phart

The Poles fought for 123 years to regain free nationhood – but they won it in 1918 only because three partitioning empires had folded almost simultaneously. The same was true for other post-Versailles states. Some, such as Czechoslovakia, were almost spooked to find that the Habsburg empire had abandoned them. Ireland became free through miserable bloodshed and then civil war, while civil war and revolution devastated the new-born sovereignties of Finland and Hungary. The dissolution of the British empire is now craftily presented as Westminster’s far-sighted mission, a plan to lead all those underdeveloped natives to civilised parliamentary democracy. The truth is that it was furious protest in most of those “possessions”, sometimes leading to years of brutal repression, that persuaded an unwilling, cash-strapped and increasingly weakened Britain to back out of empire. The decencies were preserved, of course. There would be an independence day with happy crowds, fireworks, a plumed governor or perhaps a royal, and the union jack wobbling slowly down the mast at midnight … I am holding in my hand a postcard, almost 30 years old. It shows the Scotsman’s front page on “Independence Day”. An outburst of fireworks over Edinburgh; an expectant floodlight trained on the flagpole on the battlements of Edinburgh Castle. The card proclaims: “Now’s the hour: As 300 years of the Union ends, ‘a nation again takes its place in the world’”. But it’s just a publicity item, designed for STV to go with a 1996 “independence” documentary by George Rosie and Les Wilson, which was followed by a televised debate. Since then, devolution, the return of a Scottish parliament and the 2014 independence referendum have laid out a new constitutional landscape. The “No” side narrowly won the 2014 referendum. But the “Yes” campaign, though it lost, turned out to have blown a transforming wind through Scotland’s grassroots; excited thousands gathered to hope, argue and demand (“Scotland Yes! But what sort of Scotland?”). One outcome was to lift independence from dream status to a practical, serious option for Scotland’s future. Another, following the “Yes” defeat, was an unexpected stampede to join the SNP. By 2019, the party had 125,000 members. Today, the leaves are falling; that total is about 70,000. Some have just given up on “politicians” and the SNP’s “failure to deliver”. Many others are shifting to Scottish Labour – but often carrying their faith in independence with them. They form a growing, unreliable crowd of nationalist squatters inside a leaky unionist building. It’s very possible that the next Holyrood election (due in 2026, if not earlier) will end the SNP’s 17-year hegemony. The Scottish parliament could have a narrow unionist majority. Even if Humza Yousaf’s successor survived in government, his or her prospects would be bleak. The SNP leaders still believe that the Scottish public wants them to play by the rules. So they will keep on demanding London’s permission for another referendum, while any foreseeable British government will keep on refusing that permission. So stalemate … unless a far more impatient and radical nationalist formation emerges, pushing the SNP aside as Sinn Féin pushed the old Irish Home Rulers aside in 1918. There’s no sign of that yet. Nevertheless, if a hard-line SNP leadership with a strong majority did emerge in the future, there are several ways in which it might provoke a head-on collision with London, a showdown that could rally public sympathy. Let’s call these strategies “As if” and (in parliamo Glesca) “Gonny no dae that!”. “As if” means acting as if Scotland were already independent. It means marching ahead with legislation officially reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Acts and daring the UK government to intervene. The second strategy – Glaswegian defiance – would mean simply refusing to execute UK laws or orders that Holyrood thought morally or practically wrong for Scotland. Examples: refusing police protection for Home Office snatch vans driving from England to seize asylum seekers for deportation (see previous crowd actions in Glasgow and Edinburgh to block the vans and free their prisoners). Another: to refuse to apply anti-trade union measures from the UK government, such as the strike-breaking Minimum Service Levels Act. Both these are already popular causes. Flat-out and sustained confrontation with the UK government over such laws could end in sanctions against Holyrood or even the suspension of the Scottish parliament; a provoked crisis, but one that could shift Scottish opinion irrevocably towards ending the union. However, there’s not the slightest sign in the SNP of the fearlessness such “illegal’’ behaviour would require. So the wish for independence will survive, even though the vehicle to carry it sits on the hard shoulder with flat tyres. Why wish for it, anyway? There’s an enduring pull and an enduring push. The pull is that only with full powers to make law, negotiate and borrow can Scotland do the heavy lifting needed to tackle the legacies of intractable ill-health and a century of staggering underinvestment in all kinds of infrastructure. Independence within the EU could nerve a Scottish state to block the haemorrhage of economic control to London or to US hedge funds. That government might even dare to dismantle the toppling stacks of flabby, often pointless quangos and “authorities” which now suffocate effective decision-making in Scotland. And the push? It’s the steady veering away of the UK – Tory or Labour – from standards valued in Scotland. Above all, it’s the integrity of the public sector, whether that is health, care, water or transport, which matters to this “statist” nation. It’s the gathering damage of Brexit, punishing a country that voted against it and which desperately needs European immigration to help its labour shortage and ageing demography. There’s a democratic problem, too. Ironically, by introducing democracy into the antique 1707 union, devolution showed why it no longer works. “Partnership” in a democratised union where 85% of the citizens belong to one member, England, can only be a fiction. Then there’s the matter of England. London media imagine Scotnats hugging their hatred of the English. The truth is more wounding. The preoccupied Scots seldom think about the English at all. But they should. Whatever happens when independence floats back to the agenda, Scotland’s leaders must accept one basic fact: the relationship with England has and always will have a special and supreme intimacy. It will overshadow Scottish choices even if Scotland becomes a free republic inside the EU with a seat at the UN. It’s true that England has its own identity crisis, now a spreading infection of authoritarian nativism and performative xenophobia. But English politics could be steadied by the shock and example of Scotland’s withdrawal from the union. It’s a narrow path. But a more genuine partnership waits at the end of it. It also ties into a civil disobedience vibe as well. At some point you pull back the curtain on how power works and then see what people think of it.

A cast study in only reading a headline with no context regarding benefits. It's also £7k per person per annum.

Putting aside any preferences I have. Looking at the current climate and what is happening. Forbes playing a pivotal role in Swinney's government, which regardless of what he does, isn't going to perform anywhere near as strongly as the previous two incarnations. So getting experience in more difficult times is a net benefit for her. When/if things turn then is the time for her to put her vision forward for independence. Everyone seems to have a plan of just do my own thing and we're there. It sounds fanciful , and at the moment we're on an ebb not a rising tide.

Exactly. Fortunately she is smarter than social media NPC's.

Separate but equal policy isn't equality.

The point still stands if they won't switch their vote. I want Forbes to run and win. Although not because I think she will a miracle worker, but to show the opposite of that. It's done for now. There isn't a mechanism to independence that isn't through permission by the UK goverment. I'd like to see what she does, what ideas she has. She might be smart to wait it out a bit, get her family up a bit. Get a cabinet position in Swinney's government and take it from there.

What's that first graph? Net favourability by age group then has rural and urban? I do agree they appeal to different parts within the party and definitely outwith. Liking someone more but never switching to a yes vote doesn't do much. I don't have a twitter account so I can't really see what these mean.

I just read about it 25 minutes ago. I had no idea. I'm ill and avoiding doing anything of use. So decided to see what news i have missed in the last 3 months. I thought it was an april fools joke to start with Murray.

Folk were raring to go off the back of Sturgeon, before all the mess hit. Now it is a poisoned challice , folk might moan about Swinney but he might be the only one really wanting to do the job.

Maybe the TAMB can prevail where modern biological taxonomy has failed. I've always liked this exchange about the subject.

I see Craig Murray has joined George Galloways party.

What's the answer to what is a "woman" by the way? Or indeed what is a "man". Since there is obviously a right and wrong answer.

2 out of 4 leaders is not bad.

The whole point of representative democracy is that we have representatives who are embodied with the will of their constituents. Who then vote on things. So when the majority of the parliament votes on something then you have the "preferred direction of travel of the majority of citizens" . Rather than polling everyone about everything all the time. However whipping up a moral crisis and engaging in culture wars is a political tactic. As we've seen here on how folk think it is of such importance it should be the first question asked. Personally I hope Forbes have the same faith in herself as others do and takes the job cause then we're going to see how little difference it makes, when sh'e suddenly under the spotlight in a completely unfair way.