SNP talk about indy in the abstract, not as an urgent national goal
We've had every kind of democratic mandate imaginable, and nothing has changed. The SNP continue to speak about independence in abstract terms, like it's an aspiration for the distant future – never an urgent national goal. We're told to believe that a plebiscite election will be the turning point, but let's be honest: it won't. Westminster has already said it won't recognise the result. And without negotiation, nothing is transferred – not powers, not pensions, not currency, not sovereignty.
READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: Zohran Mamdani is showing how a progressive left vision can succeed
Meanwhile, groups like Salvo are pushing for international legal recognition through the UN decolonisation route – doing serious, credible work. But the SNP doesn't support it, and most Scots have never even heard of it, because the broader movement – and yes, the media, including The National – continues to centre all attention on party politics while ignoring the more radical, lawful options right under our noses.
Why am I writing now? Because I don't want to sit and watch this movement bleed out while we pretend everything's fine. Because I see people in your comments – angry, frustrated, calling for leadership – and I want to say: stop waiting for someone to save us. If the SNP won't lead, then the people must.
We need to start building what Westminster refuses to give — a shadow infrastructure. A people's assembly, built by the movement, not party bosses. Independent Scottish media that breaks free from the BBC's framing. Local civic resistance to defend Holyrood powers and disrupt hostile Westminster laws. A national campaign to elevate Scotland's case at the UN – with billboards, street action, and international allies behind us. None of that needs permission.
READ MORE: Scotch whisky wins protected status in Argentina in 'global first'
We've been trained to think independence only comes after Westminster agrees. That's not how freedom works. Real independence movements create a crisis of legitimacy, not a paper trail of unanswered requests.
The SNP's time as leader of this movement is up unless they change course – fast. Their job was to carry the torch. They've dropped it. We either pick it up and light the way ourselves, or we let the fire die for good.
To The National, I say this: be bolder. Cover the people who are building. Don't just react to the party line – help us redefine it. This paper should be the voice of a living movement, not just a waiting room for the next SNP press release.
To your readers: stop waiting for the next election. It's not coming. We are.
James Murphy
Bute
THE latest Labour government fiasco concerning the welfare bill would suggest they have forgotten their roots. They have attacked the most vulnerable in society.
In recent years we have all come through two seismic events – Brexit and the pandemic – which have impacted so negatively on our communities.
Karl Marx many years ago suggested that each time there were such seismic changes, the impact of the change hugely increased the number of vulnerable people that get left behind. We are witnessing this now and at the same time the gap between rich and poor is increasing, ie the rich are continually getting richer!
READ MORE: Rachel Reeves breaks silence on crying in the Commons
It is abhorrent that Labour support the idea of making savings from welfare benefits – all part of the mythical trickle-down economy that does not work!
Unbelievable that Labour should ignore the gravy train of: the Lords, the royals, the billionaires and millionaires, the corporate tax evaders and avoiders. All of them wheel and deal at the expense of thee and me!
Labour ignored the money men and went for the vulnerable who are struggling week to week.
Thankfully in Scotland our SNP government fight every day for all folks in Scotland, and that's with one hand tied behind their back.
Labour offer Scotland nothing – there is no interest, empathy or connection towards us.
Our choice in 2026 is to embrace independence or continue to be at the mercy of a Westminster government that regards Scotland as a region 'up north'. John Swinney must be courageous and make independence centre stage of the SNP manifesto and in each and every future policy.
Jan Ferrie
Ayrshire
WE all witnessed a government in crisis in the House of Commons on Tuesday. In the midst of the debate on welfare reforms the government suddenly crashed, pulling the plug on parts of their proposals. Quite incredible. However, the plug was not pulled in an effort to support the disabled and vulnerable, it was pulled to stave off a government defeat by the Labour rebels.
Shame on Labour.
Catriona C Clark
Falkirk
REGARDING 'Poverty levels in Scotland track below UK' (Jun 30); that's all well and good, but if we had a citizens' income (long advocated by the Greens), poverty would be virtually ended. It should, however, be funded from publicly created site values (mainly due to infrastructure investment) and not from working people. The Scottish Government has the power to recover these values, and was even urged by a Holyrood committee to do so, back in 2021. Why hasn't it done so?
George Morton
Rosyth
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
32 minutes ago
- Reuters
Blistering heat, empty chairs and the C-word mar UN's flagship development event
SEVILLE, July 4 (Reuters) - Brutal heat scorched Spain this week, a blistering reminder of the climate change that is battering the world's poorest countries - stretching their finances even as government debt climbs to new heights. But at a once-a-decade UN development finance conference in Seville, two key ingredients were in less abundance: money and power. Just one G7 leader - France's Emmanuel Macron - attended the event, where he and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez addressed rooms filled with dozens of empty chairs. Organisers initially said they expected 70 heads of state; that was whittled to 50 as the conference got underway. Back in Washington, Paris, London and Berlin, rich-country leaders are slashing aid and cutting bilateral lending in a pivot to defence spending and rising debt at home. "The mood is ... I would say realistic, but also a sense of unity and of pragmatism," said Alvaro Lario, president of the International Fund of Agricultural Development, adding the question on everyone's mind this week was how to do more with less. "How can we come together, or think out of the box, or create new type of ways of really stretching it more?" The Financing For Development meeting is a flagship UN conference, charting the trajectory to help tackle changes the world must make to tax policies, aid spending or key areas such as debt, health and education. Its outcomes guide global aid funding and UN policies for the decade to come. Few disagree over the need for action; hundred-year floods and storms are happening with alarming regularity, and rising debt-servicing costs are siphoning money away from health, education and infrastructure spending in the developing world. But even top developing-world leaders Mia Mottley, the Barbados prime minister and prominent global climate champion, and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, currently chairing the Group of 20 major economies, backed out of the event at the last minute. The media room was stacked with bored-looking Spanish press gossiping about a domestic political scandal while disillusioned civil-society leaders stalked the halls, upset with the watered-down agenda and the lack of fiscal or political firepower. "We are facing a backsliding of many agendas that we had advanced a few years ago," said Henrique Frota, director of ABONG, a Brazilian association of NGOs. "Developed countries are reducing their investment in (official development assistance) and European countries are not fulfilling their commitment ... they are giving less and less money right now for every kind of agenda." Event leaders were relieved to produce an outcome document - despite gnawing fears in the past months that Washington would torpedo any deal. In the end, U.S. officials backed out altogether. "The entire community was very afraid of coming here because one country wasn't attending," said UN Assistant Secretary General Marcos Neto. "But the document ended up working out ... I'm leaving happy, with more optimism than I thought I would leave with." Neto highlighted significant steps toward implementing climate and development goals, including the Seville Platform and multiple agreements from public and private sectors to leverage funds for the biggest possible impact. The Seville Commitment included tripling multilateral lending capacity, debt relief, a push to boost tax-to-GDP ratios to at least 15%, and get more rich countries to let the IMF use "special drawing rights" money for countries that need it most. But in Seville, only host nation Spain signed on to commit 50% of its "Special Drawing Rights" for the purpose. UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina J. Mohammed acknowledged that the attendance was not as star-studded as hoped, and that public funds are under pressure. "But there's innovative financing, there's the private sector, there's the triple lending of MDBs ... so the resources are there," she said. "We just have to have the political will to leverage through these mechanisms that have come out of the platform of action and continue moving with them." U.S. President Donald Trump, despite his country's absence, loomed large over the event; his climate change scepticism, hostility toward diversity initiatives and pledge to review U.S. participation in multilateral organizations made some keen to strip the "c-word" - climate change - and rebrand initiatives as focused on resilience, education or health. Still, some say the gloomy backdrop should not deter leaders focused on progress. "Ultimately the important thing is doing it," said Jose Vinals, former group chairman of Standard Chartered and co-chair of both the FFD4 Business Steering Committee and the Global Investors for Sustainable Development Alliance. "The private sector is, for the most part, still willing to walk the talk."
Scotsman
33 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Readers Letters: If UK Government will support English refinery, why not Grangemouth?
A tale of two refineries puzzles reader Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... On 30 June BBC News reported that the UK Labour Government is funding the Official Receiver to ensure the safe operation of the Prax Lindsey oil refinery which is located in North East Lincolnshire. Speaking on the matter in the House of Commons, Energy Minister Michael Shanks stated: 'The government will ensure supplies are maintained, protect our energy security and do everything we can to support workers.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad While any action on the part of the government to save jobs is commendable, I know that Michael Shanks and his fellow Scottish Labour MPs are aware of the recent closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery, which was every bit as important to Scotland's energy security as the Prax Lindsey refinery is to the people of the East of England. It is not an unfair question to ask Mr Shanks and the UK Labour Government why they were prepared only a few months ago to sit back and watch the Grangemouth refinery and its workers being thrown onto the scrapheap, yet now when a refinery based in the East of England comes under threat of closure, immediate measures are being put in place to save it? Prior to last year's general election Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar went on record to state that if Labour was elected it would prevent the closure of Grangemouth. The people of Scotland now know Labour did nothing to save Grangemouth. The Labour Party, and particularly, Messrs Shanks and Sarwar, need to explain why keeping open the oil refinery in Lincolnshire is more important than the same action for Grangemouth. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad During the 2014 independence referendum the Labour Party in Scotland was in the vanguard of the Better Together campaign. Some workers who've lost their jobs at Grangemouth might be asking themselves, 'Better for whom'? Jim Finlayson, Banchory, Aberdeenshire Disaster masters Kenny MacAskill of Alba attributes the rundown of the North Sea to Ed Miliband. Mr Miliband has indeed come over as an eco-zealot in his time in office, obsessed by impossible timescales and unimaginably expensive dreams of net zero, oblivious to the human misery and energy deprivation involved in what he proposes. However, in the greater scheme of things the SNP are by far the greatest single cause of the disaster of ending North Sea oil and gas decades prematurely. Compared to the nationalists and their Green allies' constant denigration of the industry over many years, including Grangemouth, Ed Miliband has been a recent and minor figure and has only held office for a year. The nationalists have their own super and not-so-smart eco-zealots. What other countries, not having the UK's natural wealth in energy, must think with these innocents in charge of our resources is mindboggling. Alexander McKay, Edinburgh End dependency Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A 40 per cent increase in small boat crossings and a year of U-turns has Labour struggling to maintain the trust of its voters, as well as its own MPs. With 11 million people of working age not working something radical needs to be done. Of 3.7m claiming Personal Independence Payments, 2.4m are new claimants, mainly for mental health reasons. The Scottish Government spends over £33 billion a year on welfare, more than Health. Like the UK Government, which spends proportionately less at £275bn,it cannot stand by and avoid making savings or, as Labour are doing, make a hash of what will be just a 1 per cent welfare saving. Around a quarter of working age people are not working and when pensioners are included, as many adults are in work as not working. This is unsustainable and it seems Labour will need to freeze tax thresholds. If pensions, defence and health are going to be protected something else has to give. Going 'further and faster' on growth also demands getting a grip on the burgeoning welfare bill. If escalating borrowing for future generations is to be avoided the dependency culture in Scotland and the rest of the UK must end without impacting the most vulnerable. Neil Anderson, Edinburgh Not a poor show Recent analysis shows that levels of relative poverty in Scotland have been lower than in the UK as a whole for the last two decades. This is surely a vindication of the policies pursued and adopted by successive Scottish governments over that time and strongly suggests that Holyrood administrations have been far more effective in looking after the needs of the people they represent than those in Westminster and the Senedd. To give some examples, in 2024 the level of relative poverty in the UK was 21 per cent while Scotland stood at 20 per cent (England and Wales were slightly above the UK figure). In terms of child poverty Scotland's percentage fell from 25 per cent in 2021 to 23 per cent last year. In both England and Wales rates in 2024 were 31 per cent, exactly the same as in 2021. (Steve Witherden, Labour MP for Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr has indicated he would be in favour of the Welsh government introducing something similar to the Scottish Child Payment.) The relative poverty rate for people of pension age in Scotland was 15 per cent in 2024 compared with 16 per cent for the UK as a whole. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad If the Scottish Government can outperform the UK and Welsh administrations in such a key measure of quality of life with one hand tied behind its back, as at present, we can only imagine how far ahead an independent Scotland would be. Our country simply cannot afford to be held back any longer! Alan Woodcock, Dundee Britain needs PR The Labour Welfare Reform Bill, after multiple concessions, stumbled over the line, despite 49 backbenchers rebelling. How many arms were twisted en route to this pyrrhic victory, which leaves the Party mortally wounded and the Government perhaps terminally unpopular? The only victor in all of this is the increasingly likely figure of Nigel Farage. A recent poll makes him more popular than Keir Starmer. Both Labour and the hapless Tories, under the even more unpopular Kemi Badenoch, are sleepwalking into a Farage premiership at the next general election. Our crazy first-past-the-post voting system could see that result with Reform UK winning with just 28 per cent of the vote. Labour, a year ago, polled just 34 per cent of a low turnout to win a stonking majority. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Please, let's bring in a proportional representation form of polling before it's too late. Ian Petrie, Edinburgh New approach It is reported that the SNP has a 'massive £5 billion budget black hole' which can only result in cuts to services or tax rises. Let us not forget that it is the same folks behind this fiasco who back the campaign for 'Scottish independence'. Then we learn of the SNP's opposition to defence spending, particularly, of course, towards nuclear weapons. Just what sort of fairyland do the SNP live in if they fail to recognise the dangers of conflict in today's unsettled world? Do they suppose that violent dictators respect the wishes of uninformed pacifists? Just when will the good people of Scotland realise that they are governed at Holyrood by what amounts to a minority administration with, until recently, unelected Green Party support? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad What Scotland needs urgently is a fresh approach to the regional government at Holyrood, or closure of this unsuccessful institution. Robert I G Scott, Northfield, Ceres, Fife Tapestry tragedy It was interesting to read about Martin Roche's visit to the Borders, particularly his take on The Great Tapestry of Scotland based in Galashiels ('Why troubled Borders region is pinning its hopes on 'game-changer' Center Parcs', 1 July). He must be one of the very few visitors to the attraction which he ranks in the top ten. I hope his piece encourages readers to flock to it. Residents have a very different perspective. When considering taking on the tapestry – which no other area wanted – Scottish Borders Council engaged expensive consultants who told them 50,000 people would visit the Tapestry each year, that is 1,000 per week. It doesn't happen – barely a fraction of that number visit. The only well-supported part of the venue is the coffee shop. To subsidise the Tapestry the council is shutting essential, enjoyed and valued community services. Most of the fellow Border residents I speak to would prefer to have community centres and swimming pools than the Tapestry. I do hope the proposed Centre Parcs development near Hawick lives up to expectations. Mary Douglas, Glendearg, Galashiels Truth out there? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad I have an odd phenomenon to report. Perhaps a reader can help me out on this? It was on the night of 2-3 July and my wife and I had stayed up watch some pre-recorded nonsense on TV. It was rather late – or, perhaps, early – being at 12.50am. To our surprise, a sudden, bright light appeared to our south, so over the Morningside Drive area. The light was like a ball of flame and just as bright. It appeared to be no more than a couple of hundred feet up. It lasted no more than two seconds and was gone. We have double-glazing, so I don't know if there was any sound, but I opened the window and stuck my head out and there was silence. What could it have been? A meteor would surely not have just been a sudden flash? Peter Hopkins, Edinburgh Write to The Scotsman
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Sarwar must take on Labour in Westminster if he is to win Holyrood
Mr Sarwar's pitch to voters at last July's General Election was that Scots should vote Labour to get rid of two governments failing Scotland – the Conservative Government at Westminster, and the SNP Government at Holyrood. That pitch was wildly successful, with Scottish Labour winning 35.3% of the vote and 37 of Scotland's 57 seats. The pitch made by Sir Keir Starmer in the same campaign was premised on the idea that what Britain needed after years of Conservative turmoil was stable, grown-up government. As Rachel Reeves put it, 'stability is the change'. That was the heart of the UK Labour pitch, and in turn it was foundational to Mr Sarwar's: replace Scotland's failing governments, SNP and Conservative, with stable, capable Labour government. Read more by Mark McGeoghegan This week's fiasco over Labour's Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill exemplifies where that pitch has fallen apart. Whether one agrees with the bill itself, how it was handled by Number 10, and by the Work and Pensions Secretary, Liz Kendall, was the height of political malpractice. A bill infused with cuts to PIP that anyone familiar with the Labour Party knew would be unacceptable to dozens of Labour MPs (in the end, over 130 signed a reasoned amendment against the Bill). A Whip's Office that seemed unable to keep track of where the Parliamentary Labour Party was on the vote. A political office in Number 10 incapable of carrying Labour MPs with it. A compromise on cuts to PIP that simply created a new, potentially more toxic problem of a two-tier disability benefits system. More compromises agreed while Liz Kendall stood at the dispatch box, arguing for MPs to back a bill being gutted in backroom deals as she spoke, to the confusion of MPs in the chamber. This absolute clusterbùrach exemplifies the issues Labour have faced since coming to office last year, from the infighting that led to Sue Gray being ousted to policy U-turns on the Winter Fuel Allowance and a national grooming gangs inquiry. If stability was the change being promised by Labour, it has not delivered. It isn't unreasonable for Scottish voters to look at the Labour Government in London, which Mr Sarwar told them would restore stability and good governance to Westminster and conclude that they have no reason to believe, based on the evidence, that that is what Labour would deliver in Edinburgh. And that's the conclusion they seem to have reached. An Ipsos poll released earlier this week found that Scots' net satisfaction with Sir Keir has fallen from -12 a year ago to -42 today, and their net satisfaction with Mr Sarwar has fallen from -1 to -18. Net satisfaction with John Swinney has also fallen, from -2 to -17, but the 32% of Scots satisfied with his performance as First Minister seems enough to put him in pole position to remain in Bute House after next May. More problematically for Labour, the SNP is more trusted than it is on the top issues that voters say will determine how they vote next May, from healthcare to the economy, and enjoys a 25-point lead over Labour on being most trusted to stand up for Scotland's interests. Part of the difficulty for Mr Sarwar is that it is exceptionally challenging for Scottish leaders of GB-wide parties to distance themselves from their Westminster counterparts, for a variety of reasons. But he also hasn't attempted to. When he backed Sir Keir's immigration policy and accepted that immigration had to come down 'across the board', he upturned decades of Scottish Labour policy. He tied himself closer to the Starmer project. When he refuses to criticise or explicitly backs UK Labour policies, then claims that he would do differently as First Minister, as he did on disability benefits, it's not hard to understand why he might be met with incredulity. Asking a question at a Holyrood Sources event a couple of weeks ago, Cat Headley put it to Professor Sir John Curtice that there's a fundamental unfairness in holding up Labour's year in power at Westminster, cleaning up a mess of the Conservatives' making, against the SNP's nearly two decades in power in Edinburgh as if they are equivalents. Liz Kendall has performed woefully of late (Image: PA) I have some sympathy with that view. Ultimately, voters are electing a Scottish government next May, not voting in a referendum on Labour's performance in London. In principle, it's right that it's the SNP's record in government that is the focus of that campaign and media scrutiny of our politics. And perhaps that shift will happen. After all, in December 2010, while Scottish voters were still focused on Westminster political news, Labour led the SNP by 49% to 33% at Holyrood. It wasn't until the campaign began in earnest that attention shifted, as did the polls. But in the end, if Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labour don't want to be judged by Labour's record at Westminster, they have the option of distancing themselves from that government. Just a third of their own voters last July trust them most to stand up for Scotland's interests, while a fifth trust the SNP to do so the most. Mr Sarwar could still find himself sitting behind that desk in Bute House a year from now. That likely means clawing back the SNP-Labour swing voters that delivered dozens of Scottish Labour MPs last year, and that starts with Mr Sarwar making the politically tricky decision to critique his colleagues at Westminster. Mark McGeoghegan is a Glasgow University researcher of nationalism and contentious politics and an Associate Member of the Centre on Constitutional Change. He can be found on BlueSky @
