This result shows the time has arrived for make-or-break move for SNP
We didn't need Professor Curtice to highlight that SNP fortunes haven't improved since the General Election. It was readily apparent to anyone who followed this SNP leadership contesting Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse as a supposed party of 'independence' and yet not relying on it to garner support.
At a time when national polling for independence is reckoned to hover around 54%, Swinney's SNP managed to garner just 12% support from Hamilton's electorate (only 29% of those who actually voted). Doesn't this prove beyond any doubt he and his party are getting it woefully wrong?
At a time when the independence movement is straining at the leash for real campaigning political leadership, itching to get the campaign into full swing, hasn't the SNP's campaign chief, Jamie Hepburn, signalled indy being kicked down the road once again when in Laura Pollock's report (June 6) he states: 'Next year, we're going into a General Election for the Scottish Parliament ... the fundamental question will be who's forming the next government ... who's going to be the next first minister ... either John Swinney or Anas Sarwar.'
READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely
There we have it. This SNP's clear intention is to just play regional politics, presumably to secure their own positions, rather than fight the 2026 election as the de facto referendum the movement demands and the polls suggest the public desires.
I suspect the new strategy SNP may be heading towards claiming that the de facto referendum should be at the next General Election and promising to make it so ... just as long as we elect them to Holyrood next year so they can 'deliver' it.
Well, let's head that one off at the pass. If 2026 is ignored as the legitimate platform for Scots to determine their national status, or fail to force the referendum our democratic rights deserve, then who doubts the SNP will be soundly defeated and the independence movement will need to start from scratch to fight for independence without them; trust in the SNP decimated and Scotland's independence prospects truly parked for another generation – victory for the Unionists?
If Keir Starmer, as seems likely, is about to scapegoat Rachel Reeves to secure his position, isn't it time for the SNP to scapegoat their current leader and his influencers in order to elect a leader in time for 2026 who has independence at heart, has the drive to deliver it and can persuade 54% and rising of Scots that they can do so?
Hasn't the Hamilton election result shown the time has arrived for, if no serious independence leadership and drive for it, then no SNP?
Jim Taylor
Scotland
THE loss of the Hamilton by-election to the risibly inept 'Scottish' Labour – a party so devoid of ideas it could barely muster a coherent manifesto – is not merely a setback. It is a catastrophe of the SNP's own making, a fiasco that reeks of complacency, strategic idiocy and the kind of centrist dithering that has come to define John Swinney's leadership.
This was an entirely avoidable humiliation. Instead of seizing the moment – with independence support now at a formidable sum – Swinney, that master of inertia, chose to dither. His response? A pledge to wait until 75% of Scots beg for freedom before lifting a finger. One wonders if he imagines history's great emancipators –Washington, Bolívar, even the wretched Garibaldi – paused to consult focus groups before acting.
When Starmer, that most unctuous of Westminster careerists, declared he would block any independence referendum, Swinney's silence was deafening. Not a word of defiance, not a hint of resistance to the colonial farce of Section 30. Instead, he opted to align with Labour – a party whose sole distinction from Reform is a marginally more polished veneer of hypocrisy. Both are Unionist to the core, united in their mission to siphon Scotland's wealth southward while offering nothing but condescension in return.
The campaign itself was a masterclass in misdirection. Rather than rallying the independence movement with a bold vision, Swinney fixated on Reform – as if thwarting Nigel Farage's band of reactionary clowns was the defining struggle of Scottish nationalism. The result? A muddled, defensive mess that left voters uninspired and Labour undeservedly triumphant.
Worse still, Swinney has perpetuated the worst excesses of the Sturgeon era: the cult of secrecy, the slavish deference to corporate interests (see: Flamingo Land's desecration of Loch Lomond) and the systematic sidelining of anyone with a spine. Sturgeon's legacy was to ensure that no competent successor could emerge – only loyalists and mediocrities, of which Swinney is the apotheosis.
The truth is stark: the SNP have no plan for independence. No strategy beyond grovelling to Westminster for permission to hold a vote – a humiliation masquerading as diplomacy. It is a spectacle so pitiful it verges on self-parody.
Swinney must go. Not with a whimper, but with the swift, decisive exit his failures demand. The independence movement deserves leaders who grasp that freedom is seized, not negotiated – and who possess the courage to act accordingly.
Until then, the SNP's decline will continue, and Scotland's potential will remain shackled by the timid and the unimaginative.
Alan Hinnrichs
Dundee
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Donald Trump and Elon Musk feud is very dangerous for the President
The political alliance between Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk has disfigured US politics. Musk helping bankroll Trump's second election victory was an example of money buying power. Being handed a job as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to cut spending was also wrong on a number of levels. It reeked of a massive favour to a donor and led to the dodgy practice of unaccountable allies of Musk cutting government programmes. But both individuals are ego maniacs and it was only a matter of time before they fell out spectacularly. Musk is unhappy at a Trump tax bill he believes will be financially ruinous. Sniping then led to Musk making the incendiary claim the president's name appears in the notorious Jeffrey Epstein files. Few things are more damaging reputationally than being linked to the late Epstein - just ask Prince Andrew. This developing feud between Trump and his former pal Musk is dangerous for the President. The Tesla co-founder has power and influence, both politically and in the corporate world, and he seems intent on doing damage. A positive step for the world would be if both men cancelled themselves out through their bickering. The US is known as a land of opportunity but we are in a situation where a small number of billionaires wield disproportionate power. People like Musk should be paying more in tax and held to account for the cuts he was allowed to make in government. Trump is already a lame duck president and Americans must look to a time when he is no longer in charge. Weapons in court The proliferation of weapons on our streets is bad enough. But it beggars belief that thousands of blades, guns and bullets have been seized in Scottish courtrooms in the last year as our investigation reveals. The motivation of those who would attempt to enter a court while armed is not clear. Do they think they need protection or is it to dish out retribution? Whatever the reason, it is vital courts are safe places for justice to be carried out without fear for anyone's safety. People should be able to expect to attend court as an employee, witness or accused without being worried about the threat of violence. Those sinister or stupid enough to believe they can carry weapons into a court of law should be left in no doubt their conduct is unacceptable. They should be hammered by the courts they seek to undermine.
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Anas Sarwar should not expect to oust John Swinney yet, says polling guru
John Curtice said the battle for the South Lanarkshire seat always looked as if it would be a close affair and that's how it turned out. Anas Sarwar should not expect to oust John Swinney as first minister just yet despite Labour's success at the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election, Professor John Curtice has said. The election guru said the battle for the South Lanarkshire seat always looked as if it would be a close affair and that's what happened. The Strathclyde University academic told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'If you take in the opinion polls, what's happened in Hamilton, and the ups and downs in Labour and SNP support since 2021, we see Labour at 31 per cent and the SNP at 31 per cent. 'So the contest always looked to be close and that's what's been proven in the end. Labour has done slightly better and the SNP slightly worse, but there is nothing in the result to suggest Labour has turned around the polls. 'But equally what's true is there are no signs in this result that the SNP are making much progress in reversing the losses from last year. 'The recent message from opinion polls are the SNP is running at just over 30 per cent, Labour is around 20 per cent, so it seems a reasonable expectation that such a result would not mean Anas Sarwar is Scotland's next first minister.' Curtice also said that the by-election was positive for Reform, even though it came third after some pundits predicted it could finish higher. Nigel Farage's party took 26.2 per cent of the vote - well above the 19 per cent it is sitting at in the national polls for Scotland. Writing in The Times, he said: 'Once again it is Reform's political prospects that now look brighter. 'As in the English local elections, so in Hamilton the party outperformed its current standing in the polls, winning as much as 26 per cent of the vote. 'Hitherto politicians in Scotland have comforted themselves with the thought that Nigel Farage could never make the political weather in a country that voted against Brexit and which seems less concerned about immigration. 'However, as in the rest of the UK, that is not a thought that is credible any more.' It is estimated around one in four Conservative voters in Scotland from last year's general election have switched to Reform, along with one in six Labour voters. Curtice said: 'Reform UK is damaging both of the principal unionist parties in Scotland. 'In this instance, it was not enough to save the SNP's bacon. But across Scotland there is still the likely prospect that the SNP will be the largest party in the next Holyrood election, but much diminished and much less powerful than the one currently occupying the debating chamber.'
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Lord Sainsbury: Give Glasgow greater devolved powers
"A major challenge which government faces if it wants to increase Scotland's rate of growth is a way to find and support such clusters," he said. "All the evidence from other countries suggests that the only way to effectively support clusters is to do so at a city region level. Read more: "I appreciate in Scotland, unlike in England, metro mayors have not yet been introduced, but if you want to support high-tech clusters, this is something I think you should seriously consider, with Greater Glasgow being given powers similar to those devolved to Greater Manchester and the West Midlands." Lord Sainsbury was speaking at the Creating the Jobs of Tomorrow conference organised by Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, where he was introduced to the stage by former Labour chancellor and prime minister Gordon Brown. Mr Brown said growth and productivity have been perennial problems in the UK and Scotland, with innovation the key to boosting performance. A new study by economist Dan Turner, head of research at the Centre for Progressive Policy, has suggested this could unlock the creation of hundreds of thousands of high-value jobs. "There are huge sources of innovation and inventiveness in Scotland, just as has been traditional in our history," he said. "The question is can we turn that into scalable companies that stay in Scotland, invest in Scotland, create jobs in Scotland, and Dan's study suggests we could create 300,000 jobs in the next 10 years. "That's 300,000 well-paying jobs, 120,000 in the new industries, the spin-offs in terms of the service sector another 180,000 - that is a possibility if we invest in the infrastructure, the skills, and the development necessary to achieve that." Lord David Sainsbury (Image: Nate Cleary) Lord Sainsbury is a Labour peer and served as minister for science and innovation under Mr Brown and his prime ministerial predecessor, Tony Blair, between 1998 and 2006. He was appointed a life peer in 1997. Lord Sainsbury said there are new opportunities for employment and growth in sectors such as quantum computing, artificial intelligence and biotechnology. "There are economists that will argue that it is investment that is the engine of economic growth, but we have to realise today that capital flows easily around the world, and it flows as it has always done, to where the best investment opportunities are created by innovation," Lord Sainsbury said. "You can sit in London today and you can invest in Silicon Valley, you can invest in practically any country - until recently you could even invest in Chinese venture capital - because that is what modern communication enables you to do. That is why investment is not the real driver of the economy, it's innovation." Among the other speakers was Michael Spence, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 for his work in the analysis of markets with information imbalances. Read more: "There are two things that [people] associate with Adam Smith correctly," Mr Spence said. "One the 'invisible hand', which is the market system is a reasonably efficient tool for decentralising and allocating resources. "That actually is not the most important thing that Adam Smith said, but it's the one that neo-conservatives remember because they elevate market systems to the status of a religion, rather than a way of accomplishing economic and social goals. The most important one for our purposes is specialisation. "Adam Smith meant specialisation within an economy, when of course everything that David Sainsbury talked about in the global economy is just the Adam Smith insight writ large, and of course it is the ultimate source of growth. "Without specialisation you don't get scale of spread your activity over too much territory, and you don't get innovation. You get nothing if everybody has to do everything. "The fundamental message I want to deliver today is that's still true, and that growth is fundamentally about specialisation and structural change."
