On independence strategy, John Swinney has lost the dressing room
Fast forward to 2026, we're on our third first minister in a single parliamentary term. Operation Branchform still lingers. Major projects are behind schedule. A minister racks up £11,000 in roaming charges — and keeps their job. The Deposit Return Scheme is scrapped. And the list goes on.
When we repeat the call for independence, people will quite rightly ask what would we "amplify" now? We won our majority in 2011 because we were competent, collaborative, and effective. We delivered despite the composition of the parliament and limits of devolution. That gave us the credibility to ask for more.
What successes do we have to point to from the 2021 to 2026 term?
Given the reality we're facing, the idea that we can significantly improve the SNP's position ahead of Holyrood 2026 is ambitious to say the least. That's why I, along with many activists, are calling on the party leadership to recognise a hard truth: If we're serious about delivering a mandate for independence, we may well need to work with others to achieve it. At a time when we need inspiration and hope, we're faced instead with disengagement and despair.
At a time when we need bold strategy and an inclusive campaign that brings the whole movement with us, we get caution, dogma, and "it's my ball" politics. Not all of this is John Swinney's fault, but as the current leader one thing clearly is ...
John believes (many feel mistakenly) that he alone holds the constitutional authority to decide the party's independence strategy. And despite the best efforts of committed activists to urge a change in course, he's pressing ahead, undeterred and unbending. At the recent National Council, John laid out this plan to those assembled. Many of us questioned it, respectfully but robustly.
But not one person, not a single delegate got up to say "John, you've got this. I believe in you."
That silence spoke volumes ... Sadly, John wasn't listening.
Put simply, he's lost the dressing room.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
Hardcore Nats want to ‘dissolve the union' if Westminster blocks IndyRef2
They rejected a strategy by the First Minister INDY REBELS Hardcore Nats want to 'dissolve the union' if Westminster blocks IndyRef2 Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) NATS rebels want MSPs to 'dissolve' the Union if Westminster blocks their path to independence. The hardliners insist talks on a UK split must start if pro-indy parties win a majority of List votes at next May's Holyrood election. Sign up for the Politics newsletter Sign up 4 Hardcore Nats reckon the Union should be "dissolved" if pro-Indy parties get a majority of List MSPs Credit: Alamy 4 They rejected John Swinney's strategy Credit: PA 4 Longtime party activist Graeme McCormick is one of the people behind the strategy Credit: Graeme McCormick They have rejected John Swinney's strategy and instead want the party to back their hardline tactic. Mr Swinney said last month that a majority of SNP seats at May's Scottish Parliament election would be a mandate for a second referendum. But the rebel group of 43 branches want Holyrood to begin negotiations on leaving the UK if half of voters back any pro-independence party - meaning the SNP, Scottish Greens, Alba or any other nationalist candidate. If Westminster refuses to acknowledge this approach then Holyrood should immediately 'dissolve the union', they say. It comes despite a landmark Supreme Court judgement in 2022 which effectively ruled out any legal path to independence other than a referendum agreed to by Westminster. Scottish Conservative deputy leader Rachael Hamilton said: 'This spat just demonstrates how out of touch John Swinney and the SNP are with ordinary Scots. 'Under the nationalists, our public services are in meltdown and taxes are sky high. "But instead of fixing the mess they've created, they're fighting about how best to push their independence obsession. 'John Swinney should stop fixating on tearing up the UK and focus on his day job.' Alastair Cameron, chair of Scotland in Union, said: 'Imagine if the SNP spent as much time exploring how to save the NHS rather than fighting over different wheezes for an unwanted second referendum.' Five moments you missed from a weekend with Donald Trump in Scotland The SNP 'Group of 43' has submitted a motion for approval by the SNP's conference committee which states: 'Conference instructs the Party to prioritise obtaining a mandate from the sovereign Scottish people to deliver independence. 'This will be possible by achieving a majority of the popular vote on the sum of the Independence Supporting Parties' List Votes in the 2026 Scottish parliamentary election.' Longtime party activist Graeme McCormick, one of the people behind the strategy, told The Herald: 'As you can imagine in the SNP, there are lots of views on how to achieve independence. A few of us who have been involved in the movement for a long time came together to propose this plan. 'If we get a majority of pro-independence votes on the list, we'll open negotiations with the UK Government around independence. If the negotiations aren't successful, then we'll move to dissolve the union. It's perfectly legal to do so.' The group will meet at St Matthew's Church in Perth to 'plan strategic amendments' and 'decide together how we take this initiative forward.' An invitation to the meeting stated: 'We are done asking for referenda. Never again will we accept a Scottish SNP leader or First Minister going cap in hand to Westminster for permission to leave the Union. That time is past.' Kenny MacAskill, leader of the Alba Party and a former member of the radical '79 Group' that dragged the SNP to the left under Alex Salmond, said he 'recognised and welcomed the old radical fire that still exsits within the SNP membership'. He said: 'They are now way ahead of the SNP leadership on the question of delivering independence.'
The National
5 hours ago
- The National
Consent for gigantic wind farm is an ironic act of ecocide
The irony is that Holyrood is contemplating the introduction of an ecocide bill – at the very time the [[Scottish Government]] is complicit in ecocide committed by renewable energy companies on an ever-expanding scale. We note 'SSE Renewables will have to provide a plan to counter any impact the wind farm may have on seabirds', but this is thin gruel, especially as SSE is quoted as admitting in its own environmental impact assessment that more than 31,000 bird collisions are estimated during its lifespan. READ MORE: Scottish crew 'excluded from Spider Man 4 filming' What will its proposed 'mitigation' provide? It is to be hoped it will be something better than the farcically inappropriate plans that Equinor has put in place to construct an inappropriately sited nesting habitat for Arctic Terns hundreds of miles from its proposed massive wind farm extension off the coast of Norfolk. Whatever it is, it is difficult to see how it can provide more than a small sticking plaster for an act of ecocide. The Scottish Government may well have shot itself in the foot here. People who would not normally object to a wind farm are sickened by this decision. The sleeping giant of Joe Public has awakened. Aileen Jackson Scotland Against Spin, Uplawmoor THE story about House of Lords peers warning UK recognition of Palestine may 'breach international law' (Jul 31) is revealing, not just for what it says about Westminster, but for what it exposes about Scotland's position. The peers cite the Montevideo Convention, claiming Palestine doesn't qualify as a state because it lacks a defined territory, unified government and full diplomatic capacity. This argument is flawed because the UK never signed the convention — it's a regional treaty drafted in 1933 by US states, not global law – and even if you accept it as a standard, it backfires spectacularly when applied to Scotland. Let's test the same criteria: Permanent population? Scotland has that; Defined territory? Clearly; Functioning government? We've had one for over 20 years, with its own legal system, civil service, and tax powers. Capacity for foreign relations? Scotland already hosts consulates and conducts international outreach, and could expand that overnight. By any serious standard, Scotland meets the Montevideo criteria more fully than [[Palestine]], Kosovo at the time of recognition, or even Israel in 1948. So why are we still being told we must wait for a Section 30 order from [[Westminster]] to hold an independence referendum — and why are the SNP still building their entire strategy around asking for one? John Swinney says a vote for the [[SNP]] in 2026 will be a vote for independence. But what comes after that? Nothing. Because the leadership still refuses to act without permission. The Supreme Court didn't say independence is illegal – it said [[Holyrood]] doesn't have the power under UK law to legislate for a referendum. That's a political dead end, not a legal one. Recognition doesn't begin with external approval, it begins with internal control. That's how Estonia, Ireland, Kosovo, and countless others did it. They asserted the fact of statehood, governed as such, and forced recognition by acting like a state. That's how international law actually works. The real reason Scotland isn't independent isn't legal, it's psychological. Our leaders won't cross the line. They keep asking Westminster to validate our democracy instead of enforcing it. They quote laws they never intend to test. And they call that strategy. So yes, the peers' letter is cynical and legally thin. But it also hands us a mirror. Because if the UK can consider recognising Palestine under the Montevideo Convention, then the only thing stopping Scotland is the lack of a leadership willing to act on what we already are. James Murphy Bute THE claims by a group of peers in the House of Lords that UK recognition of Palestine could 'breach international law' warrant scrutiny. These assertions are based on a rigid interpretation of the Montevideo Convention and a selective reading of legal principles and risk politicising law rather than defending it. A clear-eyed examination reveals that such recognition remains well within the bounds of international legality and reflects long-standing norms of state practice. The UK is not a signatory to the Montevideo Convention of 1933 and state recognition in international law has always been as much a political act as a legal one. Numerous recognitions have occurred over the years, including Kosovo and South Sudan, despite contested claims to defined territory or unified governance. Recognition of states remains a sovereign prerogative. As confirmed by the International Court of Justice in its 2010 advisory opinion on Kosovo, international law does not prohibit declarations of independence or third-party recognition, even in complex or disputed circumstances. Recognition by the UK would not constitute a breach of international law but rather an exercise of lawful foreign policy discretion. (Image: Jonathan Brady) More than 135 UN member states have recognised Palestine and in 2012 the UN General Assembly granted Palestine non-member observer state status. These actions underscore the fact that recognition of Palestinian statehood is neither novel nor legally exceptional. If such recognition were truly contrary to international law, it would have triggered challenges in international courts – none have materialised. It is time to move beyond legal obfuscation and act in pursuit of a just and lasting peace. Peter Macari Aberdeen
The National
7 hours ago
- The National
Anas Sarwar: Don't conflate Sandie Peggie 'racist' comments with point of tribunal
We previously told how Peggie, a nurse, allegedly told colleagues that she 'wanted to post bacon through the letterbox of a mosque' during the ongoing tribunal against NHS Fife. The Scottish Labour leader, who has publicly supported Peggie, told the Daily Record on Thursday that the comments were 'horrific'. Asked by The National if he regretted publicly supporting Peggie now the remarks had come to light, Sarwar insisted that he supported the 'primacy of the Equality Act'. READ MORE: Revealed: The full text of SNP's independence strategy Peggie was suspended after she complained about having to share a changing room with transgender medic Dr Beth Upton at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, [[Fife]], on Christmas Eve 2023. Allegations were made during the tribunal regarding Peggie's comments relating to mosques, as well as "racist" jokes she had shared in a work group chat about flooding that killed thousands in Pakistan. Peggie denied the remarks in relation to mosques, but said the joke about the floods were sent in 'dark humour' to friends. Asked if he regretted supporting Peggie (below) following the revelations, Sarwar told The National: 'I think there should not be a conflation on saying that we support the protection of the Equality Act, the primacy of the Equality Act, and the protection of single sex spaces based on biological sex. (Image: Andrew Milligan/PA Wire) 'That is our position and remains our position. At the same time, we have to call out racism or any other form of prejudice, and that's exactly what we have done. 'We think the Scottish Government and NHS boards should be complying with the Equality Act. Should be urgently complying with the Equality Act whilst, and this is not inconsistent, whilst also calling out prejudice.' Pushed on if that meant he didn't regret publicly supporting Peggie, he said: 'I have zero regret in saying that we have to support the Equality Act, the primacy of the Equality Act and protecting single sex spaces based on biological sex. 'And I also continue to call out any form of racism or prejudice, as was demonstrated in those comments that have been attributed.' READ MORE: 43 SNP branches back challenge to John Swinney's independence strategy After Dr Upton made an allegation of bullying and harassment, citing concerns about 'patient care', Peggie was placed on special leave. She then lodged a claim against NHS Fife and Dr Upton, citing the Equality Act 2010, including sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination, and victimisation. The tribunal has become a flash point for gender-critical campaigners and anti-trans groups, particularly following the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman earlier this year. And now, For Women Scotland, which brought the case against the Scottish Government in relation to the definition of the Equality Act to the Supreme Court, has been granted permission to lodge a written intervention.
