A renewed search for Yes amidst the debris of Brexit


Commentary by Christopher Silver

On the morning of June 24 last year, when the UK decided to leave the European Union, there was little comfort to be had.

Christopher Silver

Ever since, people in every corner of Britain have had to live with a sense of being trapped in a country that is hurtling, at breakneck speed, away from the kind of future they envisioned.

For some of us, that is still a largely abstract concern, for others, it’s a real and visceral threat to their capacity to belong here. This is the nature of trying to sever a web of connections.

Received wisdom

However, mixed in with the knowledge about a demonstrably disastrous decision, there was an element of excitement.

All of the received wisdom about Scottish politics suggested that Scotland’s vote to Remain, set alongside the UK-wide to decision to Leave, was a gift of immense political capital for the cause of Scottish independence.

For a fleeting moment it seemed to offer a promise as portentous and fateful as the vote to Leave itself.

That logic is not hard to fathom. Essentially, it holds that when politics in Scotland and England diverge, the opportunities for promoting Scottish self-rule must increase.

Ideologically, as the UK becomes more nationalistic, insular and right-wing, the credibility of independence as a political project should receive a shot in the arm. It may even inch towards that precious goal of becoming viewed as a necessity.

Like many others, I was wrong in promoting such assumptions. The old tropes: a democratic deficit, an out-of-touch Westminster, a braying British nationalism, were all there in abundance. But the chord that the Brexit result struck amongst Scots has turned out to be dissonant.

Scottish civil society has not leapt to the fore to assert the nation’s place in Europe. Cross-party efforts have been stymied by the overbearing politics of a second referendum. In fact, the positioning of independence as a possible route out of Brexit has provided the tactical cover to obscure pro-Remain sentiment across the Scottish Parliament.

At the same time, the political leverage exercised by the SNP has turned out to be flimsy and readily ignored. A nation that said Yes to Europe on two separate occasions by a clear majority, looks set to be quiescent when it comes to the crunch.

Why, then, has the Brexit crisis failed to offer the kind of rallying opportunities that planted the seeds of the 2014 Yes Movement in the 1980s?

The answer is probably that, thus far, Brexit has remained a crisis played out amongst the political elites and the professional classes. What many decried as Corbyn’s weakness in 2016 turned out to be a major boon in the recent snap election: the Labour leader simply didn’t have much to say on the subject and he remained largely unscathed by either side.

The referendum route 

The SNP has moved a long way from its last major electoral set back in 1979.

In the early days of Thatcherism, Jim Sillars called for civil disobedience to resist Tory rule, telling delegates at the party’s 1981 conference, ‘We have to be prepared to accept that the cell doors will clank behind some of us.’

Clearly, the party is facing a very different set of decisions after the 2017 General Election result and the loss of half a million votes.

But the current impasse has partly emerged due to the SNP’s shift towards a central focus on holding an independence referendum. This is a policy that is widely regarded as having been pivotal in offering a route for voters sceptical of independence to back the party in other electoral contests.

It is not hard to see why many have fallen for the temptation of thinking that the case for independence would simply become self-evident if the SNP governed well enough. Strategies that promote continuity and defer the need for change are always likely to be more alluring.

Electoral success is also the best means to smooth over internal dissent. The almost mythic discipline of the party in Holyrood and Westminster can partly be attributed to the fact that it has been able to distribute an expanding set of front-bench and committee posts for a decade.

Beyond continuity 

Yesterday, the First Minister noted, “the focus on the when and how of a referendum has, perhaps inevitably, been at the expense of setting out the many reasons why Scotland should be independent.”

An offer of a more inclusive approach to the wider community of people of support independence but are not supporters of the SNP, was long overdue. The movement is not the party.

The acknowledgment of an over-reliance on the procedural aspects of getting Scottish statehood was also significant.

Whether it was the Yes Scotland strategist who described independence as a simply extending the Scotland Act to cover all areas of Scottish life, or as the last step on a “home rule journey,” voters could be forgiven, at points, for thinking that priority in framing independence was that it would involve minimal disruption. Continuity of process became confused with continuity of vision.

Setting the context 

The apogee of this process-heavy mentality was the response to the Brexit referendum. But its obverse face was seen in 2014 when, as much by accident as design, the enormous task of shifting support for independence beyond its traditional level of around 25 per cent was devolved to a range of autonomous groups and local community-led campaigns.

That freedom of action, thought and vision was a new force in Scottish politics. But it also had deep roots: drawing on substantive inter-generational traditions of protest and working class organisation.

If the protest politics of the 1980s – against Apartheid, Trident or the Poll Tax – were all too easily dismissed in the light of consistent Conservative victories at the ballot box, it seems hard to imagine the success of devolution without them.

The political context for the setting up of a Scottish Constitutional Convention was about creating a bulwark against Tory rule. The pressing political concerns of the day and the impact this was having on working class Scotland, were intimately bound up with the great shift in opinion between 1979 and 1997.

Out of the trauma of that decade, emerged something that looked like the future.

A place to stand

It is also worth noting that a key milestone in the SNP’s recovery after the disaster of 1979 were the 1988 local elections, in which the SNP doubled its share of the vote and its number of councillors, replacing the Tories as the second party of local government in Scotland.

That vote took place in the context of the party’s vociferous opposition to the Poll Tax: specifically, its support of non-payment at a moment when Labour was torn on the issue.

This success would be carried forward in the 1992 General Election which  saw the party’s vote share experience a major recovery across Scotland, with a 7.4% swing (despite First Past the Post denying a rise in its number of seats).

Policies of non-cooperation, that go beyond protest and mitigation, have the capacity to move the perceptions of the wider Brexit crisis, with its desire economic implications, onto ground that can find the back of majority opinion in Scotland. Radical politics is, first and foremost, about finding a place to stand.

Brexit and Britishness

Somewhat perversely, the current situation is also the result of the sharp edge of the ‘democratic deficit’ being blunted by devolution. As we saw on 8 June, many people in Scotland are now prepared to vote Tory, safe in the knowledge that Holyrood offers them a shelter from the worst excesses of Tory policy.

Add to this the historic comfort of the cosmopolitan Scottish professional classes within the Union – those people for whom Scottish nationalism is a matter restricted to Murrayfield – and you have the deeply ingrained reasons for Brexit failing to shift opinion on the constitution.

Sections of the poor in Scotland, many of them SNP voters, are as alienated from Europe as they are from any other part of the status-quo. At the same time, the rich know full well that sticking with British identity always has, and probably always will, serve their best interests.

Who needs independence?

Independence, at any moment, will be inherently risky. Devolved government was designed to circumscribe risk and the radical wielding of power.

But if there is one lesson that every occupant of Bute House has struggled with: it is that political capital has to be shared and invested. It cannot be hoarded.

This is why, as the SNP seeks to refresh its programme for government with ‘creative, imaginative, bold and radical policies’ it needs to outline a transformative vision.

It must be a vision that is in harmony with, but that doesn’t seek to monopolise, the wider work of planning how to build a country from scratch.

In doing so, it needs to reconnect with its base and reach out to the communities in Scotland that were prepared to back independence in 2014. The poorer, the younger, the excluded – those who cried loudest for change, and those who need it the most.


  1. Lets get to the absolute route of the problem and it’s a brutal reality.

    Just about every nation on earth that has ever broken away from an imperial or colonial sate. Has done so based on national allegiance and identity. We can crow about being civil Scots etc. and that’s very worthy. I agree that I am a civil nationalist , but I also feel completely Scottish. Not one ounce of me feels British, and I despise that flag as I see it as the flag of the people who wish to subvert my identity into theirs.

    For most countries there was no debate, no identity crisis and no wrestling with facts and figures. They are what they are pure and simple and vote according to which nationality they feel allegiance to. Unfortunately the fact that the unionist Scot has to think about where they belong. Is in itself an act of defeat. They are admitting that they don’t view Scotland as their primary nation. They take pride in Scotland when it suits but swap allegiance for a gold medal at the Olympics.

    For the Irish it was simple, they are Irish and anything else is secondary to that fact. Economics is for politicians , nations are for people. We are struggling to get over 50% because half of Scots are not sufficiently patriotic to Scotland. Their allegiance is aligned with England. We are trying to get over the line using economics when we should be using the heart and soul.

    A nation is many things but firstly it is thus:” a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory”.

    In Scotland we are trying to reinvent the wheel . There are two wheels and one is not turning with us. We need to make it turn and we can’t do that without our heart and soul.

    • A brilliant synopsis, Big Jock. As for the author’s contention that: “Scottish civil society has not leapt to the fore to assert the nation’s place in Europe”, this is simply because “Scottish civil society” is largely led by a bunch of unionists/colonialists. We hear a lot about so-called ‘civic nationalism’; civic nationalism is not progressive at all, it just means more colonialism and oppression.

    • As an aside, census data and voting intention surveys tell us that “We are struggling to get over 50% because” an estimated 30% of No voters are not Scots, and if there is a second indy ref that figure will probably be closer to 40% given ongoing population change in Scotland. As the UN Committee concerned with ending what it calls “the scourge of colonization” would doubtless acknowledge, colonialists do not generally vote for decolonization of their colonies.

  2. Except that now they may become aware that voting Tory will bring the Tory policies to their doorstep, there is no protection in a Unionist Scotland. The 13 Tories who said nothing. All the comforts of being in the EU disappearing. Labour’s Corbyn is also going for Brexit.
    The EU countries growing awareness of the opportunities of the UK absence: the Czech Republic has developed a large, new, state of the art car building area, the 800billion a day euro clearing banking in London is a new prize. New York is looking at it, but I doubt the EU wants the US getting its hands on that market. Moving prize EU institutions only require a new siting, to be decide in November.

    • On the issue of Scots “voting Tory”, the article also mentions that “many people in Scotland are now prepared to vote Tory”; however, this ignores historical and recent census data on migration levels from rest-UK to Scotland which suggests that many, and perhaps most, of these Tory voters will not be Scottish. ‘Unionism’ is really a pretext for colonialism (as it was in Ireland also), as no union of nations actually exists in the minds of the ‘administrative Power’, i.e. where sovereignty lies.

  3. Scotland must become a sovereign and independent state again because our experience of the Union during the past three centuries demonstrably indicates that the we have not benefited from the relationship. Scots Unionist fancy the UK to be a partnership, plainly they do not read history books other than the set imperialist texts, when in reality our country was bought for cash and foreign preferment, its so called leading citizens betrayed the people, our land was divided and subjugated, our cultures decimated, millions of our people were encouraged to leave to stock the imperial ‘dominions’ etc.
    It’s all there for our collective enlightenment. If some choose to turn away
    is it for sheer disbelief, for fear of the truth or for shame? Whatever the case Scots need to face up to the existential horror of being a subject people complicit in their own subjection thanks to their seeming apathy towards a ruling clique which for our national wellbeing must be ‘eliminated’ and that right soon.

  4. How many more times must we be subjected to some posturing intellectual ponderously informing us that “the movement is not the party” as if they were revealing some great truth rather than flogging the arse off a straw man that was long since reduced to a pitiful scattering of chaff?

    But at least that little gobbet of glibness makes some kind of sense. Which is more than can be said for the following paragraph.

    “But the current impasse has partly emerged due to the SNP’s shift towards a central focus on holding an independence referendum. This is a policy that is widely regarded as having been pivotal in offering a route for voters sceptical of independence to back the party in other electoral contests.”

    I’ve read that a dozen times now. But for all the superficial cleverness of the words, I still can’t squeeze any meaning out of that second sentence. To be fair, that may be due to the difficulty of getting past the grotesque fallacy of the first sentence. In the world most of us inhabit, it is the British parties and their accomplices in the media who have been obsessing about a new independence referendum, while the SNP tried to focus on the topics that the British parties and the British media were so desperate to divert attention from – austerity and Brexit.

    The fact that the author chooses to run with the narrative pushed by British nationalists is very much in keeping with the tone of the piece. A pompous, lecturing, hectoring tone we have become painfully familiar with from those sections of the Yes movement which find it convenient to blame the SNP for perceived or imagined failings of the independence campaign so as to avoid the need to acknowledge their own part in hindering progress towards independence.

    Because this embracing of the anti-SNP narrative of unionist propaganda is hardly unusual. It is to be found everywhere the self-appointed priesthood of the Yes movement are given a platform to peddle their high-minded sermons about how the rest of us are doing it all wrong. One thing the independence movement has never lacked, especially it became significant enough to attract the attention of poll-pondering technocrats, controversialist poseurs and righteous radicals, are people telling how we’re talking to the wrong people, in the wrong places, about the wrong things, at the wrong time and in the wrong way.

    And, of course, the SNP is always a favourite target for these snipers from the sidelines. The more the party wins, the more the Yes movement’s cadre of carpers find reasons to criticise and condemn. In some sort of Orwellian process, success becomes failure. Progress becomes retreat. Every advance is perversely interpreted as a retreat. An attitude that is almost entirely explained by a deep-seated aversion to effective political power. An aversion which overwhelms any ambition whose realisation is ultimately dependent on effective political power and leaves in its place a willingness to settle for the tawdry garlands of honourable defeat in preference to the weighty responsibilities that come with achieving a goal as momentous as restoring Scotland’s rightful constitutional status.

    There is ample evidence of the corrosive attitude to the SNP that infects a small but very vocal part of the Yes movement. Here is one example that speaks volumes about this self-defeating antipathy towards the movement’s crucial political arm.

    “Electoral success is also the best means to smooth over internal dissent. The almost mythic discipline of the party in Holyrood and Westminster can partly be attributed to the fact that it has been able to distribute an expanding set of front-bench and committee posts for a decade.”

    Here is a paragraph redolent with a bitterness towards the SNP barely distinguishable from that which suffuses the rhetoric of the British parties in Scotland. Granted, the author only “partly” attributes the SNP’s internal discipline – acidly described as “almost mythic” – to patronage. But why comment in such a vein at all? Why not remark, instead, on the vastly more significant explanation for this discipline – the fact that the party has a unifying purpose in it unequivocal, unconditional, unwavering commitment to the cause of bringing Scotland’s government home?

    One can’t help but suspect that this resentment is occasioned in both those who attack the independence movement from outside and those who undermine it from within by an identical appreciation of the SNP’s critical role in levering Scotland out of the union.

  5. […] more times must we be subjected to some posturing intellectual ponderously informing us that “the movement is not the party” as if they were revealing some great truth rather than flogging the arse off a straw man […]

  6. Dreadfully written. Recycle the thesaurus and research plain english. I gave up reading halfway because the showing off language was too much.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here