A Voice for Scotland's Anti-Nationalist Majority
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?
As we head towards a UK General Election, where a resurgent Labour is expected to form the next government by a wide margin, thoughts turn to those hapless SNP MPs who will likely lose their seats. As Warren Buffett said, 'Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked.' And in the upcoming election, the electoral tide is going to go so far out against the SNP, it will leave the majority of its MPs metaphorically naked, out in the cold and wondering where their yellow swimsuits went.
After 17 years of SNP rule, support for Scexit would appear to be finally on the decline. A recent opinion poll ranked Scexit as only the 7th (18%) most important topic that would decide voting intention at the next General Election. Way out in front was the economy on 64%. This must be gut-wrenching news for independence supporters: 17 years in power and zero progress made in convincing Scots to vote for Independence.
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.
Two weeks ago, Reverend Stu Campbell of Bath, aka Wings Over Scotland, proudly revealed an anniversary. It was 12 years, he breathlessly announced in a post called The Longest Lie, since he first debunked the notion that Scottish votes influence the outcome of UK General Elections. The last time it happened was 1964, he told his adoring followers.
Quite a statistic. But is it true?
Not even remotely. As in, not only is it misleading, it is demonstrably false. In every sense. It contains not a scintilla of truth. Unfortunately, it has now entered the post-modernist Scottish political lexicon along with similar myths, such as the Nationalist whine that Scotland never gets the Westminster Government it votes for. Presumably, they mean apart from the 11 occasions post-WW2 when Scotland voted for the party that won the General Election and formed the Government?