At the outset we wish to make it clear that we fully support the aim of creating a convention – call it national or citizens or any other name – as long as its agenda is to provide a platform for the Scottish people to examine and discuss what is desirable in our society for the future, and to express their opinion on every aspect through the mechanism of a popular vote. It is in respect of this last point that we created Scotland Decides.

Scotland Decides is basically a voting platform. It was brought into being as we became aware that traditional voting was not available either for national or local matters and that anything as contentious as a referendum on independence was in the hands of the UK government and completely out of the question. It works on two levels. The first is the unique ID that each registered voter is given. This is used for regional or local voting and can also be used for national votes which can be used as a very accurate opinion on any subject put forward. For voting requiring national or international authority, i.e. any matter of a constitutional nature, we use the voting app which is blockchain enabled and internationally verifiable. In due course all registered voters will be invited to download the app and set up their own account and PIN which will be accessible using a system similar to banking apps.

There is much more which we will be happy to explain further but, for now, this is for basic background in terms of exploring the idea of a national convention.

For a national convention to be successful, it is necessary for it to gain authority which means, ultimately, statutory authority. It has to exist as part of the legislative process both before and after the putative event of independence.

It is a fundamental principle of the organisation of any project that the objective be established at the very outset. Thereafter the means to achieving that objective must be examined in the greatest detail and only then can a programme of works be set out.

We have attached a series of schedules which are lengthy but contain a clear description of the situation we must face in a number of key areas. The notes are linked to elements of the programme set out below with the reference numbers attached.

1.00 What Is The Objective?

If we begin with the exercise of self-determination it has to be recognised that self-determination can only work if it can be accepted as legislative authority which must happen within the Scottish state whether or not there is a formal declaration of independence, in effect, independence by default. (1a) Of course that is only half the story. If the convention gains the authority of the Scottish people, that authority has to be translated on to the international stage. (1b)

If the above represents the core objective of the exercise, we should consider making a mission statement to this effect, then we can move on to the design of the convention itself.

2.00 The Convention As A Means To An End

If we think of the convention as a machine and view it as such dispassionately then it is possible to create the mechanism in a way that is not affected by prejudices or preconceived notions of its function (1b).

In imagining the convention as a machine, it is also helpful in understanding that this machine has to be capable of performing the function allocated to it from the very outset (2). To analogise, if the plan is to produce an automobile one does not start off with a vacuum cleaner. Whatever machinery the convention requires to follow through with, its objective has to be in place at the outset and designed for the function it has ultimately to achieve.

Designing the convention can be addressed as two distinct elements. In the first, a very basic layout aimed at establishing the full tripartite assembly. The second is a more detailed approach to the business of the convention together with the necessity of engaging public voting. One of the key purposes of the convention is designing the Scottish state and this will be the primary function of the convention up until a certain point is reached where it becomes obvious that it cannot be achieved under the current system of devolution.

This is where the important decision has to be made (3).

There is also the not unimportant matter of financing the convention (4).

NOTES

1a) Establishing the authority of the Scottish people is not as simple a task as one may think. In the first place it has to be paramount that the public understand that any convention has, or will have the power to move legislation forward. In this respect it is absolutely essential that the convention has the involvement not just of ordinary people and parts of civic society but also of elements of political representatives, namely, those elements which exist within the current UK constitutional system. People have to trust the convention to deliver and, like it or not, that involves an existing political system which won’t go away just because some want it to. At the point of achieving independence by default – namely a form of self-determination by which a recognisable authority within Scotland makes decisions which otherwise could not be made – establishes the convention as a statutory body – one which, by the way, will also require affirmation through the Court of Session. Without the involvement of the Scottish Westminster MPs this is impossible.

Whatever structure the convention has to have in place to achieve delivery of its objective has to be in place at the outset. From its very inception the convention needs to make decisions and pass resolutions which have a direct impact on the operation of politics from the Scottish perspective within Westminster. In designing the convention process, whatever’s needed at the end has to be in place at the beginning. Five years of intensive research and discussion across a broad range of opinion has demonstrated that this is not negotiable – there is no alternative.

1b) It is very important that we understand the constitutional divergence between England and Scotland particularly where steps are taken to return legislative and determinant power to Scotland. Currently we have , through the device of the Scotland Act, an administration which, despite Alex Salmond renaming it “parliament” together with an executive (renamed “government”) is in effect a department of the Westminster system and, in Scottish terms, unconstitutional and, strictly speaking, illegal. Yet this is the Act and the system that gave birth to it that successive independence-supporting parties insist on using to gain permission from Westminster to hold a referendum on independence. Despite the oft-repeated references to the Claim of Right and to the existence of Scots law as opposed to UK (i.e. English law) virtually every campaign seems to centre around UK constitutional settings and that’s where the UK state is at its strongest. Taking such a route to independence or even self-determination is like taking a knife to a gunfight.

The Vienna Convention 1979 established in international law that any party or parties to a treaty could withdraw or dissolve that treaty. The means of doing so require some form of authority from the government or governments involved but the Convention also established that elected governments have no right to alter any treaty without the understanding of their people and, of course, the co-operation of the other parties involved. Governments can ratify treaties but they cannot unilaterally alter them, nor do they have any right to prevent other parties to the treaty from withdrawing if they see fit to do so.

In the conduct of the convention there will presumably come a time when a question is put to a popular vote on whether we wish as a nation to continue with the Treaty of Union or to dissolve it. If we assume that the result of such a vote is to remove ourselves from the Treaty, we can then formally instruct our MPs to leave Westminster and, at the same time, issue notice that the Treaty is void. In terms of their legislature it does not involve the Supreme Court and there is nothing that Westminster can do about it although that doesn’t mean that they can’t be thoroughly nasty in other ways.

Of course, it will be some considerable time after its foundation that the convention will reach this stage. A lot of preparation has to be undertaken before we are ready to deal with the consequences of withdrawal and it has to be understood that some other form of understanding, maybe by another treaty, has to be achieved with our southern neighbour. To avoid chaos, some form of expert committee may be formed which, possibly for several months before the decision is taken over the Treaty, will have worked to put the various elements of an independent nation in place and substantial work must be put into making Scotland’s mark internationally. Much of the work in determining all the elements which the convention must address has already been done but it has not been possible to attempt any kind of popular consensus. To examine all this is the main workload of the convention.

There is an additional important factor which should be built into the design of the convention and be active from the outset and that is the matter of the Scottish constitution.

2) The Functional Design Of The National Convention

Given the nature of the objective and the means to achieve consensus it has to be understood that the convention cannot simply make policy, it can only pass resolutions which must be put to a popular vote. The engagement of all parties within the convention has to be on the strict understanding that they cannot make judgements relating to key constitutional matters without the authority of the people.

The convention will have the freedom to set its own agenda. As this is so, it has the potential to create conflicting results and substantial confusion given that it cannot be relied upon to address issues in an orderly fashion and that many items which would be under examination will overlap and perhaps even conflict with earlier resolutions. In the ongoing process of the convention a secretariat numbering about six individuals, at least one of which should be a legal expert, should be formed. In addition, a constitutional framework has to be in place. In this way, the wording and meaning of resolutions passed in successive sessions of the convention can be drafted without conflict with previous resolutions.

For the constitutional framework we look back to the Claim of Right. As a constitution in itself it is outdated and, frankly, illegal internationally but contained within it are nuggets of value and it has the suggestion of a new format which can be used to develop a full Scottish constitution as the convention progresses.

Using the American and the Swiss models, a constitution consisting of just five articles covering basic rights can be adopted at the outset of the convention. A group of us are working on this and the exact wording of the articles has not been formulated as yet but suffice to say that the articles will set out the rights such as freedom of association, freedom of speech, subsidiarity in government and the right to contest legislation. Within the articles, resolutions passed at convention meetings can be incorporated ensuring that conflict is addressed before it arises. As the convention progresses to statutory authority, the full constitution can then be put to a referendum.

3) Statutory Authority and the Dissolution of The Treaty of Union

If the convention is to be successful then it will reach a point at which steps must be taken to enforce the country’s right to self-determination. Under the UK constitutional arrangements the only legal representatives are the MPs we send to Westminster and this is understood at international level. Although, for reasons stated above, these MPs will be part of the convention, at no time until this point is reached does the convention require them to formally leave the UK parliament. Some may choose to do so at their own volition but no formal statement is made.

The issue of the instruction has been set out in (1b) above and it should be noted that this is the one and only time that interaction with UK constitutional law takes place. Any challenge that the UK government may wish to make to this or to the successive vote to dissolve the Treaty has to be made internationally and, as has been made clear to us in the past, the UK government hasn’t a leg to stand on.

Of course, all Scotland’s ducks must be in a row and there is nothing here to explain exactly how we ensure that the machinery of the nation state of Scotland can be in place and viable at the exact time of a yes vote. In all probability there will be a period of fractious and messy negotiations before true separation happens but there are many ways that this episode may play out. It is not appropriate to guess.

But is the convention over? Has it done its job and can it be put to bed as it were? A suggestion has been made that the convention, now imbued with statutory authority becomes an element of the legislative system as, say, a second chamber albeit with a slightly altered membership and different terms of reference but this is for the convention to decide although we expect at least that online voting will become the norm for future elections.

4) Where Does the Money Come From?

At the very earliest when we were first talking about a convention it was obvious that the funding sources available at that time were woefully inadequate. For the convention to run its full course it will cost somewhere in the region of £2m. Given, for example, the need for the convention to hold regular meetings has to take into account not only the number of meetings but also the length of each meeting. While much of the engagement of each meeting may be online, it should not be assumed that all but a handful of meetings can take place this way. While many members will need to engage by video link, the meetings themselves will be largely in-person.

It is by no means unlikely that meetings may go on for two or three successive days and the some sessions may be less than a week apart. Hiring facilities in advance under such circumstances would be next to impossible. It is, however, possible to lease an appropriate sized venue with a view to using it as a fall-back facility without compromising the policy of holding some meetings at different venues across the country.

Additional costs lie in the employment of full-time staff, video facilities, general expenses and publicity.

Given the size of funding requirements, there is concern about large scale donors potentially compromising the independent integrity of the convention. It was with all this in mind that Scotland Decides was formed to include a small registration fee. This would provide the means to fund the convention through the people and would cover the cost of the convention in addition to the voting platform. It is disappointing that voter registrations have not been in greater numbers than they have so far but it is not surprising given that as of today’s date, hardly anyone even knows that a convention is being planned and that even when publicity gains a bigger audience, the public need to know how the convention will work before any enthusiasm can be generated. Nevertheless, Scotland Decides is there and will be for the next eighteen months at least. www.scotlanddecides.org

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61550792519884

For anyone wishing more information, we have about forty five pages of data accumulated over the last five years together with the experience of two failed attempts by others who we’ve engaged with. You may also subscribe on our website, it’s free, and receive regular updates. We also welcome anyone who wishes to actively engage. Please contact me directly at dyounger@rocketmail.com

References:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1689/28/introduction

https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/vclt/vclt.html

https://www.parlament.ch/en/%C3%BCber-das-parlament/how-does-the-swiss-parliament-work/Rules-governing-parliamentary-procedures/federal-constitution/federal-constitution-1848

https://www.scotlanddecides.org

https://voatz.com/partners-and-affiliates/

https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2018/05/10/scotlands-blockchain-democracy/?fbclid=IwAR2ZINJid3q0u9-MWb5XAq_vJDwCblppqUJWjQxaY6GPed7w4rhHoiAa08w

https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/9/1/274/902275?searchresult=1

David Younger

2^nd March 2026

Two organisations, Yes United and Independence Forum Scotland, came together to organise this event and the two teams worked brilliantly together. The format was so successful that we are now looking to collaborate again in the future and also work more closely with other parts of the movement. Bringing the Independence movement together and working more closely is vital for restoring Scotland’s status as an Independent Nation. We call on all individuals and organisations in the movement to find common ground and, as Phil Boswell said in his speech below, leave egos at the door. The division and splintering must end and each of us has a responsibility to work with others for the greater cause of Independence.

Returning to the Òran Mòr event, from the very beginning, the quality of the speeches was evident and the interactions during the world cafè session showed a depth of thought and consideration which the yes movement has not seen for quite some time, except in silos here and there. It was acknowledged that we must keep learning as a movement and we are all responsible for this, “be the change you want to see”.

The one and only Lesley Riddoch was our first speaker and she suggested we start behaving as if we live in an Independent country already, so we are prepared in advance before it becomes a reality. How many of us are taking part in our local community council, how many of us run a co-operative, how many of us have a boat? Drawing on her knowledge of the Nordic Countries, she gave us much to consider.

Lesley Riddoch 14th March 2026

Phil Boswell, who is an authoritative speaker and whose resume is hugely impressive, spoke about the disgrace of 1 in 4 children living in poverty in an energy-rich country such as Scotland. Why is there no investment in our own people and our energy infrastructure? Where are the jobs? Scottish people care about one another, and yet we still have 1 in 4 children living in poverty. Scottish food is found all around the world, food of quality and purity, due to the lack of pollution. The assets of our country are great and varied, and yet, disgracefully, we are being stripped bare.

Phil Boswell 14th March 2026

Our very own Jim Sillars delivered a wonderful speech finishing with a heartfelt plea to younger generations (was there a dry eye in the house?) and he received a spontaneous standing ovation. Jim is a national treasure with a wealth of wisdom and knowledge. His book “The New Case for Optimism” is available here The New Case for Optimism: Amazon.co.uk: Sillars, Jim: 9781913212421: Books

Jim Sillars 14th March 2026

The world cafe part of the event will be discussed at a later date, but so many good ideas and thoughts were captured at the tables as everyone participated in the discussions.

All of this was followed by an Evening of Music and Poetry which was truly outstanding, the hall was full, the atmosphere filled with hope. We will again discuss this and share more from this evening in later posts. The spirit of the National Collective of 2014 was evident throughout the evening. It is vital that our artists and our culture play a big role in our campaign for Scotland’s future, as they did in 2014.

Big thanks to IndyLive and The Scotland Channel who recorded the day for us and to everyone who came along and contributed to this unforgettable day.

We are counting down the last few days before the Yes United and Independence Forum Scotland Spring Conference in the iconic Òran Mòr, Glasgow this Saturday 14th March. This is an all-day event, with a world cafe and speakers Lesley Riddoch, Phil Boswell and Jim Sillars for the Daytime part, then a fantastic cultural line up for the Evening.

There are only a few tickets left for the Evening event, but the Daytime event is now SOLD OUT. We have a daytime waiting list, so if anyone has a ticket but is not able to come to the daytime event, please let us know so we can invite others in your place.

The musical and cultural extravaganza which will take place in the Evening, has only a few tickets still available, so make sure you reserve your place asap. This will be a truly unmissable celebration of Scottish music and culture.

At a time when BBC Scotland has been committing cultural sabotage regarding its Scottish content, we need to support our great Artists and Musicians, and we are delighted to be welcoming Tommy MacKay, Sulidae, King of Birds, Mellow Party, The Countess of Fife, Bobby Bluebell, Eddi Reader and John Douglas to entertain us with their music. Alongside the music, many will remember the wonderful Alan Bissett from referendum days, and we will also be transported by poetry from the Seahorse Poets.

What a feast of Music and Entertainment, not to be missed. Get your tickets here and spread the word. Tickets £20 for the evening, starting at 6pm, doors opening 5.30pm.

New cultural infrastructure is vital to stop Skye being hollowed out by holiday lets and seasonal blow-ins, writes Catherine MacPhee.

Last year, during a social media discussion about wind farms, a settler to Skye commented: “you Crofters don’t care about the island or the land.” I did not respond, though I felt the urge to cry out that they could never understand the relationship we hold with this place: a relationship carried not in ownership but in reciprocity, where the land sings through Gaelic names, stories, and memories borne across generations. What they could not see was that their very position as a so-called “hobby crofter” rests upon struggles, sacrifices, and solidarities of those who came before us.

My family history, like that of many Gaels, is marked by resistance to the colonial violence of the Highland Clearances. My family were rooted in the Glendale uprisings, in collective action against landlordism, in poetry and song that named the abuses of factors and clan chiefs who had aligned with capital over kin. This was not merely cultural loss but class war, as land was transformed from a living commons into an instrument of extraction, profit, and control. That history feels uncannily present. The policies may have become more bureaucratic, but the result is unchanged: land is a commodity, housing an investment, people expendable. What we see is not progress, but a deliberate wave of extraction, removal, and displacement. “Development” is used as cover while the communities that give this island its life are hollowed out.

Against this backdrop, I find myself in a house-share. A series of life events left me homeless at the end of 2025, and the tether binding me to this island may yet snap under the pressure of the housing crisis. That tether can feel like a chain, holding me in place, but also holding me down. Perhaps that tension is something to work through: the fear of being forced to let go of land that never was truly allowed to belong to us.

The housing market is in crisis everywhere, dominated by private rentals and lacking social housing, but it cuts deeper on an island. Here, connections are rooted in the land itself. Displacement unravels not just bodies, but language, memory, and meaning. To protect our future, we need politics rooted not in property or capital, but in relationship, community, and responsibility. Policy and practice must reflect this understanding.

Our communities are hollowed out when homes are snapped up for holiday lets and seasonal blow-ins, commodifying shelter into experience, escape, and profit. These places are marketed as “remote” and “wild,” consumed as landscapes rather than lived realities. That word – REMOTE – sidelines our communities, as if we exist at the edge of Scotland looking in. We are not remote. We are rural. Our islands are alive with Gaelic, song, tradition, and story. We are rooted in place and culture, not cut off from it. To call us “remote” is to erase our strength, our resilience, and our central role in Scotland’s identity. Naming matters. Words shape how governments act, how resources are shared, and how futures are imagined. Our culture is not peripheral, it is powerful. Our voices are not distant, they are here, loud and clear. Rural, not remote, is who we are.

The Moral Economy of Rural Life

Over the last couple of years, I’ve been involved in an effort to reject community apathy and support an open space. Common spaces to gather and welcome new people encourage good old plotting and planning. The best conversations and ideas spark over tables. This initiative began when the pub closed, which was more than just the loss of a business; it marked the unravelling of a social ecology that took generations to weave.

In island and rural communities, places of gathering are not optional extras to economic life; they are its beating heart. The pub, particularly one that hosted traditional music, functioned as a commons, where stories, songs, humour, grief, and belonging were shared. It acted as social glue, binding people across age, background and circumstance, and sustaining a sense of continuity in a place vulnerable to erosion.

Traditional music here was not a commodity for performance. It was a living language of the land and sea, carried by those rooted in the place and offered freely in relationship. When such spaces are lost, the damage is not immediately visible on a balance sheet, but it is deeply felt in the thinning of social bonds and the quieting of cultural voice.

The takeover of businesses by those without a rooted connection to the island marks a familiar pattern in fragile rural places. Ownership without relationship risks treating the place as an asset rather than a living community. Decision-making becomes detached from local knowledge, memory, and care. The result is often a well-intentioned but ultimately extractive approach that misunderstands why people gather, spend and stay. It is unrealistic to expect people to shop, eat, and invest money in a place that no longer invests in them. Rural economic activity flows from trust, belonging, and mutual recognition. Remove the conditions that nurture these, and the economy withers, no matter how polished the offering.

This is not a call for blame, but for listening. A constructive path forward requires a shift from asking “How do we make this viable?” to “What does this place need to live?” Viability grows from vitality, not the other way around. Reopening space for traditional music, informal gathering, and local stewardship would be an act of repair. Culture is valuable not as an add-on, but as vital infrastructure for island life.

For rural communities to endure, all who care about them must step up and help build lasting change with humility and in partnership. Our idea to establish the Revolting Crofters Social Club emerged in recognition of the need for renewed gathering places. The idea also responded to the loss of the pub, and the desire to create alternatives to compulsory drinking. It grew from local projects and ongoing conversations with friends and neighbours who yearn for a welcoming, non-judgmental space to gather, connect, and collectively respond to the social challenges shaping our rural lives.

The Flame of History

We started simply. We booked the village hall, invited local musicians, cooked food ourselves, and opened the doors. Over fifty people came. There were no expectations, just shared food, conversation, and time together. The vibrancy of the village’s once-thriving music scene had faded, but we sought to rekindle some of that energy.

Our aim is to create a regular programme of community-led events bringing together people of all ages and backgrounds. Through shared meals, live music, family activities, film screenings, and community talks, we hope to build momentum for a space that supports wellbeing, reduces isolation, and encourages grassroots action on issues like food insecurity, loneliness, and social cohesion. Our first event showed what was possible: an intergenerational gathering of long-time locals and newer arrivals, sharing space and joy. It was a beginning, and with support, it could become something lasting.

The name Revolting Crofters Social Club nods to history and hope. It draws inspiration from the Crofters’ Party — the political wing of the Highland Land League — and from the older meaning of revolting: standing up, speaking out, and refusing conditions that degrade human dignity. Skye has a long history of land resistance, protest and solidarity, and the struggles continues today. These struggles were never only about this island. They were about justice, dignity, and the right to a future. The irony is sharp. My family fought for land, housing, and cultural survival. I feel increasingly shut out of the first two.

When it comes to the third, part of our task is to stitch moments of resistance into our collective memory, not only for accountability, but so that others learn what shaped our culture. The Highland Clearances are often remembered in stark terms: violent rupture, mass eviction, exile. This narrative holds truth, especially in the most brutal phases, but it also flattens a more complex reality. Each clearance emerged from a particular configuration of landlord ideology, economic pressure, population change, and moral choice. Clearances were not uniform acts but a series of decisions whose consequences shape land ownership, housing precarity, and cultural trauma today.

To engage honestly with this history is not to dilute its injustice, but to understand it as an ongoing social transformation and to confront how enclosure, extraction, and displacement continue under new names. The promise of history is not nostalgia, but survival: the survival of ways of being human together that still have much to teach us.

Catherine MacPhee is a Sgitheanach, archivist and activist.

Here is our second video, Jim Sillars speaking with passion and conviction at the Yes United Inverness meeting in Cultarlann, February 7th 2026.

Frustration at the lack of progress to secure better lives for current and future generations of Scots has raised the number of independence campaign groups working outside party politics. Campaigns focus on all sectors of society; energy, currency, banking, the economy, land reform, foreign policy, defence, pensions, housing, healthcare and education. Groups of committed, professional volunteers have more front-line experience in these areas than elected representatives and are keen to collaborate. Yet they are excluded from conversations in favour of costly consultants with less first-hand knowledge and narrower agendas.

Two of these campaign groups - Yes United and Independence Forum Scotland - have taken the lead in ‘putting the band back together.’ The aims are to build a manifesto and policies for a more equal and richer country where no one is let down by a system that prioritizes profit extraction over people, and to have some fun along the way. This chapter of ‘The People vs Party Politics’ is one of a series of events planned throughout the year to quietly and determinedly do the hard yards to build a better nation. As the names suggest, Yes United and Independence Forum Scotland want to collaborate with people and groups with common aims. This first joint venture has attracted a long list of well kent names and tickets are selling out fast.

Event: Politics and a party without the political parties

Venue: Òran Mor, Byres Rd, Glasgow

Date: Saturday 14th March,

Time: Politics 10am - 4pm; Party 6pm til late

Broadcaster, blogger and film producer Lesley Riddoch, former MP Phil Boswell, and long serving MP and independence campaigner Jim Sillars will lead the daytime line up at the Spring Conference on Saturday 14^th March at Òran Mor on Glasgow’s Byres Rd. Lesley’s unrivalled knowledge of the potential of small independent countries will set the tone for the day. Phil, whose wit and wisdom is a cornerstone of Through a Scottish Prism podcast, will kick off the afternoon’s proceedings with his own take on the morning’s discussion topics. Jim’s passion for independence is matched only by his experience and eloquence in explaining how it can be achieved.

Discussions on Scotland’s Economy, Energy Sector, and future relationship with Europe will be a chance to explore options and consider the pros and cons of different ways forward now and post-independence.

The broad questions are:

• On the Economy, what priorities and choices will most benefit the key economic sectors in post-independence Scotland?

• On Energy, what current actions will be most significant in progressing an independent Scotland’s affordable and sustainable energy strategy?

• On Europe, what relationship does an independent Scotland want to build with the EU and what opportunities and challenges does this present?

To include as many voices as possible in the conversation, people will move between roundtable discussions managed by experienced facilitators. A summary of discussions will feature in a plenary session in the afternoon and feed into the Manifesto for Statehood being drafted by Yes United with a host of expert groups and specialists across Scotland.

The conference is followed by an evening showcase of musical talent, from 6pm til late, with performances by Eddi Reader and John Douglas, Bobby Bluebell, The Countess of Fife, King of Birds, Mellow Party, Sulidae, Roo Geddes, and Tommy McKay. Poetry is by Seahorse Poets, Allan Law, Graham Fulton, Linda Jackson, Donna Matthews, and Jen Dunn. The evening is a reminder of how important culture is to national identity, and a celebration of an arts/music sector that manages to flourish despite challenges like the cultural vandalism currently happening at BBC Radio Scotland.

The cultural stream, embodied by National Collective and a host of individual performers, was a highlight of the 2014 Referendum campaign. Bella Caledonia’s Songs for Scotland in the same iconic venue at Òran Mor, and The Yestival tour that attracted huge audiences around the country are enduring memories. The momentum may have stalled after the referendum result, but an overwhelmingly positive response to the current event shows the spirit of independence is alive and well within the arts community.

People from all sectors of society are putting in a ton of work to promote the case for independence. Polls show support remains constant at over 50%, but with no common strategy or date to work towards, the sense of urgency to see it delivered is missing. It’s time for a Yes movement revival, so we’re putting the band back together and having a party, without the party politics.

Tickets, (excl booking fees), at £10 for the daytime conference with lunch included, £20 for the evening, or £25 for both, are available at the Independence Forum Scotland website the Yes United website or directly from Ticketsource.

(Please Note: Tickets for the daytime event are now sold out but you can email us to be added to the cancellation list. Evening tickets are still available.)

For further information contact:

convention@independenceforum.scot

admin@yesunited.scot

Here are some events from our Events pages on YesUnited.Scot which we encourage you to attend, especially this Saturday 7th February when the Yes United team will be visiting Cultarlann in Inverness. There are only a few tickets left to hear Jean Urquhart, Andy Wightman and Jim Sillars and to hear about what Yes United have been doing in the 6 months since we started up. We hope to see you there.

There are also details of our special Spring Conference coming up on March 14th, and two separate screenings by Yes Groups of Lesley Riddoch’s latest film, Finland, one of which is tonight, 5th February in Perth.

Tickets for all events can purchased by clicking on the links below:

YES UNITED IN CULTARLANN INVERNESS Join Yes United for out third National Meeting in Cultarlann, Inverness on Saturday 7th February 10am - 4pm. Doors will open at 9.30am for tea/coffee then the day will continue with speakers, Andy Wightman and Jean Urquhart. Tickets £6.50 include lunch and all attendees will be given a free book by Jim Sillars “The New Case for Optimism”. Find out more and buy your tickets for this great day HERE.

IFS AND YES UNITED SPRING CONFERENCE Saturday March 14th in the Òran Mòr, Glasgow. Join us for a very special day put together by both the IFS and Yes United. Lesley Riddoch and Phil Boswell will speak on Scotland’s future and there will be a World Cafe event where you can speak your mind and give your opinions. In the evening, from 6pm, we will be joined by great musicians Bobby Bluebell, Eddi Reader and John Douglas, Mellow Party, Sulidae and others. This promises to be a great Event bringing the YES movement together and celebrating Scottish culture just at a time when BBC Scotland is closing down Scottish culture from their channel. Buy your tickets now either for the Daytime event, the Evening Event, or Both HERE.

YES Perth and Kinross Hub - Lesley Riddoch will be at the Soutar Theatre on Thursday 5 February at 7:00 pm for a screening of her new film -‘Finland - The Happiest Country That Almost Never Existed’, which she’s made in collaboration with young film-maker - and, indeed, Helsinki resident - Gavin Hanigan. After the film there’ll be an opportunity to ask Lesley some questions. As with Lesley’s previous film screenings, it should be a fascinating evening. Tickets for the event cost £5 each, and are available on Eventbrite.

Yes Nairn and Gary Mac a’Ghobhainn will be hosting a screening of Lesley Riddoch and Gavin Hanigan’s film “Finland - The Happiest Country That Almost Never Existed.” This will be held in Nairn Community & Arts Centre 2.30pm Saturday 7th February. Admission minimum £5. For more details please click on this Facebook link and register your interest Finland Film hosted by Yes Nairn

The Independence Forum Scotland and Yes United For Independence are joining forces to organise a Spring Conference on Scotland’s Future, to be held at the iconic Òran Mòr in Glasgow on Saturday 14 March 2026.

As we embark on what promises to be a pivotal few months for Scotland, our aims are simple.

• To re-energise the YES movement.

• To plant seeds that will yield fruit in coming months and years.

• To make contact with as wide a demographic as possible.

• In short, to ‘put the band back together’ and recapture the spirit of 2014.

The day will be divided into two sections, with tickets available either separately for each part, or for the two combined.

During the day, from 10 am until 4 pm, we’ll have an event along the lines of last year’s three IFS Conventions, with the emphasis on inviting ideas and discussion about what a post-independence Scotland should look like. The focus will be on three main topics: Energy, the Economy and Europe, with an opportunity to discuss aspects of them all, and explore different possible ways forward, in World Café format. We’ll also have key contributions from Lesley Riddoch in the morning and Phil Boswell in the afternoon. Further speakers and session leaders will be announced closer to the event.

In the evening, from 6:00 pm until late, there’ll be an exciting music and social event, with a roster of musical performers who will knock your socks off, including Eddi Reader, The Bluebells and Sulidae. Whatever you’ve been doing during the day, it’ll be an opportunity to let your hair down and enjoy a truly memorable evening that folk will be talking about for a long time. The full line-up is gradually taking shape, and we’ll announce more names in the near future.

Tickets are priced as follows:

Daytime event: £10 (plus booking fee £0.84)
Evening event: £20 (plus booking fee £1.68)
Both events: £25 (plus booking fee £2.10)

We hope you’ll be able to join us for all or part of the day.

To book via TicketSource, just click on this link.

Best wishes,

IFS/ YU Joint Organising Team

Overview

Yes United is delighted to announce our 3rd National meeting, where we learn from the past and chart a winning course towards independence.

You are warmly invited to join our Highland gathering to consider Scotland’s potential as an independent nation and the practical and pragmatic steps that we must take to get there.

As we gear up for Scotland’s next chapter, Yes United will be looking forward to the opportunities and strategies which will drive us towards full Scottish statehood. Speakers include JEAN URQUHART, ANDY WIGHTMAN and JIM SILLARS.

Plus a review of Yes United’s achievements to date, how we will create a people’s manifesto for Scotland and why there is a NEW CASE FOR OPTIMISM.

The meeting will take place in CULTARLANN, INVERNESS from 10.00am until 4pm. Doors open at 09.30am.

Tickets cost £6.50 and must be reserved in advance. This will include a signed copy of Jim Sillar’s book, lunch, tea, coffee and refreshments (with gluten-free options available - PLEASE ADVISE).

Register for the Event

Click HERE for tickets

On BBC Radio 4 Today programme at the start of the year, Justin Webb, one of the best BBC journalists, stated as an accepted truth that the UK is a rich country. It isn’t true. It is a myth, one that the independence movement has to bust at every opportunity.

To say UK/England is unable to pay its way is an understatement. It gets deeper in debt every minute. The national debt now is £2.93trn and will hit the £3trn mark this year. The OBR forecast is £3.5 trn by 2030-31. The Treasury anticipates a debt interest bill of £135bn for 2026-27, more than the £90bn it intends to spend on defence. £1 in every £10 the government spends, goes on debt interest. It now pays what the financial markets call a “moron premium” on the debt it borrows – in short it must pay more in interest than other countries.

By busting that false claim of being rich, and contrasting what we can do with our natural and vast energy resources, we give the Scottish people the best reason for peeling off from England.

Stay with England and continue the remorseless decline in broken Britain, or peel off and escape into a better future? To that question there is only one sensible answer: Independence.

But it is not the question that the SNP is putting front and centre as the election campaign gets underway. John Swinney had a wonderful opportunity last week when questioned on the Today programme about whether he would agree to sending troops to a Ukraine security force once the present war ends. He said yes when he should have said no, and taken the chance to drive home the message that broken debt-ridden Britain is in no position to send significant numbers of troops and equipment anywhere. He should have stripped bare the Starmer delusion of UK intervention and influence.

There is no worse thing a government can do than to commit its armed forces to a potential combat role they are not equipped to meet. It borders on the criminal to do so.

John would not have needed to offer his own opinion. He could have cited General Sir Richard Shirreff, former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, NATO. This retired General could say in public what present serving senior officers can only opine in private.

Quote from the General: “We are left with the unedifying impression of a British PM making promises he knows he will never be able to keep, to maintain a pretence, perhaps in part because his position is so weak domestically – that the UK is a significant player in world affairs.”

The General has pointed out that the Ukraine battlefront which any UK-French force would have to monitor and defend is 800 miles long. It took 50,000 troops (10,000 from UK) to defend Kosovo, which the General, who was there, describes as a “pocket handkerchief” compared to Ukraine.

He has outlined professionally what a UK 10,000 number in Ukraine would require: 10,000 on the front line, 10,000 preparing to replace them, and 10,000 retaining after deployment. Six months or perhaps one year of that effort he says “would sap every ounce of our military strength”. He points out that troops need to be well armed, and notes what is the open secret in the army, that “our arsenal from tanks to bullets has already been supplied to Ukraine” with doubts everywhere within the military that it has all been replaced.

UK/England is a skint paper tiger militarily. The consequence of a poor country pretending to be rich.

https://amzn.eu/d/5zHLUtS

A bold call for renewal and self-belief in Scotland’s future

In The New Case for Optimism, Jim Sillars delivers a compelling, sharply argued vision for Scotland’s next chapter. Rejecting political fatalism and the erosion of civic confidence, Sillars offers a clear, rational framework for a nation ready to rediscover its self-determination and purpose.

Over a decade has passed since the Scottish referendum on independence, and the issue has faded into the background in spite of a chain of electoral mandates for renewed pressure for a second referendum. Today the issue has been overtaken by austerity at home and dramatic events abroad, but veteran campaigner Jim Sillars has written this call for a renewed campaign and a plea for optimism.

Now in his eighty-eighth year, Sillars has plenty of campaigning experience behind him and says that this will be the last one. His support for Scottish independence goes back to the seventies when he founded the Scottish Labour Party, establishing the connection between the left and independence.

With this move he hopes to kick off a process and a debate that reach out not only to those who have always maintained their enthusiasm for independence but also to those how have been distracted by other political and social developments and those who have never supported independence in the past. Independence, Sillars argues, is not about dislike of the English, but the wellbeing Scots in the context of a dramatically declining UK economy.

Key Themes & Takeaways

• Optimism as a civic duty — Sillars redefines optimism not as naïve hope, but as an act of courage and responsibility.

• A call to renewal — Scotland’s future, he argues, depends on rejecting complacency and rebuilding faith in its institutions and people.

• Beyond political tribalism — Independence is reframed as a rational, evidence-led project for national competence and justice.

• Moral and democratic clarity — The book insists that genuine progress begins with self-respect and honest leadership.

Key Quotes from The New Case for Optimism

“Optimism is not the denial of difficulty—it’s the decision to act despite it.”

“Our nation’s greatest deficit is not economic; it is psychological.”

“Independence must be about capability, not sentiment. We must be ready to govern well, not merely to be governed differently.”

There are sound reasons for not adopting “Scotland as a colony” position. One is that unionists just don’t believe it. A colony does not, as the majority of people in Scotland did in 2014, reject independence. Those who made that decision did not see themselves in the category of a colony, but in the context of two states having created a unified state. This is why they call themselves unionists.

The political fact of England and English state interests dominating the new state formed in 1707, does not, in the unionist mind, alter the legal fact of a union. How do I know that? Because I talk to unionists, and read and listen to what they say.

Given that to win independence we have to win over a substantial number of unionist voters, there is no chance of doing so if we insist they see Scotland as a colony, because they will not accept that argument.

But there is another substantive reason, not a political one, for not adopting the colony case: assets. When a colonial power and a colony split, neither makes any claim to the public assets of the other. They simply depart and go their own way with the exception of minor agreements on pension provision for public servants.

If, however, we see Scotland as having been a state that, along with another state, dissolved to create a new single state, which has lasted for 318 years, then the matter of public assets, how they are valued, and how they are distributed on the dissolution of that old state, becomes a vital part of the break-up negotiations. As, also, does the issue of liabilities.

The British state has embassies and consulates all over the world. Many with substantial real estate value. Scotland as having been part of that state has a call on a proportion of those values on departing the union. On the English and Scottish parts of the island of Gt. Britain, the British state has military establishments and land; there are in England government buildings with real estate value, to which Scotland has contributed. One of those buildings, among others, is Lancaster House, a ripe bit of real estate slap in the middle of London. To it we may add the Foreign Office, Treasury, Bank of England, Downing Street, Cabinet Office, MOD and a number of other offices. Having contributed to their building and upkeep we are entitled to a proportionate share of their value. There are other areas in which Scotland’s negotiators will have a legitimate claim, such as the Royal Navy fleet and military equipment.

Not to be forgotten is the British States’ vast collection of valuable paintings and other artistic items gathered over the past 318 years. That will include what today has notionally belonged to the Monarch. As a recent investigative article in the Daily Telegraph has revealed, no one is sure which paintings belong to the King and which are actually state owned. An audit will be required there.

Between the day independence is won in the ballot box and independence is declared, there will be a transition period during which negotiations will take place on a new treaty between Scotland and England. Assets and liabilities will have to be defined, then divided. What I have mentioned probably only scratches the surface of all that is British state owned, to which on departure Scotland is entitled to a proportionate share of the value.

Outside of assets and liabilities there are other crucial issues that will have to be negotiated on trade relations, technical standards, the border, how freely people can move from one country to the other, and possible shared action in a Nato context.

At present, it may seem premature to be talking about independence negotiations and a treaty when we are at only 47% in the polls. The priority is surely to build the vote to an unimpeachable winning number? Of course that is the priority. But it is wise to start now building the brief our negotiators will need when we do win, rather than to wait until we win as was the case in 2014 when no work had been done.

We can start that necessary work without deflecting from the main effort of campaigning to build the vote with an independence manifesto. What we need on the negotiating brief is a few people who can draw upon expertise in the areas that will need negotiation, and start quietly but effectively on that brief project. Later this month I am meeting a key person whom I hope to persuade to take on this task.

Thoughts about the catastrophic cuts to BBC Radio Scotland’s Music Programme

Stephen McAll, Constant Follower

This is a long but important read if you value Scottish music and don’t want to see it being gutted in real time, on our own national station.

Since Victoria Easton-Riley took over as Head of Audio and Events at BBC Radio Scotland, she is scrapping most of its most important music shows and curtailing the remainder. The Iain Anderson Show, The Roddy Hart Show, Billy Sloan Show and more will all disappear this month, replaced by an easy-listening format designed for “broad mainstream appeal”, the kind of thing you hear on commercial ‘hits’ stations everywhere. Passive listening.

Victoria has come straight from Bauer, where she was in charge of content for stations like the Hits/Greatest Hits networks. Nothing against Victoria’s impressive work at those stations, but this is not what BBC Radio Scotland is for.

We don’t need another passive background ‘hits’ station. We need a national station that champions new and emerging Scottish artists and plays the carefully chosen, sometimes difficult records that will never test well in a focus group, but change someone’s life when they hear them at midnight.

These shows are not just ‘programmes’. They are part of the living infrastructure of Scottish music. They are often where artists get their first play and their first quote from a trusted DJ. That is exactly how Constant Follower began. A late-night Radio Scotland play. A presenter who connected. A listener who was really listening.

For new artists, this is devastating.

Streaming isn’t a substitute. Across the main platforms like blood-sucking Spotify, well over 100,000-250,000 (!!!) new tracks are uploaded every single day, and the vast majority of those never reach even 1,000 plays in a year.

Dropping your song into that vast ocean of noise and being told “you have lots of ways to get heard now” is nonsensical. A single play or quote from BBC Radio Scotland instantly lifts an artist out of that morass. It says to promoters, festivals, funders and fans: this music matters.

For listeners, these shows are the opposite of passive listening.

They are where you sit down, because you trust the person on air to bring you something of quality you didn’t know you needed to hear. Iain, Roddy, Billy and Natasha (and their producers) are music lovers first. They join the dots between old and new music, Scotland and the world. They build context. Take them away and you lose one of the last shared spaces where Scottish music is treated with care.

“Radio is in decline so things need to change”.

Yes, casual radio listening is drifting to playlists and algorithms. That is exactly why curated, specialist shows matter more than ever, not less. When everything else is algorithmic shuffle, these programmes are where people actively tune in and find new music.

I’ve read many times that BBC Introducing will be the replacement for these losses. That is not the case because BBC Introducing Scotland treats the whole country as a single ‘region’. All of Scotland funnelled into one slot. In England, BBC Introducing has many local shows, each with their own space. Here, every new Scottish artist is competing for the same tiny window of airtime. It rarely leads to the kind of sustained, UK-wide support that people imagine when they say “but you still have Introducing”.

Most importantly, BBC Introducing is not a long, late-night, presenter-led show. It is a talent-scouting strand. You might get a single track play, maybe once. You do not get the deep, repeat support, live sessions, interviews and context that Iain Anderson, Roddy Hart, Billy Sloan and others have offered for years. Those late-night programmes build careers over time. BBC Introducing, as valuable as it is, simply cannot replace that.

The Scottish Music Industry Association, which represents more than 6,000 members across the sector, has already written to BBC Radio Scotland to call this out and to ask for a pause, proper consultation, and a clear strategy for how the BBC will continue to meet its public service duties to Scottish music. I am posting their letter in full in the comments because it sets out the wider impact better than I can.

I hope I’m coming across very clear on this.

This decision, driven by Victoria Easton-Riley’s commercial radio mindset, is short-sighted and culturally damaging. It rips out nationally recognised spaces that have supported generations of Scottish artists, in order to chase the same ‘mainstream appeal’ you can hear on any number of stations already.

If you are a musician:

- Please sign the petition to save The Iain Anderson Show (and the others) and reverse this decision. ink in the comments.

- Share your own story when you sign. Say which shows supported you, what that first play meant, what opportunities followed.

- Write directly to BBC Radio Scotland and to Angus Robertson for Edinburgh Central MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Culture, whose brief includes Scotland’s creative economy.

- If you can, also write to your own MSP using

https://www.writetothem.com

, and copy the SMIA letter or link to it.

If you are a listener:

- Please sign the petition as well.

- In the comments there, you can say which artists you discovered through these shows and how they shaped your listening.

- Email BBC Radio Scotland and Angus Robertson. Tell them you do not want yet another wallpaper ‘hits’ station. You want space for discovery, for risk, for Scottish voices that do not fit the algorithm.

This is not about protecting a bit of nostalgia. It is about whether Scotland keeps a national, public service space where its own musicians can still be heard, nurtured and taken seriously.

Petition link and Scottish Music Industry Association letter link below. Please read, sign, and share if you can. And feel free to lift from these words if it’s useful.

Thanks for reading. Let me know your thoughts.

Stephen McAll, Constant Follower

SMIA Open Letter: https://www.smia.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/27_11_25_SMIA-Open-Letter-to-BBC-Radio-Scotland.pdf

Petition to reinstate the shows:

https://www.change.org/p/save-the-iain-anderson-show-reverse-the-bbc-radio-scotland-decision/actions?source_location=petition_page

I am often asked, “Why do we need our own currency on independence?”

A good, indeed, critical question for those of us who want to see Scotland flourish through independence. In fact, many people believe Scotland already issues its own pound and although Scottish banks do have their own distinctive notes, these are underwritten by the Bank of England (BoE) and issued under its license.

There are many reasons to have our own national currency and a google search will turn up many specialist papers on money and monetary systems. Such papers have their place as a great deal of technical and academic work needs to be done to get the best solutions for our new currency systems. They are also of value in responding to the inevitable attacks we will face from our unionist opponents.

However, I’m more interested in the simple facts that can be understood by the average voter, too busy with everyday challenges to seek out learned papers and who may find them a turn off anyway.

The answer to the question I posed, “Why do we need our own currency on independence?” is simple:

The British State and its control of both our media and the banking payment systems.

Imagine the headlines, “Westminster vetos Scotland using the U.K. payment systems if it votes for independence” printed in bold all over the media?

Also imagine, if Westminster follows through and cuts our access to payments systems, going to the supermarket on day one to find that all card systems are down and you can’t get cash out of the ATM?

This veto and others during the campaign and separation negotiations can be avoided if we have done the preparation to issue our own currency on day one, after the transition period, when Scotland becomes a state again.

Setting up a new currency is simple but needs planning. It’s not difficult to set up a new currency. It involves creating a Central Bank, Treasury, Regulatory Board, Payment System and Stock Exchange - all well paid jobs and career opportunities in Scotland. However, it does need advance planning. Based on consultations with a number of European central bank officials, SCG estimates it would take two years of planning and a further two or three years to implement.

The opportunity then presents to decentralise Government departments across our major cities so Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen, Inverness and Edinburgh all benefit from these developments.

Having our own currency is important for both political and economic reasons

First, political, it’s now eleven years since the 2014 referendum and many Scots reading this might not have been of voting age and therefore not aware how critical the currency issue was to the debate.

That criticality was proven live on TV in an Independence debate watched by millions. The then leader of the SNP, Alex Salmond, said Scotland would “share the UK pound, it being our currency too”. In reply, the then UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alasdair Darling, stated, “You can’t share the UK pound after independence Alex, so what is your Plan B?” Alex was wrong footed and, for whatever reason, was unable to respond with a Plan B.

Many, like those of us in the SCG, realised immediately that the Cause was lost, as did Alasdair Darling.

It was known later that the BoE had formed a provisional Board of Directors to facilitate Scotland sharing the UK pound after independence and I can only assume Alex had not foreseen the political torpedo devised by his fellow Scot. In economic terms sharing the pound made perfect sense to the BoE as it promised least volatility to the value of the UK pound in international markets.

However POLITICS trumps all other issues when it comes to something as threatening to the British Establishment as Scottish Independence.

In the Independence Movement, we must remember our opponents have all of the influence, media exposure and the politicising powers of the British state behind them. A State that is well practised in the craft of deception. We must never again be so politically exposed as we were in 2014. Second, economic, it is and always was a nonsense to claim that Scotland could be ‘independent’ when sharing the UK pound as has been the position adopted by the SNP.

To be independent, a country needs to have both Fiscal and Monetary Power (set and collect taxes, issue all currency used within the State, set interest rates and manage the exchange rate if required). In terms of currency it is the latter, ‘monetary power’ that is critical.

An independent Scotland with its own central bank and treasury would have the financial capacity to transform the lives of its citizens. Under Westminster and specifically the failed economic doctrines of Thatcherism and Neoliberalism, Scotland’s natural and infrastructure assets have been sold to the world.

We share the vision of Scotland’s resources and assets being brought back to the people of Scotland, controlled and managed here, creating well paid jobs and careers for our own people. Like any ‘normal’ country and in stark contrast to today where Scotland is treated by Westminster as an economic colony to be pillaged, our resources extracted for the benefit of the City of London.

Scotland has vast resources of water, land, oil, gas, energy renewables to name a few, but to use these to revitalise our country we need the monetary capability to run a significant deficit for a number of years. That deficit, otherwise called ‘borrowing’ is ‘by the State, from the State’. The Government, via the Treasury tells the Central Bank to make funds available.

There is no reliance on collecting taxes, nor any reliance, when you issue your own currency, on borrowing from the Bond Markets or anywhere else. The important thing for sustainable, noninflationary spending is not the size of a state deficit but what that spending is used to fund. Productive investment in public assets, services and infrastructure which support our economy as opposed to tax cuts for the wealthy and large scale de risking of corporate activity and PFI schemes which increase the problems of inequality.

As a currency issuing State, Scotland would then be self financing with our own Treasury and Central Bank funding our own economic regeneration under the direction and oversight of our own elected government. But only if we issue our own currency from DAY ONE, not if we share the GB pound nor by adopting the Euro.

So much is possible with independence and our own currency. These are just a few of the things we could do:

• Renationalise the generation, distribution and supply of our electricity and gas resources.

• Use our abundant ‘renewable’ energy as an affordable base for our industrial strategy. Instead of just being sent down to England, nationalise it, taking it by compulsory purchase if necessary, out of the hands of offshore investment trusts and private equity funds operating in tax havens and from the private landed gentry (around 500 of whom own most of Scotland).

• Make the network work in the national interest of all of us, not just the few!

• Re-establish oil refining with a state of the art new oil refinery at Grangemouth

• Carry out a programme of rented public housing built across Scotland

• Invest in roads, rail and ferry infrastructure, including subsea tunnels to connect our islands, like our Scandinavian neighbours

• Invest in our NHS, not just to treat our people but in preventative guidance

• Increase the State pension to the European average, giving our elderly population an income on which they can live a respectable retirement

• For the young, with the interest rate set in Scotland by our own Central Bank, there’s the opportunity for a fixed 2.5% mortgage over the entirety of a thirty year guaranteed mortgage.

• And, as Tommy Sheridan stated in the 2014 campaign, “we will eradicate banks …… food banks, by establishing a fit for purpose benefit system”

The choice is ours

The choice of which policies to deliver is political. The first Government of an independent Scotland will decide which to carry out. A Government chosen only by the people of Scotland based on the party Manifesto. I hope to see the above ambitions in that Prospectus for an Independence Scotland!

It would be a new ‘Scottish Enlightenment’, a new ‘Nova Scotia’.

It can be delivered by us taking the normal levers of power.

Currency is essential- not “nice to have”

If Barbados can do it- Scotland surely can too!

Yes United — Scotland’s Journey to Statehood

Our 2nd National Meeting

Date: Saturday 22 November 2025
Time: 10:00am–4:00pm
(Optional 9:00am leafleting on Sauchiehall Street)
Venue: Garnethill Room, Renfield Centre
260 Bath Street, Glasgow, G2 4JP

Tickets: £6.50 (reserve in advance) — includes tea, coffee, lunch + a signed copy of the latest book from Jim Sillars: “The New Case for Optimism”.

Gluten-free lunch options provided.

Why we’re meeting

Join independence supporters from across Scotland to chart Scotland’s Journey to Statehood—reflecting on lessons since 2014 and aligning the ideas, expertise, and energy needed to win hearts and minds for the next stage.

Programme highlights

• Prof. Ailsa Henderson — Understanding the weaknesses in 2014: what the evidence shows

• Robin McAlpine — Planning for Statehood: building the institutions we need

• Jim Sillars — Thinking Strategically: the route to 2028

We’ll combine keynote inputs with discussion sessions to turn insight into action.

Taking part

For early birds, we’ll leaflet at 9:00am on Sauchiehall Street, then reconvene at the Renfield Centre for a 10:00am start. The day concludes at 4:00pm.

Following Glasgow, our next Yes United meeting will be in Inverness as we continue to build support nationwide.

We look forward to seeing you there.

The Yes United Team
Jim Sillars · Alex Neil · Calum Miller · Simon Forrest · Sheena Jardine · Carole Inglis · Jim Eadie · Colin Fox · Stuart Clements · Andrew Ewen

The issue of China and security has dominated the British political scene these past weeks. The root cause is that the UK is a poor country pretending to be rich. Those words should be repeated and repeated and repeated by activists in the movement until the message they contain is permanently lodged in the Scottish public mind. Once lodged, the unionist victory slogan of 2014 “Better Together” will be demolished; and the people more able to see the sense in a new slogan “Better Apart” or “Better Out.”

Repetition is a lesson I picked up in the course of my political life from the then Tory MP for Glasgow Cathcart, Teddy Taylor. He and I debated on a number of occasions during the 1979 referendum, and he made the same speech every time. When I told him, in a friendly way in private, that he had become boring he explained: “I may have made the same point a hundred times, but it will be the first time a new audience has heard it. And only by repeating it and repeating it will I get my message over.”

The point of driving home that the UK is broke is to upend the unionist case that wee Scotland has to shelter under the umbrella of the economically powerful UK/England. Once the Scottish public mind grasps that fact, it is much easier then to explain that being attached to a country that is broke and in decline, but will not admit it and so continues on a downward path, means we go down with it unless we depart.

The Chinese lesson happening in front of us and mark the UK difference

Mark the difference when a county that was previously in the first rank of world states goes into a spiral of decline, falls down the ranks and, in relation to powerful states old and new, becomes weak in dealing with them. The current issue of the UK and China over the non-prosecution of two alleged spies, and the dithering over approval or rejection of planning permission for the new massive Chinese Embassy in London, are two examples of UK weakness there for all to see.

Every state knows that depending on how important you are, the powerful will spy on you using its own under diplomatic cover, deep sleepers, agents recruited from locals, and breaking cyber security. The job of counter-intelligence is to catch them, and have the law prosecute them. This has been the practice for centuries. Even when big spy catching takes place, the states involved, if economically powerful enough, don’t let it sour relations for long. The US and China are good examples of that normality.

Between 2010 and 2012, the Chinese penetrated and rolled up and wiped out the US spy chain, capturing and executing at least 30 people. This only became public in 2017 when the New York Times broke the story. The USA has done the same to the networks of China’s spies, and as recently as August this year two more, US sailors, were caught and prosected. Whatever causes XI Jinping and Donald Trump cite for the present disputes between them, neither has complained of the other’s spies. Neither feels offended when their spies are caught and prosecuted. They have continued to conduct negotiations over a range of matters, and both are scheduled to meet soon in South Korea.

What about the UK? As the main ally of the USA, and permanent member of the UN Security Council, it is important to China, and of course it spies on the British state, using both cyber and human sources. If MI6 is doing its job, then it will have spies in China.

So why, unlike the USA and China, has the UK government and Parliament got their pants in a twist over letting free two alleged UK citizens spying for China; and why is the UK government in a blue funk about making a decision to approve or reject the new Chinese embassy which will have in-built super cyber spying capabilities?

Why is the UK government seemingly afraid of saying to China what everyone knows: “You spy on us, we spy on you, you catch and prosecute our spies and we do the same with yours. You are a security threat to us, and we are one to you. It is one of the inter-state facts of life, so now we can get on with being normal in our relations?”

Because it is a poor country reliant on China buying its bonds (debt), and reliant on China for investment it cannot itself generate, and so is afraid of offending the Chinese Communist Party. As one newspaper put it: “Chinese debt trap threat to Britain,” and another “Borrowing is giving China the whip hand.”

The China footprint in the Uk economy and academic life

China can spot a country that is financially weak, one where it can use its wealth to insert itself and promote its interests. Between 2005-2024 China’s investment in the UK has been US$104.7bn. France by comparison was only $35.2bn. China’s investment stake in the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station is 27.4% (France is the other partner). It will have a 65% stake in the proposed new nuclear power station in Essex. It has a 9% stake in Thames Water, 75% stake in Northumbrian Water. A Hong Kong based Chinese company completely owns the UK Power Networks that supplies SE and East England. China acquired a 10% stake in Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd, a company that owns Stansted, Southampton, Glasgow and Aberdeen airports. China supplies 98% of all solar panels in the UK; and is linked to around one-third of all offshore wind projects.

The UK government does not publish who own its debt, but Edward Yardini, an experienced bond analyst, has warned that China could use its bond holding of UK debt to manipulate the UK government, when it wants to show it is unhappy with UK-China policy. In short being in a weak position because it is a poor country that China knows is not rich, it is now afraid to offend China.

Then there are our universities, reliant on Chinese students and direct cash input to their research activities. Oxford university has received £24m between 2020 and 2024. Cambridge around £19m.

Is the UK doing a modern Kowtow this time?

In 1793 Lord Macartnery, Britain’s first ambassador to China, refused to comply with the Qing expectation of him doing a Kowtow – prostration, kneeling and bowing so low as to have one’s head touching the ground. Instead, as a representative of a growing power, he said he would bend the knee as he did in front of “the King of England.”

That was then. This is now, with a British government now tied in knots, caught showing anxiety, if not actual fear, in case it deeply offends China over both the spy scandal and the response from an angry China if it rejects approval for the embassy. Not quite the Kowtow of old. A new modern version that British representatives this time are willing to do.

This book review was first published in Bella Caledonia on 30^th September 2025, at the request of Gerry Hassan. It is reproduced here because it underlines and emphasises why, in the context of Scottish state interests, we must separate from UK/England as it enters another stage of its post-imperial decline. The failure of Labour’s intellectuals to understand this historic truth and instead clutch at straws, is a clear indication of why the polity that is UK/England will continue to decline. If the clever ones don’t get it, you can be sure that not-so-clever one at the top – Starmer – will keep blundering on downwards.

The 2024 election was a strange electoral beast. A Tory government despised and held in contempt by many was routed, but its main opponent, Labour, could not generate enthusiasm for what it had on offer, giving us the perplexing result of a party with a massive parliamentary majority with only 33% of those who voted. Since polling day that 33% has melted. Something wasn’t right in 2024. Something isn’t right now. Something needs explained. A way out of this needs to be charted.

The Starmer Symptom, a book edited by Mark Perryman, of eighteen contributions from a fair chunk of the left’s intelligentsia, sets out to tell us what has happened and, importantly, the direction Labour has to take. Among the book’s endorsements is this from Alex Niven, editor of Tribune: ‘A vital kickback against national decline, ranging over the aimless, joyless landscape of Britain under Grey Labour. Mark Perryman has persuaded some of the fiercest, most eloquent polemicists in the land to examine, expose and ultimately eviscerate one of the lamest leaders in Labour history.’ That claim about national decline is one I shall return to, because it lies at the nub of this book’s ultimate failure.

The issue of labourism

Eviscerate seems a bit strong for the criticism of Starmer, but contributor after contributor damns him for his attachment to labourism, a belief of continued Labour Party hegemony as undisputed leader on the left spectrum of British politics, that has had its day. He has an added mortal sin: according to Hilary Wainwright: “Starmer’s ‘achievement’ has been, in fact, not so much to return the Labour Party to the working class as to make the Labour Party safe for the establishment.”

Labour has had a number of leaders from Keir Hardie onwards, and all have been subject to severe criticism by the members but there was also always some degree of affection and respect. Starmer seems to be the exception. Nye Bevan’s description of Hugh Gaitskell as “a desiccated calculating machine” seems more apt in relation to Starmer, because Gaitskell had what Starmer lacks - charisma, passion, fire in the belly, vision and a set of beliefs founded upon a body of thought. Starmer, in the view of Clive Lewis MP is rooted in “centralised managerialism” that has led to “a hollowing out of Labour – not just of ideas but of a political culture.”

Eunice Goes sees Starmer as a mere “doer and a fixer, not a thinker” who declared at the door of Downing Street that his government would be “unburdened by doctrine.” It is hard in its 282 pages to find a kind word said about Starmer. All contributors are good at pinning down his flaws, and don’t dodge the more important fundamental problem that has been the bane of socialist life in Britain, desire for transformative near revolutionary change when the instrument chosen, the Labour Party, accepts that it works within a capitalist system which it can only modify not destroy. The book, outside of assassinating Starmer’s political character, provides a great deal of information about the state of the UK economy and society.

The frustration the contributors have with this unpalatable fact of non-destruction of capitalism is present in every article about labourism. You might think, given the intellectual power gathered within its covers, that after damning labourism for its inability to be a real challenger to capitalism, a brilliant ideologically based alternative emerges from its pages to re-kindle belief in real change being accomplished. You would be wrong.

The problem is not just Starmer but Labour take on Britain

Starmer isn’t the only one with flaws. The common theme about replacing the despised labourism is changing the electoral system to proportional representation, Labour abandoning hegemony by embracing a coalition with the Lib Dems and the Greens, thus ushering in an era that is progressive. Clive Lewis explains:

Coalition building is not simply electoral pragmatism, it’s an acknowledgement of complex, interdependent realities. No one party alone can solve the polycrisis we face. Collaboration between Labour, the Greens, the Liberal Democrats and other progressive forces is not a sign of weakness, but maturity.

Not the new big deal one would expect from people who differentiate themselves from the non-thinker, too pragmatist, ideologically empty Starmer.

Many women, and men, in the UK, would quarrel with the description of the Greens as completely progressive; and there is not a cat in hell’s chance of the Liberal Democrats, nice people as they are, taking the country out of the capitalist orbit and shifting the balance of wealth and power to the people, an aim once proclaimed as central to the socialist purpose of the Labour Party.

In this book there is plenty of evidence, and graphs that demonstrate the plight of today’s UK. Danny Dorling quotes Stephanie Flanders, who used to appear regularly on our television screens and is now head of Bloomberg Economics stating about the UK: “the poorest fifth of the population are now much poorer than in most of the poorest countries in central and eastern Europe.” He goes on to describe the UK as “now a peripheral, poor European country where life for most people has been becoming worse since 2008 and especially so for children.”

This brings me to Alex Niven’s assertion that the book and its authors deliver a “vital kickback against national decline.” They don’t, because they like most others in the higher levels of UK politics and governance haven’t been able to grasp two things: that the “UK is a poor country pretending to be rich,” to quote The Daily Telegraph, and that it is in the final stages of post-imperial decline.

All of my life the UK has had economic crisis followed by economic crisis. After World War Two, it was in managed decline as it tried to hang on to a role of a Great Power, and even when that delusion was exposed in the Suez Crisis its leadership, of both parties, could not bring themselves to acknowledge that reality and adjust to policies suited to an offshore European economy. From managed to precipitate decline was due to three major shocks to the system – the financial crisis of 2008, the cost of a disorganised, chaotic Brexit and the crass mishandling of the pandemic with its lockdowns. An intrinsically weak economy buckled, the inability to pay its way was exposed, and the only recourse was to an international credit card piling up debt.

The contributors to this book can rubbish labourism, point to the ‘greyness’ and limitations of Starmer, can genuinely be angry about the levels of poverty now standard, but as they cannot understand the true causes of the UK’s national decline, with its institutions crumbling, they have no answers.

If this group of the left’s intelligentsia can see what is wrong but cannot understand why, no one should expect the non-thinking Starmer and his Labour Party to halt the decline. They are lost. A vacuum that cannot be filled. There is a message in this book for Scots. We 5.4 million are at present handcuffed to England, the main component of this declining decaying British state, which has only one way forward – further decline. Read the book and grasp the message: our neighbour is going down the tubes, and we will go down the same tubes with it unless we disengage and separate.

BELIEVE IN SCOTLAND I-Switch campaign for its National Day of Action this weekend (Saturday) 20 September is asking every Yes group across Scotland to get out leafleting in their local area, on the same day. Contact your local Yes group for leaflets, or be visible in other ways. Street stalls, litter pick, wearing Yes badges or T-shirts or flags on bridges - any activity that gets your group out and seen. Find out more about the day of action from Gordon MacIntyre Kemp below:

SCOTTISH CURRENCY GROUP (SCG) are holding their annual conference on Saturday 25th and Sunday 26 October in the Carnegie Conference Centre in Dunfermline. The conference will look at the ‘Why’ of Independence, which they argue is at least as important as the ‘How’. Party leaders and others in the Independence Movement have been invited to share their ‘Vision for Independence’ with a focus on the economics. The SCG view having our own currency and full control of our monetary and fiscal policies to be crucial to achieving those visions. Speaker line up includes Prof Thiebault Laurentjoye, Kenny MacAskill, Colin Fox, Philippa Whitford, Robin McAlpine & Craig Dalzell, Gordon MacIntyre Kemp, Prof Richard Murphy and other well known names. BOOK HERE

INDEPENDENCE FORUM SCOTLAND (IFS) is holding its third National Convention in Glasgow, at Adelaide Place on Saturday 8 November. The day kicks off with Scotland's Makar, Pàdraig MacAoidh on 'What it's like to be a Scot Today', followed by Jim Osborne, Scottish Currency Group on Pension Provision in Scotland. The Road to Independence is the sole focus of the afternoon session. You can keep up to date with developments on the IFS Convention web page. Booking is essential: If you're attending for the first time, BOOK HERE.

YES UNITED will be holding our 2nd meeting in Glasgow on Saturday 22nd November. This event will be even bigger and better than the 1st one. Keep the date free, more details to follow.

Trustees of Yes United marched at the AUOB march on Saturday in Edinburgh. As we walked up to join the end of the march, it had already started moving and so we were unable to see until we started walking down the Royal Mile how many people were actually there. The numbers were estimated to be between 2000 and 3000 so it was one of the biggest marches in recent years.

The sun was shining and there was an amazing atmosphere as the tourists lined the streets and took pictures. Around 70 Indy Bikers headed the march, and there were many different musicians, including the Saor Alba Pipes and Drums (our very own Independence pipe band), other smaller traditional bands, and lone pipers as well. The march and flags are always a magnificent sight and this one was no different.

As we turned the corner in front of the Holyrood Parliament, we could see a small group of unionists there with union flags. An opposing anti-nazi group cheered on the AUOB marchers and soon the unionist rally was vastly outnumbered and drowned out by our own YES rally.

The carnival atmosphere continued outside the Parliament with many great speakers including Tommy Sheridan, Kenny McAskill, Sara Salyers and others. The musicians were tremendous and created a great atmosphere in the sun. Many were busy at the various yes stalls dotted about and people were handing out cards and flyers, including ourselves. We handed out 300 YesUnited.Scot cards and there was such enthusiasm and appetite for getting the band back together, everyone wanted to hear about it and take a card.

What a fantastic day, it certainly feels like the Yes Movement is back on the up and up, let's get this show on the road!

Today is the 720^th anniversary of the execution of William Wallace at the Smithfield Market in London

Here we are over 7 centuries later still having to fight for Scotland’s freedom and independence

In doing so we should learn some lessons from how William Wallace achieved victory:

1. Keep on fighting until we win/Don’t repeat the mistake that was made after the 2014 referendum when we allowed YES Scotland to be wound up/Doing that was a huge mistake/We absolutely need a National Yes organisation to mobilise our independence troops behind an agreed programme of action and do so from now until we win

2. Never forget we are fighting for the cause, not a party/The cause is far more important than any individual or group or the leadership of any political party

3. Rally the People/The independence movement has been looking in the mirror for too long, talking to ourselves. The purpose of a new Yes United is to build up such a level of support both for cause of Independence and the need for urgency in achieving it that it will become impossible for Westminster to say NO.

4. Like Wallace, we need to be audacious/Not timid/Not defensive/But confident/Well organised/United in our purpose/Defiant of the naysayers/As Keir Hardie said when the Labour Party was founded: Our job is to educate, organise and agitate.

In my view, there are three elements to the work we need to do to achieve our objectives:

1. The work programme for the period between now and January 2026, a copy of which has been circulated. Let me say this is not being presented on a take it or leave it basis. It is up to you to decide the way forward.

2. The second key task is for us to raise the funding to pay for our leaflets, building up a database of supporters, servicing local organisations, trying to get new local YES groups established where none currently exist, etc.

3. Finally, the third element of our work programme will be preparing the detailed case for independence.

Points to make:

a. No analysis by the independence movement of why we lost in 2014/Fortunately done by Edinburgh University/Main reason we lost; we didn’t do enough to persuade people that independence would benefit them and their families.

b. Pensioners were a classic case. Unionists threatened old people that they would lose their state pension if they voted for independence/As a result 70% of pensioners voted against independence/We took a purely defensive position/What we should have done was make Scottish pensioners angry that their pension is one of the lowest in Europe and put forward a detailed, costed commitment to increase the state pension in an independent Scotland to at least the European average, showing how it could be paid for/Had we done that I believe we may have won over enough pensioners for us to have won the referendum

c. We also need to recognise that the world has changed dramatically since 2014, requiring a complete re-think of the economic and social case for independence. For example: BREXIT/Going back into the EU; Defence/Ukraine has changed geopolitics/For example, will an independent Scotland commit to spending 5% of its GDP on defence and if so where will the money come from?/Currency – praise the work of the currency group/The economics of independence, e.g. GERS, cheap energy

d. A lot of work to be done. We need to build on the work of existing groups by filling the gaps/this time we need to present an exciting, ambitious and realistic prospectus for what an independent Scotland will look like.

23rd August, Eric Liddell Centre, Edinburgh