A Voice for Scotland's Anti-Nationalist Majority14 articles
This week, John Swinney launched yet another desperate push to try to break up the UK, this time fronted by a glossy poster declaring:
“Scotland is a nation. We affirm that every nation has the right to choose its own future. We choose a future where Scotland decides its own government…This is our plea, our right, and our opportunity: To place who live here at the heart of our national opportunity: democracy.”
So called pro-UK politicians from both the Conservatives and Labour often trumpet the "Union dividend" — the extra billions Scotland receives from the United Kingdom — as proof that staying in the UK benefits ordinary Scots. On paper, the numbers seem impressive: according to the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) 2024–25 report, Scotland receives £2,669 more per person in public spending than the UK average.
But in reality, this dividend is wasted as under the SNP, Scotland’s extra funding is being squandered on a bloated, inefficient, and politically motivated public sector, while schools, hospitals, and local services continue to decline. Ordinary Scots see none of the supposed benefit.
John Swinney, the current SNP leader, and his predecessor, Nicola Sturgeon, have recently resorted to a familiar tactic: invoking youth demographics to justify the party's continued push for Scottish independence. Both have attempted to frame support among 16- to 24-year-olds as proof of an inevitable shift toward separation from the United Kingdom.
In a recent speech at the SNP’s conference, Swinney cited a poll commissioned by The National—the nationalists' propaganda paper —which claimed 63% of 16- to 24-year-olds backed independence. However, he went further, misleading MSPs at Holyrood by implying this figure represented overall support for independence across all age groups. In truth, the majority exists only within that youngest demographic. Sturgeon made similar claims in a television interview, again focusing narrowly on youth opinion.
The United Kingdom faces a persistent challenge from separatist movements, particularly in Scotland, where the Scottish National Party (SNP) has pursued independence with unrelenting focus. Despite the intentions behind devolution, the existence of devolved legislatures like Holyrood has amplified the separatist agenda rather than diminished it. To secure the UK, a pragmatic dual strategy—a short-term defense and a long-term solution—is required.
When devolution was introduced, proponents like Labour politician George Robertson claimed it would "kill nationalism stone dead." Instead, the opposite has occurred. Over the past 26 years, Holyrood has provided the SNP with a powerful platform to dominate Scottish politics, displacing pro-UK parties like Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Far from reducing separatist sentiment, devolution has given the SNP a megaphone to advance their singular goal: breaking up the UK.
With the SNP’s conference now taking place, shortly after the annual Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland Report (GERS) has just been published, now is an ideal time to stop nationalists' lies and misdirections and their dismissals about the state of Scotland’s finances.
These dismissals follow the same forms:
These are followed by two self-serving arguments:
Today marks the 25th anniversary of the first session of The Scottish Parliament. As expected, a host of insiders, including Scottish Labour politicians, are saying they are proud of what has been achieved, while Scots wonder if those politicians – who are almost all receiving a salary from the Scottish Parliament – have somehow missed the past 25 years.
So let’s cast our minds back to 1997 and ask the question that is not being asked: What if legislative devolution was not part of New Labour’s manifesto, and it never happened?
It is a commonly touted assertion of the SNP that all elections, Westminster or devolved, will be referendums on independence and if they achieve a majority of some kind then this will give them a mandate for independence. But what does ‘mandate’ actually mean?
A standard definition (via Google) of a mandate is:
The authority to carry out a policy, regarded as given by the electorate to a party or candidate that wins an election.
It’s an often repeated theme of anti-UK nationalism (the SNP in Scotland especially) that there is a popular demand from the UK public to break up the UK. They bleat repeatedly in a monotone like sheep ‘The Union is dead’ in a sad attempt at creating the impression that the UK will inevitably break up. They have to maintain this fiction as any look at the objective, verifiable, empirical facts (data and statistical evidence) gives the conclusion that in ALL parts of the UK, a clear and often substantial majority of the public want to keep the UK together.
The Domino Effect was a dominant theory (mostly in the US) during the Cold War period – when anxiety about Communism’s real intentions in Europe and the wider world was at its height – that as one country became controlled by Communism, then inevitably, by a process of contamination, states bordering it would also fall under its domination, like toppling dominoes in a row. This theory was the basis of US and other countries’ foreign policy and helped fuel armed conflicts in the post-1945 period.
In the past week, the SNP has been trying to recapture the narrative, away from Sturgeon’s criminal investigation, to constitutional issues. Humza Yousaf has proposed that an independent Scotland adopts a ‘written constitution’:
Westminster has already been able to undermine the devolution settlement, override decisions made by an elected Scottish Parliament...In future, Westminster sovereignty could even allow the UK parliament to repeal devolution through nothing other than a simple majority vote.
It seems no matter what constitutional problems the UK has, someone will always propose federalism as a solution. But federalism isn't the benign cuddly sheep it first appears to be. It's the nationalist wolf in disguise, ready to divide and devour the UK. Federalism, like all attempts to appease nationalism, will only further aid the fragmentation of the constitutional cohesion of our country, and should be opposed by all those who want to maintain its integrity.
The final part of The Majority's three-part series on the failure of Scottish Devolution and the options to reform or abolish the Scottish Parliament.
Part 2 – Power Grabs, Waste & Scandal
The first part of this series covered how legislative devolution grew from a concept into the reality of the Scottish Assembly, and talked about how, rather than acting as a bulwark against nationalism, it has become a UK Government-funded vehicle for nationalism and constitutional division.
Part 2 of a three-part series on the failure of Scottish Devolution and the options to reform or abolish the Scottish Parliament.
Before a system can be fixed or abolished, we need a clear understanding of the problems and issues of the current system of Legislative Devolution:
It is a well-known fact that political organisations always aim to expand their power. In fact, devolution was set up, in principle, as a way to stop evermore power accruing in Westminster. What has actually happened, though, is that power has been hoarded in Edinburgh at the expense of Scotland’s local authorities, while the Scottish Government has tried to grab as much power as it can from Westminster, often aided by politicians who are either unaware or uncaring of the problems that would produce.
It’s been 25 years since the devolution experiment was inflicted on Scotland, and the result is an unspeakable disaster. It’s a disaster because The Scottish Parliament, which was set up to stop Scottish Nationalism, is now being abused by the SNP to promote a separatist agenda, while Scotland’s services decline daily and scandal mounts up. And it is ‘unspeakable’ because few want to discuss whether the source problem is devolution itself, even its natural opponents.