
Why didn't the SNP act when they had power in the UK?
As I said, in my simplistic view:
1. In 1707, it was Scottish parliamentarians who voted to unionise with England, not through a referendum or public opinion which was very much against it at the time.
2. The [[SNP]] in 2011 achieved what was meant to be improbable, due to the way the proportional representation system was set up at [[Holyrood]], and won a majority. Independence polling was in the low 30% at the time and [[Westminster]] thought they would lay to rest once and for all Scottish independence and reset the narrative.
READ MORE: 'Not in our name': Hundreds gather in Scottish cities to protest Donald Trump
Scots sensing freedom rallied around the cause as the polls rose, only for Westminster to panic and reach out to the vast Union media to spread doom and fear about Scotland's chances to surviving on its own (see point 5).
Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon were not prepared for the referendum fight that ensued, failing to deliver on the big questions in debates. Which isn't surprising because the [[SNP]] were probably taken aback when David Cameron said yes to a referendum, the [[SNP]] hadn't done all the preparative homework (ie currency, pensions, trade, the border, etc) to allay the fears of Scots never mind that of Scottish businesses and institutions.
Even now, they are not prepared 11 years on and the SNPs hierarchy of 'it's my way or the highway approach to independence' is a flaw in their DNA. Scots' democracy is a consensus-based system, that's how the convention brought about devolution, and it's about time the SNP woke up to this fact. The SNP hierarchy don't even listen to their own rank and file or their activists!
Even Swinney's recent independence reset is so bland, it wasn't worth the airtime. The concern of independence voters is who will be their political voice, certainly not the SNP at this time, the reason more than half a million voters failed to vote for them last time around.And not many of these voters jumped the divide to Labour if you look at the voter breakdown. Worrying times indeed for both the SNP and independence voters. The independence voter churn is likely to continue.
(Image: PA)
3. [[Westminster]] and the House of Lords (monarchy) demand power and obedience to rule which make the privilege richer and give the middle and lower classes just enough to keep them in line. So, the [[SNP]] need to be strategic and be prepared to gamble all to deliver independence. They had a whole parliamentary term when they were in the ascendancy to do this and failed miserably, partly due to internal squabbling at [[Westminster]] and interference from the FM and the FM's inner circle who acted as though [[Holyrood]] had political precedence and would deliver independence. Oh how wrong this attitude was, and it's been a slippery downward slope ever since. The best they could do was ask 'please sir can I have one more referendum?' and their reply was 'more, you had your day and the people of Scotland voted to remain, now is not the time for another referendum'.
4. At this time, the SNP should have shaken this up by electing a 'majority Scottish leader' at Westminster. Reintroduce the Scottish Grand Committee to review all Westminster's reserved matters like the constitution, eg another independence referendum or to vote on the impact of Westminster land-grab legalisation the 'Internal Market Act'. To vote on these and relay to the speaker of the house and the government the Scottish MP majority outcomes are token and disruptive gestures maybe, but it does echo the Scottish electorate will to the Parliament.
More importantly, at this time the UK was out of Europe, a fundamental material change from the referendum debate of 2014 where membership of the European Union was one of [[Westminster]]'s key fear strategies, and from a democratic perspective, the [[SNP]] were the third-largest party at [[Westminster]] (unheard of achievement), the biggest party at [[Holyrood]] and biggest party of elected councillors in Scotland.
If I was in charge at that time, I would have given the Westminster government the simple either/or ultimatum; to grant a second referendum or Scotland will unitarily leave the Union based on the elected mandate. The latter throwing the UK into a constitutional crisis, spooking the Bank of England (not UK!) and the financial markets.
I am sure this would have led to a lot of activity behind the scenes as when the city of London catches a cold, Westminster sits up and takes note and then there is the probable granting of a second referendum. As I said, gamble big, better than the limp approach to the English Supreme Court approach!
5. Many countries have successfully left British rule and never looked back. As stated at point 1), Scots parliamentarians decided to join England in an Union, so it is not unrealistic to do the same in reverse, irrespective of the language of the treaty. Labour rules the UK with only 33.7% of those voted, so having greater than 50% is not necessary. Also, when a small group of Tory MPs like the 1922 club can oust an elected leader that won them a general election, it just goes to show how democracy works for English privilege and not for the democratic masses, like for Scotland. Also, when a Westminster party comes to power, there is no penalty or forfeit for not following their manifesto, so just because the SNP manifesto didn't explicitly say Scotland would leave the UK, anyone that votes for the SNP knows their DNA is independence, so shock horror if they deliver on it.
From an European perspective, precedent was set when the Slovakian party announced the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, resulting in the separation in 1992 and the resultant independent sovereign states of Slovakia and Czech Republic where future EU ascension wasn't an issue, so why would Scotland's independence be a roadblock to independence or EU ascension, certainly not now after Brexit?
A Wilson
Stirlingshire
THE Government has recently announced changes to the Contracts for Difference scheme, with a view to speeding up the development of renewable energy projects across the country. One of the new changes to the scheme is to extend the length of contracts for onshore and offshore windfarm project development.
This provides an incentive for developers bidding for new contracts, as it gives them more time to recoup their costs. The new cycle for applications to the scheme opens on August 7, 2025.
This incentivising highlights the point that Pat Kane made in his article on July 12, titled 'Scotland is heading back into a cycle of 'extraction without consent'', that after oil comes wind power. He also made reference to Lesley Riddoch's equally excellent article of June 19, about the multiple windfarm applications which are currently being made across the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
Kane reflected back to a time when the play, The Cheviot, The Stag And The Black, Black Oil, by John McGrath dramatised the issues surrounding oil extraction in Scotland's waters, and went on to ask rhetorically, 'What kind of single dramatic 'representation' could take purchase?' in relation to the issues surrounding renewable energy generation in Scotland today. He lays down the gauntlet when he suggests that: 'Creatives worth their salt should rise to the challenge'.
In the comments section at the end of his article, I did point out that in terms of dramatising the issues surrounding renewable energy being generated in Scotland, much of the problem creatives like myself face is getting our work heard. It's not that we are not offering a commentary, or perspective, on these issues, but without the following which the celebrity cult seems to generate in today's publishing world, it is hard to get your work noticed.
Oblivious as to whether or not I am one of those who are 'worth their salt', I had just started the process of uploading, finalising and then releasing my latest humorous novel, An t-Eilean Dorcha (The Dark Island) at the time of his article. This was finally released in paperback on July 21 on Amazon. The novel focuses on a renewable energy project which is proposed for a small island, and the community has to evaluate its impact and consider how best to respond.
My hope is that as well as providing the reader with some light entertainment and an escape from their day-to-day life, it will also, give voice to the very real concerns people have expressed about renewable energy resource generation in the Highlands and Islands.
Gordon Ian MacLeod
via email
MUCH angst has been expressed recently about the high cost of electricity in Scotland. Hardly surprising in the UK's cradle of green, affordable generation.
Disgruntled consumers may hold meetings, march, post banners and write letters – all protesting against high charges. The privatised electricity companies will ignore them, assuming that people will pay up for this essential necessity; and most probably will.
In 1915, at the height of the First World War, greedy landlords in Glasgow increased rents beyond what was reasonable. Already poor people were incensed, but didn't know what to do about it. That is until local woman Mary Barbour stepped in and created an army which united in a rent strike. They surmised that if they hit the landlords in their pockets they would soon begin to squeal – and indeed it was not long before they did back down, realising that some rent was better than none.
All the passive actions I mention above will not disturb the power companies one iota, so I suggest that folk in the Highlands and Islands emulate Mary Barbour's army, and refuse to pay their electricity bills en masse until they are charged the same per kilowatt that Londoners pay, backdated to 2020. Yes, the companies will hold out for as long as possible, they will take a few people to court, and as with any strike there will be folk who capitulate. But with solidarity, mutual support and determination, I believe the people will prevail.
Richard Walthew
Duns
THE article in the digital edition reporting on the sale of an estate near Fort Augustus indicates that there will be a lot of interest from overseas. If this parcel of Scottish land is sold to an overseas buyer then there should be a hefty tax burden on the buyer and they should only be allowed to purchase it if everything is transparent so that the people of Scotland know who owns the land that should belong to the people of Scotland.
Audrey Maceachen
via email
YOUR article on the electric super highway mentions a subsea cable from Fife into England. Meanwhile, Scotland is faced with giant pylons ruining the land? Our 'green' electricity, for which we are charged extortionate rates, being fed into another country. Has Mr Swinney and the [[SNP]] anything to say in this? Or is this robbery getting the silence that Grangemouth got.
Jim Butchart
via email

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


BBC News
23 minutes ago
- BBC News
EU and US agree trade deal, with 15% tariffs for European exports to America
The United States and European Union have reached a trade deal, ending a months-long standoff between two of the world's key economic make-or-break negotiations between President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen in Scotland, the pair agreed on a blanket US tariff on all EU goods of 15%. That is half the 30% import tax rate Trump had threatened to implement starting on Friday. Trump said the 27-member bloc would open its markets to US exporters with zero per cent tariffs on certain der Leyen also hailed the deal, saying it would bring stability for both allies, who together account for almost a third of global trade. Trump has threatened tariffs against major US trade partners in a bid to reorder the global economy and trim the American trade well as the EU, he has also struck tariff agreements with the UK, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam, although he has not achieved his goal of "90 deals in 90 days".Sunday's deal was announced after private talks between Trump and Von der Leyen at his Turnberry golf course in South - who is on a five-day visit to Scotland - said following a brief meeting with the European Commission president: "We have reached a deal. It's a good deal for everybody.""It's going to bring us closer together," he der Leyen also hailed it as a "huge deal", after "tough negotiations".Under the agreement, Trump said the EU would boost its investment in the US by $600bn (£446bn), purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of American military equipment and spend $750bn on investment in American liquified natural gas, oil and nuclear fuels would, Von der Leyen said, help reduce European reliance on Russian power sources."I want to thank President Trump personally for his personal commitment and his leadership to achieve this breakthrough," she said."He is a tough negotiator, but he is also a dealmaker."The US president also said a 50% tariff he has implemented on steel and aluminium globally would stay in sides can paint this agreement as something of a the EU, the tariffs could have been worse: it is not as good as the UK's 10% tariff rate, but is the same as the 15% rate that Japan the US it equates to the expectation of roughly $90bn of tariff revenue into government coffers – based on last year's trade figures, plus there's hundreds of billions of dollars of investment now due to come into the US. How are trade deals actually negotiated?They made America's clothing. Now they are getting punished for itIn pictures: President Trump's private visit to Scotland Trade in goods between the EU and US totalled about $975.9bn last year. Last year the US imported about $606bn in goods from the EU and exported around $ imbalance, or trade deficit, is a sticking point for Trump. He says trade relationships like this mean the US is "losing".If he had followed through on tariffs against Europe, import taxes would have been levied on products from Spanish pharmaceuticals to Italian leather, German electronics and French EU had said it was prepared to retaliate with tariffs on US goods including car parts, Boeing planes and Prime Minister Keir Starmer plans his own meeting with Trump at Turnberry on will be in Aberdeen on Tuesday, where his family has another golf course and is opening a third next president and his sons plan to help cut the ribbon on the new fairway.


Reuters
23 minutes ago
- Reuters
Out-gunned Europe accepts least-worst US trade deal
LONDON, July 27 (Reuters) - In the end, Europe found it lacked the leverage to pull Donald Trump's America into a trade pact on its terms and so has signed up to a deal it can just about stomach - albeit one that is clearly skewed in the U.S.'s favour. As such, Sunday's agreement on a blanket 15% tariff after a months-long stand-off is a reality check on the aspirations of the 27-country European Union to become an economic power able to stand up to the likes of the United States or China. The cold shower is all the more bracing given that the EU has long portrayed itself as an export superpower and champion of rules-based commerce for the benefit both of its own soft power and the global economy as a whole. For sure, the new tariff that will now be applied is a lot more digestible than the 30% "reciprocal" tariff which Trump threatened to invoke in a few days. While it should ensure Europe avoids recession, it will likely keep its economy in the doldrums: it sits somewhere between two tariff scenarios the European Central Bank last month forecast would mean 0.5-0.9% economic growth this year compared to just over 1% in a trade tension-free environment. But this is nonetheless a landing point that would have been scarcely imaginable only months ago in the pre-Trump 2.0 era, when the EU along with much of the world could count on U.S. tariffs averaging out at around 1.5%. Even when Britain agreed a baseline tariff of 10% with the United States back in May, EU officials were adamant they could do better and - convinced the bloc had the economic heft to square up to Trump - pushed for a "zero-for-zero" tariff pact. It took a few weeks of fruitless talks with their U.S. counterparts for the Europeans to accept that 10% was the best they could get and a few weeks more to take the same 15% baseline which the United States agreed with Japan last week. "The EU does not have more leverage than the U.S., and the Trump administration is not rushing things," said one senior official in a European capital who was being briefed on last week's negotiations as they closed in around the 15% level. That official and others pointed to the pressure from Europe's export-oriented businesses to clinch a deal and so ease the levels of uncertainty starting to hit businesses from Finland's Nokia ( opens new tab to Swedish steelmaker SSAB ( opens new tab. "We were dealt a bad hand. This deal is the best possible play under the circumstances," said one EU diplomat. "Recent months have clearly shown how damaging uncertainty in global trade is for European businesses." That imbalance - or what the trade negotiators have been calling "asymmetry" - is manifest in the final deal. Not only is it expected that the EU will now call off any retaliation and remain open to U.S. goods on existing terms, but it has also pledged $600 billion of investment in the United States. The time-frame for that remains undefined, as do other details of the accord for now. As talks unfolded, it became clear that the EU came to the conclusion it had more to lose from all-out confrontation. The retaliatory measures it threatened totalled some 93 billion euros - less than half its U.S. goods trade surplus of nearly 200 billion euros. True, a growing number of EU capitals were also ready to envisage wide-ranging anti-coercion measures that would have allowed the bloc to target the services trade in which the United States had a surplus of some $75 billion last year. But even then, there was no clear majority for targeting the U.S. digital services which European citizens enjoy and for which there are scant homegrown alternatives - from Netflix (NFLX.O), opens new tab to Uber (UBER.N), opens new tab to Microsoft (MSFT.O), opens new tab cloud services. It remains to be seen whether this will encourage European leaders to accelerate the economic reforms and diversification of trading allies to which they have long paid lip service but which have been held back by national divisions. Describing the deal as a painful compromise that was an "existential threat" for many of its members, Germany's BGA wholesale and export association said it was time for Europe to reduce its reliance on its biggest trading partner. "Let's look on the past months as a wake-up call," said BGA President Dirk Jandura. "Europe must now prepare itself strategically for the future - we need new trade deals with the biggest industrial powers of the world."


Daily Mail
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
STEPHEN DAISLEY: The out-of-touch political dreamers who've now been handed a rude awakening by reality
Ten years and a few months ago, I was dispatched to Paisley to try to interview Mhairi Black. I say 'try to' because everywhere we went someone would interrupt to tell the 20 year-old they were voting for her. It's not easy grilling a candidate on currency options for an independent Scotland when every few minutes a passing stranger suddenly downs their Tesco bags and asks for a selfie. This was the eve of the 2015 general election and the SNP was poised to sweep Labour from its west-central heartlands. Nicola Sturgeon was selling out the Hydro. Black was about to become the youngest MP since the Great Reform Act. I still had hair. It was another Scotland. A decade on, Black says she's done with the SNP and is no longer a member. She pinpoints 'capitulation on LGBT rights, trans rights in particular' as her reason for leaving, though adds: 'I thought the party could be doing better about Palestine as well'. Much as I don't share Black's views on gender or Gaza – or a great deal else, for that matter – I respect them. They're sincerely held. If you're going to hate anyone in politics, don't hate the ones who disagree with you on principle, hate the ones prepared to agree with you on any principle just to get ahead. Unfortunately her principles are far removed from those of the median voter, who remains baffled by the notion that someone can 'identify' into a different sex and even more baffled as to how this became a priority for politicians across the land. Many feel strongly about the deaths in Gaza but for most voters it is nowhere near the top of their concerns, which are dominated by their family, then their social circles, then their neighbourhood, then their country. Idealists who make a virtue of empathising more with those on the other side of the world get very angry about this. They even invented a term for it, 'hierarchy of death', which seems superfluous when we already had a term for it: human nature. For the SNP to have clung onto Black's membership subs, it would have had to return to a subject (trans rights) which has caused it no end of internal division and political misery, and adopt an even more strident stance on Israel's military response to the Palestinians' October 7 invasion and murder, rape and abduction of its citizens. The SNP is a political party, not a moral philosophy seminar. It exists to win elections and, in theory, achieve Scottish independence. What votes would it win by taking Black's advice? What votes is it at risk of losing by not? The former Paisley and Renfrewshire South MP comes close to identifying the problem herself, when she says: 'If anything, I'm probably a bit more Left-wing than I have been. I don't think I have changed all that much. I feel like the party needs to change a lot more.' The SNP does have to change, but not in the direction Black wants. The Nationalists and most other parties have spent the past decade or so breenging off on a tangent about trans rights, systemic racism, Donald Trump and the rest. A correction was long overdue. This agenda lacked popular consent and stoked resentment among both those who opposed it fiercely and those who protested over so much time and effort being frittered away. The Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland has helped immeasurably. Party leaders and policy-makers were able to point to the ruling and pass responsibility onto the justices. They weren't backsliding, the court was clarifying the law. For John Swinney, this has been a blessed opportunity to ditch positions he went along with at the time, I've no doubt against his better judgment, but which he knows have gravely damaged his party's standing with the public. A man with more gumption would have stood up and said something when it mattered, but if Swinney isn't much of a leader – and he certainly isn't – nor is he alone in that category. During the initial consultation stage for reforming the Gender Recognition Act, a senior politician in one party admitted to me that they didn't understand the issue, or why it was a priority, but they'd be voting for it because they had been told to. Politics is the trade of dreamers and cynics and while Mhairi Black might be wrong about everything at least she's sincere about it. She isn't the only dreamer to be rudely awakened lately by political reality. Maggie Chapman has found herself dumped as the Greens' lead candidate in North East Scotland, replaced by Guy Ingerson, ex oil-and-gas worker turned Net Zero enthusiast. According to a pet theory of mine, that makes it unlikely that Chapman will be re-elected next May. The theory: a person's likelihood to vote for the Scottish Greens correlates with their proximity to a Pret A Manger. Edinburgh and Glasgow, home to 11 and six branches of the posh sandwich chain respectively, just so happen to be the Greens' best and second-best performing areas on the regional lists. Aberdeen, with just two, lags far behind in Green support. Whether or not my theory holds water (or overpriced coffee), Chapman's Holyrood career appears to be over after years of headline-grabbing pronouncements. Her principles also deserve respect. Not because they're sincerely held but because we should remain open to ideas from other planets. When the landmark ruling was handed down in For Women Scotland, Chapman attended a rally to denounce the 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred coming from the Supreme Court'. She once told an interviewer that allowing eight year olds to change their legal sex was something that 'in principle we should be exploring'. Following the October 7 attack on Israel, she shared a tweet saying the murderous rampage was not terrorism but 'decolonisation'. Yes, her views are deranged, but the more pertinent question is how these came to be the views of someone elected to make sure Scots can see a doctor, find a good school for their children, and not get mugged at knifepoint. The answer is that ideologues like Chapman are not interested in all that boring, quotidian stuff that fixates middle-class taxpayers. Simply ghastly people, those bourgeois types, with their petrol-guzzling cars, their authoritarian demands for more police on the streets, and their grasping fixation with ambition and acquisition. Don't they know there are more important issues in the world? There are far too many in Holyrood or keen to get there who think like this. For them, life is just one long university debating society match, in which enlightened elites like them exchange barbs and bon mots over affairs of state. The little people might fret about bills and savings and leaving an inheritance for their children, but they are above such vulgar materialism. They are here to change the world, you know. In my observation, those most keen to change the world tend to have the least experience of it. They make terrible politicians because they quickly find out the world doesn't work the way they want and they resent the voters for that. If the voters set the agenda in politics, Mhairi Black and Maggie Chapman wouldn't be the only ones in our insular, self-righteous governing class that would be stampeding for the exit. Democracy is still the most radical idea of all. Maybe one day we'll give it a try.