gov announcement said the Act would protect businesses, jobs and livelihoods by ensuring there are no “harmful new barriers to trade between all parts of the UK”. It also said “world-leading standards” would be maintained after leaving the EU. However, they have been watered down in many cases - one example was the post-Brexit relaxation of rules on pumping raw sewage into rivers. 

As a result many fear that the UK Government will make deals, especially with US-based, privately owned healthcare providers that impact the NHS in all four UK nations. 

#2  A clause protecting the NHS from being on the table in trade negotiations was removed from the .

The House of Lords inserted a clause into the Trade Bill as it passed through Westminster which would have protected the UK's ability to provide “a comprehensive publicly funded health service free at the point of delivery”. The amendment would also have restricted “the sale of patient data” and protected NHS drug prices but those protections were rejected.

But 357 Conservative MPs voted to remove this amendment to the government's bill.  Trade Minister Greg Hands said: “We do not see the need for this amendment, as protecting the NHS is already a top priority in negotiations.” The Trade Act was passed last year. 

#3 The UK Government is trying to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. 

After leaving the EU single market, the world’s largest trading bloc, the UK Government wants to make up for some of the huge loss of trade by joining another trading bloc at the other side of the world - the TPP.

To succeed in joining, it will have to sign up to the bloc’s terms and conditions, which include rules to protect drug companies’ intellectual property. These allow them to bloc generic drugs. That would affect the ability of the NHS to negotiate cheap prices for medicines.

Joining the TPP would be seen as a stepping stone to a trade deal with the US. US officials and businesses have repeatedly said that the NHS must be "on the table" in trade talks, with US pharmaceutical companies and healthcare businesses eyeing the UK health market as a source of profit.

#4 Trade deals are likely to give legal protection to trans-national companies’ profits, tying future UK Governments’ hands

When the Conservative Government enters into new international trade deals it signs legally binding contracts. These deals will enable companies to bid for contracts within England’s NHS “market” for services and products. 

The small print protects these companies’ business and profit - any future Government that wanted to get out of these obligations would find the trade agreements contain multiple obstacles and financial disincentives. This means they could incur massive legal costs and have to pay compensation.

5 The new health and care bill (England) allows private company reps to sit on commissioning bodies

The new health and care bill passing through Parliament is the latest in a series of Conservative reforms which aim to create a pretended free market within the NHS with private companies “competing” for public money which is “spent” by commissioning bodies.

This latest form of this allows people with an interest in these private companies to sit on the boards of the commissioning bodies. The rules and protections that were in place under EU procurement rules will no longer apply. The UK Government’s poor track record on public procurement in the pandemic has caused international comment.  Its lack of oversight of the loan scheme caused government minister Theodore Agnew to resign this week, which does not inspire confidence. 

It is difficult to predict with certainty what effect this will have on Scotland’s NHS. But the concern - which is shared by many in England - over the increasing role of private companies is profound. It may make the provision of health care in the UK more profit-orientated and less universal. While Scotland remains part of the UK it may be difficult to resist that pressure. 

Conclusion

There is a degree of urgency in taking steps to protect Scotland’s NHS. The UK Government under the Internal Markets Act has assumed the power to effectively sign Scotland’s name on international trade deals as it wishes. This could burden Scotland with legal obligations which are costly to escape. 

There are challenges for health care provision in the 21st century - dealing with an aging population; implementing new technology; increasing mental health support. An independent Scotland would be able to plan, budget and make policy decisions in line with its democratic choices.

An independent Scotland would be in a much stronger position to pursue its own course with confidence and clarity.  

Brian Wilson is right that gas and electricity are natural monopolies and at least some of that belongs in state, not private, hands. There are great examples across Europe of publicly owned and partially publicly owned energy companies, often working in parallel with public sector providers.

However, when serving as UK energy minister in Blair’s Labour government, he had his chance to bring British Gas and Britoil back into public ownership but didn’t.

On top of this, the Labour Government chose not to renationalise the National Grid, privatised by the Tories in 1990, but approved Ofgem’s 2003 grid transmission charges that penalised Scottish renewable providers and landed Scots with the highest transmission charges not only in the UK but in Europe. In the north of Scotland, charges are £7.36 per MWh but only £.49 in England and Wales.

This is especially galling since Scotland possesses a quarter of Europe’s wind resources and 60% of the UK’s offshore wind capacity.

And Mr. Wilson has nothing to say about Starmer’s reneging on Labour’s pledge to renationalise the Big Six energy companies, despite last autumn’s overwhelming party conference vote to take energy back into public ownership and Sir Keir’s own leadership campaign promises to do the same.

It’s clear that Labour would rather pacify private energy companies and their shareholders rather than ease the misery of millions facing ruinous energy bills.

So long as Scotland remains a UK region, its vast renewable resources won’t be harnessed for Scotland’s benefit but, like our oil and gas, will be sold off to private companies with the proceeds squandered on tax cuts for the wealthy and UK debt servicing.

For Scotland to have a state-owned energy company, as Brian Wilson says he wants, it must first become a state. The investment needed over several years isn’t possible with the limited borrowing and capital investment powers of a devolved region of the UK. Wilson should know that, which exposes the incoherence and or dishonesty of Labour's opposition to Scottish independence.

Restoring Scottish sovereignty is the only way out of this quagmire.

A House of Lords report on the Union published last week has gone further than any before in recognising the possibility of Scotland gaining independence. It also criticises the UK Government's “Anglocentric British nationalism”, which it says is undermining the UK’s legitimacy. 

The report says the UK Government has “undermined trust” by continually legislating without the consent of the devolved Parliaments. The committee’s recommendations to increase “respect and co-operation”, however, are general and unlikely to have much effect. 

Report ignores declining legitimacy of the Lords north of the border

The report does not discuss whether the House of Lords’ legitimacy in Scotland is in decline. Since 2007, a majority of Scottish MPs have been from the SNP and they do not sit in the Lords - or on committees such as this. The committee therefore has just three Scottish members  - former Labour MP Tommy McAvoy, former Conservative Andrew Dunlop and law Lord David Hope. The House of Lords is now the world’s second-largest unelected legislative body second-only to China’s - PM Boris Johnson has added around 100 "nobles" since taking office. 

The recent ennoblement of Tory donor Malcolm Offord who was appointed to the Scottish Office after failing to win election in Scotland was also ignored by the committee’s report, although it has a strong bearing on the subject under discussion. 

Growing support for Scottish independence is echoed in rest of UK

The committee notes that support for Scottish independence has increased significantly since their last report in 2016, now polling at about half or above in all parts of the UK. 

The report notes: “In the 2021 Scottish Parliament election, the SNP won 48 percent of the vote... The Scottish Green Party, which also supports independence, won eight seats…The current level of support for Scottish independence and the SNP—which are not necessarily the same thing—has inevitably had a significant impact on discussions about the future of the Union.”

This support for independence is echoed in the rest of the UK. Professor Ailsa Henderson and Professor Richard Wyn Jones detect “a clear sense of ambivalence about the Union, particularly in England, where around 40% of respondents are happy for one or more other parts of the UK to go their own way. If this is added to the proportion who want independence or reunification, in the case of Northern Ireland and the proportion who hold this ambivalent attitude to the Union, then we reach half or more of the electorate in each of the four parts of the UK.

“Professor Wyn Jones went as far as describing this as the “tectonic plates shifting”, saying: “If you look at public attitudes and if you are a Unionist, you have cause for alarm.”

Insistence on Westminster’s absolute sovereignty has undermined trust in devolution

One view of devolution is that “Westminster has merely lent powers to the three devolved territories, which can be reclaimed at any time…. This view has been generally sustained by the courts, including the Supreme Court,” the report says. 

But “some witnesses” argue that because the devolved Parliaments - especially Scotland’s where 75% of voters said Yes in 1997 -  was established by a referendum with strong popular support, they should be recognised as sharing sovereignty with Westminster.

The Institute for Government warned that: “if the UK government decides to make a habit of legislating without consent in devolved areas, without making serious attempts to secure that consent, then the implications for the stability of the Union could be severe.”

Professor John Denham of Southampton University told the committee that “leadership depends crucially on respecting others within the system who have their own autonomy and their own legitimacy, and leadership becomes one of managing those relationships, not simply of saying that the Union Government decide and that is it.”

Professor Ciaran Martin, Philip Rycroft and Professor Denham referred to the Government’s approach to the UK Internal Market Bill and Northern Ireland Protocol as symptomatic of a predominantly ‘Anglocentric British nationalism’ ”.

First Minister of Wales Mark Drakeford said the Government acted as ‘judge and jury’ on when they wanted to legislate without consent. He said the Government should be required to publish its justification for deciding to legislate without consent, with both Houses then invited to vote on this justification, with the relevant devolved legislature having the right to contribute

However, the report confined its recommendations to asking the UK Government to formally report its reasons for legislating without consent to the House of Commons before doing so. 

Internal Market Act

One example of legislation without consent is the Internal Market Act - before Brexit, the devolved parliaments had a lot of say over how restructuring money was spent, but the UK Government used this Bill to say it can decide how and when to spend that money. 

The report quotes the Scottish Government, which said the UK Government’s approach to the UK Internal Market Bill,  demonstrate it is “willing to reshape the devolution settlement, unilaterally and in the most fundamental way, setting aside any rules of the UK constitutional system that it finds inconvenient”

Report Recommends that Boris Johnson should be “the grown-up in the room” 

Jim Gallagher (a leading figure in the 2014 No campaign) who is a visiting Professor to Glasgow University, said the SNP and other independence supporting parties are looking to use disputes with the UK Government as a political platform. 

The report quotes Gallagher saying: “The obligation of the United Kingdom Government is to be the grown-up in the room. This is the Government of the Union … the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the Prime Minister of the Union, not just of Unionists.”

The report concludes: “We believe the Prime Minister has a critical role to play in making the new intergovernmental structures a success and maintaining strong relationships between the four administrations. Given its importance to the working of the Union, we recommend the Prime Minister and Heads of Devolved Governments Council should meet at least twice each year.”

Looking ahead to Scottish independence and Irish reunification

The report calls for more communication between the UK Government and the devolved Government at all levels, and does raise the possibility that these could be useful in the event of independence for Scotland or reunification of Ireland.

It quotes former Clerk to the Committee Paul Evans and former Chair of the Welsh Devolution Commission Paul Silk, who advocate a formal body to replace the InterParliamentary Forum on Brexit.

They said: “Mechanisms established now, while the Union continues, could form the basis of structures that would be needed if the constitutional position of its component nations were to change.”

Conclusion

The report is interesting largely because of its acceptance of the dominance of Anglocentric British nationalism in Westminster’s approach to Scotland and the other devolved nations. Sue Gray is also mentioned - among her other tasks, she is apparently to play a key role in saving the Union. 

The objectivity of the report could be criticised because of the narrow range of witnesses it called. It also uses some partisan language - Scottish Cabinet Secretary Angus Roberston “claims” while journalist Alex Massie “urges” or “considers” his statements. 

Its recommendations are extremely weak and are likely to be ignored in any case - Boris Johnson is unlikely to meet Nicola Sturgeon as often as twice a year whatever the committee says. The UK Government, having established that it can legislate without consent at will, is unlikely to use “self-restraint”, as the report advises.

There is likely to be a referendum on Scottish independence in 2023 and so this report may be regarded as the committee waking up late only to smell the coffee boiling over. 

Why are we even talking about devo max again? In Scotland today, a vote for Labour is first and foremost a vote against self-determination for the people of Scotland. As the demographic trend towards independence continues, the Labour Party in Scotland finds itself battling the Conservatives for a dwindling hard Unionist vote, largely in older age groups. They would like to be in a position to challenge the SNP but that looks like a distant prospect. 

Anas Sarwar’s strident Unionism is not polling well - a recent Opinium poll showed Labour’s revival south of the border is not matched in Scotland - they are predicted to get just one seat in a General Election. The May council elections will be another test and the omens are not good for Labour. 

Labour leader Keir Stamer is waiting for, or rather banking on, the result of Gordon Brown’s Commission on the Constitution and says that he does not support the status quo. The Labour Party may then try to break the political deadlock by moving to a more nuanced position - such as that they support another referendum if devo max is on the ballot paper - but it won't be. 

They may see devo max as positioning themselves as being in the political centre. There is evidence that if you offer people three choices - eg “large”, “medium” and “small” drinks, people will choose the middle one regardless of what they would select without that prompt.

If the devo max position had been adopted straight after the 2014 referendum, as promised in the Vow, it might have helped Labour to hang onto more of their support. But now, it seems too little too late. How could Scotland vote No for a second time based on the same promise made in 2014 but never delivered? Here are five major reasons why devo max is not a good option in the Scottish context. 

1 Devo max can’t address the Brexit issue

A lot of people voted No in 2014 largely because they thought that was the best way to preserve Scotland’s EU membership. One of Better Together’s strongest arguments was that a newly independent Scotland might find itself out in the cold for years. 

In the 2016 EU referendum, there was a clear division between Scotland and England. Scotland voted 62% Remain and every council area in Scotland voted to Remain. Only a third of voters and a much smaller percentage of the total electorate than in England voted to leave the EU.

And yet this huge constitutional change was forced upon Scotland without any attempt to respect its democratic will. The Scottish Government’s offers of a compromise - something like the NI protocol were dismissed out of hand.

Brexit is hurting Scotland’s economy. The only part of the UK that exports more than it imports, since Brexit, its export trade has suffered a major hit. Imports are becoming more expensive, pushing up the cost of food and consumer goods. Supply chains have proved most vulnerable at their endpoint - rural areas in the Highlands and Islands which have seen repeated breakdowns in suppl

Scotland’s agriculture, food production, hospitality, and care sectors have been hit by the exodus of EU staff. Not being able to recruit from the pool of EU citizens is pushing many of these industries to breaking point and only by rejoining the EU can Scotland regain the substantial benefits of being part of the largest trading area in the world.

Opportunities for Scots are also much reduced - the ability to live and work freely across Europe has gone. Looking across the water, we can see Ireland’s people embracing everything the EU has to offer; from opening Irish bars in European towns, to encouraging the young to aspire to be the next Ursula von der Leyen  (the Irish Government “A Career for EU” strategy aims to increase the number of Irish people working in EU institutions).  

2 Devo max can’t deal with immigration 

One of the events of last year that will make it into the history books was the Kenmore Street protest when a peaceful crowd surrounded a van that was attempting to deport two people from the area, eventually winning their release.  

The UK Government’s “hostile environment” has little support north of the border. Scotland has an aging population. It needs to attract young and talented people to come here in order to build a strong society.  But the Home Office mandates that asylum seekers and refugees who live in Scotland can’t work - despite evidence that this is the best way for them to integrate and that they often have a great deal to offer their communities. The EU is adopting a much more enlightened policy on this. 

This week, Bloomberg ran a story headed Migrants Are Saving Germany From a U.K.-Style Trucker Shortage reporting that a quarter of German trucks are now driven by migrant workers who also fill a quarter of chef roles. 

Another example - Scottish universities are now much less able to attract EU staff and students and their ability to offer work visas to global international students post study is under Home Office control. 

3 Devo max would not confirm the“Rights of the Child” 

In 2021, the Scottish Parliament ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law. This was the culmination of many years of work by children’s rights campaigners. Any attempt to protect children from abuse starts from a position of respecting their human rights as individuals. 

This convention is the most widely recognised in the world. It mandates that children have a right to be consulted over decisions that concern them. They have a right to housing, food and education.

These rights were unanimously accepted by every party in Holyrood. But the UK Government chose to go to court over it. There may be cases, for example, where the UK’s determination to deport children and families could conflict with the Convention. 

In October, the UK Government succeeded in establishing that because the UK Constitution rests on the principle of Westminster’s Parliamentary Sovereignty, Holyrood could not ratify this convention.

4 Devo max can’t get rid of Trident

Devo max would leave defence in the hands of Westminster. They would retain Trident at its base in Scotland. It is unlikely that any area of England would consent to have nuclear submarines based there. With defence being one of the powers that would still be reserved to Westminster not only nuclear weapons policy but the decision to send troops to war would be out of Scotland's hands.

Devo max would indeed leave all of the great offices of state in the hands of the UK Government. Whatever its political colour, Westminster would appoint the Secretaries of State for defence and foreign affairs, it would appoint the UK’s representatives abroad such as ambassadors, consuls, people nominated to international bodies and committees. It would determine the policy choices for the UK at state level, whether that was NATO, the UN or climate change conferences. History suggests that these choices would often be against Scotland’s wishes. 

5 Pensions would still be subject to Westminster cuts 

The UK Government pays the worst state pension in the developed world and has recently broken its manifesto pledge and removed the triple lock protection on state pensions which will see Scottish pensioners lose £520 in 2022, and a cumulative £2,600 over the next five years. In direct comparison, the Scottish independence movement is campaigning for a pension rise in an independent Scotland to £200.00 from the standard basic UK pension of £137.60 a week. 

Conclusion

We have seen over recent years how defenceless Scotland is against a hostile UK Government determined to cut pensions and Scotland budgets in real terms with austerity budgets. Westminster has declined to pass to Holyrood the powers that have come back through Brexit, even the ones that were already supposedly devolved, making its own decisions about Scotland’s spending priorities without consulting Holyrood. 

UK Government in 2014 rejected the opportunity to add Devo Max to the ballot paper - probably because polling shows it would be likely to split the No vote more than Yes. On the eve of that vote, the Gordon Brown made a Vow that devo max would effectively be delivered anyway. It wasn’t. Devo max won't be on the ballot paper in 2023 either and Scotland wont fall for that trick twice.

Planting trees to offset your carbon footprint is easier than you might think and it’s just one of the ways we can all make our own contribution to combatting climate change. You can find Believe in Scotland’s Corporate Grove here.

Back in November, Scotland, specifically Glasgow, hosted COP26. At the end of the conference some progress was announced to great fanfare. However, in our opinion the underwhelming progress announced amounted smoke and mirrors rather than the radical change we require. 

We sincerely hope that an independent Scotland will lead the way in showing the world how to address environmental wellbeing. Indeed, according to a new report on energy production in 2022 Scotland generated 98% of its energy needs from renewable energy sources. 32,031.2 GWh - approximately 24% of the UK’s renewable energy total despite possessing only 8% of the UK’s population.

As we campaign, we are very much aware of our carbon footprint. In 2021 Business for Scotland and Believe in Scotland distributed almost 2 million items of campaign materials throughout Scotland. That included 850,000 leaflets, 60,000 copies of a 24-page newspaper and 1million copies of an 8-page newspaper, as well as tens of thousands of campaign materials such as books and badges. To top it all off hundreds and sometimes thousands of mugs, postcards, and canvasses were also purchased several hundred billboards (although those were mostly electronic). 

Unable to use recycled paper across the board, all of our paper materials including our Scotland the Brief books have been registered with carbon offsetting schemes. Our 1,060,000 newspapers were also printed on 100% recycled paper, but we want to go further - further than just carbon neutral, we want our campaign to be significantly CARBON POSITIVE - so we have set up the Believe in Scotland Grove. 

Every month we will plant new trees to make our campaigning activity carbon positive. We also want to make sure that the trees planted were actually in Scotland, so we have decided to support Trees for Life to plant and pay for new trees and helping to reforest Scotland's amazing natural landscape.

We believe this will assist in helping to alleviate the impact of climate change on the planet and grow new habitats for rare insects, animals, and plant life boosting Scotland’s biodiversity. If you would like to help us, or to offset some of your own carbon footprint, go to our Corporate Grove, and click “Add to the Grove” and donate a tree for just £6.00 to Believe in Scotland's Grove as a one-off, or by setting up a regular direct debit.

You can calculate your own carbon footprint using various online calculators - WWF provide just one of them and you can offset your carbon by adding trees to our Grove. Trees for Life calculates 6 trees offset 1 tonne of CO2. So 1 Tree = 0.16 tonnes CO2.

Your tree(s) will help to rewild the Caledonian Forest, a rich habitat found only in the Scottish Highlands. It will be a sapling grown from locally collected seed and will be one of a number of species planted such as Scots Pine, Willow, Birch, Rowan, Hazel, Alder, Holly, Aspen and Bird Cherry. The Believe in Scotland grove will be planted at one of Trees for Life’s remote sites in the Scottish Highlands. Trees for Life plants in remote areas best suited to the return of the Caledonian Forest such as on their conservation estate, Dundreggan, situated near Loch Ness, and Glen Affric National Nature Reserve.  Believe in Scotland is also seeking to sponsor peat bog restoration projects which can be up-to 10 times more efficient at carbon capture than planting trees. 

Believe in Scotland is a campaign to create a better, fairer greener, healthier, and happier Scotland. We wish to replace the outdated tired old ideas of left and right tribalism in politics with an enlightened Wellbeing led socioeconomic approach to policy and we believe this requires the full powers of independence for Scotland.

You can also become a Believe in Scotland member and support our campaign - Join us.

It’s fair to say that 2021 has not been the most uplifting year. The emergence from Covid restrictions has been difficult and now delayed by the dominance of the Omicron variant; Brexit has brought serious economic damage in its wake and undermined our relationship with our European neighbours; fuel bills have gone though the roof; Scotland is still waiting for its chance to vote again on its independence.

But there are reasons to celebrate this Christmas as we look back on those events which have inspired optimism about our future.

Public support for independence

Independence remains essential to Scotland, and never more so as we look to rebuild our economy after the pandemic and prepare to seize the opportunity to create a stronger, fairer and more progressive country.

A poll published on December 1 showed a Yes vote back in the lead, at 55%

Support for independence is still strong and grew stronger still over the past 12 months. Earlier in the year a successive series of polls showed a majority support for independence. That dipped slightly later in the year but a poll published on December 1 showed a Yes vote back in the lead, at 55% with undecided voters excluded.

Support for the principle of holding indyref2

Polls have also shown that Boris Johnson is increasingly out of step with public opinion when he attempts to block a second vote on independence.

Earlier this month a Savanta ComRes poll found that 37% of people in the UK support Scotland holding a referendum before 2024, with 31% opposed. That equates to 54% supporting and 46% opposing with undecided voters removed.

The poll also found that 50% of 2019 Labour voters in Scotland would support an independence vote being held, with only 23% against. Two-thirds of Labour voters expressing a view backed a referendum, in direct opposition to Labour’s UK leader Keir Starmer and Scottish leader Anas Sarwar.

It followed other polling which showed the majority of Scots wanted indyref2 to be held within five years.

POLITICAL SUPPORT FOR INDYREF 2

The Scottish elections in May returned a majority of MSPs in favour of independence. With 64 MSPs the SNP is just one short of an overall majority but is by far the largest party and was able to form a government after the election. The party has recently agreed a power-sharing agreement with the pro-independence Scottish Greens, who have seven MSPs.

Both parties want a second independence referendum to be held within the current parliamentary term and preferably before the end of 2023. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has repeated that preferred timescale in interviews throughout the year.

A RETURN TO CAMPAIGNING

Clearly the pandemic has restricted physical campaigning throughout most of 2021 but that doesn’t mean that nothing has been happening.

We hope you’ll forgive us for highlighting the important role Believe in Scotland has been playing in that campaigning.

We staged a successful Day of Action for Independence in September which saw activists set up stalls all over the country to spread the message. More than 100 Yes organisations took part, some of them rebooting their activities after a lull to play a role in the day.

The day of action was held in partnership with the National Yes Network and the Scottish Independence Foundation and The National newspaper was media sponsor.

We also produced two special newspapers targeted at convincing those voters still to make up their minds that independence offers the best future for our country.

Our Open Minds supplement was packed full of information showing how Scotland could thrive with independence.

And our second newspaper was a team effort bringing together Believe in Scotland with the SNP and The National to produce a publication which was delivered to one million homes all across Scotland.

We ended the year with our Week of Independence Action, an online drive for Yes which saw the unveiling of two new digital campaigns involving new leaflet and billboard designs.

Boris Johnson will stumble shambolically from one crisis to another unless his party acts to get rid of him

Bring on 2022

The next year will be full of challenges. The fall-out from Brexit will continue to grow. Boris Johnson will stumble shambolically from one crisis to another unless his party acts to get rid of him. And we don’t yet know the full implications of the rapid spread of Omicron. But the Yes movement is back in gear and Believe in Scotland stands ready to play its part in ramping up the campaign in whatever ways are possible throughout a vital year for Scotland’s future. Happy Christmas.

Yesterday’s Scottish Budget included a raft of Wellbeing initiatives among its plans for economic recovery and support for business as Scotland looks ahead to a wider emergence from the pandemic .

Believe in Scotland has argued that Wellbeing should be at the core of rebuilding our economy in the wake of the pandemic. Indeed 'Independence Through Wellbeing' was a major strand of the recent newspaper produced by Believe in Scotland in partnership with the SNP and the National and delivered to a million homes throughout Scotland.

And Scotland is a member of the Wellbeing Economy Governments Partnership along with Iceland, New Zealand and Wales.

The big steps we need to take can only be fully achieved with the powers of independence

The Scottish Budget unveiled by finance secretary Kate Forbes yesterday contained several important initiatives designed to promote Wellbeing, although the big steps we need to take can only be fully achieved with the powers of independence.

The Budget included record funding of £18billion for health and social care  to both provide support through the next phase of the pandemic and help recovery of “vital services”.

But the package also provides £1.2billion for mental health and confirms a £50million Whole Family Wellbeing Fund to provide holistic support for children and their families.

The Budget provides for £200m to be spent on tackling the poverty-related attainment gap; £4bn to be spread across social security and welfare, £544m for free funded early learning and childcare and £831m for affordable housing.

The Budget’s key anti-poverty measure was the heavily trailed doubling of the Scottish Child Payment to £20 a week, from April 2022. The contrast between Holyrood and Westminster, which recently cut £20 a week from universal credit, could hardly have been starker.

More than £4billion will be paid out across social security and welfare payments in Scotland, providing support for low income families, carers and disabled people – including £1.95billion to start delivery of the Adult Disability Payment in 2022-23.

And a total of £41million will be given to the Scottish Welfare Fund, helping people in times of crisis.

A further £110 million to let young people travel free on Scotland’s buses from January will also have the knock-on benefit of encouraging great use of public transport.

The Wellbeing agenda also prioritises measures to tackle climate change and Kate Forbes’ budget – partly the result of discussions with the Scottish Greens, now in a power sharing agreement with the SNP in the Scottish government – sets out almost £2bn of low-carbon capital investment in infrastructure to decarbonise homes, buildings, transport and industry.

This includes the first £20m of the 10-year Just Transition Fund, to help the north east and Moray transition from carbon based industries.

Putting wellbeing at the heart of everything we do ... is not just morally the right thing to do but it also unlocks the creativity and the confidence that we need

A total of £1.4bn will be spent to "maintain, improve and decarbonise" Scotland's rail network and  £336m has been allocated for energy efficiency and renewable heating. Other initiatives include:

• Walking, wheeling and cycling will be promoted with £150m investment
• Large-scale decarbonisation projects have been allocated £60m and there will be £43m spent on promoting a circular economy
• Woodland creation gets £69.5m, increasing the target by 15,000 hectares, while £53m will be spent restoring the natural environment.

In a speech to the National Economic Forum in June the Scottish finance secretary spoke of the importance of the Wellbeing agenda.

She said: ‘Putting Wellbeing at the heart of everything we do, the wellbeing of the economy, the wellbeing of the environment and the wellbeing of people is not just morally the right thing to do but it also unlocks the creativity and the confidence that we need, which in turn will help businesses to innovate, to grow and to make them more globally competitive.’

To fully embrace that agenda Scotland needs the powers only independence can bring. Unveiling the Budget yesterday Kate Forbes pointed out that the so-called ‘block grant’ from Westminster – which is not a grant at all but simply Westminster giving some of our own money back to us – is lower than it has been for the past two years.

For Scotland to truly tackle the challenges of building back after the pandemic it needs to have complete control over its own finances and the ability to properly decided its own priorities.