News & Updates

Posted on

Overcoming festival problems takes two to tango

The first week of the Fringe is over already. And its accolade as the world’s largest arts festival seems pretty safe. Organisers say ticket sales in the first weekend broke all records.

Over 50,000 performances of more than 3,500 different shows. It’s a remarkable achievement to recover from the pandemic which closed our city three years ago. I salute those who have worked so tirelessly to make it happen facing down challenges of labour shortages, rising costs, the cost-of-living squeeze on audience budgets and the turmoil in short-term rented accommodation.

But there are problems ahead and now that we’re over the existential threat we should start thinking about them. The first is getting this city to love its festival in a way other cities love theirs. Many local people revel in the weird and wonderful array of performances on their doorstep. But many see the festival as something that is done to them, not for them.

The Fringe started in the city centre, it’s where most of the venues were. But over the decades it has tried to expand to other parts of the city. This year it looks as if there’s been an artistic implosion into the Old Town. The western end of my constituency is a big rectangle bordered by Princes Street to the north and Melville Drive to the south. Lothian Road sets the western border and the Pleasance/St Leonards the eastern. It’s less than one square mile. And it hosts 90 per cent of the Fringe.

As I turned onto London Road from Leith Walk on Wednesday it was as if the Fringe – and the other festivals – stopped. Going out past Meadowbank and Jock’s Lodge and down to Porty you would have no clue there was anything on. In part this is because the journey back has been cautious. The Fringe is a commercial world. Venues have to sell tickets or drink or both with no public subsidy. So, people look to what they know. And what they know is the Old Town.

Back in 1998 the Fringe programme boasted 168 venues compared to today’s 248. Still the world’s largest arts festival then. 25 years ago, 12 of those Fringe venues were in Leith. Today, even with the new tram link, there are fewer. Not good.

An accommodation crisis has been postponed. We should use that to plan a series of exemptions for the artists that make the festivals. I strongly support regulation of short-term lets. But we mustn’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

Someone offering festival lodging in a spare room in their own home shouldn’t be entrapped in bureaucracy. And we could improve regulation by creating a not-for-profit lettings agency – backed by the city, festivals and government. Owners using that agency could do so without the need for licenses or permissions for the period of the festival.

There’s more. Much more, from creating training and employment for local people to using the festival to enhance our city’s schools. It does of course take two to tango. So, much as I exhort those running the festivals to embrace the city that hosts it, we in turn need to make it our own. Perhaps for starters the council could put up a sign saying welcome to festival city – they did 30 years ago.

Posted on

Time for a new way to deal with our drugs policy

“Free bags of weed and crack cocaine if you vote SNP”. Thus declared one Unionist troll on twitter in response to the Scottish Government’s drug policy report which argued, amongst other things, for decriminalisation of possession of controlled drugs for personal use.

The online troll went a bit further than the main right-wing tabloids, but the gist of their front pages was the same. The SNP Government stands accused of encouraging drug use, taking the side of ne’er-do-wells over the righteous.

The Tories piled on. So too did Labour’s Sir Keir. The SNP was either playing politics or helping drug dealers – either way it was all their fault.

We need to get beyond this knee jerk nonsense if we are to have a grown-up debate about how to tackle the drugs crisis.

The Scottish Government has indeed recommended that the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised. Why do we think it reached that conclusion? Could it be that the thoughtful and mild-mannered Drugs Minister, Elena Whitham, is really in the pay of organised crime?

Perhaps it’s because the independent drugs task force called for it. Or maybe because more than 30 countries have now taken this step and are seeing their drug problems reduce rapidly.

I know many people think that because drugs are illegal it stops them. It just doesn’t. Seriously, it works the other way round. It allows the market to be regulated by organised criminal gangs. It makes people who use drugs scared of seeking help, either through fear of retribution or of being charged themselves.

That’s why more than a hundred people in Scotland are dying every month. They die alone. Scared. Helpless. All because we have made them criminals.

It’s time to wake up. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 does not stop anyone who wants drugs getting hold of them. It just makes it very hard to do anything about it.

Decriminalisation instantly does three things. One, it means anyone with a problem can ask for help without being stigmatised or charged. Two, it means health professionals can intervene without fear of arrest, checking what’s in stuff, giving advice and stopping overdoses. And three, it means our police officers can stop arresting people for possession and concentrate on the organised criminal supply chain.

Drugs policy is reserved to Westminster. At the moment, the Scottish Government can do little but argue. That’s not playing politics, it’s just a fact. We need the Scottish Government to have the powers to act and we cannot wait for independence.

Westminster should devolve the power now. In truth, this could be done easily and without fuss. This is exactly what section 30 of the Scotland act is for.

I’m really not sure why they won’t. The Tories say they disagree with the policy of course; they see it as being “soft on drugs”. But if they devolved the power to Edinburgh and it didn’t work, they’d have another stick to beat the SNP with. And the Scottish Government would have nowhere to hide.

Maybe what they fear is that the policy might actually work. And if it did, they’d be under pressure to change throughout the UK. If that’s the case, then I wonder who is actually playing politics here.

Posted on

How to advance Scottish independence at the next election.

SNP activists head to Dundee today battered and bruised by the turmoil of the last few months. We need to regroup, reset. We need to engage and involve our membership, talk to supporters beyond our ranks, devise a strategy to advance our cause at the coming election and work out a way to win. That’ll take more than one day. But let’s make a start.

Support for independence appears remarkably resilient, despite our party’s problems and the fragmentation of our movement. But let’s not get carried away. Given the palpable chaos at Westminster, who wouldn’t consider an alternative. We don’t know how deep or how shallow that support is. And we don’t know whether people who tell pollsters they support independence will vote for it at the next election.

We need to be frank. The police investigation is having an effect. It will need to conclude, and we will need to deal with the consequences. Our activist base is smaller and tired. Our party is still Scotland’s most popular, but political representation of the movement has splintered. There’s caution and uncertainty in the population, and not enough confidence in our ranks. This can change. But we need to be honest and realistic. We need a strategy which isn’t chasing the dream like it should happen yesterday.

The SNP only exists because people want independence. So, we need to ensure that at the next election, we are the political expression of that ambition. Who governs Scotland, and who decides who governs Scotland must be central to our campaign.

But this cannot be the final decision on becoming an independent country. At some stage we will need an eyes-wide-open specific vote on whether people want to do that. The next election is not it. For starters, that means the debate about Yes candidates and Yes alliances is for another day.

First, we need to make independence more relevant than ever. Rising bills. Crippling mortgages. Overstretched public services. Immigration. Brexit. Unionists pretend that independence is an abstract constitutional concern, disconnected from these real-life problems.

This is a lie. Always has been. Independence means the power to change lives. We need to spell out the direct connection. The power to raise minimum wages, improve benefits, regulate energy. To mobilise the capital we need to become a renewable powerhouse. To be part of Europe and allow people to migrate here.

Secondly, we need to show how it can happen. The Supreme Court says that the Scottish Parliament does not have the legal authority to organise a referendum on independence. We must demand that authority. We should seek a mandate to change the British constitution to permanently transfer power to Holyrood to consult and represent the people who live here on how they are governed.

We are beyond asking permission through a section 30 order. This is demanding and asserting a right. The right to decide for ourselves how we are governed. This change would put into legislation the 1989 Claim of Right for Scotland, endorsed at the time not only by the SNP but Labour and Liberal Democrats too.

This is the mandate we should take into the new Westminster Parliament after the election. A clear expression of desire to become independent and a specific mechanism to give people that choice. What happens next will depend on the outcome of that election. If SNP votes are needed for Labour to govern, then we will extract a price for that cooperation.

But what if Labour has a big enough majority to ignore us? This takes us into virgin political territory. Never in history has there been a Labour Government in the UK without a mandate in Scotland.

Of course, there’s a chance that Labour could be every bit as intransigent and dismissive of Scottish opinion as the Tories. But maybe not. It’s not a good look for a new Government wishing to present as an alternative. And after all, we will be pursuing something that they once signed up to. Something resonating with their backbench MPs keen on constitutional reform more generally.

But if we are met with contempt then we still have 2026. If the British state continues to refuse to let people in Scotland have a say, we can re-purpose that Scottish Parliament election to allow that to happen. There are many advantages in doing this then rather than now. We will have given the British state every opportunity to review – including changing its Parliament. The entire focus in 2026 will be about who runs Scotland, not who runs the UK. And of course, the franchise is bigger and the system fairer.

But first things first. We have an election probably within a year. If we don’t win, none of the above happens. Since 1967 the SNP vote has been a barometer of support for self-Government. When that vote rises, the state makes concessions. The reverse is also true.

We must make our electorate aware of this simple truth. If the SNP lose the next election, independence goes off the table. At least until the election after that.

So, we must win. And we must win in an election where many people will be desperate to get rid of the Tories above all else. Some independence supporters will be seduced by Labour’s argument that only they can do that, and independence can be left for another day.

This is not true. SNP MPs will never support the Tories in Westminster. To win, Labour doesn’t need to defeat us in Scotland, it needs to defeat Tories in England. Labour can, most probably will, do that. So voting Labour here isn’t necessary to rid ourselves of the Tories.

Moreover, given the chance would anyone really want to give Starmer a blank cheque? Mostly the SNP wants stronger, faster action to tackle poverty and inequality. Given the choice, we will keep Labour honest.

Voting SNP means getting rid of a Tory Government we didn’t vote for this time, and the choice to lock them out of Scotland forever. That’s a compelling message and if we can’t sell it to our countrymen and women desperate for change, maybe we shouldn’t be in politics.

Posted on

Investigation doesn’t change the case for Scottish independence

I have no idea whether the present turmoil surrounding the SNP’s finances is something more than a series of bad campaign spending decisions. And I guess even if I did know, I wouldn’t be able to talk about it as it’s part of a live investigation.

So, here’s what I do know. Here’s what I can talk about.

First, if someone has done something wrong, then they will be held to account – both by the law and the party itself.

Second, we will use recent events to reform and improve our democratic structures, making the SNP more accountable to its members. A governance and transparency review is already underway and will be back with recommendations in under two months. 

Third, we will take no lectures on financial probity from the Tories. A party which accepted at least a quarter of a million pounds from Russian donors since the start of the war in Ukraine. A party which failed to account for £3.6m during the last UK General Election.

Fourth, all of this relates to the internal finances of a private organisation. It has nothing to do with government policy or taxpayer money. Meanwhile, the Tories are consumed by cronyism, sleaze and corruption in public office. Cash for honours. Contracts for pals. Backhanders for themselves.

Now of course, it saddens and frustrates me that the current media feeding frenzy surrounding SNP has overshadowed the first weeks of our new leader and new government. Particularly as there is so much to welcome.

Humza Yousaf is derided by his opponents as the ‘continuity candidate’ as if that were an inherently bad thing. Of course there will be continuity in delivering the left-of-centre socially democratic prospectus on which the SNP Government was elected in 2021. A Scottish Government doing what it can within Westminster’s powerful constraints to tackle poverty, protect public services and act on the climate emergency.

But Humza also represents a fresh approach to getting things done. On Tuesday, he set out his vision for Scotland. It’s worth a look. A renewed focus on delivering efficient and effective public services. Postponing things like the deposit return scheme and proposals to restrict alcohol advertising – which are right in principle – but need more time on the detail. Laser focused on tackling poverty and protecting people from harm. All of this delivered with a new collegiate team approach.

While opponents of the SNP lick their lips and scent advantage, real people outside the Holyrood and Westminster bubble will be guided by their everyday experience. Though times are though, differences are being made in Scotland that matter.

The Scottish Child Payment is putting a hundred quid a month per child into the pockets of low-income families, easing the Tory cost-of-living crisis. Record numbers of young people from working-class backgrounds are going to university. We pay our nurses and teachers more which is why they aren’t on strike. And we ask wealthier people to pay a bit more in tax, making this the fairest taxed part of the UK.

Posted on

Tories’ ‘Illegal’ Migration Bill isn’t UK’s top priority, it’s designed to distract from cost of living crisis

Stopping small boats is the number one priority of the British people. So said the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in the House of Commons this week. Really? That’s demonstrably untrue. Why does he say it the? What is the motivation behind this lie?

Well, because if we are talking about small boats, we’re not talking about the deepening Tory-made cost of living crisis, soaring energy bills or eye-watering level of inflation. The Tories believe that they are on to winner by dividing public opinion on migration. It’s politics. And it’s ugly.

Next week, Parliament will spend two days discussing a series of measures against some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The language used is important. When the Home Secretary talks of an invasion, when she creates a divide between ‘us’ and ‘them’, she does so for a particular reason.

The intent is to suggest a hostile hoard massing on our shores. A threat to our wellbeing and way of life. In truth these migrants are amongst the most wretched of the earth. They have lived through trauma and pain the likes of which most of us will never see.

Tory backbenchers try to pretend there are a million or more people trying to get to the UK illegally. In truth, around 3,000 people have come in small boats this year. On average maybe 35 people a day.

It is terrifying to watch this debate at close quarters. Civilised people who ought to know better than espousing narratives that we usually identify with far right and totalitarian governments.

The centrepiece of the Government’s ‘Illegal’ Migration Bill is to remove the right to claim asylum from anyone who arrives in this country without permission. It hopes that this will deter people getting into the boats in Calais in the first place. But the boats have only developed because the Government has effectivity closed any legal way of getting here.

Last year, for instance, the Government’s official scheme for Afghan refugees fleeing the Taliban allowed entry to just 22 people. It’s little wonder that more than 8,500 Afghans were amongst those who made the treacherous journey across the channel.

The problem for the Government is that those fleeing persecution have rights enshrined in international law. This doesn’t seem to worry most Tory MPs though. They seem content to break international agreements and preside over our expulsion from the Council of Europe, following in the footsteps of Russia and Belarus.

The other problem with the bill is this: it just won’t work. People will still come because the horrors in front of them will be as nothing to the horrors they leave behind. Instead of being granted asylum, they will be locked up in camps, in a state of limbo, awaiting deportation to Rwanda or elsewhere. This will of course cost the taxpayer a fortune and leave Britain’s international reputation in tatters.

It doesn’t have to be this way. This country could accept its fair share of asylum seekers and refugees. We could provide legal routes for them to come here. We could employ enough staff to make sure their applications are determined quickly and fairly. We could let them work and pay tax whilst this happened. That is the sort of policy Scotland could pursue if it had the powers to do so.

Posted on

UK Budget must reverse Tory cost of living crisis

Tommy Sheppard MP and Deidre Brock MP: Slash energy bills and put money back in people’s pockets

The SNP has said “the number one priority for the UK budget must be to put money back into people’s pockets” – warning the Tories can’t continue to hammer household incomes.

Ahead of tomorrow’s budget, Tommy Sheppard MP and Deidre Brock MP have urged Jeremy Hunt to deliver a comprehensive package to boost household incomes and economic growth. The MPs for Edinburgh East and Edinburgh North & Leith have challenged the Chancellor to deliver the SNP’s five-point plan:

  • Saving families £1400 on energy bills – by cutting the Energy Price Guarantee to £2000 and maintaining the £400 Energy Bill Support Scheme to the summer.
  • Raising public sector pay and benefits by CPI – putting money into the pockets of millions of workers and delivering Barnett consequentials for Scottish spending.
  • Scrapping Tory plans to raise the pension age to 68 and reinstating the Triple Lock – so no one must struggle in old age.
  • Re-joining the European Single Market – to boost economic growth and halt the multi-billion pound long-term damage being caused by Brexit.
  • Investing in green growth – by competing with EU and US subsidies to attract green investment.

In addition to the headroom identified by the IFS, and the billions of pounds saved as a result of the falling wholesale price of gas, the SNP is calling for the Chancellor to scrap non-dom tax status, tax share buy backs, and expand the windfall tax, which would raise billions more to fund cost of living support for ordinary households.

Commenting, Edinburgh East MP, Tommy Sheppard said:

“The number one priority for the UK budget must be to put money back into people’s pockets – and reverse this Tory-made cost of living crisis.

“Scotland is a wealthy, energy-rich country but families are being fleeced by Westminster. By refusing to act, the Tories are showing why Scotland needs independence, so we can escape Westminster control, re-join the EU, and build a fair and prosperous economy.

“Families are sick to the back teeth of being ripped off by the Tory government. Instead of hammering household incomes, the Chancellor must save families £1,400 by slashing energy bills and deliver a comprehensive package of support.

“The SNP’s five-point plan would reduce bills, raise incomes and boost economic growth, at a time when many families are struggling to get by. With energy companies making record profits and the wholesale price of gas falling, there is no excuse for failing to act.”

Adding, Edinburgh North & Leith MP, Deidre Brock said:

“The SNP Scottish Government is doing everything it can with limited fiscal powers, including delivering the Scottish Child Payment, higher energy bill support, and higher public sector pay.

“The UK government must finally step up to the plate and use its reserved powers to introduce a Real Living Wage and raise public sector pay and benefits by CPI. In doing so, it would raise the incomes of millions of workers and deliver Barnett consequentials which would benefit Edinburgh and Scotland.

“This UK Budget is all about choices. Instead of making families in Edinburgh pay for Westminster failure, the Tories must fund support by scrapping non-dom tax status, expanding the windfall tax and taxing share buy backs, which would raise billions.

“And if we are serious about delivering economic growth and reversing decline, the UK government must re-join the European single market and properly invest in green energy.

“Scotland is suffering the consequences of Westminster control. The Tories trashed the economy with Brexit, austerity cuts and thirteen years of mismanagement. And with the pro-Brexit Labour Party becoming a pound-shop Tory tribute act, it’s clear independence is the only way for Scotland to secure the real change we need.”

Posted on

Why I’m backing Humza Yousaf to become leader of the SNP and Scotland’s next First Minister

Whatever your politics, it is undeniable that Nicola Sturgeon has been a commanding figure in Scottish politics for two decades. For good reason many suggest that she is the preeminent politician of the devolution era. She will be a hard act to follow, for sure.

But those hoping that a change of leadership will spell disaster for the SNP, and that support for independence will crumble away, shouldn’t count their chickens yet.

The aspiration that Scotland should become a normal independent country and reset its relationship with the rest of the UK isn’t just a phase. It is an ambition which has registered sustained levels of support among half the population for several years – and enjoys even greater support among voters under fifty years old. The SNP is not the reason people support independence. The desire for independence is the reason there is an SNP.

There is no denying that confidence has been knocked by sustained attacks on the right of people in Scotland to decide their own future. For example, despite continually voting for representatives on a pledge to deliver another independence referendum, those mandates have been denied and blocked by Westminster.

As a result, frustration and anger have ensued which has undoubtedly fractured the wider Yes movement. However, it hasn’t made anyone who thought Scotland becoming an independent country was a good idea suddenly decide it’s a bad one.

So, the challenge for the new leader of the SNP is to galvanise and unite the movement for change. That means building on the strong foundations for independence which have been laid over the last twenty years. But it also means reaching out to engage with new people and harness new ideas.

To my mind, Humza Yousaf is the person who can meet that challenge. Despite his relative youth, he has more than a decade’s experience in high office. In that time, Humza has handled some of the toughest jobs in government, briefs that many others would have shied away from.

Humza is also seasoned grassroots campaigner, who knows how to motivate and lead people on the ground. I remember when he came to campaign for me during the 2019 general election. His energy and enthusiasm were clear to see.

Some have referred to Humza as the “continuity candidate”, implying that there will be no change from the leadership of Nicola Sturgeon. That’s inaccurate.

Sure, the Scottish Government will continue to deliver on the manifesto it was elected on. However, as leader of Scotland’s largest political party, Humza will bring with him a fresh approach in how the SNP organises, communicates, and engages with our base. This is essential if we are to unlock new levels of engagement.

With a change in leadership also comes the opportunity to reset political strategy. It will allow us time to think about how we deliver a credible roadmap to independence, and to shift the debate from process to policy. In doing so, we must set aside the idea of using the next Westminster election as a de facto referendum, and instead use each democratic event to advance the case for independence.

With this approach, we can build support to levels that cannot be ignored and demonstrate majority support for independence. Only then we can definitively say that independence has become the settled will of the Scottish people. Only then will we achieve it.

Posted on

Local MP Submits Formal Objection to “Unwanted” Student Accommodation at Jock’s Lodge

The proposed development at Jock’s Lodge

Tommy Sheppard, MP for Edinburgh East, joined forces with local campaign group “Save Jock’s Lodge” to oppose the controversial plan to build a major student development at the corner of Restalrig Road South and London Road.

Over 1600 comments were submitted to Edinburgh City Council, with 1066 opposed to the application from developer Alumno Group and 533 comments in support. The deadline for public comments was February 10, 2023.

Sheppard, who has consistently voiced strong opposition to the development, formally submitted his objection to plans on Friday arguing that it would lead to an “excessive concentration of purpose-built student accommodation” in the area.

Within the last decade, no fewer than eight purpose-built student developments have been approved within a mile radius of Jock’s Lodge. These eight sites amount to over 1800 student bedrooms either already built or consented to.

He also highlighted how the seven-storey proposed structure would “radically” alter the appearance of the historic junction.

Commenting, Tommy Sheppard MP said:

“We cannot allow purpose-build student accommodation developers to run rampant in this part of the city. If the application is approved, we’ll see an increased hollowing out of the local community. There comes a point where we need to be able to say enough is enough.

“Credit goes to the Save Jock’s Lodge Campaign and local Councillor Danny Aston who have mobilised local people to oppose this unnecessary and unwanted development. I urge planners to listen to residents and reject this application.”

The Edinburgh MP, while noting the “tremendous positive effect” that Edinburgh’s world-class universities and students make to the city, has previously spoken out against purpose built student accommodation. In an Edinburgh Evening News Article from August 2022, Sheppard said:

“The lack of affordable housing in Edinburgh is one of the biggest social issues facing the city, and opportunities to build new quality social homes must be prioritised and maximised where possible.

“Yet developers continue to throw up sardine tin accommodation from which they can make huge profits, rather than build homes for families to avoid the legal obligation to provide a proportion of affordable homes. Sustainable communities need residents to be settled, not transient.”

Posted on

How each election can be a vote on independence and the right to choose

The best way to demonstrate majority support for Scottish independence is a referendum. But in the wake of the Supreme Court judgement and with Westminster’s continued denial of Scottish democracy, that ain’t happening any time soon. So, with support for independence rising, how can we allow people to express their view?

Much has been said recently about the pros and cons of using an election as a de-facto referendum. Some have argued that the next Westminster election should be a vote on independence. Others have argued that a Holyrood election would be the better option. But why don’t we use both?

For too long we’ve been chasing the next election, hoping it would be the vote which delivers independence. We need a longer-term plan which uses each and every democratic event as a stepping-stone towards independence.  

Of course, the next Westminster election should be about independence. More precisely, it should be about how Scotland becomes independent and what that looks like.

Scottish independence requires two things. One, majority support in Scotland. Two, a negotiated settlement with the British State. Until we can demonstrate the first, we won’t get the second.

The Supreme Court has exposed a gap in the British constitution. There is no way for people in Scotland to consent to staying in or leaving the union without the sanction of Westminster. To be clear, the Court did not say we shouldn’t be able to choose, simply that the current statutes do not allow for it.

Front and centre of our next election manifesto should be a demand to fix the broken British constitution by updating the current devolution settlement. The Scottish Parliament now needs the very powers the Supreme Court ruled it does not have to determine Scottish opinion and a mechanism for negotiating change with the UK.

This is a different proposition from a section 30 Order. It is not about asking permission on a one-off basis to determine public opinion, but about enshrining the right to choose within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. It would in effect give legal expression to the Claim of Right for Scotland.

Making this the central focus of our campaign would present our argument as one of democracy, as well as self-determination. It would demonstrate a determination to exhaust every opportunity to allow the British state to respect democratic norms, and assist in garnering international support.

Clearly, the outcome of the next Westminster election is unknown, but it is probable that the Conservatives will lose. This opens up the prospect of change, and we need to be agile enough to take advantage of new opportunities that may come our way.

It’s possible we can build support amongst other parties for a proposal to give the Scottish Parliament this power. It is entirely consistent with the principles of devolution which other parties say they are committed to. And the parliamentary arithmetic may afford us more leverage at Westminster than ever before, despite our previous electoral success in Scotland.

If we achieve this reform, we could then go forward and exercise this new power at the earliest opportunity. If we are thwarted in our objective, at least we will have been seen to have exhausted every last possible mechanism to gain our independence by consent.

This would then tee up the next Holyrood election, scheduled for May 2026, as an opportunity to mobilise people in support of a vote for independence. We could re-purpose that election as an effective referendum. The franchise is more inclusive, the voting system is fairer and, most of all, the focus is all about how Scotland, rather than the UK, is governed.

In the meantime, we still have an argument to win. This is the year where we should consolidate majority support for independence, maintaining polling levels above 50% and nudging support towards 60% to bolster the case.  But support cannot be fuelled by indignation alone. We need to complete our prospectus for what independence looks like. We need a rational and compelling narrative, completely related to the social and economic crises of 2023.     

Our opponents will continue to attempt to undermine support for independence by pointing to problems with devolved services. Sometimes criticism will be valid, but often they will lie. And, of course, always pretending there are no constraints on what we can do.

Where we already have the power, we’ve used it to make far better, fairer decisions. If we can do this with one hand tied behind our back, imagine what we could do if the Westminster straitjacket was undone. We need to explain, perhaps more than ever, that independence is essential to tackling the biggest challenges we face. In doing so we will need to be bold and ambitious, offering a vision of a new Scotland that will inspire and mobilise its citizens.

Posted on

Scottish independence is necessary to protect workers’ rights

Remember last year? Hogmanay cancelled as we worked through what was to become the last Covid lockdown. Little did we know then what 2022 had in store for us.

What a difference a year makes. Covid is still with us but the restrictions have gone. And on top of that we have a whole bunch of new problems threatening to tear families and communities apart.

Prices in the supermarket seem to go up every week. Staying warm needs a small fortune.  The cost of living is spiralling out of control. And the economic crisis is turbocharged by the political incompetence of a Tory government playing the political equivalent of musical chairs.

Ordinary workers are on the frontline. Many of those who worked so hard to get us through the pandemic, especially in the public sector, have seen their pay cut in real terms by the double whammy of austerity and inflation. In these circumstances, industrial action was almost inevitable. Trade unions were formed to defend ordinary working people from the ravages of the capitalist economy. They were never going to be more relevant than during a cost-of-living crisis.

Sadly, whether it’s nurses in England and Wales, or RMT strikes across Network Rail, the UK Government has used these strikes as a political football to attack workers who are only trying to get a better deal for themselves during a Tory-made cost of living crisis. They seem determined to out-Thatcher Thatcher. Their actions designed to provoke, goad and undermine unions, while doing nothing to resolve the disputes.

In Scotland, where many in the public sector already earn more than their counterparts elsewhere in the UK, the Scottish Government has engaged positively with trades unions. As a result, they have reached agreement in some pay disputes already, and are continuing to negotiate others.

The response to the strikes is very much a tale of two governments. Don’t just take my word for it. Roz Foyer, General Secretary of the Scottish Trade Union Congress says that while the Scottish TUC has robust discussions with the Scottish Government, they listen and work with them, unlike the Government in Westminster who continue to introduce strike-breaking legislation.

As we head into 2023, it’s incumbent on all of us to make sure that our vital public sector workers know how much they are valued. And this needs to be reflected in their pay packets and working conditions.

However, there is an uncomfortable reality we need to face. The Scottish Parliament has little flexibility over its budget. It has no control over the movement of capital or labour. It cannot continue to mitigate Tory policies forever. And it cannot pay our workforce what it would like to.

To do all that, the Scottish Government would need to have the powers of a normal independent country. Why shouldn’t it? That is now the big question that those who support the union need to answer.

It is clear people want change. But it is not enough just to want it. We need the means to make it happen.  And that means we need to revisit the debate on Scotland having the political capacity to achieve what the people who live here want. Never has the argument about our constitutional future and the type of country we aspire to be, been so intertwined.