As I say in The National this morning:
LIKE others whose comments were reported in The National, who are also keen to see Scotland as an independent country, I was disappointed by John Swinney‘s speech on the issue last week.
Time and again, he, like many others in the SNP leadership, fails to provide an argument for why Scotland should be independent. In addition, and vitally, he fails to provide an explanation of the benefits of Scotland being independent.
I added:
I am not going to pretend that control of Scotland's economy is the biggest reason for Scotland being independent. I genuinely do not think it is. However, to pretend that economics is not a matter of significance in this debate would be entirely incorrect.
Having an independent Scotland with an economic policy designed to achieve the best outcomes for the people of Scotland is fundamental to the delivery of the best benefits for the people of the country and John Swinney didn't even scratch the surface of this issue.
I then go on to explain what the argument is.
You can find it here, and if it's behind a paywall, subscriptions are very low, and this is, importantly, the one paper you can find that actually has a decent policy on Gaza.
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!
Energy. The key to Scotland’s independence is energy & I don’t mean the stuff that flows out of the ground/sea-bed. It means renewables & a policy that makes sure that the benefits from them benefit the people of Scotland. A cursory glance @ where e.g. the wind farms are located in the UK (& who owns them) will demonstrate the veracity of this. Like oil & gas, Scotland is being taken to the cleaners.
Test hypothesis: ………..oil & gas in Scotland run out in 5 years – I year afterwards, England shrugs and “gives” independence to Scotland.
But: if renewables expand in Scotland, England may want to hang on – damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Much to agree with
Another issue in the Renewables saga is the failure by successive Westminster Governments to upgrade the llnks between the offshore islands to enable the islands to transfer the power generated there to the mainland. Orkney for instance has been waiting 25 years since they put in a plea for an upgrade to the existing connection (which was historically designed to import power from the UK grid to its islands) and the latest estimate is that Orkney won’t get the upgrade until 2030. The western isles has also had its pleas for upgrade rejected (possibly because successive governments seem to have been convinced that there is no money for such matters).
Every comparable country around Scotland – including Ireland, Denmark and Norway – is now far more prosperous and stable than the UK.
Norway, for example, has among the highest levels of air-source heating and electric car ownership in the world (over 60% of Norwegian homes have an air-source-heat-pump, and nearly 90% of new car sales in Norway are all-electric or hybrid-electric). Norway is also among both the happiest and the most socialist countries in the world. Outside private home ownership (which is also at one of the highest levels in the world – over 80% of Norwegians own their own homes), Norway has higher levels of state ownership than, for example, China. Over three-quarters of non-home wealth in Norway is owned by the state. This includes over 70 of its major companies – including financial services.
Yet it is striking how similar Norway’s basics are to Scotland’s… Similar geography, about the same number of people, mainly of similar ethnic and cultural origin, similar in energy and other resources, etc… I’m having difficulty thinking of any really decisive differences other than Scotland’s domination by England – such as the fact that the UK wasted Scotland’s oil wealth retrieving the UK economy from the hole Thatcher had driven it into, while Norway invested theirs in its people’s future.
Surely it is comparisons such as this with very similar countries – except that they have been managed in their own people’s interests – that make the strongest case for independence ?
With reference to Norway and the other Nordic countries, I can recommend the series of films by Leslie Riddoch found here:
My wife and I recently met up with one of her ex-students in Copenhagen, where he works for the Scottish Government. He told us he is about to move permanently to Denmark, as it already has most of the qualities he would hope an Independent Scotland will achieve eventually. But he can’t wait any longer.
My son has already moved to Norway, which may be permanent – he has already achieved residency. I agree with Geof Cox that Scotland should look to the Scandinavian countries for inspiration.
No link I am afraid.
Lesley is very good.
Geof Cox wrote: “Surely it is comparisons such as this with very similar countries – except that they have been managed in their own people’s interests – that make the strongest case for independence ?” The problem for Scotland is that UK governance is done by Westminster where Scottish MPs are vastly outnumbered by English MPs and therefore Scotland’s views are considered irrelevant in a UK-setting. However there is a radical difference in the understanding of sovereignty between Scotland and Westminster. In Scotland sovereignty lies with its people – as clearly stated in Scots Law Statute – whereas Westminster asserts that it alone is sovereign throughout the whole UK, albeit without any statement in Statute, but merely relying on convention and the opinions of mainly 19th century political theorists. I’m not a lawyer, so I’d be interested in the outcome if the matter of legal ascendency were to be contested in an unbiased court process – undeniable centuries-old Statute Law or 19th century (et seq) assertions?
This seems to me an avenue worth pursuing by the SNP in its attempts to find a way out the pointless pleading for a referendum to Westminster governments
Perhaps the focus should be on forcing the SNP to explain the advantages of a neoliberal, monetarist but independent Scotland, as compared to remaining part of a neoliberal monetarist UK? That seems to be the corner Swinney is backing himself into. If I was back in my home country, I wouldn’t be motivated to vote for neoliberal independence, but I would jump at the chance of voting for progressive independence with an MMT economic theory underpinning the Scottish treasury.
Something smells bad, I can even smell it from here.. (on holiday in border country, NE England).
I faer that there is too much to agree with there
Like RobertJ I couldn’t support Scottish independence if it were based on neoliberal economics and politics. The MMT-based alternative has been spelled out often enough by numerous parties including Richard, Robin McAlpine and large numbers of SNP members, but seems never to have been taken seriously or considered by the inner governing core of the SNP. It seems to me to be a no-brainer that the governing core of the SNP urgently need tuition in the benefits of MMT/Keynesian economics as against the destructive (to the people of Scotland) disadvantages and dangers of neoliberalism. To make this happen would seem to require a change to the voting rights of members at party conferences so that governing core can’t simply ignore members’ views. It would also require suitable tutors to explain MMT principles to the governing core; people like Prof Richard Murphy for example.
I’ve already pointed out in this blog that the people of Scotland are sovereign in Scots Law Statute. It’s long past time that they are allowed to exercise that right.
Such education is readily available in Scotland from a number of groups who would be only too pleased to help, almost all of whom appear in the pages of The National on occassion because it is committed to this idea.
You say you couldn’t support Scottish independence if it were based on neoliberal economics and politics. Scottish independence isn’t based on anything other than the right to self determination. What the SNP or any other political Party say they will do post independence is irrelevant. It will be up to the electorate in a newly independent Scotland to decide the political/economic strategy of the country.
I completely agree with you Richard. I don’t know if you have heard the hints over the last few weeks that the Scottish Government desire to pursue “full fiscal autonomy” as a way of illustrating their economic competence. The rationale for this idiocy is here:
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/foi-eir-release/2017/08/foi-17-01600/documents/foi-17-01600-rationale-full-fiscal-autonomy-pdf/foi-17-01600-rationale-full-fiscal-autonomy-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/FOI-17-01600%2B-%2BRationale%2Bfor%2BFull%2BFiscal%2BAutonomy.pdf
If you agree with me that this policy has the potential to derail the independence movement completely, would it be possible to create one of your short videos on the topic to attempt to flag up the potential perils?
Essentially this is an argument for devolved government in perpetuity.
No thank ypu…
Perhaps England should explain to its people why it should be allowed to remain as an independent country which runs (badly) 2 more countries and a bit of someone else’s, given the mess its governments have made of the UK economy especially since England and, sad to say, Wales dragged Scotland out of the EU.
England doesn’t have responsible people running the UK economy whereas Scotland is required to balance its books with the English-imposed “household” budget. Most of us are aware that we have more than enough resources to support our people but democracy is denied to us by the country next door.
Latest polls show 54% of Scots would vote to leave the UK – a higher percentage that than which took the UK out of the EU – with an expected rise to 58% if the owner of the private company/”political party”, F*r*g*, becomes the next English PM. (We look on polling companies with scepticism since the figures are often nobbled by weighting according to how people voted in the referendum, held nearly 11 years ago, thus ensuring the the figures are kept artificially low).
What Scotland needs is to get rid of devolutionists, posing as independence supporters, from our governing parties and install people who are willing to take Scotland’s independence from England’s death grip.
A C Bruce wrote: “Latest polls show 54% of Scots would vote to leave the UK – a higher percentage that than which took the UK out of the EU – with an expected rise to 58% if the owner of the private company/”political party”, F*r*g*, becomes the next English PM. (We look on polling companies with scepticism since the figures are often nobbled by weighting according to how people voted in the referendum, held nearly 11 years ago, thus ensuring the the figures are kept artificially low).”
I’ve a had a close look at the distortions to polls caused by 2014-weighting and, using the data above and excluding the weighting bias and don’t knows, the 54% of pro-independence Scots rises to somewhere between 62 and 66%. That’s a substantial margin by any reckoning. In N Ireland it would easily bring about a Boundary Poll for reunification under the Good Friday Agreement, so if it’s good enough for Ulster it ought to be good enough for Scotland. That makes automatic dismissal by Westminster much harder to sustain, especially in an unbiased international court. Scotland already ticks many of the boxes indicating colonialism, so the views of an international court become more relevant and therefore likelier to happen.
Just posted this on the National comments on your article:
I think it was Robin McAlpine who noted that the SNP tend to shape their priorities around opinion polls showing that what most concerned people were the cost of living, health and social care and that independence came well down the list. Where the SNP fail in my view and this accords with Richard Murphy’s analysis, is to make the essential link between people’s day to day concerns and independence. That control of our own destiny will enable us to shape policies to alleviate such concerns. I rarely, if ever see the SNP forcefully make that connection.
Agreed.
To Mr P Maughan @ 10:47 am and Richard @ 12.31 pm
The following is from the National dated 22 September 2024:
Headline: “John Swinney: Independence is solution to day-to-day challenges”
Asked whether there is much appetite for talk of independence when many people are more concerned about issues such as the cost-of-living crisis and day-to-day challenges, Swinney said an independent Scotland could offer a solution to these.
He said: “My priority is to make sure that independence is viewed as the solution to the day-to-day challenges that people face in their lives.
“So if people are concerned, as I understand that people are, about the cost of living, it’s vital that they see independence as the solution to that particular challenge and that difficulty, so that’s an issue.
“An approach of that type makes independence relevant to the everyday concerns of members of the public within Scotland, and that’s the way in which I think we’ll build confidence and support around independence.”
The article also refers to the NHS always being free at the point of use in an independent Scotland.
It’s wrong to suggest that the SNP don’t make the link between independence and people’s day to day concerns whether it’s the NHS and social care, energy costs, child benefit cap, winter fuel allowance, the state pension, nuclear submarines on our doorstep or any other day to day matters that concern us.
It’s not the first time that I’ve heard the SNP, or John Swinney, make that connection but the was the first article I could lay my hands on in just a couple of minutes online research.
I am not alone in thinking the linkage is very poorly communicated.
(Warning – this post may contain meat…)
But where is the break with neoliberalism and the “household budget” analogy?
A “maxed government credit card” even if it does have a picture of William Wallace and a saltire on it, is still a maxed government credit card – ie: a lie.
I like Scots mutton pies when I can get them, but if the amount of mutton fat dribbling out of the water pastry, is artificially limited by neoliberal macroeconomics, the tartan napkin I use to wipe my chin after eating it, doesn’t really make much difference.
RobertJ:
What? There’s no need for the “scotch” tropes here, it just comes across patronising.
Okay, cometh the hour cometh the ………………..what in Scotland?
Please don’t tell me you are suffering from a ‘great politician’ drought North of the border too?
The link to Leslie Riddoch’s films seems not to have transferred. Here it is again: https://lesleyriddoch.com/films
Thanks
Having read all your articles regarding GERS I was wondering what effect all this spending the Labour Gov.are doing in England would have on the next GERS report as I believe Scotland has to share some of the expense for these like the reservoirs or have I got it wrong.
I will try to do that sometime – but more liklely in the National.
I have sadly come to the conclusion that if the SNP worked, they wouldn’t let us have it.
There are a lot of good people in the SNP who have sacrificed their time and money, and I commend them, but the gradualist don’t rock the boat approach will outlive us all.
Why should Scotland be a free and independent country? Why not? We functioned just fine for thousands of years thank you before the illegal and disastrous union was foisted on our nation a few hundred years ago. France is independent, Switzerland is independent. Most nations on the planet are independent. Why not Scotland? We don’t need England squatting on our back.
The question we should be asking is why England is unable to function as a free and independent country but needs to hold on hysterically to three other nations in order to survive. That’s the question we should be asking …as we walk away.
Richard @ 9.19 pm
“I am not alone in thinking the linkage is very poorly communicated”
Scotland doesn’t have its own media; we’re not allowed that here. Just the National. Unionist media controls what we see/hear. The Scottish government communicates a lot of information which is on its website – as does the SNP party – but the unionist media doesn’t report it. Can’t have the Scottish people getting ideas that independence might improve our lives.
Some would say it’s all very colonial.
The National is not convinced the SNP is trying hard enough.
Facts are chiels that winna ding and the facts are that England controls the airwaves and the bandwidth.
England decides who gets broadcasting licences and Ofcom controls what the Scottish public sees and hears.
Scotland has pretendy “Scottish” tv and radio stations under the control of England/Westminster/Ofcom.
Scotland gets what it’s given by England.
@John C
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/06/23/scotlands-case-for-independence-has-to-be-about-the-economy/comment-page-1/#comment-1027228
“Haud on pal, yer on a shugly peg there”
An exiled Scot can’t use lighthearted Scots analogies in a thread about my own country for fear of being patronising? Who to? Myself?(I LIKE Scots pies, when I can get them, and we have some tartan napkins in a drawer at home for our Burns night celebrations).
Things must be even more dour and dreich up there than they were last time I made it past the piper at Carter Bar.
“Leis an deagh dhùrachd!”