Liberation Scotland's wish to disenfranchise one million "incomers" - isn't that a rather sinister echo of Reform UK's language about deporting "strangers"?

I was thinking of writing a blogpost tonight about the latest chapter in Stew's prolonged temper tantrum about the Crown Office and Police Scotland impertinently refusing to accept that he is their Overlord and that they must defer to instructions from him (he's called his latest article 'The Land Of Do-As-You-Please', but 'The Land In Which Stew Is Not Actually Il Duce' might have been more apt).  But as I'm on a bit of a roll today with expressing some rather severe doubts about Salvo and Liberation Scotland, I thought I'd instead take a look at a long Twitter post from the latter, because I'm both struck and disturbed by how the language of the post echoes Reform UK rhetoric.  Whereas Thomas "Shut That Door" Kerr wants to deport "strangers", Liberation Scotland and Salvo merely want to disenfranchise "incomers".

"The dumbfounding thing is, when the SNP-led Scottish government goes to Westminster to ask for a 'Section 30' order, it is apparently quite content to hold the same, warped, glorified opinion poll, open to the same British state inspired political, media and corporate propaganda, the same monarchic intervention, potentially the same last minute 'Vow'. And worst of all, the same totally inappropriate local authority franchise giving a vote on the Scots nation's future to anything up to a million incomers who would have no right to such a vote to elect a national government anywhere in the world, never mind one on a matter of such immense moment of a nation's exercise of self-determination."

That isn't just deeply offensive to many hundreds of thousands of people who are committed to Scotland and in many cases identify as New Scots, it's also factually inaccurate because there are in fact countries such as New Zealand in which even non-citizens are able to vote in national elections.  But that isn't even what we're talking about here, because there is no such thing as a Scottish citizenship and there won't be this side of independence, and therefore most of the million people being referred to in fact share precisely the same citizenship as "Scots", however that term is being defined.

For those of you who genuinely want to strip voting rights from English people resident in Scotland in a future indyref, even if you don't accept that is morally wrong and undemocratic, I would at least ask you to ponder how tactically foolish it is.  I know Salvo and Liberation Scotland don't accept this, but ultimately we will need UK government recognition for our independence, however grudging, and we won't get that by fiddling the franchise and cheating our way to a Yes majority.  The franchise has to be seen to be fair otherwise the entire exercise is a waste of time.  Furthermore, even if you're naive enough to believe you'd get away with fiddling the franchise for an indyref, we'll still need votes from these "incomers" in regular elections that occur before then, and telling people you're going to disenfranchise them is a rather unpromising way of asking for their support in an election.

And you know what?  Some of you really won't want to hear this bit, but it's true: Alex Salmond had no truck whatever with the idea of removing the vote from English people in an indyref.  When he phoned me up in the autumn of 2021 to "ask" me to stop disagreeing in public with Barrhead Boy about the subject, the point he repeatedly stressed was that I didn't actually need to have that argument, because Barrhead Boy quite simply wasn't going to get his way.  "No party led by me will ever support anything other than a civic franchise" he told me, and that's pretty much a word-for-word quote.  What he meant by a civic franchise was the same local government franchise that was used for the 2014 referendum.

I must say the pedantic hair-splitting about whether the 2014 referendum was a binding vote or a "glorified opinion poll" seems totally alien to me.  As it was an agreed referendum, and as both governments publicly committed themselves in advance to implementing the result, it's stretching credibility somewhat to suggest a Yes vote would have had no effect.  There were many things wrong with the 2014 vote, but its technically non-binding status was not one of them.

And no matter what terms a future referendum takes place under, I'm struggling to see how you're going to prevent propaganda from the British state or monarchy, or a repeat of "The Vow", unless you're actually going to ban the No side from campaigning or the media from reporting what they say.

*  *  *

This is Post 5 of "Seven Days of Retro Scot Goes Pop" - a shameless gimmick in which I attempt to solve this blog's funding problems in the space of a week with a conventional text-blogging marathon to help promote my Ko-Fi donations page, during which period pre-moderation in the comments section will be switched off.  My target for the week is to either get up to 60 regular monthly supporters on Ko-Fi (as of now I have 21), or to reach £1500 in one-off donations to the page, or some sort of combination of a bit of both.  In an equally shameless attempt to coax KC's stinking rich Tory landowner chums in Surrey into helping to fund Scot Goes Pop, I have pledged to try to leave pre-moderation switched off even after the seven days are over, but only if at least one of the targets is met in full.  Yes, it's time to play hardball with our resident "Nessie" enthusiast.  

If you might be interested in making either a small recurring monthly donation or a one-off donation, please check out my Ko-Fi page HERE.

"Yeah, you know that John Major guy? The Council of Europe FORCED him to give Scotland devolution. He only did it because they MADE him. FACT" - How Sara Salyers wrecked Salvo's credibility yesterday by trotting out a nutty, long-debunked claim

As I said in a recent video, I've tried hard to remain open-minded about Salvo's approach to independence campaigning - not because I think there's the remotest chance of them achieving their stated objective of "decolonising Scotland via the UN", but because I can see how their unusual strategy might yield side-benefits that are distinct from that stated objective.  Those side-benefits mainly boil down to publicity - ie. Salvo and Liberation Scotland might help to increase international awareness of the Scottish independence campaign and of the UK's ongoing denial of Scotland's right to democratic self-determination.

However, there comes a point where you're presented with irrefutable proof that a campaign group is fantasist in nature, and you just can't in good conscience take that group seriously anymore.  I reached that point yesterday when I read Sara Salyers' piece in the Sunday National, which was intended as a rebuttal of recent attacks on Salvo, but instead unwittingly demonstrated that those attacks had considerable validity.  My jaw absolutely dropped to the floor when I reached the start of her fifth paragraph - 

"A two million-strong petition for home rule in 1950 was ignored by the UK Government for 50 years. Only international pressure (the Council of Europe) finally forced the governments of John Major and Tony Blair to accept Scottish devolution"

This guff about the Council of Europe is right up there with "Ronald Reagan only became a communist because the aliens from the spaceship told him to".  It is, not to put too fine a point on it, a batsh*t crazy claim from the wilder fringes of our movement, which I have encountered numerous times over the years, not least in the comments section of this blog.  If I had a pound for every time I've had to patiently try to explain to its wide-eyed proponents why it is completely baseless and utterly without foundation, I'd be...well, not wealthy exactly, but I'd have £30 at least.  To see something that is so monumentally and stupidly wrong being trotted out as fact by the leader of a self-styled "national liberation movement" is nothing short of mind-boggling.  I would go so far as to suggest that this means Ms Salyers should never again be regarded as a reliable witness, and while most of us have no direct knowledge of whether her implausible claims about progress being made at the UN are accurate or not, they certainly shouldn't be taken on trust without corroboration from a far more credible source.

What has always put the Council of Europe claim into a completely different category from other fake histories or conspiracy theories is that you don't actually have to be an expert on the subject to know that it is false.  Literally anyone who lived in Scotland during the relevant period and who regularly watched the news knows that it logically cannot possibly be true for two main reasons:

1) There is no way John Major can have been forced to accept devolution by the Council of Europe, very simply because he did not accept devolution.  Not at any time.  Ever.  He remained viscerally opposed to it quite literally right up to the very second he was removed from office at lunchtime on the 2nd of May 1997.  He was such a roadblock that his election defeat was an absolutely essential prerequisite to devolution being brought about.

2) The Labour Party under Tony Blair did subsequently deliver devolution, but it is impossible for them to have been forced into it by the Council of Europe because the dates don't tally up.  The mythology about the Council of Europe seems to date from a single article written by James Wilkie in 2012, published on Newsnet Scotland and Electric Scotland, about his own lobbying attempts at a Vienna Summit in 1993 - by which point the Labour party had already been long since converted to devolution.  Labour policy initially changed under Harold Wilson in the mid-70s due to severe electoral pressure from the SNP, and accordingly support for an Assembly from Scottish Labour MPs was rather tepid to begin with.  However, a much more confirmational shift occurred during the 1980s due to Thatcherism, with the penny dropping for Labour MPs that if an Assembly had been set up as envisaged by the Scotland Act 1978, Scotland would have been largely governed by Labour throughout the 80s, rather than by Thatcherite Secretaries of State.  By 1990, Labour had already been fully transformed into a thoroughgoing pro-devolution party with only one or two holdout MPs (like Tam Dalyell) remaining opposed.  They were committed to legislating for a Scottish Parliament within the first parliamentary year of the next Labour government, and that is exactly what happened.

Anyone who actually believes the silly myth that the Council of Europe threatened in the 1990s to rescind the UK's membership unless Scotland was given a parliament, and that Labour's devolution policy was a sham until that point but suddenly and quietly became real as a result of Strasbourg's non-existent threat, is - to use the technical term - two sandwiches short of a picnic.

The only limited truth in Ms Salyers' claim is that the Scottish Covenant Association's petition tactics in the early 50s proved to be a failure, and that an alternative strategy ultimately proved far more effective.  But that successful alternative strategy was not international pressure, but instead pressure at the ballot box from the SNP.  Before Winnie Ewing's triumph in Hamilton in 1967, devolution was completely off the political agenda, but after she won, it was immediately bang on the agenda and never went away.  The Kilbrandon Commission was set up as a direct result (Gwynfor Evans' win for Plaid in Carmarthen in 1966 was also a crucial contributory factor) and for a time even the Tories under Edward Heath were converted to the principle of devolution.

The lesson for the present day is that we will win independence by causing the London parties pain domestically.  It can't be done in New York, Geneva or Strasbourg, and that really should be a statement of the obvious.   

*  *  *

This is Post 4 of "Seven Days of Retro Scot Goes Pop" - a shameless gimmick in which I attempt to solve this blog's funding problems in the space of a week with a conventional text-blogging marathon to help promote my Ko-Fi donations page, during which period pre-moderation in the comments section will be switched off.  My target for the week is to either get up to 60 regular monthly supporters on Ko-Fi (as of now I have 21), or to reach £1500 in one-off donations to the page, or some sort of combination of a bit of both.  In an equally shameless attempt to coax KC's stinking rich Tory landowner chums in Surrey into helping to fund Scot Goes Pop, I have pledged to try to leave pre-moderation switched off even after the seven days are over, but only if at least one of the targets is met in full.  Yes, it's time to play hardball with our resident "Nessie" enthusiast.  

If you might be interested in making either a small recurring monthly donation or a one-off donation, please check out my Ko-Fi page HERE.

Some free - and mostly sincere - advice for Scottish Labour

Scottish Labour have finally learned the lessons of two decades of defeats and realised what they need is another soul-crushing machine politician from Lanarkshire that no-one has ever heard of. Better late than never. https://t.co/4i1D5Labcq

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) August 16, 2026

I'm sure all of us sometimes make exaggerated or over-simplified criticisms of unionist organisations for partisan reasons, but I really do feel the sentiment in the tweet above is 100% fair comment.  Quite literally the more Scottish Labour fail, the less they seem to learn.  I sometimes wonder if Labour constantly think back to the 'good old days' when Scottish people would vote for anything in a red rosette and assume that means soul-crushing machine politicians from Lanarkshire are actually incredibly popular, and that the voters are just having an inexplicably prolonged break from following their natural desires. 

A bigger issue is perhaps that Scottish Labour's branch office status prevents them from taking any action to solve the problem even if they ever get to the point of correctly identifying it.  When UK Labour lose to the Tories, they generally move a bit to the right to win voters back from the Tories, just as David Cameron moved the Tories a bit to the left to win voters back from Labour.  But when Scottish Labour lose to the SNP, they can't take the logical step of meeting the voters they've lost to the SNP halfway, because their bosses in London won't let them do that "for the greater UK good".  So instead all they've got left is to pathetically beg SNP voters to "please stop caring about that thing you really care about, we're going to do the total opposite of what you want but please just vote for us anyway", and wonder why that doesn't work any better on the fifth attempt than it did on the first.  Having said that, it did kind of work as a one-off in 2024 due to special circumstances, which is the worst thing that could possibly have happened to Labour because they'll now be even more baffled when it doesn't work again.

I always say that every election in which the SNP shy away from the de facto referendum route to winning independence is just a monumental waste of time, because it doesn't really create an alternative way forward, it just postpones the inevitable.  A de facto ref is the only viable option, and that penny will inevitably drop eventually, so it's just a question of how many years or decades we waste before arriving at that unavoidable destination.  In precisely the same way, every election in which Labour run away from finally making their peace with Yes supporters simply delays any chance of a Labour comeback, because making their peace with Yes supporters is the only way a comeback is possible and they'll inevitably reach that conclusion at some point.  It's not inconceivable that Monica Lennon could have successfully reached out to Yes voters, but it is totally inconceivable that Joe Fagan or Michael Marra will, so the way things are shaping up Labour will just end up wasting yet another five years.

What would Labour making its peace with Yes-voting Scotland look like?  It wouldn't look like Labour becoming a pro-indy party, but it probably would mean them coming up with a credible and concrete answer to the perfectly reasonable question: "if the UK is a voluntary union, how does Scotland leave if it wants to?"  Their answer wouldn't necessarily have to resemble the one that pro-indy parties would want - it could be a fresh solution that addresses any concerns Labour themselves have about exercises in self-determinations, assuming that any of those concerns are not totally bogus.  If they genuinely believe that 2014-style referendums are too disruptive, for example, they could simply stipulate themselves that any mandate should be sought in a scheduled election, and that whether pro-indy parties win more than 50% of the vote in combination would be the test of success or failure.  It's quite a challenging threshold for the Yes side, after all, so why fear it if you truly believe that Scots aren't that fussed about indy?

The bottom line is, though, that Scottish Labour will have to painfully come to terms with something that Northern Ireland unionists came to terms with nearly three decades ago when they signed the Good Friday Agreement - ie. that the territory they live in will henceforth have the right and the ability to choose to leave the UK in practice and not just in theory.

*  *  *

This is Post 3 of "Seven Days of Retro Scot Goes Pop" - a shameless gimmick in which I attempt to solve this blog's funding problems in the space of a week with a conventional text-blogging marathon to help promote my Ko-Fi donations page, during which period pre-moderation in the comments section will be switched off.  My target for the week is to either get up to 60 regular monthly supporters on Ko-Fi (as of this evening I have 19), or to reach £1500 in one-off donations to the page, or some sort of combination of a bit of both.  In an equally shameless attempt to coax KC's stinking rich Tory landowner chums in Surrey into helping to fund Scot Goes Pop, I have pledged to try to leave pre-moderation switched off even after the seven days are over, but only if at least one of the targets is met in full.  Yes, it's time to play hardball with our resident "Nessie" enthusiast.  

If you might be interested in making either a small recurring monthly donation or a one-off donation, please check out my Ko-Fi page HERE.