Latest news with #WestminsterGeneralElection
The National
5 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Ian Blackford's decision signals the rise of a new generation
FORMER SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford, who announced in June 2023 that he did not intend to stand for reelection to his Ross, Skye, and Lochaber seat at the 2024 Westminster General Election following his replacement as Westminster leader by Aberdeen South MP Stephen Flynn in December 2022, recently raised some eyebrows by announcing that he was giving "careful consideration" to making a return to frontline politics and standing as a candidate in next year's Holyrood election. He said that he had had calls from supporters urging him to stand in the constituency of Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch after its current MSP – Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes – announced she will be standing down. But in a post on social media on Thursday evening, Blackford said that while he was "grateful" for these calls, he had "reflected carefully" and decided after all that he is not going to stand. However, he clarified that he was not ruling out a return to frontline politics in the future. He wrote: "With Kate Forbes having announced she would not be contesting the seat of Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch at the Scottish Parliament in 2026, I have received many promptings to potentially represent the SNP in the election next year. "I am very grateful to all those who have encouraged me to step forward for the 2026 election. I was particularly minded that many of those prompting me were those I have campaigned with for many years – people I have the highest respect for and who I hold very dearly. "It was out of a deep respect to all of these people that, although I had previously stated that I would not stand for the Scottish Parliament, I decided to give due consideration to those requests." Blackford went on to say that he was "honoured" to have been asked to stand and that "I do not take lightly the responsibility that they all encouraged me to take on". He added: "Having reflected carefully I have concluded that I will not present my name as a potential candidate for the 2026 election." "I do believe that I am still of an age that I can serve my party and my country. "I joined the SNP as a teenager in the 1970's and I see the journey to independence as being very much unfinished business. I will support the SNP and its leader, my old friend and colleague John Swinney, to the full. "My firm judgement is that the UK is not far off another financial crisis that would be cataclysmic. In short – Britain is broken.' Blackford went on to call on his SNP colleagues to explore "how we can make Scotland a safe haven" through independence. "Working with others I do want to participate in that debate on our future and perhaps, in the time ahead, there may be future opportunities to return to front line politics. "On this occasion though – after careful consideration – I will not be putting my name forward for next year's Scottish parliament elections. "The opportunity and the privilege of seeking to represent this Highland's seat at the Scottish Parliament will fall to another and we are fortunate to have a range of capable candidates in the SNP. "Whomever my party chooses, they will have my full support in what I am confident will be a successful election for the SNP under the leadership of John Swinney." Blackford's decision not to stand again signals an important milestone in the history of the SNP, and the rise of a new generation of younger politicians who grew up in the era of devolution and who have always known the existence of a Scottish Parliament. This generation of people in their 30s take it for granted that Scotland should become an independent country. It is already the settled will of this generation of Scots, and as they gradually replace older generations in the electorate, people who are far more doubtful and fearful of independence, a desire for independence will gradually become the settled will of the people of Scotland as a whole. This is a generation which needs a different approach to Scottish independence. Unlike previous generations, millennials and Gen Z do not need to be persuaded of the viability of an independent Scotland, they need to be persuaded of a plausible route to get there. That's going to take a younger generation of politicians who are prepared to be more confrontational in the face of Westminster's constitutional roadblocks. Talking of constitutional roadblocks... Talking of constitutional roadblocks, or possibly constitutional road bollocks, Scottish Tory MSP Craig Hoy, a man who has never allowed the inconvenient fact that the Conservatives have not won an election in Scotland in his lifetime get in the way of his petulant entitlement, has written to the Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government, Joe Griffin. He has demanded that former first minister Nicola Sturgeon be investigated for what Hoy insists was a breach of the ministerial code by asking the UK Supreme Court whether her government could hold the independence referendum which it had received a mandate to hold from the people of Scotland in the May 2021 Holyrood election, which Hoy's party fought on opposition to another independence referendum and which it lost badly. In his letter, Hoy, who clearly has a problem accepting the verdict of the Scottish electorate, highlighted two parts of the code in a bid to back up his dubious argument, which the parts which state that ministers 'must not use public resources for party political purposes' and should 'ensure their decisions are informed by appropriate analysis of the legal considerations and that the legal implications of any course of action are considered at the earliest opportunity.' But the Scottish Government has said the reference to the Supreme Court was 'entirely appropriate'. A spokesperson said: 'The reference of this question to the Supreme Court was entirely appropriate and intended to achieve legal clarity over whether the Scottish Parliament had the legislative powers to hold an independence referendum, in light of majority support within the Parliament for a referendum. It did that.'
The National
12-08-2025
- Politics
- The National
An emphatic 2026 win for the SNP will mean no excuses for inaction
Given that support for independence is around 50% and support for establishing a Scottish parliament was around 75%, it does not take too much imagination to believe that a significant majority can be persuaded (with the help of some serious campaigning) to vote for that parliament to have the legal authority to conduct a referendum enabling the people of Scotland to determine their own future (within or outwith a now dysfunctional Union). READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon: Alex Salmond 'did not read' 2014 independence paper From Tommy's words, it appears that my personal interpretation of John Swinney's intentions regarding a constitutional convention – as being consistent with the creation of a widely-inclusive citizen's convention – was wrong. However, if we wish to gain broad public support for the next step on our journey to independence then, in addition to progressing an open citizens' convention, independence parties should have the commitment to establishing the legal authority of the Scottish Parliament to conduct a constitutional referendum clearly stated as a primary clause in their manifestos, backed up by stated actions to ensure that authority is granted to Holyrood. Otherwise, unless independence can be achieved in the meantime by alternative actions, the next Westminster General Election must be declared a de facto referendum. Offering another perspective to the dilemmas confronting 'Old John' and Jim Taylor (Letters, Aug 11), and no doubt many others, the more emphatic an SNP victory, the less excuse the SNP hierarchy will have for not taking substantive actions in support of a public mandate. This approach may be considered hypocritical by some if they do not support the route to independence advocated by the current First Minister, but to vote otherwise in the knowledge that it could bring about a Labour government in Holyrood would seem a betrayal to most who are absolutely committed to independence. Better to give neither the First Minister nor the Prime Minister any excuse for not delivering, or for further delaying, the means of exercising the right of Scotland's people to determine their own future. Stan Grodynski Longniddry, East Lothian TRUMP'S views on a deal with Putin over Ukraine seems like a deal between 18th-century aristocrats settling their gambling debts. Trump acts like an18th-century monarch. No consideration is given to the views of residents of the possible transfer areas, who are merely insignificant chequers in a high-stakes gambling deal. It seems reminiscent of the Act of Union, whereby the ruling elite in Scotland agreed to a union with England against the will of the general populace. READ MORE: David Pratt: Are Trump and Putin about to stitch up Ukraine? Trump will no doubt gain whatever happens, and Ukraine will suffer, being back under a modern Russian Czar. President Trump will parade as a peacemaker, and his sycophants (with usual brown envelopes pocketed) will propose him for a Nobel Peace Prize which he desires, hypocrite that he is. What's changed in politics since the 18th century? Modern democracy seems little more than a sham, with elites still in charge. Current political parties seem little more than a means for the current elites to maintain control under a pretext of democracy. Where is real limitation of elector funding? The exist many ways to get round and buy elections. If you're in the know, it seems funding is unrestricted. The current government in the UK, as well as the previous one, seem uninterested in altering the present set-up, as they both benefit from it. Drew Reid Falkirk YOUR article 'PM claims people feeling 'better off'' by Hamish Morrison (Aug 7) presents the reader with the classic case of 'the ventriloquist has died but the dummy keeps talking'! The 'dummy' tells us that his government is 'bearing down' on costs and 'putting more money into people's pockets'. Yes, the pockets of his sponsors, big businesses and fellow Labour parliamentarians, definitely NOT those of the people of the country! Since Labour came to power, the 'dummy' has increased the weekly shopping costs by as much as 40%. The facts reveal 'disposable income' is falling! It's not falling, it's PLUMMETING in an ever-increasing spiral into those same pockets that enabled Starmer to become PM. The answer is to tax the super-rich and get them to pay their fair share. Everyone knows 'Starmer the dummy' will never do that because HE is one of the super rich along with his cronies who sit beside him on the government benches. As for 'the focus will be on living standards', these are also PLUMMETING under his watch. Everybody and anybody in the 'vulnerable' category will be forced to pay more tax but not the wealthy pals, sponsors and big businesses who back this 'dummy'. I don't ever see 'Rachel from Accounts' do anything to help anyone other than herself and the 'dummy'. It's time the dummy was put back in the box and a real person with a spine and a conscience took over – or better still, let Scotland leave this Westminster pantomime. Jim Todd Cumbernauld
The National
18-06-2025
- Politics
- The National
The problem is clear – but so is the route to achieving independence
The halfway he has come is his acknowledgement of what is a blindingly obvious political fact, namely that London will not consent to another Holyrood indyref. Perhaps that acknowledgement has been pressed on him by the definitive judgment of the Supreme Court that Holyrood's founding act (the Scotland Act 1998) – in reserving to Westminster all power to legislate on matters 'relating' to the Union – does indeed prohibit the Scottish Parliament from legislating to set up an indyref without special permission from London. READ MORE: John Swinney launches report showing Scotland 'must be in charge of destiny' It can be no surprise to any thinking person that London has no intention whatsoever of granting permission, and barring a near miracle, will keep to that intention, whatever party is in power at Westminster. Mr Walker now seems to accept the position: 'Successive Westminster governments have been steadfast in their refusal to countenance a second independence referendum. There is no hope of that changing.' The half not yet traversed by Mr Walker covers what to do about it. He seems to regard it as a bottomless chasm with no way across: 'We have exhausted every avenue available to us to find a way of allowing our democratic will to be expressed.' But, he wonders, could there be a small gleam of hope in the recent plan of James Dornan MSP, who suggests in his article of June 10 (Tell voters we will hold new indyref no matter what Westminster says) that the Scottish Government should run an indyref even without London's permission. Dismissing the complete legal impossibility of that plan, and its incompatibility with his already stated position, Mr Walker falls for it: 'Dornan's plan may not be perfect but it's the best I've heard yet.' Are we then just to step out onto Mr Dornan's imaginary bridge? Not an inspiring prospect. Here's what the real bridge is: 1. Run the next Westminster General Election on a simple manifesto making it a true popular plebiscite on independence. The country will treat it as their real and effective vote on the issue and, as with the 2014 indyref, turnout will rocket. The current steady support is an excellent starting point. Any national majority for Yes will fill all, or almost all, of the Scottish seats with indy MPs. Scotland has no higher representatives in constitutional or legislative matters than these. READ MORE: Independence campaigners react to John Swinney speech on independence 2. Thus elected, those supreme representatives of Scotland will have a fully democratic mandate to take Scotland out of the Union. Such a step is consistent with UK law and constitution, which hold no prohibition on it. 3. If London still declines to cooperate (though at that juncture it almost certainly will come to the table), the body of Scottish MPs, by their own majority (in the circumstance, virtually unanimously) carry out the step for which they were elected, declaring Scotland to be a sovereign and independent country. (The Holyrood election might be used, but only as a dry run, since we currently have a mere nine indy MPs in place thanks to the SNP completely mishandling last year's election.) And that, in a nutshell, is it. Fully legal, constitutional, democratic, peaceful and proper. Indyref last-gaspers inside and outside the SNP might be dumbstruck, but no-one else will. And Scotland rejoins the world. Alan Crocket Motherwell
The National
04-06-2025
- General
- The National
Independence isn't going away no matter how much Keir Starmer wishes
A GROUP of leading pro-independence campaigners have written to Keir Starmer about his diktat that there will be no second Scottish independence referendum even if Scots choose to elect a pro-independence majority of MSPs at next year's Scottish Parliament election. Writer and broadcaster Lesley Riddoch, Believe in Scotland (BiS) founder Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp and Common Weal's head of policy and research Dr Craig Dalzell are all amongst those who have signed the letter as have former BBC Scotland presenter Ken Macdonald and Dr Tim Rideout, the convener of the Scottish Currency Group. The group wrote: "So this is a statement of our intent to keep campaigning for independence, an option currently favoured by more than half the Scottish population in recent opinion polls, and for the democratic right to choose – something embedded in legislation for Northern Ireland but repeatedly denied to Scotland." The group continued: "The Labour leader may think he is simply challenging the SNP before a critical by-election this week and Scottish elections next year. But Scotland's future is not an electoral game. "By denying a second referendum regardless of the 2026 election outcome, the Prime Minister is snubbing democracy, devolution and the many Scots who once viewed his party as the best democratic option to the Conservatives at Westminster." The group added that Labour, the Conservatives and Reform UK "clearly offer no democratic resolution to Scotland's constitutional impasse". The letter concludes by saying that this is "precisely why we restate our determination to keep working towards independence". Of course, Starmer will file this letter in the bin, he pays attention only to focus groups stuffed with Reform UK-leaning voters from England, but it's still useful to remind a man elected on one third of votes cast in last summer's Westminster General Election that he cannot indefinitely deny the 54% or more of Scots who want independence the right to a say on the constitutional future of their country. The issue of Scottish independence is not going to go away, no matter how much Starmer and his allies in the Scottish branch office might wish it would. Back to genocide-enabling business as usual It's just over a week since Foreign Secretary David Lammy stood up in the House of Commons and told MPs that the British Government said, "tsk, tsk," to Israel over its genocide in Gaza, and its withholding of food supplies as a tool to assist in the ethnic cleansing of the territory, although of course Lammy couldn't bring himself to utter the G-word. Lammy announced that the UK was suspending trade talks with Israel in protest over the genocide that must not be mentioned. Yet within a week of Lammy's statement, Labour peer Ian Austin, who is the UK Government's trade envoy to Israel, was seen on a visit to the country where he said he was going to "meet businesses and officials to promote trade with the UK". The UK Government insisted that despite the suspension of any new trade talks with Israel, the UK still has a trading relationship with Israel. In other words, Lammy's statement was purely performative, like telling a naughty child that you're very cross with them, but then giving them money for sweeties anyway. Only in this case the naughty child is slaughtering tens of thousands of people in a genocidal war of destruction and is openly advertising its intention to ethnically cleanse two million Palestinians and permanently remove them from their homeland. Instead of giving money for sweeties, the British Government is continuing to supply Israel with the weaponry and intelligence and logistical support it needs to complete its destruction of Gaza and render it uninhabitable. But it's back to genocide-enabling business as usual for Labour. A group of Labour MPs have visited Israel on a lobbying trip as the country's brutal assault on Gaza intensifies. The party's most prominent pro-Israel group, Labour Friends of Israel (LFI), sent a delegation of parliamentarians including chair Jon Pearce, as well as fellow Labour MPs Cat Eccles, Kevin McKenna, Peter Prinsley and Mark Sewards. The group has been accompanied by former Labour MP and House of Lords member Luciana Berger. During their trip, the group met with Israeli politicians who have insisted it is "legitimate" to withhold food aid from Palestinian civilians. These include Yair Golan, leader of Labour's sister party, the Democrats. In October 2023 Golan said: 'I think that in this battle, it is forbidden to allow a humanitarian effort. We need to say to them: listen, until the [captives] are released, from our side, you can die from starvation. It's totally legitimate." At Prime Minister's Questions today, SNP MP Brendan O'Hara confronted Starmer with the revelation that UK Government lawyers arguing in the High Court had said that 'no genocide has occurred or is occurring' in Gaza. O'Hara said: 'The Prime Minister has repeatedly told this House that it is not for him or his government to determine what is and what is not a genocide. But that position is no longer tenable because at the High Court recently, the Prime Minister instructed his lawyers to argue that in Gaza, and I quote, 'no genocide has occurred or is occurring'. 'So the truth is, his government has made a determination. The question is: does he have the courage of his convictions and will he repeat from that despatch box what he told his lawyers to argue in the High Court? That he believes that no genocide has occurred or is occurring in Gaza?" Predictably, Starmer did not address the point the SNP MP had made, and retorted with an adolescent and irrelevant gibe at the SNP's opposition to nuclear weapons. Starmer said: 'I have said that we are strongly opposed and appalled by Israel's recent actions, I've been absolutely clear in condemning them and calling them out; whether that's the expansion of military operations, settler violence or the dreadful blocking of aid, it's completely unacceptable. 'We must see a ceasefire, hostages must be released and there must be aid into Gaza. 'But he talks about peace and security, their party, as I understand it at this moment of global instability as we go into a new era, what do they want to do? They want to get rid of the nuclear deterrent, the single most important capability that we have to keep the UK safe, harming the industry and harming the country.'
The National
02-06-2025
- Politics
- The National
The lesson for the SNP as new poll puts independence support at 54%
It's strikingly similar to a string of polls a few years ago which claimed there would be a big boost in independence support, in some cases taking the Yes vote into the high 50s, if Britain voted to leave the EU, or if Boris Johnson became Prime Minister, or if the UK government negotiated a hard Brexit rather than a soft Brexit. All of those three events came to pass, and yet the predicted instant effect on Yes support didn't materialise. The reason is that people are generally bad at answering hypothetical questions accurately, and sometimes think a possible future event will have more of an impact on their own political attitudes than actually proves to be the case. It's far more important, then, that the Norstat poll shows that real independence support in the here-and-now stands at a very handsome 54%, a gain of four percentage points since the previous poll in the series. That may well imply that the increasing danger of Farage grabbing the keys to 10 Downing Street has already shifted some voters into the Yes camp. And it's worth remembering that it's perfectly possible for hypothetical questions in polls to underestimate the impact of future events, as well as to overestimate them. It's unlikely that many people in early 1979 would have guessed the full extent of the transformative effect that Margaret Thatcher's premiership was about to have on support for both devolution and independence over the course of 11 years. If Nigel Farage takes office and starts acting in a way that is fundamentally at odds with Scottish values, as Mrs Thatcher did, or if he tries to abolish or neuter the Scottish Parliament, a sea-change in public opinion could be triggered that might take the Yes vote well beyond the predicted 58% mark. READ MORE: Nigel Farage visit to Aberdeen met by anti-racism protesters There's a much more immediate concern about the impact of Farage and Reform UK on Scottish politics, though. The word from the ground in the Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse by-election is that Reform are performing strongly, that they have a good chance of overtaking Labour to finish second, and that they may even have an outside chance of overtaking the SNP to win outright. Because of that consideration, the SNP leadership will have been far more interested in what the Norstat poll shows about party political voting intentions than in what it shows about independence. The large 15-point gap between the SNP and Reform in Holyrood constituency voting intentions will settle the nerves that had been left jangling by a small series of Scottish subsamples from Britain-wide polls, which misleadingly implied that Reform had more or less drawn level. Nevertheless, there's an ongoing frustration that the SNP hold their lead on only 33% of the vote, rather than something approaching the 54% vote for independence itself. It's well known that the biggest reason Labour were able to win a majority of Scottish seats at last year's Westminster General Election was that Yes support had become decoupled from SNP support, and that a great many people were voting Labour while still supporting independence. READ MORE: Scottish Labour councillor defects to Reform UK But Labour's support has collapsed since then, so if those "lost" independence supporters haven't returned to the SNP fold, where have they gone? The answer, according to the Norstat data tables, is that they are now dispersed between several different parties, mostly Unionist parties. Only 56% of those who would vote Yes in any independence referendum held now would also vote SNP on the Holyrood constituency ballot. Some 12% would vote Labour, 10% would vote Conservative, 9% would vote Green, 7% would vote Reform, and 5% would vote Liberal Democrat. It's hard to escape the conclusion that voters are no longer casting their votes with independence at the forefront of their minds, and that there is consequently an opportunity for the SNP to win many of those people back if they can devise a strategy that stresses the urgency of independence and convincingly ties a vote for the SNP to the prospect of Scotland actually becoming an independent country in the relatively near future.
