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 Herald Scotland
2 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Swinney independence referendum plan 'born of expediency'
Mr Swinney set out his approach in a newspaper article on Monday returning to the approach of former [[SNP]] First Minister Alex Salmond 14 years ago. Mr Salmond secured an outright majority for the [[SNP]] at the 2011 [[Holyrood]] election, a result that led to a joint agreement with the UK Government on a referendum. He was the only party leader to have done so since 1999 with the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament designed to make it more difficult for parties to have an overall majority and to encourage parties working together in coalition governments. READ MORE: In a letter to Mr Swinney, Mr MacAskill says the First Minister must know there is little chance of the SNP winning a majority in the 2026 Holyrood elections. "I note your comments in Monday's press in which you claim that an SNP majority at next year's election is needed to deliver a second independence referendum," he writes. "You must know in your heart of hearts that the chances of you achieving a second overall majority for the SNP is extremely unlikely, in a system that is designed to prevent that from happening. The SNP's success in 2011, in which it achieved an overall majority, was achieved against a very different set of circumstances." Mr MacAskill lists three reasons why the chances are against Mr Swinney's SNP winning a majority next year. Kenny MacAskill with the late Alex Salmond (Image: Colin Mearns) "The SNP [in 2011] were led by a statesman without rival in the Scottish Parliament at the head of a government which had demonstrated a level of competence and delivery in the NHS, education, local government, crime and policing, infrastructure investment and much else," he writes. "Frankly your record and that of your predecessors does not stand comparison with that delivered in the first five years of the SNP's term in office. "A significant gap has opened up between support for the SNP which is running at around 30% and support for independence which runs at around 50%." He accuses Mr Swinney of using the strategy as a way of attempting to get more support for the SNP rather than a way of achieving independence. "People in the country will therefore conclude that you are taking SNP voters for fools, that you are paying lip service to independence and that you are squandering the opportunity of the 2026 election to achieve it," he writes. "Independence supporters will see this for what it is a tactic born of electoral expediency rather than political conviction. It is designed to bolster the SNP vote not to achieve independence." Mr MacAskill goes on to add that "to achieve independence you must first seek the mandate for it" and "to do that you must achieve maximum unity" among all of the independence supporters and pro-independence parties in the country. On Tuesday the [[SNP]] told The National that Mr Swinney is set to call for the 'immediate establishment' of a constitutional convention to 'marshal support' for Scottish independence. The [[SNP]] leader will ask members to support the move in a motion put forward at the party conference in Aberdeen in October. The motion intends to set up a 'Scottish constitutional convention' to 'marshal support for Scotland's right to decide through gathering support from the people of Scotland, civic bodies and international opinion'. The full conference motion, seen by The National and titled 'Winning independence', states: 'Conference believes that the Scottish election in 2026 offers the people of Scotland a fresh start for our nation; that an SNP majority in that election, repeating the precedent of 2011, is the only uncontested route to delivering a new referendum. 'It is essential that, as before, the pro-independence campaign in that referendum should be broad-based and inclusive of the wide range of pro-independence campaigning bodies, representing a cross-section of Scottish society.' In his letter to Mr Swinney, Mr MacAskill adds that he wants all of the parties which support independence to contain a commitment in their manifestos that a majority of votes for pro independence parties at the Holyrood elections, would be a mandate for independence itself - not a second referendum. "That is why I am calling on each of the pro-independence parties to contain a clear and unambiguous commitment in their manifestos that if a majority of votes are cast on the list vote for pro-independence parties that will constitute the mandate for independence, not a second independence referendum," he tells Mr Swinney. "The urgent need to achieve independence and the unity of the independence movement requires you to re-consider your position. I urge you to do so, to put country before party and to call a summit of all of the pro-independence parties, to prepare for a plebiscite election, as a matter of urgency." In a separate press statement, Mr MacAskill welcomed the convention but said it should take place right away rather than waiting until after the SNP's conference in October. 'A Constitutional Convention is to be welcomed. But it must be now as the need is urgent. It must also be the launch pad for a plebiscite election and include all pro-independence parties as the referendum route is doomed to fail. Otherwise it will be a blind alley leading to a political cul de sac," he said. 'Holyrood 2026 must be Scotland's Independence Election where the pro independence parties seek a mandate for independence and agree that a majority of votes cast for pro-independence parties, on the regional list, will constitute that mandate. 'Alba have consistently called for action on independence. The SNP have an opportunity to make this Convention more than symbolic, and instead ensure that it leads directly to a clear, democratic mandate for independence at the next election.' Last month Constitution Secretary Angus Robertson explicitly ruled out holding a convention of independence-supporting parties this summer. SNP depute leader Keith Brown told the party's conference last year that he would support an independence convention that included other Yes-party representatives. A spokesperson for the First Minister said: "Independence is the fresh start that Scotland needs for a better future - and the First Minister is determined to unlock a route that makes it possible. "It is clear from recent electoral history that only an outright SNP majority in an election has delivered a legally-recognised referendum process which would lead to independence. "Compared to 2011, support for independence is much higher, the SNP is a much larger party - with a more formidable campaigning machine - and the case for Westminster control has never been weaker. Over the next few months, the SNP will set out a bold and ambitious vision for an independent Scotland - and we will seek to unite people in Scotland around that SNP vision in the election next May."
The National
40 minutes ago
- The National
Why left needs more than just a good offer
It wasn't just about voting Yes or No. It was about asking new questions: about power, about institutions, about care and community, about who decides and who benefits. This was politicisation in action, a moment where people started to see their own lives not only as private struggles but as part of a wider system that could be challenged, shaped, changed. And it was inspiring, truly gorgeous to see. Moments like that don't happen often, but they matter. Because without politicisation, even the best ideas struggle to land. No-one builds a new world on an old common sense. READ MORE: Funding golf tournament was not attempt to butter up Donald Trump, says John Swinney Too often, we focus on the visible tips of the iceberg: candidates, slogans, manifestos. But without attending to the deeper cultural and ideological groundwork that allows those things to resonate. The question, although it is central obviously, isn't just what is on offer. It's whether people have the tools, the context, the disposition to receive it, and to act on it. A strong political project can't just drop from the sky and expect to gain traction. It has to meet people where they are … and recognise where they are not. A growing part of the electorate is disengaged, distrustful, unsure. They don't identify with political structures. They don't feel addressed. For many, the spaces that used to support political meaning-making – unions, political parties mainly – have been hollowed out. What's been lost isn't just organisational capacity, but ideological anchoring. It's important to say: this is not an argument against political parties. Parties remain essential vehicles for change, especially in representative democracies. But parties can't do it all. We're expecting too much from them if we think they can. They depend on a political culture that is already in motion. If they treat politicisation as a given, they will just be screaming into the void. We're often told that a good offer – the right policies, the right leader, the right tone – should be enough. But that only works if people are already prepared to hear it. If they're not, no amount of rhetorical polish will compensate. Because people may be angry, but that doesn't mean they're politicised. And the two are not the same. Politicisation is not a mood. It's a shift in worldview. It's the slow, uneven process by which people come to see injustice as structural, not accidental, and to believe that collective action might actually make a difference. That process doesn't happen by magic. It happens through experience, connection, and struggle. This is not a new insight, but it's one we often skip over. In his article entitled What Politicising Means, French political scientist Éric Darras lays out a framework for understanding politicisation as a process, not a status. According to Darras, to politicise means four things: Generalising a personal or local grievance into a shared problem — seeing it not as your private misfortune but as a structural issue that concerns others; Defatalising what was once thought natural or inevitable – recognising that things could be otherwise; Identifying a source of power or oppression – not necessarily to cast blame, but to map the forces shaping your life; And finally, gaining a sense of political capacity – the feeling that collective action might actually shift something. This is cultural work. It doesn't begin on the debate stage or end at the ballot box. And it can begin anywhere. For some, it might happen in a picket line. For others, in a housing campaign, a community kitchen, a tenants' meeting, a sports club, even at home. Darras describes three broad modes of politicisation. First, the classic route: engagement with formal democratic institutions (voting, party membership, following political news). Second, the insider-adjacent path: experts, lobbyists, professionals who interact with power without necessarily being elected. And third, the most diffuse and often the most creative: grassroots politicisation through protest, mutual aid, community work, digital activism, often outside or alongside institutional channels. That last one is where counter-hegemony lives. It's where new ways of seeing and naming the world begin to take root. But it requires care. Without time and space to reflect, relate and organise, political imagination withers, even in the face of crisis. The idea that a party or a candidate will do the heavy lifting of politicising the public is, at best, wishful thinking. At worst, it misunderstands what politics requires. Parties are crucial. Institutions matter. But they're not magical. They are only as strong as the political infrastructure around them: the networks of people and practices that keep political imagination alive between elections. That kind of collective engagement doesn't guarantee victory, but without it, victory becomes almost impossible. The energy of 2014 didn't come from a party apparatus alone. It came from the activation of thousands of people who, for the first time, felt that politics included them. This doesn't mean everyone has to do everything. But it does mean that we should stop treating politicisation as someone else's job, or as a given. If we want a serious, durable, democratic left, we need to treat politicisation as strategic work. That means: Supporting political education — not as formal instruction or jargon-heavy analysis, but through clear, concrete efforts to help people understand what's broken and why it doesn't have to be this way. Building or sustaining spaces where people can connect their stories to bigger structures: community organising, mutual aid groups, local campaigns, alternative media. (Image: Colin Mearns) Valuing relationships. Most people don't go to their first protest or meeting because they read a pamphlet. They go because someone they trust said, 'Come with me.' Acknowledging that politicisation takes time. It's not a single moment of awakening. It's a process, a practice. And here's something political parties and elected politicians can do, right now. If you care about change, name what's going wrong. Explain it. Say it plainly. Take every opportunity to answer the questions people keep asking, the ones that echo again and again in frustration, in fear, in anger. Where is our money going? Why does everything feel like an inexorable slide downward? Why do we work harder, pay more, and still fall behind? That is political education, too. If you're trusted with a platform, use it not just to persuade, but to illuminate. Because when people begin to see the system clearly, they begin to move. There's a danger that this line of argument sounds soft, like something for people with lots of time on their hands. But politicisation is not a luxury: it's the basic condition for democratic politics to function. We're living through a period of intense pressure – economically, socially, ecologically. People are navigating burnout, precarity, loneliness. In that context, the ability to think politically, to make meaning, to connect, to act, is fragile. If we want to do serious politics, we have to take that seriously. We need parties. We need unions. We need radical proposals. But none of it works if we don't rebuild the muscle of politicisation, in all its messy, ordinary, everyday forms.
Leader Live
5 hours ago
- Leader Live
Foreign repression on UK soil rising ‘unchecked', MPs and peers warn
In a report published on Wednesday, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said transnational repression had increased in recent years, with foreign states using online harassment, lawsuits and physical violence to intimidate people in the UK. MI5 investigations into threats from other states have increased 48% since 2022, the report said, while committee chairman Lord David Alton warned the rise was 'going unchecked'. He said: 'This risks undermining the UK's ability to protect the human rights of its citizens and those who have sought safety within its borders. 'We have seen prominent cases of Hong Kongers with bounties placed on their heads, Iran intimidating journalists – but evidence submitted to the inquiry suggest this may be the tip of the iceberg.' The warning comes amid rising concern about transnational repression, including reports that China has offered rewards for people turning in pro-democracy Hong Kong activists based in the UK. Last month, Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee warned that Iran had attempted to kidnap or murder at least 15 UK-based people since 2022, while Russia has also targeted dissidents including the attempt to kill Sergei and Yulia Skripal with Novichok in 2018. While the cross-party human rights committee said China, Russia and Iran were the 'most flagrant' perpetrators of transnational repression in the UK, it highlighted evidence suggesting a string of other countries including India, Rwanda, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain had sought to target people in Britain. MPs and peers said they had also received 'substantial' evidence of intimidation by the Eritrean government, including surveillance of anti-government activists and infiltration of community groups and churches in an effort to isolate opponents of the regime. The committee went on to criticise Interpol, saying the organisation had refused to acknowledge misuse of 'red notices' – international requests for an arrest – to harass dissidents or take any steps to address this. Almost half of the 6,550 public red notices currently in circulation have been issued at Russia's request. Lord Alton said: 'We want to see a two-pronged approach from the Government. 'More needs to be done to give support and protection to the individuals and communities most at risk of transnational repression. 'We also want to see transnational repression prioritised in diplomatic relations and leadership at an international level to tackle the misuse and exploitation of systems of justice to silence and intimidate.' As well as pressing Interpol for action on abuse of red notices, the committee urged the Government to provide more training on transnational repression for police officers in the UK and greater protection from vexatious lawsuits known as Slapps (strategic lawsuits against public participation). The committee also called for China to be placed in the highest tier of the foreign influence registration scheme that came into effect last month, saying its omission risked 'undermining the credibility and coherence' of the scheme given the extent of Chinese transnational repression. An Interpol spokesperson said: 'Every year, thousands of the world's most serious criminals are arrested thanks to Interpol's systems. 'Children are saved from sexual exploitation and terrorists, cyber criminals and traffickers are brought to justice. 'Interpol knows red notices are powerful tools for law enforcement co-operation, which is why we have robust processes for ensuring that all Interpol notices and diffusions comply with our rules. 'Our constitution forbids Interpol from undertaking activities of a political, military, religious or racial character and all our databases and activities must also comply with the universal declaration for human rights.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We take the threat of transnational repression extremely seriously. 'Any attempts by a foreign state to coerce, intimidate, harass, or harm individuals on UK soil are considered a threat to our national security and sovereignty, and will not be tolerated. 'The committee's review echoes many of the same findings and recommendations from the Defending Democracy Taskforce report on TNR, published in May, and we are already taking action arising from those recommendations to further strengthen our response.'
