The National (the newspaper for whom I am a columnist in Scotland) noted yesterday that:
SUPPORT for Scottish independence is four points stronger than support for the Union – and would increase massively should Nigel Farage take power, new polling for the Sunday National has found.
The survey, conducted by Find Out Now, found that 49.5% of Scots would support Yes if a vote on the constitution were held tomorrow, while 45.2% would vote No and 5.3% said they were undecided.
They added:
Amid the rise of support for Reform UK in political polling, the Sunday National also surveyed Scotland to ask how people would vote should Farage's party take power in Westminster.
The Find Out Now survey found that if Farage were in No 10, Scotland would overwhelmingly vote for independence by 55.3% to 36.8%, with 8.0% saying they did not know.
The data looks like this:
Three thoughts.
First, I have already suggested that I find it encouraging that the Scottish independence movement is now gaining political support despite the problems the SNP has faced of late.
Second, the reaction to Farage is very clearly very different north and south of the border.
Third, so much for the idea of a Union. This blows that apart.
For some in the UK, there might be hope. They just happen to be in Scotland.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Rather than Scotland seceding they should form a Celtic Alliance with Wales and Northern Ireland, the three of us together could kick England out of the U.K. and jointly rejoin the EU. I’m certain that we’d all rub along the very best and with a wee bit of diplomacy here and there we might even be able to persuade Ireland to rejoin us.
This is a non-starter
Mr Scilley, do you really think 15% of the UK population can take the currency (and all its obligations); and the 2,000 plus UK international treaties, and all the defence and economic commitments; and responsibility for all the Overseas Treaties, and fixing their problems (Falklands, South Georgia, Chagos Islands), to say nothing of all the tax havens; and all the ‘cans’ the UK has been kicking down the road for decades hoping that something will turn up? And that list is ‘off the cuff’………
Independence can work for Scotland, but first everybody has to understand how all this really works.
Much to agree with
While that was intended as a light hearted comment, John Warren makes an excellent point. It occurs to me that if Scotland secedes and Ireland unite, both of which seem to be very likely, England will be left with all those problems anyway. In that case no one could blame Wales for jumping ship as well.
These are, indeed, English problems.
Mr Scilley,
One of the most interesting, indeed most important features of the 2014 referendum, was that it obliged the UK to establish how Scotland (and anyone other than England) leaves. What was quite new constitutionally (made up by international lawyers on the hoof, because it was definitely not intended); was that in spite of Westminster, literally for centuries insisting that Scotland was in an “incorporating” union (an indissoluble Union that could not be ended, but only ‘broken-up’; leading us to pay off all debts and break 2,000 Treaties); we discovered that we are in fact in a Federal Union (long enied by Westminster); and Scotland’s method of leaving is – secession, after all. I do not think this important issue is generally understood – or its implications.
Well put John.
John, I read your piece (timed at 12.11pm) with interest as it’s the first time I’ve seen or heard of the 2014 referendum framing Scotland as being in an Federal Union (with a pathway to secession), rather than as being in the indissoluble Incorporating Union of 1707 (without any identified means of leaving). Clearly the Scottish Government then and now hasn’t heard of this either. Was there any law to that effect passed into Statute in Westminster and if so, how has it been kept out of public knowledge? If it had been debated in Holyrood I’m sure we’d all have heard of it by now. I’m not disputing that such a change might have been effected “behind the scenes” in 2014, but intrigued by the possibility that it was, although I don’t see how it could be deployed to Scotland’s benefit if doesn’t exist in Statute.
Mr Mathieson,
I have made this point since 2014 numerous times, both here and I think in blogs on Bella Caledonia (and noticed, nobody ever seemed to pick up the point). Goodness knows why. No, it is not laid out in statute, but the statutes are hundreds of years old, incorporating union, and been long passed by; by international law, by necessity and by the incoherence of the original statute (the states that passed the Acts had ceased to exist)*. So how do we know it is a Federal Union. Two reasons. First, because of the currency: £ Sterling. The British government made clear Scotland could not maintain any rights to Sterling. It could only continue using Sterling as a third party, subject to exclusive rUK, BoE and Treasury control. Second, it provided the British Government constitutional legal position in Scotland leaving the Union (written by its chosen, eminent international and constitutional lawyers; Devolution and the implications
of Scottish independence” (James Crawford SC, Whewell Professor of International Law at the University
of Cambridge, and Alan Boyle, Professor of Public International Law at the University of
Edinburgh;):
Crawford and Boyle provided their legal opinion, on which the UK relies in ANNEX A of the paper presented to Parliament “Scotland analysis: Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Scotland by Command of Her Majesty; February 2013, Cm 8554).**
Annex A: “Opinion: Referendum on the Independence of Scotland – International Law Aspects”; pp.64-111. Annex A is a demolition of the Incorporating Union. That is a plain, hard fact.
I have never understood why so many people focused on all the wrong messages.
* In 1707 the Scots wanted, effectively a Federal Union; the English an Incorporating Union, to keep Scotland in. Scotland accepted the English Union, effectively in a trade-off for access to Empire, and the Equivalent. And there was a vote in Parliament 1710, in spite of the Incorporating Union, when the Scots only narrowly stayed in the Union. The Incorporating Union took hundreds of years to become a real problem.
** The two reports, together are here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a796041ed915d0422067ebf/Scotland_analysis_Devolution_and_the_implications_of_Scottish_Independan…__1_.pdf
I think this is the link.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a796041ed915d0422067ebf/Scotland_analysis_Devolution_and_the_implications_of_Scottish_Independan…__1_.pdf
But if that does not work try Googling:
Scotland analysis: Devolution and the implications of Scottish independence
It is indeed very encouraging that the latest polls for Scottish independence are above 50% once again (is this a short term trend though?). This needs to go up and be sustained – hopefully this is the first signs of such.
As to Farage and Reform, there is a ceiling for support, as almost everyone have made their mind up about Farage – either like him or hate him and nothing in between. Jonn Elledge wrote a good piece analysing this in the I Paper here:
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/the-threat-of-reform-is-overhyped-3450371
It’s great that Farage is so disliked in Scotland (as Johnson was) to the extent that Farage refuses to travel to Scotland. (Farage is an English nationalist cloaked in ‘Anglo-British nationalism’ or as Tom Nairn called it so well and pithily ‘Ukania’ – In other words I’ll wave the union jack but really it’s English.)
As Anthony Barnett says repeatedly, for those of us who want a European future back in the EU, the only route back now is for the break-up of Britain, and for England, Scotland and Wales (with a united Ireland) to be independent states – within the EU. The EU would be the bind of the three nations in Britain, but each one (like Scandinavia) independent states.
Duncan, although not disagreeing with your point about Farage’s current political popularity, I think the risk is more that the centre right (all main parties now in the UK apart from Reforn) is failing with neoliberalism, and as such, will drive centre/centre left ground people (including myself) to either not vote or go with Reform as a last ditch attempt for something alternative to neoliberalism (even though it would be a con).
We need a real left wing, anti-neoliberal alternative to avoid the far right / fascism to get into power all over the world. Remember, the UK FPTP system is not hard to manipulate for the establishment/neoliberals.
I have been a supporter of Scottish Independence since 1951, when my parents explained to me why they were signing the Scottish Covenant, advocating home rule for Scotland. Now this wish has, in modern times, being going on from at least the 19th century, and various promises have been made, and broken, by successive Westminster Governments. So while the poll results are encouraging, are we in real terms any nearer our goal? Probably, but for those of us getting on in years it still seems, at least to me, that we are no nearer our ambition. Why? Because with Westminster refusing to grant a Section 30 order to hold a referendum, how exactly do we achieve our aim? And that is my question. Even if we gain a majority of Independence supporting parties in the 2026 Scottish General Election, how exactly do we go about holding a second Independence Referendum?
A referendum is not a requirement in international law.
I am not offering an answer. I am saying they cannot say no forever.
Could England break up?
Maybe
“to the extent that Farage refuses to travel to Scotland”
Maybe there are not enough TV cameras in Scotland????
Farage ran away from Edinburgh in 2013 (in a Police van) to shouts of “racist”, “scum” and “homophobe” when he tried to break into Scottish politics as leader of the UKIP party. A right wing party against, amongst other things, Scottish/Welsh Independence, Irish reunification, the EU, multiculturalism and immigration. His behaviour in the European Union Parliament was often, nasty, boorish and disruptive; I’m sure the EU was glad to see the back of him.
He promoted British nationalism – but meant English nationalism – with the Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh as the long suffering underlings.
I’m not sure if he’s been back in Scotland since (maybe he has been in disguise) but sadly his privately owned political party, Reform, is expected to make some progress in Scotland perhaps at our General Election in May 2026.
He doesn’t have a history of successfull campaigning up here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0YaM1TUfzk
The natives have been very unfriendly in previous visits and police had to escort himn out of town for his own good!
You can guarantee that BBC Scotland would be out in force to report on Farage in Scotland.
Respect Scottish Sovereignty (RSS – https://respectscottishsovereignty.scot) is a grassroots movement established to pressure MSPs to implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a UN Human Rights agreement ratified by the UK in 1976. Article 1 states that all peoples have the right to self-determination and Article 25 guarantees direct political rights such as the right of the people to referendums.
A recent exchange of letters between RSS and Scotland’s First Minister on this topic can be found here: https://dearscotland.substack.com/p/an-exchange-of-letters-between-respect
In January, a petition will be published on the Scottish Govt website calling for MSPs to implement ICCPR into Scots law before the 2026 Holyrood election. In case anyone was wondering, the Scotland Act 1998 allows Scotland to fully implement international human rights agreements ratified by the UK.
The Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) notes that both the Scottish Government and Parliament should, in compliance with the Scotland Act 1998, observe and implement the UK’s international obligations, including ICCPR. In its May 2024 8th periodic report on UK progress (of lack thereof), the UN Human Rights Committee criticised UK government inaction over ICCPR implementation: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g24/056/43/pdf/g2405643.pdf
The Scottish People have been recognised to be Sovereign, by both the Westminster and Scottish parliaments. However, the Scottish People lack the tools – direct political rights – with which to exercise their sovereignty. ICCPR provides these tools and affirms their right to self-determination.
RSS is about empowering the Scottish People to demand their constitutional rights, including the right to determine a system of government best suited to their needs.
Thanks Leah
I appreciate your comments
The same poll also asked those sampled how they would vote if the Scottish Government were to support becoming a republic. The result was 51% in favour, 36% against, abstentions & don’t knows 12%. If the abstainers & don’t knows are eliminated it rises to 59% for and 41 % against. Scotland is different and it’s not just the Union that would be blown apart: it could be the beginning of the end for the monarchy in its current role.
This poll is a very welcome indicator, but Westminster isn’t going to grant S30 permission to hold a referendum any time soon, with energy supplied by Scottish sources already being critical to England’s needs and the potential of water supply in the future being on the horizon. My understanding is that the Scottish Gov could hold a non-binding referendum (just as Brexit was a non-binding referendum) at any time. The problem is that the Unionist parties at Holyrood would organise a boycott by their supporters to invalidate it.
We need a rather more radical approach to the problem. The whole question of S30 power lying exclusively with Westminster takes us into the realms of colonialism. The United Nations Charter clearly sets out the right of any region or people to secede from any other state which rules over it. As Alex Salmond reminded us all ‘Scotland is not a region; it is a country”. It is however part of the UK as a result of the 1707 Treaties of Union which state “That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain.” Despite the Treaties being over 300 years old and despite the massive structural and political changes that have occurred since then, there is still no means of secession available to either nation in spite of fundamental contradictions arising:
Sovereignty of the people of Scotland was part of Scots Law before 1707 and remains so to this day. In contrast, England holds that sovereignty lies with the Monarch in Parliament, which in practice means it lies with the government of the day. It has never been affirmed in Statute and exists mainly via oft-repeated convention and the theories of largely 19th century English political theorists. Scots Law was clearly stated in 1707 as being paramount within Scotland “for all time”, with the get-out clause of “…subject nevertherless to such Regulations for the better Administration of Justice as shall be made by the Parliament of Great Britain.” This clause has been used ever since and in recent times has been used to overturn legitimate, intra-vires legislation by Holyrood.
Much to agree with, Ken.