Precedent from SNP's 2011 win would break ‘logjam' to indyref2
The First Minister said there should be a 'legal referendum recognised by all' on Scottish independence if the SNP secures a majority at the Holyrood elections.
Previously, he has said a 'democratic majority' of pro-independence MSPs after next year's Scottish Parliament elections should pave the way to a new vote on the constitutional question.
In a newspaper column published on Monday, the SNP leader called for the May 2026 Holyrood elections to be 'a springboard for Scotland taking charge of our own destiny'.
He spoke to journalists further at the Kelpies statues near Falkirk, saying: 'The necessity of independence is absolutely paramount and we've got to make that case in the 2026 Scottish Parliament elections.
'But there's a logjam and we've got to break that logjam.
'We demonstrated how we break the logjam in the past, by electing a majority of SNP MSPs in 2011, and that led to an independence referendum in 2014.'
He invited supporters of independence to back his party in the constituency vote and to 'demand independence' in the regional vote.
Asked whether an SNP majority was a high bar to clear, he said: 'The way we break the logjam is to rely on the precedent that happened in 2011.'
Mr Swinney also said recent opinion polls had shown rising support for independence.
Since the Brexit vote in 2016, repeated prime ministers have rebuffed the SNP's calls for another Scottish independence referendum.
Scottish Conservative deputy leader Rachael Hamilton said: 'John Swinney is like a broken record. In a bid to silence internal critics of his weak leadership, he has thrown diehard nationalists some more red meat on the one issue they all agree on: independence.
'Ordinary Scots are sick and tired of the SNP's obsession with breaking up the UK.
'The public want John Swinney to focus on fixing the damage his Government has done in decimating essential services such as schools and the NHS at the same time as making Scotland the highest taxed part of the UK.'
Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie said: 'This SNP Government has lost its way and ran out of ideas – while one in six Scots suffer on an NHS waiting list.
'Despite that, John Swinney can't end his own obsession with division and today has confirmed he'll put Scots second to appease his own party.
'From the crisis in our NHS to the violence in our schools, the SNP has left every institution in Scotland weaker.
'This is not as good as it gets and in 2026 Scotland will have a chance to put a stop to SNP decline and vote for a fresh start.'
Alex Cole-Hamilton, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, said: 'At last year's election the SNP took an almighty beating because people were tired of them obsessing over one issue. It seems like John Swinney is a glutton for punishment.
'Perhaps rather than focusing on what the SNP membership cares about, he should focus on what the country needs.
'The health service and the state of our schools has been neglected for too long because all the SNP care about is breaking up the UK.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Dozens more countries face higher taxes as Trump tariffs come into force
New tariff rates, initiated under US President Donald Trump 's administration, came into effect on Thursday, marking a significant shift in global trade policy. These measures include proposed duties of up to 200 per cent on pharmaceuticals, 100 per cent on computer chips, and 50 per cent on most copper, steel, and aluminium imports. The tariffs announced on 1 August, which apply to 66 countries, Taiwan, and the Falkland Islands, have resulted in billions of dollars in higher costs for companies and increased uncertainty for global exporters. Despite the economic pressures, global financial markets largely took the adjustments in stride, with Asian shares and US futures mostly higher on Thursday. Major trading partners, such as the UK, EU, South Korea, and Japan, have negotiated deals for lower tariff rates to maintain access to the substantial American market.
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
With its youth clubs idea, Labour might just have won the parent vote
Did you go to a youth club when you were a kid? I didn't, I was too much of a nerd. It was all brownies, after-school swimming training or sea scouts, for me – plus the 179 bus to Ilford Exchange shopping centre with my friend Roz to hang out over the railings and stare at boys. Youth clubs, going solely by what I'd seen on the telly in the 1990s, were cool, edgy places where people played table-tennis, started pirate radio stations and sometimes got pregnant (that's what happened to Leanne in Byker Grove, anyway). The thing is, I never got the chance to try my hand at going to a local youth club or community centre (or, some would argue, at being cool) because they all promptly disappeared. Thanks to the cuts to local authority funding made by the Tory government between 2010 and 2019, scores of youth clubs were closed. In London, where I grew up, as many as 30 per cent were shut down. And it didn't do us kids any good – in fact, a damning study that looked at the effects of the closures revealed that teenagers whose nearest youth club shut its doors actually went on to do worse in school. The decision to take away such a valuable resource – particularly in deprived areas – had a major part to play in increased rates of offending and worse GCSE results, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said at the time. And the kids that suffered the most from the Conservative government's decision to shut them all down (surprise, surprise) were those entitled to free school meals. Yet fast forward 15 or so years and a change of government and the topic of youth clubs is, once again, on the menu: but this time it (shhh, don't jinx it) actually might be positive. That's because the prime minister, flanked by the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, has unveiled a raft of new plans – and, crucially, money – designed to help kids 'reconnect with their communities' and get them offline. Labour says the £88 million package – £30.5m of which will be channelled into the 'Better Youth Spaces programme', serving organisations in the most deprived areas – will support youth clubs and schools to offer more after-school activities (such as sport, art and music, outdoor activities, debating or volunteering). It will also enable organisations like the Scouts and Guides to deliver more in local communities. And even better is the fact that Keir Starmer and Nandy seem to have already seen off the inevitable snag of how to get teenagers into youth clubs in the first place. Because rather than ploughing the money into 'traditional' community halls – the type with drab posters warning about the dangers of drugs, a sad packet of digestives and a broken basketball hoop – the plans appear to include investment into an area in whichever way the area actually needs it. That means: climbing walls, outdoor sports and music lessons; perhaps even a funded minibus to transport kids from one area to another with more amenities. Labour have clearly got those 16-year-old voters in their sights... and good for them. The plans, which were revealed this week, actually seem to show some real-world understanding of the kind of dilemmas facing teenagers in 2025 (not least: social isolation). We already know that a plethora of young people are suffering from internet addiction and are at risk from malevolent influences like the manosphere and Andrew Tate; we've seen the widespread support – and grief – after the airing of So, when Labour say as part of their proposals that: 'Far from the default being outdoor activities, young people today are spending more and more of their time detached from the real world, either stuck in their bedrooms or behind a screen, throwing up huge challenges for them and their loved ones to overcome' – and pledge as a government to 'take bold action to give young people a better alternative, so they are supported rather than left behind' – as a parent who worries about this kind of stuff constantly, it's really quite refreshing. I would absolutely love my kids to get off screens and go outside to knock a ball around. I would relish them traipsing to a community centre nearby, where I'd know exactly where they were (even if not exactly what they were doing). I want them to have a risk-free space to 'vibe' in or to do whatever they call it in Gen Alpha. And I'd much, much rather that be in a dingy hall run by a youth leader or Akela, rather than the park or shopping centre or at the bottom of a field because someone stupid suggested we go 'cow-tipping', like I did. And crucially, I believe, so would they. There's pretty much nothing online that my children (aged nine and 13) wouldn't drop in a heartbeat if I told them one of their friends was coming round to play IRL, or suggested a day trip to town with someone they liked. Our neighbourhood in London is built on Quaker land, so there is no local shop, no pub, no off-licence within easy walking distance. If there was actually something to do, I doubt I'd ever see them again. But at least I'd know they were safe. I've had a small taste of what these kinds of community resources for kids could look like – my 13-year-old daughter has been taking herself off to a local sports club every Friday night, simply to 'hang out' on the grass enclosure inside the gates with her friends. Not only does she get to walk herself there and home (big tick for teenage independence), but while there, screens are – truly – forgotten. The last time she went and I asked her what she got up to, she said 'we played tag and then chased each other across the grass holding each other's legs, like wheelbarrows'. She also gets to stare at boys, just like I did. Plus ça change, I suppose. The big difference is that if these plans come to fruition, she'll have somewhere to do it, out of harm's way.
The Guardian
9 minutes ago
- The Guardian
What's the best thing world leaders could do now? 'Let go' and 'embrace uncertainty'
If there is one thing that has marked the first year of Keir Starmer's premiership, it is a propensity for control – whether it's managing his own party, cracking down on civil liberties and protest, or instilling fear and anxiety in marginalised groups. For a centre-left party, the authoritarian strain Starmer has shown isn't exactly in line with the 'change' from the Tories that was promised. Governments seek to control populations, politicians seek to control their parties: this is nothing new and has been explicitly promoted since Machiavelli's The Prince was published in 1532. When leaders understand holding power as an end in itself, and see the method as controlling those they have power over, they block themselves from being able to bring about real change, because not 'losing control' becomes more important than any change they seek to create. And attempting to tightly control outcomes is ill suited to an increasingly complex and unstable world. At the same time, a different mode of control exists across the institutions that implement government policy. It is rules-based, promoted by steeply hierarchical structures fostering compliance, with rigid frameworks and inflexible mindsets, alongside a culture of overconfidence. These dynamics might seem benign or indeed necessary for a functioning bureaucracy. However, if out of balance, they can stifle the creative thinking and collaboration required to tackle complex challenges. Whether it is running consultations without the intention of deep engagement or listening, or an inability to incorporate the climate crisis into economic frameworks, by seeking to maintain control, institutions fall short of making meaningful change. Or to put it bluntly, key performance indicators and top-down thinking, combined with overzealous control freakery in government, will not have a chance of tackling climate breakdown, the cost of living crisis, the mental health epidemic or the loss of trust in politics. This situation of overlapping crises is what academics like to call a polycrisis, characterised by radical uncertainty and wicked complexity. Coming out of the pandemic, there has been increased discussion among policymakers recognising the need to acknowledge uncertainty. The value of this is clear: a report commissioned by the European Environment Agency and published in 2002 examined more than 100 years of policymaking, highlighting areas where uncertainty was not sufficiently acknowledged or taken into account when key decisions were made, such as during the BSE crisis. The authors concluded that, on many occasions, what was missing was the need for more humility in public policymaking about what was not known, stating: 'Decision-making is faced with the continual prospect of surprise. This is the condition formerly known as ignorance.' When institutions don't acknowledge what they don't know, they are left exposed and unprepared, and leaders obsessed with control and certainty block themselves from taking seriously differing perspectives. These dynamics are not well suited to a world that is being upended, with fascism and ecological collapse on our doorstep. However, the need for certainty and control isn't confined to the halls of power. Across psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, evolutionary biology and strands of spirituality, it is recognised that our brains are wired for certainty. Neuroscience studies show that the brain responds to uncertainty as a fear-based threat, triggering the threat response centre called the amygdala. There is an evolutionary survival reason for this, to detect and react to danger: 'How will I protect myself if I don't know what's coming at me?' Humans' over-alert threat response is also shaped by culture and society. We have a political-media establishment that is happy to pump out ready opinions that are not only factually baseless and untrue, but also provoke our threat response. And in times of economic decline and uncertainty, there is an opportunity for far-right groups to hijack and trigger emotional and psychological reactions towards marginalised groups. When imaginary fears are adopted and promoted by those in power, this isn't a mistake: it is a way to control. The dominant mode of power that continues to operate in society, and certainly in the Labour party today, is 'power over', which is built on control, domination and coercion. Leadership exerts pressure and stress, which can often make our amygdala threat response fire off. People become paranoid and go into overdrive trying to control everything. To an extent, I understand these responses. As an overconfident 27-year-old when I took on a director role, I certainly had an urge to control everything. I had to work hard against that tendency in order to lead in a collaborative way. The phrase 'holding uncertainty' was useful for me, because it meant I didn't always trust my first reaction in situations, or the narratives my brain was telling me. It reminded me to take on board different opinions, rather than simply dismiss them. Of course I made mistakes, but I was also open to examining my own controlling and perfectionistic tendencies. 'Embracing uncertainty' or 'letting go' has been mostly limited to the pages of self-help books, but letting go on an individual level doesn't make sense if you can't pay your rent, or your family is getting deported. However, if we apply it to our institutions, power centres, systems and structures, it can be a direction of travel against authoritarianism, moving us towards co-creation, pluralist thinking that goes beyond siloed categories, and building coalitions against the far right. We are a quarter of the way through this century, and the IPCC climate change report says that global temperature increase could be up to 5.7C by 2100, making much of the world unliveable. At the same time, fascism is on the rise. Renewing our democracies, shifting to a healthier culture, tackling the climate crisis and reorienting the economy will only happen if we shift our culture and institutions away from control. We need to let go. What have we got to lose? Fran Boait is a leadership coach, freelancer and writer
