Swinney to ‘turn heat up' on Westminster for indyref2 as part of new strategy
Since the first vote in 2014, successive UK governments have repeatedly turned down calls for a second referendum, with the UK Supreme Court ruling in 2022 that only Westminster can allow another poll.
The First Minister pledged to mobilise support around the calling of another vote, though Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is extremely unlikely to back down.
The first point of the three-part plan outlined by Mr Swinney – who has been feeling some pressure since the SNP lost in June the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election to up his push for independence – focuses on increasing support for leaving the UK.
'First, it will be a campaign designed to build the highest levels of support possible for independence as the best future for Scotland,' he wrote.
'I will be saying to those who voted Yes in 2014, and who have become independence supporters in the years since, that what they believed in then is just as valid today.
'They saw that Britain was fundamentally broken, that Westminster couldn't deliver on their dreams and aspirations, and what they saw has come to pass. And now it is time to do something about it.
'But I will also be urging people who were not persuaded of the merits of independence in 2014 to see the state of Britain today and take a different view.'
Since taking over as SNP leader for the second time, Mr Swinney has stressed the need to increase consistent support for independence before a referendum can be pushed for, saying in a speech in January the idea has to become a 'compelling proposition' for Scots.
The second point of his new plan, the First Minister said, is to put pressure on Westminster.
'Second, that means building public pressure around Scotland's fundamental national rights,' he wrote.
'The UK parties speak of a partnership of equals, but those are empty words if Scotland does not have the ability to determine her own future.
'We are ready to turn the heat up on Westminster and its anti-democratic stance, mobilising the support, energy and the impetus of people in Scotland behind the simple idea: no ifs, no buts, Scotland has the right to choose.'
The third point of the strategy is to deliver an 'emphatic win' for the SNP in next year's Holyrood election.
'I want to persuade independence supporters that the way to deliver independence is only with an emphatic SNP win in 2026 and the priority is to do that now,' he wrote.
'History tells us that only when the SNP is doing well is there any prospect of advancing on Scotland's constitutional cause.
'During the next Parliament we reach the point where there will be one million people eligible to vote who, last time around, were too young to do so or not even born. A generation has now clearly passed.
'It's time for the one change that will actually make a difference for Scotland, for the fresh start our nation needs so badly. It's time for Scotland to craft her destiny by ensuring Scotland's future is in the hands of the people of Scotland.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
22 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Scottish Labour MP launches bid for 'untouchable' prison bosses to lose immunity from prosecution
The campaign comes after an inquiry into two deaths at a Scottish jail found a 'catalogue of failures' in the prison system. Sign up to our Politics newsletter 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... A Scottish Labour MP has put forward plans to strip 'untouchable' prison bosses of being shielded from prosecution over suicides in a Scottish young offenders institute. Blair McDougall, the MP for East Renfrewshire, has tabled a ten minute rule bill in the House of Commons, calling for Crown immunity in UK prison estates to be abolished. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad An inquiry into two deaths at Polmont young offenders institute found they could have been avoided Crown immunity, which has been previously removed from the NHS and police, essentially halts any criminal consequences for the prison service due to failings. Under the current law, the Crown, including the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), cannot be held criminally responsible for deaths in custody. Both the Scottish Government and the SPS have backed calls to remove the Crown immunity but it would require action at Westminster to do so. Mr McDougall's constituents, Linda and Stuart Allan, lost their daughter Katie, 21, when she died in Polmont Young Offenders Institution in 2018. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A fatal accident inquiry (FAI) last year found that Katie's death and that of 16-year-old William Brown could have been prevented but for a 'catalogue of failures' in the prison system. Speaking in the House of Commons, the MP said: 'The problem with prison deaths is UK-wide but these losses are a particular problem in Scotland. 'The loss of young people in prisons is felt especially.' Katie Allan, 21, and William Lindsay, 16, who died within months of each other in 2018 at Polmont Young Offenders' Institute | Contributed Mr McDougall pointed to research showing 'our prison death rates are akin to those in Azerbaijan' and findings that 'Scotland's suicide rate was more than two and a half times higher than the average and about double that of England and Wales'. The Labour MP highlighted so-called 'ligatures" - anything that could be used to tie something in a way that poses a risk of strangulation or hanging. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad READ MORE: Suicide prevention strategy launched in wake of Polmont YOI deaths He said: 'Years after both deaths, nobody in the prison service had thought to remove the doorstops or to replace them with safer, sloping alternatives. Bunk beds had not been removed. 'Nothing for me signifies that institutional lack of care - the failings that someone somewhere should have been held legally responsible for.' Scottish Labour MP Blair McDougall | Jane Barlow/TSPL Mr McDougall said that 'eventually, the authorities said there was enough evidence to charge the prison service with breaches of the health and safety act'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He added: 'But there was no prosecution…because of Crown immunity. 'The Health and Safety at Work Act places duties on state-run prisons but Crown immunity means they cannot be prosecuted for breaching those duties. If they'd died in a privately-run prison, there would have been prosecutions.' The MP warned that the Scottish Prison Service is 'untouchable because of Crown immunity'. He added: 'An untouchable service remains unaccountable. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Without legal consequences, prisons across the country appear incapable of learning lessons or making changes. Every day with immunity risks more avoidable deaths. 'If those running our prisons won't act, and they haven't, they should lose their protection from legal consequence.' Mr McDougall's bill will now move forward through the Westminster legislative system. A Scottish Prison Service spokesperson said: "We recognise the profound responsibility we hold in caring for people during some of the most vulnerable periods of their lives. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "When someone dies in prison custody we know families, and the wider public, rightly expect us to do everything possible to prevent further tragedies.
New Statesman
22 minutes ago
- New Statesman
GMB chief Gary Smith: 'Oil and gas is not the enemy'
Illustration by Ellie Foreman Peck Gary Smith is not a man who disguises his passions. The wall of his office features framed pictures of pioneering Scottish trade unionists, the Durham Miners' Gala, steam ferries on the Mersey, the jazz poet Gil Scott-Heron, and Hibernian FC. As the general secretary of the GMB – the country's third-largest trade union, with around 630,000 members – the blunt, puckish Scotsman leads an organisation that is more central to national life today than it has been for decades. Its parliamentary group alone comprises more than 250 Labour MPs (making it, as Smith likes to quip, over twice the size of the Conservative Party), including Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and Angela Rayner. GMB's presence in sectors such as defence, energy and manufacturing means that cabinet ministers heed its voice. 'It's a huge improvement on what went before, impossible to compare it,' said Smith, 57, with a thatch of boyish blond hair. We met in Euston, central London, at the GMB's national office, Mary Turner House (named after the indomitable Irishwoman who served as the union's president for 20 years). Smith praised the government's rescue of British Steel, its defence industrial strategy, the commitment to build the Sizewell C nuclear plant and the 'transformative' Employment Rights Bill. 'Has the government made mistakes?' Smith asked. 'Yeah, absolutely, and we have been outspoken in our criticism about winter fuel payments. Nobody said there shouldn't have been reform of payments; it was just badly handled. Likewise, on disability benefits, we were very worried about the poorest and most vulnerable – many of our people who are in work get Pip payments.' Smith, who was elected general secretary four years ago, has often been an ally to Starmer when it's mattered most. At the 2021 Labour Party Conference it was post-midnight conversations with Smith in Brighton hotel suites that convinced Starmer and his chief aide, Morgan McSweeney, that they had the votes required to rewrite the party rule book and marginalise the Corbynite left. But Smith is unsparing in his criticism of Labour's first year in office. 'The big thing that is missing is a clear vision about the future. What we need is a sense of national mission and I don't think that's there. I don't think we've got that emotionally compelling story about the future of the country. 'We are emerging into a new world order as well. That's very difficult for any government to navigate. This is a new epoch that's opened up in front of us: the end of globalisation, the end of neoliberalism. Any government's got to wrestle with what Britain's place in the world is going to be.' He added: 'It frustrates me that the right-wing press accuse[s] Labour of talking down Britain. I think in many ways people are underestimating the state the country's in. Our finances are precarious, we've seen that in the past few weeks. We are beholden to the bond markets; this could unravel very quickly. The country's in a really difficult situation and so I don't envy what they've had to inherit.' (The Office for Budget Responsibility's recent report warned that the UK had the sixth-highest debt, fifth-highest deficit and third-highest borrowing costs of the 38 OECD countries.) This year Donald Trump has become the unlikely hero of some US unions, with the United Auto Workers praising his tariffs as necessary to 'end the free-trade disaster'. Smith invoked the US New Right – and its embrace of protectionism over Reaganism – several times during our conversation. 'The New Right saw an opportunity with working-class communities hollowed out by globalisation. We can talk about average GDP, we can talk about how many people in the globe got wealthy. There were a whole number of our communities that were absolutely abandoned. 'People were told that they're competing in this global labour market and the jobs went abroad and that left people embittered, angry and absolutely disoriented. And the New Right in America got this – they certainly got it better than the liberal left did.' To some this will sound reminiscent of Blue Labour, the party's economically interventionist and socially conservative faction. (Its founder, Maurice Glasman, was the sole Labour parliamentarian invited to Trump's inauguration.) But Smith bridled at the comparison. 'I'm not being critical of anybody but we're not Blue Labour. Why do we have to stick badges on things all the time? We're a working-class organisation; we spend a lot of time listening to our members. So I'm not interested in fashionable factions in the Labour Party, I'm just interested in listening to working-class people, and our members have been telling us this for a long time. They are tired of low-paid, insecure employment. That was a Tory economic model. 'You know, we got to a point in Barrow where we couldn't build nuclear submarines. The only growth industry was heroin, and that happened under Cameron and Osborne. So what shapes our world-view is not some factional philosophy in Labour – it's just listening to working-class people and our membership.' Unite, the UK's second-largest union, this month vowed to 're-examine' its affiliation to Labour and excoriated the party's record in office, with union representatives since surveyed on the matter. 'It's up to Unite what they do. We're not interested in what other unions do,' Smith replied diplomatically when I raised the subject. 'For us, a relationship with government should be contentious, there should be disagreement and debate. But I'd much rather have a Labour government in power than the alternative. And let's be clear about the Tories – they're done – the alternative is going to be Reform.' What does Smith believe is fuelling Farage's ascendancy? 'This is a fuck-you vote, people are just angry: they're pissed off and they're looking for somebody to kick. A lot of this ultimately is about declining living standards. We're a country where in our towns and communities people just look beat. You live in a city like London and even if you're on a good wage you're struggling to keep your head above water… Farage is feeding off that anger and frustration and decline.' In recent months, Farage has reframed Reform as 'the party of working people', speaking of his desire for a 'sensible relationship' with the trade unions and vowing to reopen the Port Talbot steelworks. But Smith – precisely the kind of earthy general secretary whose endorsement Farage would relish – is unimpressed. 'I think he's a chancer. He is no friend of trade unions or working-class people. Peel back the rhetoric: where was he on the Employment Rights Bill? He's voted against working people at Amazon having the right to organise and collectively bargain over their pay. He's voted against people having stronger collective rights at work, which will allow us to better redistribute wealth in this country.' Smith ridiculed Farage's claim that he was appalled by Michael Heseltine's closure of coal mines as Conservative trade and industry secretary in the 1990s. 'Do you think he went on picket lines and supported the miners? Do you think he argued for the steel workers? No, he was a metal trader in the City of London, lifting another glass of Champagne as all this devastation of UK industry and communities went on.' Gary Smith was born in Edinburgh in 1967; his father was an electrician and his mother a bookmaker's clerk. He became a Scottish Gas apprentice at the age of 16 (the GMB later paid for him to study at Ruskin College, and he gained a Master's degree in industrial relations from Warwick University). His political consciousness was shaped by the fraught social conflicts of the early Thatcher era. 'I saw working-class people and communities getting treated very badly,' he said. 'I get so angry when I listen to people talk fondly about the Thatcher era because a lot of kids didn't get off the housing estates. It was mass unemployment, cheap heroin, and HIV/Aids. There's a whole generation of young men who died and never made it through that period.' Four decades on, Smith is once more haunted by the spectre of deindustrialisation. He spoke of a recent encounter with an oil and gas worker moved to tears in Middlesbrough ('big guy, really impressive guy') who declared at a town hall meeting: 'They're doing to us what they did to Middlesbrough in the 1980s.' For this, Smith attributes much blame to the UK's net zero policy of which he is the fiercest Labour critic. 'For too long, we were exporting jobs and importing virtue, so we closed down British industry. That was great for emissions, not great for communities. Our notional emissions have fallen but all we've done is export jobs and industry to China, where they burn coal to produce the goods we then import on diesel-burning barges and ships – and that includes the vast bulk of all renewables industry.' Though he emphasises that he is not a climate change denier – 'We're not in the same place as the US New Right' – he believes that current energy policy is a gift to Farage. 'We have been decarbonising through deindustrialisation and it's counterproductive because the communities that have seen their industries closed down, they've been abandoned and will end up voting for the right, and exactly the way that they have in America.' Smith fears that the political ramifications of net zero could be greatest of all in his native Scotland – he lives in Paisley – where Labour aims to prevent the SNP winning a fifth term next May. 'On the current policies, I don't believe that Labour can win in Scotland,' he warned of the government's decision to ban new North Sea oil and gas licences. 'People don't get that energy is an emotional issue in Scotland. We went hundreds of miles out in this inhospitable sea and built this incredible, groundbreaking energy infrastructure. 'If you're on the west coast of Scotland, most people of a certain age have a drop of oil from Sullom Voe because there are so many families who were involved in building that project when they landed the oil in Shetland. This was an emotional story about Scotland. It's important to its sense of self and the economy, and I don't think people have really got that.' While Starmer is expected to grant permission to the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North Sea – which are exempt as existing licences – he has consistently reaffirmed the ban on new ones. 'That is absolutely our position,' he recently declared (a stance that Trump publicly derided ahead of his planned meeting with Starmer in Aberdeen). Does Smith believe that Labour will ultimately be forced to rethink its policy? 'They will have to rethink it because the consequences in terms of energy prices, in terms of national security, in terms of the economy and jobs, are so profound. What we should be doing is taking a public stake in what is left of the oil and gas sector and using the profits for that sector, or part of them, to invest in a new green future. We should be talking about North Sea Two, how we're going to collaborate with Norway – not just decarbonising the North Sea, but what comes next. Oil and gas is not the enemy: it's actually the gateway to whatever comes next, and we've got to stop seeing it as a threat.' The GMB's stances have often put it at odds with the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband – who has championed net zero as the 'economic opportunity of the 21st century' – but Smith hints at something of a rapprochement: 'I hope and think that Ed realises that in haemorrhaging jobs through this charge to net zero, the political consequences could be very, very profound for Labour. I get a sense that he's starting to listen and I think he also knows that a lot of these new, fashionable green companies are vehemently anti-union. 'And that's a huge problem because it's completely at odds with the government's agenda. Sea Wall in the North East – we're fighting for recognition there and have a strike ballot – they've had access to tens of millions of pounds of government funding and they're anti-union. Octopus Energy? Anti-union.' We return to Labour's future. Even those who sympathise with Starmer often say they do not know what he stands for ('There is no project,' one loyalist MP recently told me). 'If I'm honest with you, I don't think we've clearly defined what Starmerism is,' Smith said. 'There's huge opportunities post-globalisation and post-neoliberalism. How do we grasp those? 'Keir has done some really good stuff on the international stage. But we need to have a national mission and people need to believe again that there is a brighter tomorrow. Labour does need to be that light on the hill.' Just a year into government, cabinet ministers already speculate about whether Starmer will fight the next election. Does that surprise Smith? 'I always said that people underestimated him – let's see. He's got a huge and really tough job but people have underestimated him before. I never thought I'd see a Labour government again in my working life; Keir was part of the team that delivered that extraordinary election result last year and I think he deserves a bit of credit and a bit of time. If they end up all just turning on each other, stabbing each other in the back, it'll just be electoral disaster for them.' [See more: Can Nigel Farage have it both ways?] Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Related
The Guardian
22 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Want to import toxic chemicals into Britain with scant scrutiny? Labour says: go right ahead
It's what the extreme right of the Tory party wanted from Brexit: to tear down crucial public protections, including those that defend us from the most brutal and dangerous forms of capital. The Conservatives lost office before they were able to do their worst. But never mind, because Labour has now picked up the baton. A month ago, so quietly that most of us missed it, the government published a consultation on deregulating chemicals. While most consultations last for 12 weeks, this one runs for eight, half of which cover the holiday period – it closes on 18 August. The intention is set out at the beginning: to reduce 'costs to business'. This, as repeated statements by Keir Starmer make clear, means tearing up the rules. If, the consultation proposes, a chemical has been approved by a 'trusted foreign jurisdiction', it should be approved for use in the UK. No list is given of what these trusted jurisdictions are. It will be up to ministers to decide: they can add such countries through statutory instruments, which means without full parliamentary scrutiny. In one paragraph the document provides what sounds like an assurance: these jurisdictions should have standards 'similar to and at least as high as those in Great Britain'. Three paragraphs later, the assurance is whisked away: the government would be able 'to use any evaluation available to it, which it considers reliable, from any foreign jurisdiction'. In this and other respects, the consultation document is opaque, contradictory, lacking clear safeguards and frankly chilling. Lobbyists will point out that a chemical product has been approved for sale in the US, or Thailand or Honduras, then ask the government to add that country as a trusted jurisdiction. If the government agrees, 'domestic evaluation' would be 'removed', meaning that no UK investigation of the product's health and environmental impacts will be required. In the US, to give one example, a wide range of dangerous chemical products are approved for uses that are banned here and in many other countries. The government has fired the gun on a race to the bottom. To make matters worse, once a country has been added to the list of trusted jurisdictions, all the biocidal products it authorises for use could, the consultation says, be 'automatically approved' for use here. The proposed new rules, in other words, look like a realisation of the fantasy entertained by the ultra-rightwing Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg in 2016: 'We could say, if it's good enough in India, it's good enough for here … We could take it a very long way.' There is in fact a means of reducing costs while maintaining high standards: simply mirror EU rules. Though far from perfect, they set the world's highest standards for chemical regulation. Mirroring them as they evolve would avoid the pointless institutional replication and total regulatory meltdown our chemicals system has suffered since we left the EU. But we can't have that, as it would mean backtracking on Brexit, which would be BETRAYAL. Adopting the weaker standards of other states at the behest of foreign corporations, by contrast, is the height of patriotism. The divergence from European standards is likely to mean breaking the terms of the EU-UK trade and cooperation agreement, as well as landing Northern Ireland in an even greater quandary, as it remains in both the EU single market and the UK internal market. In many cases, deregulation delivers bureaucratic chaos. The consultation also suggests the removal of all expiry dates for the approval of active chemical substances. The default position would be that, as long as a foreign jurisdiction has approved a product, allowing it to be used in the UK, it stays on the books indefinitely. Those arguing that new evidence should lead to its deletion from the approved list would have a mountain to climb. Worse still, the consultation proposes removing any obligation on the Health and Safety Executive to maintain a publicly available database of the harmful properties of chemical substances on the UK market. No wonder they kept it quiet. Yes, these proposals might reduce costs for business. But the inevitable result is to transfer them to society. Already, we face a massive contamination crisis as a result of regulatory failure in this country, as compounds such as Pfas ('forever chemicals'), microplastics and biocides spread into our lives. If the decontamination of land and water is possible, it will cost hundreds of times more than any profits made by industry as a result of lax rules. In reality, we will carry these costs in our bodies and our ecosystems, indefinitely. The true price is incalculable. Many have paid with their lives, health, education or livelihoods for previous 'bonfires of red tape': through the Grenfell Tower disaster, filthy rivers, collapsing classrooms, consumer rip-offs and the 2008 financial crisis. But as long as these costs can be shifted off corporate and current government balance sheets, that is deemed a win for business and win for the Treasury. Earlier this month, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, told financiers in her Mansion House speech that regulation 'acts as a boot on the neck of businesses'. In reality, business acts as a boot on the neck of democracy, a boot the government slathers with kisses. Before the general election last year, Reeves told an assembly of corporate CEOs: 'I hope when you read our manifesto, or see our priorities, that you see your fingerprints all over them.' The catastrophic planning reforms the government is now forcing through parliament were hatched, she told them, at a 'smoked salmon and scrambled eggs breakfast' with corporate lobbyists. This was just one instance of a massive pre-election grovelling offensive, involving hundreds of meetings behind closed doors with corporations, which shaped Labour's plans and explains so much of what has gone wrong since. The point and purpose of the Labour party was to resist economic warfare by the rich against the rest. Starmer and Reeves have turned their party into the opposite of what it once was. Capital demands three things at once: that the government strip away the rules defending the public interest from ruthless profit-making; that the government regulate itself with insanely restrictive pledges, such as Reeves's fiscal rules; and that the public is regulated with ever more draconian laws, such as those restricting protest. It gets what it asks for. Everything must give way to capital, but capital must give way to nothing. George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist
