Latest news with #ScotlandAct
Edinburgh Reporter
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Edinburgh Reporter
Lorna Slater says she has the experience to remain co-leader of the party
One of those candidates is Lorna Slater who has been co-leader for the last six years. On Wednesday morning the Lothians MSP was in her local park speaking to the media. She outlined why she believes that The Scottish Greens are in the ascendancy. She said: 'The Scottish Greens have really grown, and our success over the last few years has been really significant. With going into government for the first time, increasing our number of MSPs and of course, our number of councillors across the country, Greens are more influential than ever. 'In next year's Holyrood election, we have the far right coming to Scotland with an anti-trans, anti-immigrant, racist agenda. Climate denial has already arrived in The Scottish Parliament, and The Scottish Greens need to clearly stand against that.' Asked about the Deposit Return Scheme which was disastrous for The Scottish Government and for Ms Slater personally, she explained that the legislation was already in place – and that she had tried hard to implement it. She said: 'The legislation was passed in 2020 before I was elected, and it was my job to get it launched in Scotland. We were weeks away from launch. 'Biffa the contractor had sites all over Scotland. We had businesses all over Scotland who had their reverse vending machines installed. We were ready to go for launch when the UK Government, spearheaded by Alister Jack, decided to shut down the scheme. 'That was so frustrating, and it was an abuse of Scottish devolution, of the Scotland Act, because Scotland, under the Scotland Act, has the power to implement those kind of schemes. 'Unfortunately, post Brexit, that internal market act now exists, which the UK Government can use to stop Scotland from taking forward recycling schemes. 'Fortunately, now the UK Government has finally, after years of prevarication, passed the legislation for their deposit return scheme down in England. So we will be getting a deposit return scheme in Scotland, but unfortunately, that will be on England's schedule instead of the schedule voted for by The Scottish Parliament.' She also explained that the Greens had a range of achievements against their name including the free bus travel for under 22 year olds. She continued: 'The next co leaders will be sharing a platform with Nigel Farage, and Russell Findlay, who are climate denying, anti immigration, and anti trans. The Scottish Greens need to push back against that, and I've got the experience and the confidence. I'm the last woman party leader standing in Scotland, and I want to be on that platform, taking them on with an anti racist, human rights agenda where we're looking at actually making Scotland a fairer and greener place, tackling the climate crisis and continuing to put in place policies that matter to people.' The nominated candidates are: Dominic Ashmole, Ross Greer MSP, Gillian Mackay MSP and Lorna Slater MSP. Any combination of the four candidates may be elected and the election process opens on 13 August, closes on 22 August and the results will be published on 29 August. Any hustings for the leadership roles will begin on Monday 4 August. Lorna Slater MSP Like this: Like Related
The National
20-07-2025
- Business
- The National
Open letter to First Minister on the future for our energy needs
The UK is running away from the hard choices on energy. Its dismissal of ideas like zonal pricing – currently the only scheme yet presented that would allow the UK to maximise renewable energy generation, minimise infrastructure costs like pylons and to reduce fuel poverty while giving communities more incentive to take control of their own local energy generation – has been rightly criticised by you last week in a statement where you called out the UK for not doing enough on energy policy. It was concerning to note, though, that your critique wasn't backed up by much on what you want the UK to actually do instead. Even as you complained about the UK 'ruling out all options to bring down energy bills' by abandoning zonal pricing, I'm not clear if you support it or would bring it in if you had the power to do so. We all know that Scotland's devolved powers in energy are limited and that, right now, you couldn't do something like this, but also missing from your critique was what you plan to do with the powers you do have. Scotland's own devolved energy strategy has been woefully lacking in recent years – from the sell-off of ScotWind at bargain basement prices, through dropping climate targets that were designed to push action ever forwards, to flogging off (sorry, 'encouraging foreign direct investment in') every piece of our renewable energy sector to multinational companies and foreign public energy companies to ensure that everyone in the world can profit from Scotland's energy except us. READ MORE: Kate Forbes: 'Clearances' are not inevitable if the Highlands get investment We can take another path, though. Scotland must ensure that we own our own renewable energy future and the way to do that is by bringing it into public ownership. Here are several ways that you could do it. 1) A National Energy Company This is what most of us think of when we think about 'Scottish public energy', and it's the model that the Welsh Government adopted under the name Ynni Cymru. This is a single national company, owned by the Scottish Government or by Scottish ministers (similar to Scottish Water), that would own, generate and sell energy to consumers. There is a snag to this plan in that the Scotland Act currently prohibits the Scottish Government from 'owning, generating, transmitting or storing' electricity, so if we want the National Energy Company to be based around supplying electricity, then the first thing that the Scottish Government could be doing is mounting a pressure campaign to amend the Act – it puts Scotland in the ridiculous position that it's legal for the Welsh Government to own a wind turbine in Scotland but not the Scottish Government. Until that campaign is successful, there is something you can do. The Act quite specifically bans your Government from owning electricity generators. It does not ban other forms of energy. A National Heat Company based around deploying district heat networks could supply all but the most remote of Scottish households. While this would be a large infrastructure project, it wouldn't be larger than the one required to build the electricity pylons we need if we're going to electrify heat instead and the pipes would have the advantage of being underground and out of sight while ultimately providing heat to homes in a cheap, more efficient and ultimately more future-proof way that the current setup of asking people to buy heat pumps and just hoping that the grid can cope with the demand. 2) Local Electricity Companies So, First Minister, let's say that you're not a fan of campaigning for the devolution of more powers and really want Scotland to be generating electricity. You can't create a National Electricity Company but you can encourage local authorities to set up their own Local Electricity Company. Conceivably, the 32 councils could even jointly own one National Electricity Company – the Scotland Act merely bans the Scottish Government from owning the company. In many ways, this would be an even better idea than the Scottish Government doing it. Government borrowing powers are far too limited and you'd need to campaign for more borrowing powers to get the scale of action required to build the infrastructure we need – but councils have a trick up their sleeves. They are allowed to borrow basically as much money as they like so long as the investment the borrowing allows brings in enough of a return to pay back the loan. This is very likely how Shetland Council will finance its plan to connect the islands via tunnels – the construction would be paid for via tolls on traffic. Energy, as we know, is very profitable indeed so there should be absolutely no issue with councils being able to pay back their loans and then to use the revenue from their energy generation to subsidise local households against fuel poverty and to support public services. If we want to go even more local than this, then councils and perhaps the Scottish National Investment Bank could support communities to own their own energy. We've seen multiple times that community ownership generates many times as much local wealth building – as well as skills and jobs - than the current model of private ownership plus paltry 'community benefit funds'. 3) A National Mutual Energy Company This is another national-scale energy company that the Scottish Government could launch but in this case wouldn't own or control. Instead, the 'National Mutual' would be owned by the people of Scotland. In this model, every adult resident of Scotland would be issued one share in the company. They wouldn't be able to sell it and they'd have to surrender it if they ever stop living in Scotland, but other than this, it would be much like owning a share in companies like Co-op. The company would be run as any other commercial company and would be beholden not to the Government but to its shareholders – us. We'd jointly decide future energy strategy and even potentially have a say in how much of the company's operating surpluses are invested in future developments or distributed to shareholders (again, us) as a dividend. READ MORE: The Chancellor's words don't line up with her actions This model would be particularly suited to very large energy developments that cut across local authority or even national borders or to help develop offshore assets. Imagine ScotWind had been owned by the people of Scotland, instead of being flogged off to multinational companies in an auction that had a maximum bidding price attached. Conclusion First Minister, I applaud you for keeping up some sense of pressure on the UK Government on energy. As we make the necessary transitions required of us under our obligations to end the climate emergency, this is one of the sectors of Scotland that will change the most. It's vital that we get this transition right, or not only will Scotland see yet another generation of energy potential squandered in the same way that the coal and oil eras were, we'll see Scottish households bear the weight of others profiting from that transition while we still experience crushing levels of poverty and economic vulnerability. The UK Government may be ruling out all of their options on energy but that doesn't mean that you need to do the same. We don't need to wait until independence – as vital as it is – or to wait until Westminster gets its act together – which may or may not happen. We – you – have options too. It's time to take them. Yours, expectantly …
Spectator
19-07-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
Why shouldn't 16 year olds get the vote?
On 18 September 2014, Scotland went to the polls to decide its future in the United Kingdom. While the outcome was decisive – 55 per cent of voters couldn't bring themselves to back independence – the turnout for the poll, at 85 per cent, was one of the highest recorded in Britain. The significance of the 'one-off' vote (plus anxieties on either side of the debate about the outcome coming down to the wire) saw full-throated campaign efforts deliver a swathe of voters to polling stations. A number of these were under 18-years-old, including me – with my birthday falling just six days before the poll. It was the 2012 Edinburgh Agreement that allowed the Scottish parliament to choose who could vote in an independence referendum. Using temporary powers under the Scotland Act, the Scottish government extended the say to 16- and 17-year olds – and subsequently over 100,000 under-18s registered to vote. The argument put forward by the SNP was similar to that of Labour's Angela Rayner on Thursday: the decision is good for democracy and gets young people excited about politics. And the same criticisms were levelled at the Scottish government as the UK one: that the move was more about party politics than progress. History has demonstrated how expanding the vote is hardly the most effective form of gerrymandering: while the SNP expected younger voters to be more open to the idea of independence, Scottish Referendum Study analysis showed that 54 per cent of 16-19-year-olds voted 'no'. The BBC described the union-backing bloc at the time as an 'unusual alliance' of 'average earners, Protestants and women'. Labour should take heed: currently polling suggests that while younger voters would tend to lean left, there is a significant proportion of young people – generally men – attracted by the straight-talking, anti-establishment rhetoric of Reform. As More in Common pollster Luke Tryl pointed out on Friday's Coffee House Shots, the voting reform doesn't make it much more obvious who would win the next general election at this point. What it does signal is yet more bad news for the Conservatives, who poll in the single figures among young people. But there is a case to be made for extending the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds, particularly at a point when trust in politicians is at an all-time low and people across the country are increasingly disillusioned by and disengaging from national politics. Research by academics from both Edinburgh and Sheffield University after the 2014 poll found that not only do 16- and 17-year-olds tend to vote more frequently than their slightly older peers who got the vote at 18, they maintain these voting habits for longer – usurping the turnout dip that was once common among the early adult age group. 'If you give people the right to vote earlier in life, they appear more likely to make voting a habit,' the researchers noted. Polling company FocalData conducted research in conjunction with work done by former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown on the state of social cohesion in Britain. The findings are stark: nine in ten people said they had less than five close friends, while 16 per cent admitted they had no friends at all. Looking at Gen Z more specifically, YouGov noted in February this year that only 15 per cent of young people feel they live in a united country. Communities – and generations – look increasingly fragmented in the UK and a kind of local-level protectionism is being bred, as economic pressures tied into the cost of living crisis and housing shortage remain a feature of public life. People are growing less interested in each other and more disillusioned by the state of the country. Of course the simple fact of giving young people a vote wouldn't sort all this out – but the triple shot of getting people interested in political policies from an early age, increasing turnout and, crucially, maintaining that increase in engagement ensures more people are actively invested in the country's future. That cannot be a bad thing. Why is this important? Recent elections have seen more and more people turn off from mainstream politics – indeed, Sir Keir Starmer's Labour party won its supermajority on a very thin share of the vote, with only 38 per cent of Brits backing them. They've only had a year in power but already their legitimacy has been challenged as a result – as much internally as externally. Awareness of the vote share (and indeed low turnout) has created an atmosphere of awkwardness. As one Labour grandee remarked to me recently: 'There is a bashfulness about our success.' It sums up the degree to which this realisation has undermined the confidence of the party leadership, with MPs acknowledging the government hasn't exploited its supermajority to its fullest potential. And now that backbenchers are growing increasingly vocal – and disruptive – it seems unlikely Labour ever will. Parties would do well to better consider how to speak to a cohort of people that will shortly make up the bulk of the country's workforce, especially if various reforms – that are hard sells in the short term but beneficial down the line – are to be pulled off. Starmer's biggest U-turns during his first year in office show a government allowing non-workers to dictate policy: from the winter fuel payment cut reversal to the rowback on disability benefits. Long overdue conversations about issues like the pension triple lock tend to be avoided thanks to fears about losing the silver vote. While allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to head to the ballot box isn't going to radically dent the impact of the pensioner class, it provides an additional opportunity for parties to consider how to get young people on side – and stick with them over the course of their voting careers. There are numerous counterpoints: for example, if 16- and 17-year-olds can't, in England, do things like get married or drink alcohol, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. (You could argue it seems strange to shower a person with a whole host of new liberties at any one age.) And there is a certain sneeriness from older generations about the intellectual capacity of teens now – perhaps a rattled awareness that they too were the future once. But this ignores a number of responsibilities that already rest with young people: it is at this age that you are expected to figure out what you want to do with your life – what to study at university, or which apprenticeships or jobs to apply for. And it's often at this age that students are at their most curious. I remember the buzz around school when the independence election approached – friends who had never so much as talked about the news before were discussing things like the future of Trident (we were only a few miles down the road from Faslane), our reliance on oil and gas and even questions of cultural identity. It didn't split people down partisan lines; it persuaded us not only to voice our opinions but appreciate that they carried weight. And, vitally, it encouraged more people to get involved. The government's latest move doesn't quite deserve the criticism that has been thrown its way.
The National
16-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
Legal rights without enforcement are merely political ornaments
For some time now, I've argued that legal reform, by itself, cannot deliver sovereignty. Now, with Andy's letter, it seems RSS recognises that as well: that the legal route must be paired with political mobilisation capable of exerting real pressure on the British state. READ MORE: UK ministers told to increase Scottish Government borrowing limits This is important because we must be honest about the nature of law itself. Legal scholars from HLA Hart to Carl Schmitt have stressed that law does not rest on morality or even democratic will – it rests on enforceable authority. And in the UK, that authority is centralised in Westminster. The Scotland Act – our entire devolution framework – is Westminster law. It can be amended or repealed at will. That's not a flaw in the system. That is the system. International law offers no guaranteed escape route. Instruments like the UN's human rights covenants are politically useful, but not enforceable within the UK. The Supreme Court made this crystal clear in 2022. Even the Kosovo precedent – often cited by independence supporters – didn't rest on legal entitlement, but on facts created on the ground, then recognised by other states. READ MORE: Richard Murphy: I called out BBC Radio Scotland for bias – here's how it went That's why I keep returning to civil resistance, direct action, and mass mobilisation. Legal rights without enforcement are political ornaments. In systems based on parliamentary sovereignty, change does not come from what's written down. It comes from what people are willing to do. Ireland understood this. Lawyers or polite resolutions didn't carry the Irish revolution – it was driven by a living relationship between the people and political actors who were willing to act. Sinn Fein, the Irish Volunteers, Cumann na mBan, and the unions moved in coordination, across multiple fronts. They built their institutions, asserted authority, and forced the British state to confront a new reality. And yet in Scotland today we're left with a political class that either won't or can't rise to that level. The SNP govern like they are managing devolution, not ending it. The Greens talk radical, but avoid confrontation. Even Alba, for all their rhetoric, have not led any real mobilisation. The people are ready, but the parties are not leading. READ MORE: Yes supporters need to avoid the rhetoric of nihilism and despair So yes – legal groundwork matters. However, unless it's backed by civil resistance, direct action, and a willingness to escalate, it remains just that: groundwork. Scotland must now confront a simple question: are we still asking, or are we preparing? If we are serious about being sovereign, then we must act like a sovereign people – by organising internally, building strategic alliances and, if every constitutional route is shut down, being willing to keep revolution on the table as a last resort. In constitutional history, when law becomes a barrier to justice, the people reserve the right to act outside it. That principle should remain part of our strategy, not discarded, but held in reserve. James Murphy Bute
The National
15-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
Legal arguments grounded in international covenants remain symbolic
Mike's argument hinges on the idea that a democratic mandate within the Scottish Parliament, supported by international instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), can create a legal obligation on Westminster to hold a referendum and respect its outcome. This reflects a critical misunderstanding of UK constitutional law and the nature of sovereignty. READ MORE: Would a Scottish sovereign wealth fund be possible after independence? Under the constitutional doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty – a cornerstone of UK constitutional theory established since R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017) – no devolved institution can lawfully alter the constitutional status of the UK without Westminster's explicit consent. The UK Supreme Court's 2022 judgment reaffirmed this principle: the Scottish Parliament's powers are limited by the Scotland Act, a statute of Westminster, which reserves constitutional matters – including independence – exclusively to the UK Parliament. Legal scholars such as AV Dicey famously defined sovereignty as the ultimate legislative authority within a state. In the UK, this authority resides solely in Westminster. Democratic mandates within Scotland, however genuine, cannot override this legal reality. Mike's reliance on ICCPR ratification ignores that international human rights law – including the ICCPR – does not supersede domestic constitutional arrangements. It offers political leverage but no enforceable right to secede or unilaterally legislate independence. READ MORE: Snide comment about the SNP's lack of action was factually incorrect Further, international law, as clarified in the Kosovo Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (2010), is neutral on declarations of independence; it neither prohibits nor guarantees recognition. Recognition remains a political act based on effective control and international relations, not legal entitlement. Mike's approach is effectively a rephrasing of the SNP's long-standing but legally impotent strategy: secure a democratic mandate, then petition Westminster or the courts. This 'legal pathway' has been explicitly rejected by the UK Supreme Court and lacks any constitutional basis for compelling change. In contrast, constitutional change in states founded on parliamentary sovereignty cannot be achieved through legal argument alone. It requires political authority that transcends existing legal limits – exercised by the people themselves, not their parliamentary proxies – through actions that alter the facts on the ground. READ MORE: Why is the BBC not talking about Scottish concerns? By failing to engage with these fundamental legal principles, Mike's letter risks perpetuating confusion, giving false hope to the independence movement, and entrenching the constitutional status quo. To achieve true sovereignty, Scotland must recognise that constitutional law as it stands is a reflection of power, not justice or democracy. Without shifting the balance of power, even legal arguments grounded in international covenants remain symbolic. James Murphy Bute AT times I wonder why I buy The National every day and encourage others to get it, then on a day like Sunday I know exactly why I do this, because I find the level of open debate very interesting and stimulating. The two letters in the Sunday National from James Murphy and Mike Wallace were excellent, well-researched and presented. Not only did I find them very interesting, but I agree 98% with both of them. Now, James and Mike might be surprised to hear me say that, because their letters made it clear that they thought Respect Scottish Sovereignty took a different position than they do. Well that must be my fault – I obviously did not explain the RSS position clearly enough. READ MORE: John Lamont branded 'morally repugnant' over mass deportation call First, on the question of 'legal authority', RSS believes, as they do, that the highest legal authority in Scotland, is the sovereignty of the Scottish people. We are not looking for legal authority from the UN, we want the UN human rights covenants put into Scots law. Some of them already have been, but we want others put into Scots law. The present 'devolved parliament', has very limited power, but does, under the Scotland Act, have the power to do this. That we have already established. Do we think that if we get that, the problem is solved? No, we have no illusions about that. We know that the UK establishment will fight tooth and nail to hold on to Scotland's resources, and will not give up easily. That is clear from 'British' history. We in RSS know that clearing a legal path to self-government will not be achieved just by getting the UN human rights covenants into Scots law. We understand that a mass movement pushing for direct democracy will be required. This can be done more effectively under this legislation, in order to force the UK establishment to back off. We know that this fight will need to be directed at many targets economic, political, and civil. That is why we are developing direct democracy units across Scotland. Mike says he is one of the 7000 who have signed our petition and I expect James is another. But, they are both right that we need political power behind us – not a political party, although we welcome support from all quarters, but people from all parts of Scotland with demands on a whole range of issues, who are prepared to use the legal powers in the UN covenants, put into Scots law to demand change and to push hard for it. We are not armchair revolutionaries with a theory and no practical way of implementing the changes we need. We are entirely conscious of the need for people's involvement and we are preparing for that, but we need to provide the legal framework within which we can mobilise. My own experience is in the Skye Bridge battle, which the people of Skye won. If we can't get people like James and Mike on our side and working with us, we have no chance. But if we do, and can mobilise the sovereign Scottish people, we are invincible. Andy Anderson National Convener, RSS (Respect Scottish Sovereignty)
