Swinney was legally sworn in as Scotland’s seventh first minister at the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Wednesday morning, having become leader of the Scottish National Party following an uncontested race. 

On Thursday, Swinney unveiled a largely unchanged cabinet but did appoint Kate Forbes, a former challenger for the SNP leadership, as his deputy. Forbes replaced Shona Robison, who also retained her role as finance secretary

It came after Forbes, who was tipped by allies to run for the leadership again, confirmed she would not stand to be SNP leader, thereby avoiding the need for prolonged contest. 

As part of Swinney’s cabinet reshuffle, the minister for independence role, created last year by former first minister Humza Yousaf, was also dropped. 

***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website, providing comprehensive coverage of UK politics. Subscribe to our daily newsletter here.***

On Friday morning, asked if independence can be delivered in five years, Swinney told Sky News: “I think independence can be delivered in that timescale because the arguments for it are compelling.

“If we look at two of the biggest issues we face as a country in Scotland, the effect of the cost of living and the implications of Brexit.”

Earlier this week, Swinney said he would “seek, with respect and courtesy, to persuade people of the case for independence”.

Having just been confirmed as the new SNP leader, Swinney told supporters on Monday: “Today is the beginning of a new chapter in our party’s history — a chapter that will be about uniting, coming together and dedicating ourselves to the service of Scotland.”

Swinney, who previously led the SNP between 2000 and 2004, said he envisaged a country where “people have good jobs, the climate is protected, the vulnerable are lifted up and opportunity is available for all”.

He vowed to bridge divides and seek “common ground” with opposition parties as first minister.

Swinney added: “I will always seek, with respect and courtesy, to persuade people of the case for independence.

“All I ask of those that oppose that vision, is that they also act with the same courtesy and respect.

“That means independence is not a reason for them to refuse to work with us to build the economy, support jobs and improve the health service.”

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website, providing comprehensive coverage of UK politics. Subscribe to our free daily newsletter here.

The post John Swinney says Scottish independence ‘can be delivered’ in five years appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Taking to our TV screens for the first time, the disputable heirs health secretary Humza Yousaf, finance secretary Kate Forbes and former minister Ash Regan upped the ante — and yellow-on-yellow blitz — drastically.

It is no secret that Nicola Sturgeon’s abrupt departure in February has instituted a deep sense of derailment within SNP ranks. “Continuity candidate” or not, a rueful sense of “back to the drawing board” on party strategy has enveloped affairs. 

The frostiness, the bad-tempered debates, the side-swiping — it amounts to a significant breach of the SNP’s internal norms. Not two months ago, few would have wagered positively that Sturgeon’s end was nigh. Now, in the race to succeed her, candidates eye political progress in the rubbishing of her record.

The scenario presents something of a paradox. On the surface, the Sturgeon regime was one of the most successful in recent British history. It won eight elections in eight years without any signal of capitulation to internal or external pressures. It is counterintuitive that such a strong and seemingly stable regime could transpose into a succession crisis characterised by open hostility. 

In some senses, the outbreak of disarray is a consequence of the dramatic suddenness of Sturgeon’s departure. Her resignation, briefed only to a tight inner circle the night before (including Yousaf), created an immediate power vacuum, allowing inter-party tensions to come to the fore.  

Equally, the tenor of the debate reflects the inherent restlessness of the SNP’s political predisposition. It is a state-seeking separatist party — political developments are interpreted through a lens of “setback” or “progress” as allied to the assumed teleology of independence. When it comes to single-issue nationalisms, every point of departure becomes existential.

The arc of post-Sturgeon instability reached its apex during the first TV debate hosted by STV. Civility was quickly cast aside as the candidates limbered up; Forbes, especially, did not pull her punches. 

“More of the same”, Forbes pronounced during her introductory speech on Tuesday, “is not a manifesto. It’s an acceptance of mediocrity. We can do better”. When presented with the opportunity to cross-examine her rival, Forbes went one further:

Well, Humza, you’ve had a number of jobs in government. When you were a transport minister, the trains were never on time. When you were justice minister, the police were strained to breaking point. And now as health minister, we’ve got record high waiting times. What makes you think you can do a better job as first minister?

Yousaf tried his best to bat back the criticism, but the episode dominated the post-debate coverage. It was not lost on anyone that while this was an attack on Yousaf’s record, it was equally Sturgeon’s government, the much-eulogised ancien régime, that bore the biggest brunt.  

The latest televised Nat-off came two days later courtesy of Channel 4. Forbes had notably tuned down the bombast, perhaps haunted by Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross’ decision to deploy her attacks at Holyrood. She even clarified that it was a “privilege to serve” alongside Yousaf in government.

But Forbes had already shown her hand. It is clear her strategy is to tie Yousaf to the party’s perceived failures in government and put herself forward as a candidate both for change and delivery. It is a pitch that has clear ideological implications. 

Forbes wants to remould the SNP as an ideologically “lite” party and appeal across the classes and sectional interests within Scotland. The reemphasising of the party’s secessionist objectives would, for Forbes, come at the expense of its social democratic profile. 

The leftward shift of the SNP was instituted under the guiding hand of Alex Salmond through the 1980s and 90s. But Forbes figures that the bolstering of the SNP’s left-wing profile under Sturgeon has alienated indy-curious voters. 

The pitch means Forbes’ elected entourage is rather small when compared to Yousaf’s. According to politics.co.uk’s latest count, Yousaf already has just under half (46) of the SNP’s MSPs and MPs backing him, with 48 (just over half) yet to endorse any candidate. This ultimately reinforces Yousaf’s positioning not only as the “continuity candidate”, but also the “establishment candidate”. 

Indeed, Yousaf has expressed no qualms with his party’s left-wing drift under Sturgeon.

Equally essential to Forbes’ political positioning is that only she can “reach out to No voters and persuade [them] to vote Yes”. She argues that Yousaf’s “more of the same” approach would restrict rather than expand the SNP electoral coalition, having problematic consequences for the independence cause.

Gradualism triumphs?

It is a curious feature of this leadership contest that, despite the mud-slinging on each candidate’s ability to build support for independence, both Forbes and Yousaf share a broadly similar strategical approach. 

In consecutive debates, Yousaf has argued that independence must be the “sustained, settled will” or a “consistent, sustained majority” of the Scottish people before another referendum could be held. Equally, Forbes has deployed the phrase “sustained majority” to describe the necessary political conditions for “IndyRef2”.

It is a tacit admission that Sturgeon’s attempt to straddle the divide between “gradualism” and “fundamentalism” on independence was ultimately unsustainable.

By way of a summary: under Sturgeon, the SNP’s 2015 election manifesto proposed a referendum be held by the end of 2017. This was later scrapped in favour of a “common sense” vote in the autumn of 2018. When this approach was found wanting, Sturgeon talked up a new “referendum bill” which would see IndyRef2 held before the end of the Scottish parliamentary session in May 2021. And finally, Sturgeon took the independence case to the UK Supreme Court in a bid to force through a referendum in late 2023. 

This final push was ultimately one failure too many for the first minister. The Supreme Court judged that Holyrood did not have the competency to legislate for a second independence referendum — it led the first minister to pursue “plan B” and a new strategical gambit: treating the next general election as a “de facto” referendum.

It is telling that Sturgeon’s most likely successors have been so keen to ditch this approach. Put simply: they both recognise that the auld cycle of expectation-creation turn crippling climbdown could revolve no longer.

However, it is worth notable that Ash Regan, the outsider candidate in the race, has stuck to a firmly “fundamentalist” platform. In an attempt to raise the independence standard and rally the grassroots gantry, Regan has expressed support variously for a “voter empowerment mechanism”, an “independence readiness thermometer” and a summit of separatist parties. 

But the gut nationalist rhetoric and glib policy belie a dearth in independence strategy from Regan. She is yet to meaningfully lay out how she will win a referendum for Scotland as first minister. As Sturgeon knew only too well, the UK government can simply say “No”.

Still, that Regan sits at around 10-11 per cent in leadership polls shows there is space for her argument within the party faithful.

Her uncompromising campaign may ultimately be the natural consequence of the tyranny of expectations created within party ranks by Sturgeon’s strategical missteps. 

In fact, the internecine conflict of the present leadership contest shows that under Sturgeon the SNP never fully resolved the tensions between left and right or the debate between gradualism and fundamentalism. In the wake of her departure, it has meant such tensions have burst forward decisively. 

Right now, the SNP is undergoing an extended process of introspection, both ideological and strategical. The problem for the next leader is that, upon their elevation, the SNP may remain unsettled on what kind of party it wants to be.

The post Week-in-Review: SNP internal warfare points to broader struggle over party identity appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The post ‘Brexit and Scottish Independence are a consequence of failure, not a cause’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Mhairi Black of the SNP says that nothing can change the SNP’s goal of independence. The party will remain fixed on achieving it, and nothing will get in their way.

The Conservatives have made it clear that they are not willing to allow independence, but Black says ‘anything is possible in Westminster’.

The post The SNP’s goal is, and always will be, purely independence, says Mhairi Black appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Whereas the former is a complex and morally fraught one with no simple answer, the latter is pretty clear-cut.

The UK Conservative Government’s decision to block the bill’s passage to royal assent is done in accordance with the very laws that establish devolution, in both practice and theory. Introduced by Labour and backed by the SNP, the process is necessary because of its effect on the rest of the country.

The irony is that these fervent, self-proclaimed defenders of devolution are the ones undermining it. The SNP don’t believe in devolution but independence and were slapped down by the Supreme Court for overstepping the mark with trying to legislate for a referendum on the constitution, which is a reserved matter.

They are the ones opening up quasi-embassies. You may also remember them actively undermining the UK Government’s position when trying to leave the European Union.

I believe everyone, inside or outside Scotland, know these deflection tactics by now – reach for the folder that forces independence on to the agenda and move focus away from the SNP’s woeful record on the three big beasts that really matter to people – health, education, and the economy.

Respecting devolution works both ways. Devolved parliaments should not seek to operate in reserved matters and they shouldn’t make laws that will have a negative impact on the way the whole UK works. That is how the devolved settlement works. To support devolution must come hand-in-hand with this understanding.

And while it is understandable why parties like the SNP and Plaid Cymru are fanning the flames, trying to make this look like some kind of attack on nationhood by Westminster as part of their separatist mission, the Labour Party doesn’t know what to do.

Not only are they unable to find a common opinion on the trans issue itself – the definition of a woman – but they can’t find a common position on the bill either.

Starmer said he wanted to look at legal advice. Some Labour MPs are in favour, some against. Rosie Duffield was shouted down by men on her own benches for making a passionate defence of the need to protect female spaces from bad actors. Welsh Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi said she supports the Conservatives stepping in.

Yet, the Labour Government in Cardiff Bay said the move to block the law sets a “very dangerous precedent” for devolution.

What precedent is that? That the UK Government will make use of its lawful provisions as set out in accordance with the Act that established devolution? It hardly amounts to an affront to democracy.

Wales’ First Minister, Mark Drakeford, has even said he would seek the powers from the UK Government so they could pass the same law. That’s great use of the Senedd’s time – passing a law you know will get blocked for its negative implications on UK-wide equalities legislation. Surely it would be better to pass the Clean Air Act that has been long promised but never delivered.

It also just shows that, in his quest for No. 10, Starmer would prefer if his parties in Scotland and Wales did not exist. They are a constant source of discord, like we’re seeing in this debate, or embarrassment, especially in Wales where Labour is running health, education, transport, housing, and economic development so cluelessly.

Yes, I have concerns around the bill. Many trans people have gone through a lot of trauma and their human rights must be protected and enhanced.

But this is a hugely flawed bill. Can we ignore the effect this will have on women-only spaces? Can we really allow 16 year-olds to take life-altering hormones but not buy alcohol? Can we ignore the fact that half of trans prisoners in Scotland became trans when in jail?

If we are to have a debate about this bill across the UK, let’s focus on the real issues for women, young people, and the trans community, not the imaginary grievances of those who have a political interest in making Westminster the bogeyman.

Andrew RT Davies MS is the Leader of the Welsh Conservatives

The post Blocking Scottish gender bill is no affront to devolution appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Long-standing rumours were confirmed on Monday as Sunak and Scotland Secretary Alistair Jack prevented the SNP’s recently passed Gender Recognition Bill from gaining Royal Assent by issuing a section 35 order, which allows the UK government to block devolved legislation if it would modify laws reserved to Westminster and have an “adverse effect” on the application of those laws.

While similar proposals were mooted during Liz Truss’ brief premiership, this move – the first time in history the section 35 mechanism has been activated – represents an unprecedented escalation in the heated debate about the rights of trans people.

Trans people make up only 0.5% of the population, and trans men and women who can benefit from the Gender Recognition Reform Bill just 0.2%. Despite this, their lives and identities are now part of a political maelstrom that, as well as the wider culture wars, now includes Scottish independence and the constitution.

Will Section 35 be the new Section 28 for the Conservatives?

Twenty years on from the repeal of Mrs Thatcher’s law banning the ‘promotion of homosexuality’, the current Prime Minister risks re-toxifying his party’s brand by making section 35 the new section 28.

The Gender Recognition Reform Bill sets out reforms to the process by which a trans person can change their legal gender in Scotland. The main proposals involve removing the requirement for a gender dysphoria diagnosis, reducing the period in which applicants need to have lived in their ‘acquired gender’ to three months and lowering the minimum age that someone can apply from 18 to 16.

These reforms are the result of an extremely lengthy consultation process – beginning in November 2017 – with no fewer than 8 stages, making it one of the most consulted on bills in the history of the Scottish parliament. The measures are similar to those proposed by Theresa May in 2017 – later abandoned by then equalities Minister Liz Truss in 2020.

Sunak’s hardline stance on trans rights, choosing to take the ‘nuclear option’ of blocking the bill, rather than pursuing a less confrontational approach such as invoking section 33 powers, appears to be one thing that the increasingly ungovernable parliamentary Conservative party can all agree on.

Trans rights has in recent years become an obsession for social conservatives and right-wing press outlets such as the Times, the Telegraph and the Mail. It’s also a particular cause of famed culture warrior and current equalities minister Kemi Badenoch who in leaked recordings infamously referred to trans women as ‘men’ and has recently appointed the doyenne of the anti-trans movement JK Rowling as an advisor on gender policy.

Whilst the move might be seen as part of a carrot-and-stick approach to trans rights, with reports of the government bringing forward a ban on all forms of so-called ‘conversion therapies’ – including for trans people, in a reversal of the position of the Johnson administration – Sunak’s radical move to block reforms already in place in 30 other countries worldwide should be viewed in the context of an increasingly hostile environment for trans people in the UK.

Having topped the ‘Rainbow Europe’ LGBTQ+ rankings in 2015, last year Britain fell to 14th place as a result of the “toxic” climate that has developed in Britain helped by “anti-trans narrative and rhetoric and mobilisation” in British media and society. Whilst in 2021 the Women and Equalities Select Committee criticised the government’s stalling on gender recognition reform, saying it “caused real distress to many within the transgender community”.

Just this week, the government also announced it was exploring ending reciprocal acceptance of gender recognition certificates from countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand that have self-ID systems in line with the SNP proposals. On Monday, the High Court found that despite causing ‘distress and fear’, waits of over four years for a first appointment with a gender dysphoria specialist – part of the reason that reforms to our gender recognition laws are urgently needed – were not illegal.

But Sunak’s headstrong embrace of trans rights as a ‘wedge issue’ that can unite his parliamentary party might not be the win-win it first appears to be. It’s evidence of how beholden to cultural issues the party has now become, and how far away from public opinion on the issue they are now straying in their ‘war on woke’.

Then there’s the frankly astonishing spectacle of the Conservative and Unionist Party gambling the integrity of the union on the issue of trans rights – something that two thirds of Britons say they pay little or no attention to. Clearly the move is designed to poke the SNP beast as they prepare to turn the next general election into a ‘de-facto referendum on independence’.

Problems for Labour

Sunak’s response does, however, pose big problems for a Labour party that thus far under Keir Starmer’s leadership has refused to take a stance on trans rights, with shadow cabinet triangulation leading to farcical statements such as “I’m not woke but I’m not anti-woke either”.

While Labour has committed to ‘modernising the gender reform act’, no detail has yet been offered on what this actually means. Meanwhile, controversial anti-trans MP Rosie Duffield continues to sit as a Labour MP despite calls for the removal of the whip, campaigners warn the party’s relationship with trans people could be ‘irreversibly fractured’, and LGBT+ Labour are pushing for the adoption of a formal definition of and zero tolerance approach to transphobia within the party.

The uncomfortable reality for Keir Starmer is that 18 of 22 Labour MSPs voted for the bill, and his current ‘it’s a matter for Scottish Labour’ line will not hold under persistent pressure. On Sunday, the Labour leader went even further than some Cabinet ministers by saying that 16 year olds – who Labour want to be able to vote, as well as marry, pay tax and give meaningful sexual consent – are too young to change their legal gender.

Labour’s current approach of trying to avoid annoying either side of the debate is succeeding only in annoying both sides, and whether Starmer decides – with his legal background – to back the government’s move, or to push back against this unprecedented intervention, will be a hugely important moment.

Other parties

Disagreements amongst progressives over trans rights aren’t unique to Labour. The Green Party has been dogged by an ongoing row about trans rights that has split the party in two. As have the SNP, who have endured a bitter dispute with Nicola Sturgeon on one side and high profile MP Joanna Cherry on the other.

As exemplified by the furore over the current, debates about trans rights have shown a tendency to eventually be debased to an inevitable discussion of genitalia.

As long as we have a political and media ecosystem that fundamentally does not respect trans people, their lives will continue to be used as a political football. Trans rights, specifically the push back against them, will continue to be used to signal politicians’ toughness on ‘woke’ or on Scottish nationalism or on those to the left of the Labour leadership.

Meanwhile trans people continue to wait years for treatment, to be victims of hate crime, of bullying in the workplace and at school, and to be murdered and commit suicide at disproportionate rates. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill promised a tentative first step to improve the lives of trans people in the UK.

Tragically, their wait to be treated with dignity and compassion will now also continue.

The post Is Section 35 the new Section 28? appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Proponents say the bill will make a lengthy and humiliating process of changing gender much more humane. Critics argue that the changes will erode women’s “sex-based” rights and open up safe spaces for exploitation by predators.

As Holyrood’s presiding officer read out the result, the bill’s supporters in the chamber broke out into applause. The margin of victory of 86 votes to 39 was comfortable and better than anticipated. But Sturgeon’s victory lap was soon cut short by shouts of “shame!” from the public gallery, prompting the sitting to be briefly suspended.

This heated exchange provides a microcosmic picture of the toxic spectacle that has engulfed Scottish society in recent months. It underlined that while Sturgeon may have secured some legislative finality on the gender issue, she is still a long way away from winning the argument. 

Indeed, the debate is threatening to get more toxic still as the UK government prepares the ground for a high-profile, deeply controversial intervention. 

It is no secret that ministers in Rishi Sunak’s government harbour concerns over the moral implications of the legislation. But within minutes of the bill’s passage on Thursday, secretary of state Alister Jack issued a statement questioning the bill’s very legality. 

It was a signal that the debate was stepping up a gear. The statement read: 

We share the concerns that many people have regarding certain aspects of this bill, and in particular the safety issues for women and children. We will look closely at that, and also the ramifications for the 2010 Equality Act and other UK-wide legislation, in the coming weeks — up to and including a Section 35 order stopping the bill going for Royal Assent if necessary.

Under the terms of the 1998 Scotland Act, a Section 35 order would prohibit Holyrood’s presiding officer from submitting the bill for Royal Assent, provided the secretary of state has reasonable grounds to believe it would have an adverse effect on matters reserved to Westminster. 

Therefore in order to justify the order, Jack will need to prove that the gender recognition reform bill will modify the law relating to the matter of equal opportunities, reserved to Westminster per the 2010 Equality Act. The UK government’s decision hence comes down to a moral judgement over whether the introduction of a gender self-ID system is incompatible with the anti-discrimination rights of biological women. It would essentially re-run the toxic arguments which dominated the proceedings in Holyrood. 

On Friday, prime minister Rishi Sunak confirmed that his government would indeed be reviewing the legislation. He affirmed:

Lots of people have got concerns about this new bill in Scotland, about the impact it will have on women’s and children’s safety. So I think it is completely reasonable for the UK government to have a look at it, understand what the consequences are for women and children’s safety in the rest of the UK, and then decide on what the appropriate course of action is.

In his opposition to the bill, Sunak was strategically forging his party’s legal and moral objections. Not only would the bill have an impact on “women and children’s safety” but it would do so “in the rest of the UK”, where Holyrood has no authority. It is an effective Conservative criticism, but it also opens the door for SNP to make their own moral-legal arguments.

Will the SNP now link the advancement of social issues like self-ID to the cause for independence?

Scotland at the crossroads

The independence debate has been at a standstill since the Supreme Court ruled in November that the Scottish government does not have the competency to call a referendum. In the immediate aftermath of the ruling, Nicola Sturgeon insisted that the SNP would proceed with “Plan B” and fight the next election on a single-issue “indy” platform. But in recent weeks, the first minister appears to have been preparing the ground for a climbdown. 

On Monday, Sturgeon announced that the SNP will hold a special “democracy” conference in March 2023, where the future of the independence movement will be decided. But it is difficult to view the planned conference as anything other than a futile talking shop; indeed, with the Supreme Court having come down decisively on the side of the UK government, constitutional pathways appear to have been exhausted.

At this difficult juncture for the SNP, an attempt from the UK government to strike down a bill passed lawfully by Holyrood could provide some much-needed political energy. 

While the Scottish independence movement is far from united behind the GRR bill, accusations that the UK government is overreaching in its response could spark a powerful nationalist reaction. If there is one thing that unites the SNP, it is the hatred of diktats from the Conservative government.

The SNP will be able to claim that “Westminster is blocking the will of the Scottish parliament”. This stringing criticism in turn feeds the argument that the Scottish parliament cannot exercise real power to enact change, a key SNP line of attack since the Supreme Court case. 

Crucially, such a move might also persuade Labour and Liberal Democrat voters, who roundly support the GRR bill, that Scotland needs further constitutional guarantees. In attempting to block the GRR bill, Alister Jack hence risks sparking a powerful sense of collective alienation and institutional vulnerability in Scotland. Feelings which necessarily benefit the SNP. 

If the UK government does choose to issue a Section 35 order, it creates the opportunity for the SNP to fuse social and national solidarities. The core SNP ideal that Scotland could enact important progressive change if it stepped outwith the institutions of the UK state would be vindicated.

Ultimately, a section 35 order would be destined for the courts, Sturgeon would not pass up another opportunity for judicial review. But whatever the court’s ruling, the result could be a potent socio‐political force in favour of independence. 

The UK government is playing a high-stakes game indeed. 

The post Week-in-Review: Gender reforms will focus Sturgeon’s independence push appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

For a true nationalist knows not of defeat – only of the resurgence to follow.

Think of Nigel Farage, who made seven unsuccessful bids for election to the House of Commons before securing an in-out EU referendum.

Think of the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum, lost on a technicality, but culminating in the formation of the extremely effective “Campaign for a Scottish Assembly” a year later. 

And think of the failed 2014 Scottish independence referendum, which led directly to SNP success at the 2015 general election. 

History tell us that the SNP is ideologically predisposed to look beyond their supreme snubbing at the hand of Britain’s highest court on Wednesday. The party will exploit the cleavage created by the Court’s decision to become more diligent in making the independence case.

So if unionists hope that this ruling will pave the way for Scotland’s political landscape to be transformed, they will be disappointed.

The constitutional battle will only get more intense.

A supreme snubbing

Wednesday at least began with certainty. The supreme court ruled that the Scottish parliament cannot legislate to hold a second independence referendum without the UK government’s approval.

The ruling came faster than expected, but the result itself was of no surprise. 

The SNP, who contributed to the court proceedings as a “third party” (officially the dispute was begun by the Scottish government, not the SNP) argued that because Scotland was “a nation” it had a “right to self-determination” under international law.

President of the Supreme Court Lord Reed rubbished this argument in the measured, mild-mannered way only a legal professional could. He ruled that, whatever the politics, Scotland has no judicial right to self-determination under international law – which, he said, only applies to “former colonies” or places that are under “foreign military occupation”. 

“That is not the position in Scotland”, he said.

The Court also did not agree with the argument, advanced by Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain on behalf of the Scottish government, that such a referendum would merely be “advisory”. 

President Lord Reed continued: “A lawfully held referendum would have important political consequences relating to the union and the United Kingdom parliament”. 

The reaction 

Nicola Sturgeon passed judgement at the ruling in a formidably combative, if hastily organised press conference just hours after Lord Reed’s statement. 

She said that this was a “hard pill for any supporter of independence, and surely indeed for any supporter of democracy, to swallow”. The first minister also confirmed the threat she made before the Court case: if the party cannot hold an official referendum on 19 October 2023, the SNP would use the next general election as a “de facto” referendum on independence instead. 

But there could be no time for defeatism – and by Wednesday noon the SNP was already faithfully reasserting the demands of the Scottish people. 

At prime ministers questions, no less than seven questions came from the SNP benches. 

There were the usual three from Ian Blackford, the SNP Westminster leader and recent survivor of an internal party coup, who claimed that, in the wake of the Court case: “The very idea that the United Kingdom is a voluntary union of nations is now dead and buried”.

“The very point of democracy in this union is now at stake”, Blackford boomed.

And clearly not content with taking up most of the PMQs order paper, Ian Blackford was also granted an urgent question, which he used to accuse Scottish secretary Alister Jack of “denying democracy”.

Clearly, the seeds of nationalist revival are already being planted by the SNP.

The government line

But faced with this unforgiving nat-attack, the government could not muster an answer to the key question: how should Scotland best indicate its support for independence if Holyrood cannot legislate for a referendum?

Sunak’s response at PMQs was telling. “We respect the clear and definitive ruling of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. … Now is the time for politicians to work together and that is what this Government will do”, the prime minister said.

Nonetheless, to the surprise of the SNP benches, Sunak resisted the invitation to gloat. There was no mention of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, which previous prime ministers have lovingly referred to as a “once in a generation” vote.

It was an attempt to take the heat out of the debate. Certainly, Sunak’s measured response contrasted strikingly with the SNP’s confrontational approach. 

Labour’s path in Scotland

Nicola Sturgeon’s commitment to turn the next general election into a “de facto” referendum on independence invites a morass of procedural and political complications.

This plan would take away the “vote for a strong voice for Scotland” pitch which had proved so effective for the SNP at previous elections. And if Sturgeon fails to get 50% of the vote in 2024, the unionist parties can quite easily argue that Sturgeon had her second referendum, on her terms, and lost it.

Crucially for Keir Starmer and Anas Sarwar, this indy-obsessiveness offers a path forward for Scottish Labour. 

Speaking in the post-PMQs press briefing, Keir Starmer’s spokesperson reaffirmed the party’s positioning regarding the SNP: “Our position is very clear. We don’t support there being a referendum, [and] we’re not going to be doing deals with the SNP going into the election in any form or coming out of the election in any form”.

This strong unionist positioning will benefit the party significantly come 2024.

The Scottish Conservative party, which so effectively promoted itself as the “party of the Union” under Ruth Davidson, has failed to seize the moment under the stop-start leadership of Douglas Ross. Sensing an opportunity, Labour now wishes to style itself as the first choice for unionist voters. 

Important here will be Gordon Brown’s much-anticipated constitutional review, which Keir Starmer’s spokesperson confirmed we could see “within weeks”. 

The proposals are set to include further devolution proposals for Scotland and a restyled new upper chamber. This new second chamber may even be in the form of a “senate of the regions”, a plan Andy Burnham has prominently championed.

If this turns out to be the case, the Labour Party threatens not just to become a principled pro-Union party – but a principled pro-Union party with ideas. 

Indeed, that Starmer patronised a constitutional review at all – notwithstanding its potential constitutional recommendations – already goes some way to combatting the SNP’s argument that the Union is inflexible and coercive. 

Answering the “Scottish question”

Nothing is likely to be solved in the near future when it comes to Scottish politics and Sturgeon was right to declare on Wednesday that the current impasse is “unsustainable”.

But the problem now for the SNP is that their response to the deadlock has been to double down on the rhetoric and whip up the grassroots. This is not a sustainable strategy for a party which has no guaranteed means of delivery. 

And might the SNP’s slip into the tropes of romantic nationalism threaten their own reputation for competent governance? This – and more – is yet to be seen. 

The post Sturgeon doubles down after Supreme Court snubbing appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Lord Reed, who is the president of the Supreme Court, announced the unanimous ruling on Wednesday at 10.00am. He told the court that “the Scotland Act gives the Scottish Parliament limited powers”.

The Scottish Government had argued that Holyrood should be able to bring forward legislation allowing a vote to be held.

However, the UK Government made the case that it would be outside the legislative competence of the Parliament.

According to the terms of the 1998 Scotland Act, the Scottish Parliament has no powers to legislate where matters are reserved to the UK parliament, which includes the union between Scotland and England.

Lord Reed ruled that the power to hold a referendum on the Union was “a reserved matter”.

The Scottish National Party had previously said that they wanted to call a referendum for 19 October 2023.

The Supreme Court’s decision came more quickly than had been expected, after it was initially suggested a decision could take months.

Judges on the court heard evidence from Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC (representing the Scottish Government) and Sir James Eadie KC (representing the UK Government) in the case.

Under the arrangements set out by the Supreme Court, a Section 30 request would need to be made under the terms of the 1998 Scotland Act to the UK Government to temporarily transfer the necessary powers from Westminster to Holyrood to allow a referendum to be held.

The UK government has repeatedly said it has no plans to hold a new independence referendum. The last referendum took place in 2014, returning a majority for Scotland’s continued membership of the United Kingdom.

The post Scottish government cannot call indy vote without UK government consent, Supreme Court rules appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Matt Qvortrup, political scientist, outlines the steps required for a country to become independent. In his book, ‘I want to break free’, he sets out both the practical and theoretical phases in creating a new stand-alone state and the merits and difficulties this can face.

Alicia Fitzgerald spoke with Matt about this through a Scottish independence lens…

The post How does a country become independent? appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The post Alba Party’s Neale Hanvey says the SNP have no real plan for independence appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

This was a remarkably scotocentric few days by the standards of British politics.

It was all pretty handy timing for the SNP. On Monday, Sturgeon was keen to prove that her independence strategy was working — and not 18 hours later were her lawyers taking on the UK government on that exact issue. Momentum, it appeared, was firmly with the independence movement.

The new legal front for Scotland’s independence hostilities will be welcomed by the SNP, but less so by the prime minister, who must now add a crisis of the Union to an ever-burgeoning in-tray of cataclysms.

Nonetheless, Sturgeon should be under no false illusions. The SNP’s grassroots are desperate for results, and any sign that the party is losing their momentum will quickly prompt a backlash against her personally.

As the events of this week demonstrate, the first minister is caught between the insatiable appetite for independence among her party grassroots and the stubbornness of the institutions of the Union-state which simply will not deliver it.

So while Sturgeon’s newfound confidence may satisfy and unify the SNP conference hall, when it comes the Union-state, just because there is a “settled will” for a referendum, it does not mean there is settled way.

The Supreme Court Case
Legislation pertaining to the 1707 Anglo-Scottish Union is notoriously labyrinthine, but it is worth surveying the intricate arguments submitted by both sides to the Supreme Court on Tuesday and Wednesday. For they highlight the potential paths the independence argument might take over the coming months.

Representing the Scottish government, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain was plain that Holyrood government does have the right to hold an independence vote. She argued that while the Scotland Act 1999 reserved the right to legislate on “Union affairs” to Westminster, it makes no mentions of referendums. Highlighting the difference between “entirely advisory” and “self-executing” votes, the Lord Advocate affirmed that the legal effect of any referendum on the 1707 Anglo-ScottishUnion would be “nil”.

One wonders whether this argument might be thrown back in the faces of the SNP if it eventually does secure a vote. With the legal arm of the Scottish government working to hollow out the meaning of an independence referendum, might unionists feel tempted to boycott the whole affair — if it really does not relate to the status of the Union at all? On extreme analogy would be the 1973 border Northern Ireland border poll, which was boycotted by Irish nationalists — resulting in a 98.9 per cent vote to remain in the UK on a 58.7 per cent turnout.

Furthermore, its has long been the SNP’s argument that Westminster should respect the will of the Scottish people. In the event of “Yes” vote in a referendum, it would implore the UK government to begin negotiations on the terms of independence. Certainly, this is the expectation of the SNP party faithful. But any admission of this to the court would lose immediately — such is the double-bind Sturgeon now finds herself in.

In an attempt to side-step the arguments of the Scottish government, the UK government’s submission highlighted the fact that Sturgeon is yet to pass any referendum bill. Focussing on this purely procedural point, the UK government argued that the Supreme Court should not operate as an advisory body for SNP legislation.

In fact, it was striking how little time the UK government team spent on the substance of the Scottish Government’s case — insisting, rather, that the case be thrown out on “procedural incoherence” grounds.

Consequences for the SNP
A decision from the Supreme Court is not expected for many months, but regardless of how exactly the judges rule on the legal arguments, we can be sure that a fresh wave of political arguments will follow.

Ultimately, this is the SNP’s strategy.

Even if the court makes no “substantive” ruling at all and throws the case out on purely procedural grounds, Sturgeon will use this to highlight the worst aspects of the “democracy-denying” Union-state. This was the result Sturgeon prepared her supporters for on Monday: “if Westminster had any respect at all for democracy, this court hearing would not be necessary”.

The SNP will progress to “Plan B” and run on an independence-or-nothing platform in 2024, turning the general election into a “de facto referendum”.

But this plan also suffers from some serious weaknesses — not least of all it does not solve Sturgeon’s key problem: how does she force the British government to hold a referendum when the British government can simply refuse? The underlying legal position, and stubborn status of the Union state would not change.

In any case, an election is not a referendum, and a single party cannot simply declare that it be treated as one. The rise of Labour in the polls may also persuade indy-curious voters back to the Union cause.

One thing the SNP can do is continue to make the argument — and maintain their “maximalist” approach to the independence issue. Indy-watchers can expect a number of Scottish government “prospectus” papers setting out the mechanics of what an independent Scotland would look like over the coming months. The first paper, due for release on Monday, will focus on what the economic future of an independent Scotland might look like within the EU.

This will keep the party faithful happy — and halt any leaking of pro-indy voters to Alex Salmond’s Alba and the Scottish Greens. But the reality remains the same: the Union-state offers Sturgeon and the SNP very little room to manoeuvre.

The Sturgeon’s desire to hold a referendum on 19 October 2023 already seems far too optimistic.

The stubborn Union-state
Sturgeon is now running out of time, and her political future now relies on delivering results for the independence movement. The first minister’s emphasis on “the independence generation” on Monday was not just a political observation but a promise. One that must be delivered upon.

So even if “Unionists” like Liz Truss refuse to make a positive case for the Union — the structures of the Union can hold Scotland in tow. This is a recipe for division, frustration and, above all, continued stalemate.

The Union of 1707 created a hybrid polity, a mixed-unitary state which exhibits both pluralism and centralisation. But when it comes to the matter of an independence referendum, it is the state’s centralisation which we see emphasised.

History tells us that Union crises can endure for decades. Twenty years passed between the first, narrowly unsuccessful referendum on for Scottish devolution and the second successful one in 1997, from which came the 1998 Scotland Act. In fact, the history of the Union is arguably one of intermittent crises and recurring stalemates. On any occasion, the centralised Union state still retains and reserves the capacity to say no.

The Labour factor
Come 2024, Labour might feel they have a chance in Scotland once again. The focus of the pitch will be on kicking the Conservative’s out of Downing Street, but the party will also need new ideas on the constitution if it is to do battle with Sturgeon.

For several years now, the SNP could largely afford to ignore the Labour Party; for Sturgeon, the Tory-SNP dichotomy was seriously beneficial. But if the framing of Scottish politics as a two horse race is to come to an end, Labour may be ready to throw a spanner in the works of Sturgeon’s independence pitch.

The party is preparing to publish the Gordon Brown’s “constitutional review”, which, speculation suggests, could include proposals to replace the House of Lords with an assembly of regions and nations.

A new set of constitutional proposals would go some way to undoing Sturgeon’s line that the Conservatives and Labour fail Scotland in equal measure. She told conference eon Monday: “Whether it’s Tory or Labour… It’s not us who gets to decide. For Scotland, the problem is not just which party is in power at Westminster. The problem is Westminster”.

If Labour can both denigrate Scottish nationalism as divisive, while offering a coherent constitutional alternative, Scotland might be prepared to enter a form of post-nationalist politics.

Amid stalemate and frustration, which threatens to capture Scottish politics for the coming years, Labour finally has a chance to make a positive unionist case.

The post Sturgeon vows to break the independence deadlock, but the Union-state is a stubborn beast appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

In her speech at the SNP’s annual conference which has taken place in Aberdeen, the Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon said “the problem is not just which party is in power in Westminster – the problem is Westminster”.

She said that despite her disapproval of the Conservatives, Labour are no better for Scotland as they have chosen to support a hard Brexit too.

The speech included a broad mix of immediate policy pledges that government will adopt immediately, plans for independence, and jibes at the failure of other parties.

Of course, Scottish Independence was a key feature in Sturgeon’s speech. From tomorrow, the Supreme Court will consider whether the current law allows the Scottish Parliament to legislate for an independence referendum.

“If the Court decides in the way we hope it does, on the 19th October next year, there will be an independence referendum,” she says, adding that if the court decide against it, she will respect the decision as she respects the law.

But, she says the choice then becomes about putting the case for independence to the people in an election or give up on Scottish democracy.

“I don’t know about you, well, I think I probably do know about you actually….I will never – ever – give up on Scottish democracy,” she says, to a raucous applause from her audience.

There were countless standing ovations for her promises that “the overwhelming power of democracy” would triumph. The speech made it very clear that Sturgeon certainly has her party behind her.

The first minister went on to chastise Westminster, saying that “i

She criticised the prime minister and her predecessor, and what she called a “Tory Misery-Go-Round”, saying that although it was bad enough that the party took three years to realise Boris Johnson was inadequate, “it only took three weeks” for them to realise the same about Liz Truss.

Comparing her new policies with the Conservative “trickle-down economics”, Sturgeon announced that her government will increase the Scottish Child Payment again, this time to £25.

This will be introduced in five weeks and will be extended to families with children up to the age of 16.She also says the quarterly “bridging payments” of £130 will be doubled to £260.

“I hope this investment of almost £20m will bring a bit of Christmas cheer to those who need it most.”

There was a message to staunch unionists too, with the first minister promising that “whatever happens in future, Scotland belongs to you as much as it does to us”.

The post ‘The problem is Westminster’ says Nicola Sturgeon appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning, the Scottish First Minister said “I want a referendum, and we are only talking about the other scenario if outrageously, the referendum route is blocked”.

The SNP leader did also add that “a referendum can only happen if it is legal and constitutional. We won’t deliver independence in any other way”.

Reiterating that the merger of a referendum and a general election is not the ideal outcome, Sturgeon blamed the Westminster government, saying, “We have a Westminster government who say Scottish democracy just doesn’t count for anything”.

“We wouldn’t be in this situation if we had a Westminster government that just accepted Scottish democracy”.

When campaigning to become Conservative party leader, Liz Truss repeated that she would “not allow” another independence vote, and spoke of her disapproval of “separatists” who are “trying to drive us apart”.

The Supreme Court will decide later this month whether to allow Indyref2. The draft bill, which the judges will consider, states that the aim of the referendum is to “ascertain the views of the people of Scotland on whether Scotland should be an independent country”.

The latest polls on Scottish independence, suggests that ‘no’ campaigners have a narrow lead in the polls, albeit a notable 5-10% of respondents regularly cite that they are currently undecided on the issue.

Sturgeon’s latest comments reaffirm her commitment to a second referendum being held during her time as First Minister. She added, “Voters in Scotland elected me on the proposition of having a clear referendum. I am seeking to treat Scottish voters with respect but I am also seeking to deliver on the mandate that they elected me with”.

The post Sturgeon reiterates that a general election may be the only alternative to a referendum appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Ms Truss, speaking at a hustings event in Exeter on Monday, referenced growing up in Paisley, Scotland, before saying: “I feel like I’m a child of the union, I really believe we’re a family and we’re better together and I think the best thing to do with Nicola Sturgeon is ignore her.”

Conservative members applauded the comment, with the Foreign Secretary adding: “She’s an attention seeker, that’s what she is.

When asked about another independence referendum in Scotland if she becomes prime minister, Ms Truss replied “no, no, no”.

Speaking on BBC Scotland this morning, the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney MP, said, “Liz Truss has demonstrated openly and candidly that Conservative politicians at the heart of this government hold Scotland in contempt”.

“I think these comments are deeply troubling and concerning.  I think many people in Scotland, regardless of their politics, will be very concerned, and in many cases insulted by them.”

“Nicola Sturgeon is the democratically elected first minister of Scotland.  She represents a very sizeable proportion of public opinion in Scotland.  In the last Scottish parliament elections, 48% of the public voted for Nicola Sturgeon.  The Conservative leadership campaign is being conducted amongst a private circle of 160,000 members and MPs. Nicola Sturgeon has far more democratic legitimacy than Liz Truss is going to have if she becomes the prime minister.  And I think Liz Truss has no right or no foundation to make these remarks”.

Continuing, Mr Swinney said, “Liz Truss has told us what she really thinks, that Scotland should get out of the road, it should not be listened to, it should not have our concerns put forward by a democratically elected first minister”.

“She is just trying to appeal to the grass roots of the Conservative party with insulting remarks to Scotland, and to the democratic choices that people in Scotland have made”.

SNP MP Chris Law has also condemned Liz Truss, posting on Twitter, “The only reason why Scotland needs independence. Utter contempt from the future PM.”

Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser who is backing Liz Truss, did though offer some support for the hopeful PM, telling BBC Radio Scotland this morning that, “I think we will just ignore the manufactured outrage from John Swinney on this issue”, adding that two thirds of the Scottish population do not want a referendum.  “Liz Truss is far more in tune with the majority of Scottish opinion on this issue than Nicola Sturgeon is”, he concluded.

Liz Truss spent her early years in Paisley, Scotland, where she attended primary school before moving to Leeds. She describes herself as a “child of the union”.

Truss has garnered the support of some Scottish Conservative MSP’s. Nine of them backed her in an open letter, claiming that Scotland would be “at the heart of the Union” under her leadership and that she is “a heartfelt unionist”.

The post Deputy First Minister accuses Truss of a contempt for Scotland appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Later today the SNP leader will release a paper contrasting the socioeconomic performance of the UK and the “striking” success of its European neighbours, for the purpose of arguing that Scotland ought to exit the Union.

She told reporters yesterday evening that the ongoing cost-of-living crisis meant it was “exactly the time” to urge another vote, arguing that the ability to tackle it is being hampered by “a UK Government committed to a hard Brexit whatever the cost”.

Sturgeon also seemed to suggest that Scotland would have voted to leave the UK back in the 2014 referendum if they had known what political twists and turns awaited them in the coming years.
She said that further papers would examine public spending and currency.

Ahead of the 2014 vote, one 670-page paper was published on the party’s independence plans.

In that referendum 55 per cent of Scots voted No to leaving the UK, while 45 per cent voted Yes.

Sturgeon, who says she aims to stage a referendum in Autumn 2023, is yet to indicate when she intends to bring forward a Referendum Bill. She has also failed to outline how a legal vote could occur without Westminster’s consent.

Surveys commissioned earlier this year by Survation and Panelbase respectively found that less than 3 in 10 Scots support a fresh vote on this timescale.

Speaking last night Sturgeon suggested that “unlike Boris Johnson”, she “respect[s] the rule of law,” adding: “We know that the competence of the Scottish parliament to legislate without a Section 30 order is contested so that’s what we are navigating. That work is well under way.”

Johnson has rejected recent calls for a further referendum on Scottish independence. 

The BBC quizzed Sturgeon over whether she planned to submit a section 30 order to the UK government to request powers to hold the vote.

She explained: “That request is well known. I think I have made it formally in the past, if I need to renew that I will happily do that. 

“We have to work out, and this work is underway, how we navigate our way towards a lawful process with a UK Government that doesn’t respect democracy.”

At the launch of the paper, titled Independence in the Modern World. Wealthier, Happier, Fairer: Why Not Scotland?, Sturgeon will take the stage with Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie.

Speaking with BBC Scotland ahead of today’s launch, Sturgeon argued: “Nobody right now can look at the UK, the mess it’s in currently and the prospects for the UK outside of the European Union surely, and conclude anything but that Scotland can do better as an independent country.

“In fact, had we known in 2014 everything we know now about the path the UK would have taken in the years since then, I’ve got no doubt Scotland would have voted yes [to separation] back then.”

Scottish Conservatives shadow constitution secretary, Donald Cameron, criticised the plans arguing: “The vast majority of Scottish people don’t want the distraction of another referendum next year. They want the government 100 per cent focused on our recovery from the pandemic, the global cost-of-living crisis, supporting our NHS and protecting jobs.

“Yet Nicola Sturgeon is recklessly pressing ahead with her obsession anyway. This is nothing short of shameful when the country is facing so many momentous challenges.”

Scottish Labour’s constitution spokesperson Sarah Boyack also took aim at the plans: “We should be working together to tackle the cost-of-living crisis now – but instead the SNP-Green government wants to tear us apart.

“This is an appalling waste of time, energy and money when our public services are being cut to the bone.”

The post Sturgeon to relaunch independence campaign appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The picture it has painted is nothing short of catastrophic. It is both a damning indictment of government failure in the past and a stark warning of what lies ahead.

Years of failed economic policy and low growth under the SNP has drained money from household budgets and public coffers alike. Income tax shortfalls and un-costed spending commitments have left us with a blackhole in our finances, forcing the SNP to make harsh cuts of up to 8 per cent to already battered public services.

As always, the SNP had a string of excuses lined up, blaming everything from inflation to the pandemic to – you guessed it – the Tory UK government. But while all of these made a bad situation worse, there is no hiding from their own role in creating this mess.

What we are seeing are the consequences of the income tax arrangements the SNP fought for. The fiscal framework they chose means that Scotland loses out when average wages grow more slowly than UK average, as they have been.

These arrangements mean the SNP’s failure to boost wages has left us paying more in tax but raising less money.

In practice this means Scots are paying three times over for the SNP’s failure – firstly through lower wages, again in higher taxes, and finally in worse services.

The devolution of these and other powers should have allowed us to transform our economy. The SNP had a chance to take a tailored approach to Scotland’s unique challenges and opportunities, choose a better path than the Tory government, and design a fair tax system; to use the powers we have here in Scotland to grow our economy and deliver a fair deal for workers.

Things should have gotten better with these new powers – but in the SNP’s hands they’ve gotten worse, and the road ahead looks even more grim.

Households are about to the be hit with largest fall in disposable income since records began, and public services are going to be cut to the bone.

The absence of detail provided by the SNP government means we are largely still in the dark about the reality of these brutal cuts. This is yet another damaging lapse in transparency from the SNP, which prevents services from planning ahead for the cliff-edge they are facing.

What we do know is that the overall scale of the cuts is disastrous for Scotland.

The SNP are poised to slash local government funding by around 8% in real terms over the next four years, after robbing £6 billion from services over the last nine years. This means more bins overflowing, more potholes on the roads, and more cuts to essential local services. Council budgets have already been cut to the bone – all that is left is the essentials.

Few areas are spared from these harsh cuts. Everything from policing to justice to universities to rural affairs facing the same 8% real terms cut over the next four years.

While Health and Social Care funding is set to increase, it will rise by just 0.6% a year in real terms for the next four years – nowhere near enough to keep pace with rising costs and demands for services.

Astonishingly, given this crisis has largely been caused by economic mismanagement, the budget for enterprise, tourism and trade promotion has been hit hardest, falling by 16% in real terms over the next four years.

Yet despite all these devastating cuts, the SNP have found £20 million to set aside for another independence referendum. The anger that I and others have expressed about this is not just kneejerk unionism – it is genuine frustration at the SNP so shamelessly putting their agenda ahead of the needs of Scotland.

Scottish Independence

For years now our services have been left to decline while the SNP pursue separatism at any cost. This spending review sets out once and for all, in black and white, what their priority is.

When their so-called “defining mission” to close the attainment gap proved difficult the SNP scrapped target and began squeezing school budgets.

As our justice system creaks under the pressure built up over the pandemic, they are slashing its funding.

While spiralling waiting lists and daily A&E chaos put lives at risk, they can’t afford to give our NHS the funding it needs to keep up.

But when it comes to their constitutional obsession, they will always find the money. They will always sign a blank cheque at taxpayers’ expense, no matter what else has to be cut.

Scottish National Party

The post SNP failure is leading to Scotland raising less money but Scots paying more tax appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, says she wants a second referendum on Scottish independence by the end of 2023. The move has put Scotland on a collision course with Westminster as the battle for Indyred2 begins in earnest. 

How did we get here? The SNP has made no secret of its desire to hold another referendum, but its strong set of Scottish election results in May has renewed its determination to press ahead with Indyref2. The SNP’s spokesperson on constitutional affairs, Tommy Sheppard MP, says people “have voted to have the choice and we will make sure that they get it.”

Yet there are three key hurdles on the road to Indyref2. First, why should there be a new referendum? A lot has changed since 2014. Brexit, the pandemic and three general elections later, the UK is no longer the island it once was when Scotland initially said no to going it alone. The SNP will have to make a new case for why Scotland is better off out of the UK than in.

Second, the difficult task of securing a referendum. In short, Nicola Sturgeon needs the UK government to grant Scotland a new referendum. The noises coming out of Westminster would suggest that such a request is unlikely to be granted. However, the issue isn’t going to just go away.

Polling expert Sir John Curtice suggests that Scotland may be able to hold a referendum if the question was changed, but the first minister’s best bet will be to build up a consensus for Indyref2.

The fact that the question of independence currently divides the population and politicians, bring us to our third roadblock: timing. The polls are neck and neck, and the consensus in Scotland appears to be that the public wants to wait a few years before being asked about independence again.

Professor Nicola McEwan told Politics.co.uk: “The stakes this time are much higher for both sides.” Ultimately, pursuing a referendum too early, whilst the margin is small between both sides, is the wrong strategic move for both unionists and independence supporters.

Scottish Independence Poll

The road to Indyref2 is a long one. Independence supporters will need to bide their time and play the long game. Nonetheless, the SNP will feel that May’s election results, coupled with their power-sharing agreement with the Greens, has given them the mandate they need to hold Indyref2.

In their eyes, Scotland voted for a second referendum on Scottish independence, and that’s what they are hellbent on delivering.

Scottish Independence Referendum

The post The long road to Indyref2 appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

It all happened very quickly. On the 29^th of August, three Rangers fans were arrested for singing sectarian songs; on the 2^nd of September, Nicola Sturgeon said to the Scottish Parliament that she takes “the view that anybody who chooses to live in Scotland… this is their home”.

It was a clever sentence: it simultaneously condemned anti-Irish racism and neatly invoked the idea of an independent Scotland acting as a small, European and forward-facing nation. And thanks to Tess White’s fatuous “unless you’re English” retort, the real issue at hand was swept under the carpet.

But anti-Irish and anti-Catholic racism in Scotland is a pernicious and deep-set threat to Scottish independence. How can a nation that – once independent – pledges to be progressive, small and European reconcile those values with the blatant, entrenched racism against the Irish and Catholic?

Despite narratives protesting otherwise, Scotland has an ugly and stubborn history of religious intolerance and discrimination. Nowhere is this clearer than with the Irish. Irish immigration to Scotland peaked in the years after the Great Famine of the 1840s, a flight from hunger and hopelessness.

By 1851, 7.2 per cent of the Scottish population was Irish, compared with only 2.9 per cent in England and Wales. This rate of immigration kept up until the eve of the First World War. Today, 14 per cent of the Scottish population describe themselves as Roman Catholic, compared with only 9.6 per cent in England and Wales. This is a direct result of the higher levels of Irish immigration to Scotland.

However, the picture isn’t quite as clear as it may seem. Hordes of starving southern Irish immigrants flocking to Glasgow is a mostly a myth. Most of the Irish immigrants of that time actually came from Ulster (the traditional province in the north of the island of Ireland), and between a quarter and a fifth of them were Ulster Protestants.

What this meant was that the tribal hatreds of Ulster were passed over to the west coast of Scotland, particularly in the industrialised regions such as Glasgow. Therefore, it would seem that the anti-Catholic, anti-Irish prejudice is an import from Ulster, not a native product.

But not quite. Ulster Protestantism is an offspring of the Presbyterian Scots who’d dispossessed native Irish Catholics in the seventeenth century Ulster Plantations, the colonisation of Ulster. And so, when Orangeism and Ulster Protestantism were imported back into Scotland following the Great Famine, it made common cause with the fervently anti-Papist Scottish Calvinism – its long-lost father.

Every so often, some newspaper in Scotland or an MSP claims that sectarian bigotry is dead. And yet, what may seem like ancient history has a very real present. In 1999, Donald Findlay – a prominent lawyer and Rector of the University of St Andrews – was taped singing the bloodthirsty Orange anthem ‘The Sash’.

That same night at an Old Firm game a Celtic fan had his throat slashed and another was shot by a crossbow bolt. And then there’s the incident I’m referring to: Rangers fans singing the Famine Song, with lyrics like “From Ireland they came, brought us nothing but trouble and shame. Well, the famine is over, why don’t they go home?”

It’s perhaps worth rehashing that the Irish famine led to the deaths of about a million people.

The fault line of anti-Irish prejudice runs deep in Scotland. And its threat to the cause of Scottish independence is a very real one. How would a new Scotland, with its history of religious intolerance, welcome newcomers? How can a tolerant, progressive society emerge with such entrenched prejudice?

I’d argue that there needs to be a careful look at the history of Scotland again. At the moment, it’s presented as if the Scottish people were always a homogenised and coherent body, which accepts immigrants such as the Irish and, later, the Italians. But Scottish identity has never been simple or single.

The forgotten histories of the Dalriadic kingdom – which spanned over the north of Ireland and the west coast of Scotland and Ireland – the Picts in the north and east of Scotland, the Votadini in modern Edinburgh, and their interactions with the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes need to be reworked into the popular Scottish consensus.

Scottish nationalism presents itself as an intelligent, thoughtful movement – especially in comparison to its coarse English cousin. Over time, the intellectuals of Scottish nationalism have asked themselves about when Scotland was truly Scotland. Was it during the Scottish Enlightenment? At Culloden, with Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Jacobites?

At the moment, it seems centred on King Robert I ‘The Bruce’. This question: ‘When was Scotland?’ needs to be asked again. It needs to tell the story of how Scottish identity is complicated and nuanced. It’s the only way of building the more ethnically tolerant and progressive society that an independent Scotland dreams of.

The post Anti-Irish prejudice in Scotland is a threat to independence appeared first on Politics.co.uk.