After 18 months where people have had their wages paid by the chancellor, nobody in Scotland needs any reminder of how important the budget is to our day to day lives. After an extraordinary year the collectively face extraordinary challenges. From the cost of living crisis, funding our public services to saving the planet, now is the time for government action. Many people will be asking how this budget is going to impact themselves, their family and their business.
Continue readingFinding Common Cause: Our Events
In February 2020, we at Our Scottish Future hit upon the great idea of holding a series of public meetings around Scotland to talk about the big questions facing the country’s future, where we would give local people a chance to meet face to face in the same room with one another.
As Mike Tyson said, everybody has a plan until you get punched in the face – or hit by a global pandemic.
But eighteen months on, we are delighted to say that we’re now planning to get things up and running again.
Our inaugural event, entitled “Finding Common Cause” is taking place in Edinburgh on Saturday November 6th. You can get all the details and sign up here.
Despite the intervention of the pandemic, our basic view of Scottish politics has not changed since we first came up with our plans.
We believe that the debate on the union has too often been polarising.
And while this is the preferred option of some, our polling shows that it ignores the views of “middle Scotland” – those thousands of us who would like to see a positive way forward for Scotland and the UK and aren’t wedded to some pre-determined constitutional formula.
Our events, starting in Edinburgh, are designed to provide a forum for those of us who want to act upon this idea, and themselves lead change, now.
These meetings aren’t going to be for everybody. We haven’t bought any flags and we are fantastically uninterested in whatever the latest GERS numbers happen to be. Attendees can be assured we have no plans to explain what “sterlingisation” involves, not least because we’re not entirely sure ourselves.
Instead we’d like to start our own conversation by talking about how to do politics in Scotland better.
Fundamentally, that’s by rejecting the notion that success is a defined by a win-at-all-costs battle to keep the Union together; by the politics of 50.1%.
Rather we want to champion the values of empathy, cooperation and solidarity and campaign for a more inclusive political culture that listens to, and learns from, the perspective that pro-independence supporters voters provide.
We have some interesting and unusual guests coming along to provide their own perspective on all of this.
And even if you’ve had no previous engagement with politics, that is no reason not to turn up.
It’ll be a great opportunity to meet other interested and interesting people and to begin a more fruitful conversation about the way forward for Scotland.
If you can’t join us in person, we will also be hosting a series of online events – please register your interest here. We look forward to seeing you in Edinburgh on the 6th, or at an event near you soon.
Gordon Brown: “The Britain of Emma Raducanu Shows why Nationalists are Losing the Argument”
The public want to bang the door shut on a decade of division sewn by austerity, referendums and culture wars.
A new Britain is waiting to be born. It is economically progressive; egalitarian on race, religion, sex and gender;culturally centrist on law and order, defence and our history and traditions. It has a far stronger sense of place, not only keen to celebrate our local as well as national identities but insistent that local communities be empowered with the control and the resources to make levelling-up a reality.
But this new post-austerity, post-Brexit, post-Covid Britain now needs to find its voice and is desperately in need of modern institutions, reconstructed to reflect the values we hold dear.
It is impatient with culture wars. The millions who condemned the booing of the English football team and protested the unjust vilification of Marcus Rashford, Bukayo Saka and Jadon Sancho, were revealing overwhelming support for the more diverse and inclusive England that culture warriors hate. And when Gareth Southgate called for a less polarised country committed to eradicating racial and other inequalities, he was, as a new opinion survey published by Our Scottish Future confirms, speaking for England. As many as 76 per cent agree that England‘s diversity as a country is important or very important to making them proud of being English. Eighty two per cent think that an equal voice for everyone irrespective of race, religion or gender is important or very important in making them proud to be English and 83 per cent think tolerance is important or very important in making them proud of being English.
It seems that, after 18 months of the pandemic, people want to bang the door shut on a decade of division sewn by austerity, referendums and culture wars. What is also surfacing is a longing for belonging, not least for an England with a far stronger sense of place in which talking back control means making more decisions closer to home. For the first time since the 19th century, the distinctive voices of Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Bristol, and Birmingham and the regions are valued more than those of national politicians, and no one is now talking them down as “provincial”. This is wholly consistent with another strongly held sentiment: that Westminster and Whitehall should show more respect to people who, as another survey shows, feel “neglected”, “forgotten”, “ignored” and patronised as second-class citizens. The polling is clear: people want to feel more invested in Britain but Britain must invest in them.
All this has implications for the future of the United Kingdom. It challenges nationalists in Scotland and Wales who will now find it more difficult to claim that Scots have little in common with the England of Southgate and Rashford. Indeed, it contradicts their central argument for the break-up of Britain: that we cannot be Scottish and British or Welsh and British at the same time. Most of us can feel comfortably at home with plural identities and found no difficulty waving the flags of St. Andrew, St. George and St David in June in support of Scottish, English and Welsh teams and then, come August, transitioning smoothly and naturally to supporting the Union Jack-waving GB Olympics and Paralympics teams Across England, Scotland and Wales, there are highly similar levels of support for saying equality, tolerance and diversity are important to making us proud of our country. There is the same level of support for the NHS, good jobs and climate change as the issues that matter. In their values and choice of priorities, Scotland and England and Wales are moving closer together, not further apart.
For years we have been told that a more strongly-felt Englishness, Scottishness and Welshness would weaken Britishness and foreshadow the end of the Union. That is wrong. Attempts by some Unionists to subsume Englishness, Scottishness and Welshness in an all-consuming Britishness will not succeed. Diversity is not a threat, but a multinational state’s USP. Unity does not require uniformity and solidarity does not demand the elimination of regional and national differences. To be British does not mean having one identity. Citizens can be comfortably Muslim, English and British. Only a minority now believe that the main characteristic of being British is that you were born in Britain. It is possible to be born in Canada of Romanian and Chinese parents and be, like Emma Raducanu, a new British sporting icon. Within these islands, to rephrase Tennyson, all that we have met are a part of each of us.
That is why Boris Johnson’s “muscular unionism” simply plays into the hands of Nicola Sturgeon and her plans to provoke a constitutional crisis next year. Describing the UK as “one nation”, he is abandoning the bigger idea – and better reality – that we are a “family of nations”. He wants to badge new Scottish roads and bridges as British, as if hoisting more Union Jacks will make people decide they are only British and not also Scottish or Welsh. Once the champion of more powers for London, he now sees devolution outside London as “a disaster” and – ironically for an avowedly small-state Conservative Party – its Internal Market Act and Shared Prosperity Fund override devolution in favour of bolstering a centralised unitary state run out of London SW1.
At a time when every country’s independence is now constrained by their interdependence, muscular unionism harks back to an unrealistic view of an indivisible, unlimited sovereignty accountable to no-one but itself. It is a mirror image of the Scottish nationalist playbook, for they also have a one-dimensional and absolutist us-versus-them view of the world. You have to make a choice: Scottish or British – you cannot be both.
The mistake all narrow nationalists make is assuming the very same people who, like me, want more control of decisions closer to home have also decided they do not want to co-operate with their closest neighbours. But take the NHS: it is administered separately across four nations; but when asked what is “national” about the NHS, the designation most choose is “British”. Indeed, by five to one, Scots agree that vaccination shows the benefits of UK-wide cooperation.
Over 75 per cent want more cooperation, not less, and this sentiment appears rooted in a basic solidarity and willingness to share. When an Englishman volunteers an organ donation – heart, liver or lung – he does not stipulate that his donation is to save English lives only. When a Welsh or Scottish woman gives blood she doesn’t demand an assurance it must not go to an English patient, but instead, to whoever is most in need, wherever in the UK. And we do feel the pain of others: when the people of Manchester were hit by a terrorist attack and Plymouth by a mass shooting, the whole of the UK grieved together.
Looking ahead, when we now have to address not just pandemics but the other challenges of the 2020s – climate change, financial instability and gross inequalities – are nationalists not now, for the first time in years, on the defensive? Is it not time to ask them why they don’t want to cooperate with neighbours who share their values, and ask who benefits when cooperation fails?
I believe that, as Covid and culture wars recede, the idea of a new Britain has more resonance and credibility than the talk of a new Britain in 1997. It will be a Britain whose unity evolves out of our diversity and is built on a shared belief in equal rights guaranteed to all, with personal responsibility the duty of all. The next step, upon which the Starmer constitutional review I chair is inviting evidence, is to reconstruct our institutions to reflect that better Britain and, not least in the light of our recent Afghanistan nightmare, re-imagine our country as a force for good. The message is clear: seize the moment to build a new Britain – or risk losing it altogether.
This article originally appeared in The New Statesman under the title “The Britain of Emma Raducanu shows why nationalists are losing the argument”.
Poll Shows UK-Wide Shared Priorities and Values
Scotland, England, and Wales “Moving Closer Together not Further Apart”, says Brown
New Poll Shows That a “New Britain is Waiting to be Born” Based on Shared Priorities and Values
Governments of the UK Must Cooperate on NHS and Jobs Recovery
A new poll released by Our Scottish Future today reveals that the nations of the UK are united on the key priorities they want government to pursue after the pandemic, and by the values that underpin their sense of national pride.
Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the founder of the Our Scottish Future campaign, says today that the survey shows Britain is “moving closer together, not further apart”.
Writing in tomorrow’s New Statesman magazine, he says that a “new Britain is waiting to be born” based on the shared values and priorities that now exist across the whole UK as the country emerges from the division of Brexit and the trauma of the pandemic.
He adds: “It is economically progressive; egalitarian on race, religion, sex and gender; culturally centrist on law and order, defence and our history and traditions and with a far stronger sense of place, not only keen to celebrate our local as well as national identities but insistent that local communities be empowered with the control and the resources to make levelling up a reality.”
“But this new post-austerity, post-Brexit, post-Covid Britain now needs to find its voice and is desperately in need of modern institutions that reflect our values.”
Our Scottish Future polled people across Scotland, England and Wales to ask them about their own values and their priorities for the coming years ahead.
In Scotland, England and Wales, people are united in their belief that equality (78%, 76%, 78%), tolerance (83%, 83%, 83%), liberty (86%, 87%,83%), and diversity (82%, 82%, 80%) are important to making them proud of their nation.
The poll also showed that people are across the three nations are largely agreed on controversial social questions around limits on immigration, the nature of British history, and the balance between equality and opportunity in society.
On priorities, people in all three nations said that making the NHS the best healthcare system in the world needed to be the clear top focus for government.
Similarly, people across all the countries of the UK prioritised a dignified retirement for old people, fighting climate change, and making sure every child has the best education as other top priorities.
Writing in this week’s New Statesman magazine, Mr Brown cites England football manager Gareth Southgate’s “Letter to England” earlier this summer, which highlighted the values of tolerance and equality.
Mr Brown says the poll demonstrates that he was indeed speaking for the majority of people in England.
“As many as 76 % agree that England‘s diversity as a country is important or very important to making them proud of being English. 82% think that an equal voice for everyone irrespective of race, religion or gender is important or very important in making them proud to be English and 83% think tolerance is important or very important in making them proud of being English.”
This, he argues, has profound consequences for the debate on Scottish and Welsh independence.
He argues: “Looking ahead, when we now have to address not just pandemics but the other challenges of the 2020s – climate change, financial instability and gross inequalities – are nationalists not now, for the first time in years, on the defensive? Is it not time to ask them why they don’t want to cooperate with neighbours who share their values and ask who benefits when cooperation fails?”
Mr Brown is heading up a review of the Constitution for the Labour Party which is expected to recommend reforms to the UK state to encourage more cooperation.
He concludes: “I believe that as Covid and culture wars recede the idea of new Britain has more resonance and credibility than the talk of a new Britain in 1997. It will be a Britain whose unity evolves out of our diversity and is built on a shared belief in equal rights guaranteed to all with personal responsibility the duty of all. The next step, upon which the Starmer Constitutional Review I chair is inviting evidence, is to reconstruct our institutions to reflect that better Britain and, not least in the light of our recent Afghanistan nightmare, re-imagine our country as a force for good. The message is clear: seize the moment to build a new Britain – or risk losing it altogether.”
Our Scottish Future has been set up to campaign for a more cooperative UK and is backing reforms of the Union to enable that to happen.
In recent weeks, it has published papers on both the health recovery and the jobs recovery, urging the UK and Scottish Governments to work together on the post-pandemic response.
UK-Scottish Government Jobs Support Needed for 70,000 at Risk Young Scots
The UK and Scottish Governments must work together to prevent as many as 70,000 young Scots falling into unemployment, a new report by Our Scottish Future declares today.
Published a year on from the Scottish Government’s Young Persons Jobs Guarantee, the paper finds that ambitious plans by both governments to support 18-24 year olds into work are yet to have a major impact on the ground.
On the UK Government’s Kickstart programme – which was designed to create 250,000 paid work placements for young people across the UK – the paper finds that only 4,400 job starts have so far been created across Scotland.
The Scottish Government’s own Scottish Youth Guarantee – which was designed to ensure every 16-24 year-old was in work, education, training or volunteer work over the next two years – is pledging to create 24,000 ‘new and enhanced’ jobs and opportunities for young people but, as of June, had signed up only 45 employers to partner the scheme.
It welcomes the funding and action by both Governments but says poor implementation and a lack of coordination between the two is damaging their chances of success.
Despite high numbers of vacancies, it is feared that young people are not getting into work because they lack the qualifications or skills to pick up available opportunities.
The paper says the official figure of 41,000 unemployed under 25s in Scotland “significantly underplays the true scale of Scotland’s youth unemployment crisis” and warns the number will increase once furlough ends.
It argues: “In reality, we face perhaps a minimum of 50,000 unemployed young people across Scotland, with a further 10,000 economically inactive searching for work – bringing the total NEET (not in education, employment or training) to 60,000, with the potential to rise over 70,000 in the coming months.”
It recommends that:
- Scottish Government should examine the feasibility of a Scottish Public Sector Guarantee for every under 25 year old without a job
- UK Government departments, Scottish Government and local authorities convene a joint taskforce to set out a shared plan of action
- Scottish Government and local authorities are given Kickstart funds directly to aid implementation
- Kickstart is extended to September 2022
- SMEs are given more incentives to hire young people on apprenticeships
- A long term overhaul of Scottish youth opportunities
The paper is the first publication of the newly formed Our Scottish Future Economy Commission, chaired by Glasgow University’s Professor Ronnie MacDonald.
Writing in the foreword to the paper, Professor MacDonald says: “As our report shows, various high profile Government policy initiatives – from Holyrood’s Youth Jobs Guarantee, to Westminster’s Kickstart programme – are not yet having the impact that was initially hoped for, nor acting with the urgency the crisis requires.”
“The Governments in London and Edinburgh must now come together to plan an integrated approach so that young people are not left behind once again.”
“Our report sets out recommendations on how to do so – centred around a genuine Youth Jobs Guarantee which does what it says: guarantees that every young person who wants to work gets to work this autumn. We also call for reform of longer-term employment support.”
Existing data has already shown that young Scots are nearly twice as likely to have been furloughed over the last 15 months and are two and a half times as likely to work in sectors which have been hit hardest by the pandemic, such as hospitality and retail.
Today’s paper concludes: “This political will is to be welcomed, as are the significant resources that have been allocated. However, the roll-out of job support programmes has not made sufficient inroads to tackle the scale of the crisis we face in Scotland. It is due to poorly designed policies, a lack of consultation with business and enterprise, administrative bureaucracy driving delays, and – above all – the absence of genuine coordination between UK and Scottish government.”
Our Scottish Future is a campaign set up to promote greater cooperation across the United Kingdom. It has set up four Commissions on the economy, the environment, poverty and healthcare to highlight the need for greater cooperation and to make recommendations on how to deliver a more coordinated approach.
1. Figures on the UK Government’s KickStart programme are here:
Written questions and answers – Written questions, answers and statements – UK Parliament
2. This week’s Programme for Government committed to “continue to invest” in the Young Person’s Guarantee and aims to provide 24,000 “new and enhanced jobs, skills and training opportunities.”
In response to the Scottish Parliament Information Centre, the Scottish Government has stated that “As of 1 June, there were 45 employers signed up to the Young Person’s Guarantee and we are continuing to engage with employers to encourage further sign up.”
Pandemic Underlined Case For More Cooperation
The Covid pandemic revealed the need for closer and more formal links between the UK and Scottish Governments so that we are better prepared to face down emerging health threats, a report by Our Scottish Future says today.
Based on interviews with senior figures in both the London and Edinburgh governments, the paper calls for the close working relations built up between Health Ministers during the pandemic to become a permanent feature as we prepare to combat health threats such as air pollution and bioterrorism.
It also backs more joint working between the Westminster government and the Devolved Administrations to help reduce the huge hospital waiting lists which have been built up during the pandemic, and to support the efficient purchasing of PPE and new life-saving drugs.
The report says the greater cooperation should be led by Number 10 and backs quarterly meetings with the Prime Minister and First Ministers of the UK.
Writing the foreword to the report, Professor David Kerr said that while the delivery of the vaccine showed the country functioning at its best, there was also a “deficit of cooperation and coordination between the UK and Scottish Governments which only risked potential damage to our response to the disease.”
He concludes: “The health professionals and experts we have already spoken to are clear: in the coming years, cooperation will be vital if the NHS is going to continue to meet demand, keep apace with medical advances, and do so efficiently.”
“The NHS is our best loved and most trusted public institution. It is by working together cooperatively across the UK, that we can keep it that way and strive to provide health equity for all our citizens.”
The report says that the pandemic represented the ultimate “stress test” for cooperation the UK and Scottish Governments. It notes that while joint working got off to a good start when the outbreak emerged last February, it collapsed in the summer when, amid a series of political rows, communications appear to have ceased entirely.
The paper says the “jury is out” on reforms to the UK state but welcomes fresh attempts to agree a plan for intergovernmental relations and the publication of new joint UK wide frameworks on public health and health security.
In conclusion, authors Eddie Barnes and Evie Robertson write:
“Ministers and officials from across the UK were faced with an unprecedented emergency in March 2020 and, at their best, they performed heroically in search of common solutions. This was exemplified by the way the various NHS agencies across the UK mobilised at speed to prepare for the first wave, and by the remarkable vaccine effort earlier this year, when genuine collaboration and cooperation supported a national effort to protect thousands of lives. At other moments, however, relatively minor differences in emphasis and presentation between key politicians across the UK led to a breakdown in effective engagement between the centre and the nations of the UK, potentially putting public safety at risk.”
“Given the fact that the decisions taken by the four administrations were notable for their similarity and uniformity, this must be a cause for concern and for reflection by governments across the UK. If we are to learn the lessons of the pandemic, avoid political turf wars, and create a truly cooperative Union, then a more formalised working relationship between the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations should be mapped out with urgency. This will not just support better governance of the next health crisis to hit the UK but will also deliver better government across the United Kingdom in every area of public policy.”
The full report can be found here.
Our Recommendations
1. Creation of Permanent, Formalised and Open Lines of Cooperation between Governments on Shared Health Challenges across the UK. When it comes to future pandemics, the continuing risk of Covid, of from other major health risks such as air pollution, bioterrorism and microbial resistance, we work best when we work together. We welcome the steps already being taken to formalise the ad hoc arrangements for collaboration and cooperation on health security and health emergencies and urge our Governments to work harder so that experts, Ministers and officials from across the UK are in regular and close contact on a standing basis. It should not require a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic for Ministers across the UK to form a working relationship with one another. New forums of cooperation should ensure that Governments from across the UK are able to hold strategic level discussions and develop policy in areas where they and the UK Government have a shared responsibility. This could – and should – extend to having a formalised steering committee, meeting regularly without fail, to develop joined up policy areas, and providing an arena where experts can be invited to collectively share knowledge and recommendations to not just Westminster, but regional governments as well.
2. The new UK Health Security Agency should coordinate closely with the devolved administrations to examine how more joint working can protect the UK from health threats. Public health is devolved and should remain that way, but the experience of Covid shows that close collaboration between UK health agencies and their counterparts across the country is essential in coordinating a quick and effective response. The UK Health Security Agency should look to organisations such as the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) and FEMA – and their interaction – for best practice on joint working and mobilisation to counter threats.
3. A United Response across all Four Nations to Deal with the Aftermath of the Pandemic. We believe that there should be a united response across all four Nations to coordinate the response to dealing with the aftermath of the pandemic in terms of the massive backlog that has built up as resources were diverted, rationally, to deal with the extraordinary challenge of COVID. We saw great examples of cooperation between ambulance services North and South of the border, utilising spare capacity for the benefit of all. The UK became a world leader in managing hospital waiting times and we recommend that clinical networks are established to work in unison to use every scrap of capacity and respective resources we have to deal with our collective backlog. We define a Network as an often geographically disparate group, united by a common aim, one might argue, the underpinning ethos of our truly National Health Service.
4. The Prime Minister should be at the centre of these changes. The draft Intergovernmental review proposes that he chairs one annual meeting with the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, and even suggests he could passed on to a “nominated deputy”. At a minimum, the Prime Minister should commit to quarterly meetings with the First Ministers.
5. A review of Drug and PPE procurement processes across NHS England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in light of key learnings from the vaccine procurement plan, to consider where the UK can best leverage its ‘scale and buying power’ to bring efficiencies and value for money for taxpayers, whilst adhering to competition frameworks in place.
“Scotland in a Zoom” Project Published
Our Scottish Future has today published the findings of a ground-breaking new project that brought together scores of Yes and No voters from across Scotland.
“Scotland in a Zoom” encouraged voters on both sides of the constitutional debate to actively listen and positively engage with each other, before seeing where they could find consensus on a path forward for the country.
More than 80 voters from across Scotland took part in the virtual project in February and March this year, in groups of twelve over Zoom.
While participants disagreed on the big question of independence, the conversation events revealed widespread agreement across the constitutional divide.
As part of the session, Yes and No voters were grouped together to set out their priorities over the coming years. The sessions found:
- The vast majority of Yes and No supporters agreed investment in the economy, NHS and education were the top priorities for Scotland.
- Investment in the NHS as it recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic was the top priority overall, agreed by two thirds of the groups.
- Tackling climate change was also frequently cited, with a third of groups agreeing it should be a priority.
In the events, equal numbers of Yes and No voters were placed into groups and asked to seek agreement on a constitutional path for Scotland.
Though a majority did not want a second referendum under the timescale set by the SNP Government, there was widespread agreement that the constitution needed to be discussed over the coming 5 years, and that more opportunities to engage with each other would be beneficial.
Our Scottish Future has set out a series of recommendations on the back of the report.
We are calling for politicians on all sides to find ways to allow the public to keep talking about the constitution – through Citizens Assemblies.
But key issues such as fixing the NHS, tackling climate change, giving young people hope for the future, and providing better quality housing cannot be put on hold, given people’s shared belief in action now.
It follows the call by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown last week for both the UK and Scottish Governments to do more to cooperate with one another on the key challenges Scotland faces, and on the constitution.
Our Scottish Future project manager Eddie Barnes said: “Despite the apparent 50-50 division in political debate in Scotland, the project showed that voters from either side of the constitutional divide share many of the same values and hopes for the future – and, crucially, want those values and hopes to be better reflected in our politics.”
“Participants appreciated the chance to hold a respectful conversation with people they disagree with on independence and the union. We believe the lesson for political leaders is to find more ways to bring people together to talk and listen to one another about these key issues.”
Scotland in a Zoom co-author Andrew Liddle said: “This report found a clear consensus among both Yes and No voters that Scotland must seek to avoid repeating the mistakes of Brexit when addressing its own constitutional future.”
“That means politicians better engaging with voters, but also being patient and not rushing into decisions that risk unnecessarily dividing Scotland.”
A copy of the full report can be found here.
It was compiled by Andrew Liddle, Eddie Barnes, Henry Stannard and Laurence Shorter.
Please see case studies of two participants who took part in the event.
NO – Chelsea Rocks, 24, from West Dunbartonshire
I am not one of those people who goes around saying how much they love Britain. I just don’t think there is enough evidence that Scotland would be better off independent, and my view is – why would we do something that leaves us worse off? That said, I don’t blame Yes supporters for wanting change – especially when you see the deprivation and inequality around us. If you’ve only got £10 left, then you might well feel it’s worth the gamble – what have you got to lose?
The event provided us with a forum to talk. To begin with, some of the Yes people in the room had quite a lot of misconceptions about the No voters – I think they saw us as Unionist flag wavers. But once we battled past that, we were able to have a back-and-forth conversation and it turned out that there was a lot of agreement. When it comes to the economy, to the heath service, to education, the truth is that we all want the same things, we just disagree about how we get there.
The format of the event really helped. Even when you’re talking to family members or you’re in the pub, if the subject of the constitution comes up, it can just descend into – well you’re wrong, and I’m right. Spending time looking at what we agree on opens you up to the idea that you might both be right and that leads to a much more mature conversation. It was also an opportunity to us to find out why people think independence is a good idea. You don’t get that in social media or in Holyrood or Westminster where all you get is politicians going back and forth at one another. We need more spend more time focussing on the things we agree on and then look at how we go from there.
YES – Gary Reilly, 38, from Edinburgh
For me, it comes down fundamentally to how we take the country forward. What we’re being offered by Westminster is a politics that’s sliding further to the right at every election. I would argue that this isn’t what Scotland actually votes for, it’s also not what Unionists in Scotland support either.
I thought the 2014 vote would have been enough of a scare for Westminster for them to equip the Scottish Parliament with genuine power but instead we got a bit of tax and tinkering with social security. I just don’t think Westminster is able to offer the kind of change people in Scotland want.
Scottish politics can be a bit of an echo chamber so it was really nice to have a forum where you could speak to people of a different point of view. There’s also a lot of common ground – when somebody is talking about the NHS and the importance of healthcare, you don’t know whether they are Yes or No. I was paired with a lady who had real concerns about the impact of independence on the economy; she had a valid point. I don’t think it will be easy and there will be tough decisions to take.
One of the things I come away with as someone with a Yes perspective is that you have to stick to the basics. People want to know how they are going to pay for their weekly shopping, for their kids’ schooling and for their families. The basics really matter. Things like the currency arrangement – we need to have a common-sense position that people can understand.
On the referendum, a lot of the concern people had was on the timing of it. We should wait until we are through the worst of Covid. I do feel that we won’t be equipped fully for that until we are independent and have the full scope of powers that independence would bring.
Tactical Voting and the Scottish Green Party
Last week, we released the results of our ‘Morning After Poll’, detailing our view of what Scotland voted for and why. We tried pretty hard to be neutral in our tone, and give each party and side of the constitutional debate a bit of food for thought before making any big claims about what people voted for.
One interesting fact that caught us when we looked through the detailed poll findings was that after all of the pre-election conversation of Alex Salmond’s gambit for SNP List votes, the party that had the most benefitted from SNP switching was the Scottish Greens, who won over 6x the number of SNP constituency votes on the list as the Alba party, with half of their voters saying ‘I voted to elect as many pro-Independence MSPs as possible’ (not ‘I voted for the party I most wanted to win seats’)
Whilst interesting, this was not particularly surprising. We have no particular knowledge of SNP or Green campaign strategy, but it seemed fairly clear during the debates that Nicola Sturgeon and Patrick Harvie were enjoying at least some sort of unspoken mutual non-aggression pact that led to the near-absurd end-point of Nicola Sturgeon’s kindergarten teacher-style ‘interrogation’ of Patrick Harvie in the STV debate (‘so what you’re saying Patrick is that there is no way to build the Scotland you want without Independence?).
Indeed, perhaps the most surprised person in Scotland about these findings is Patrick Harvie, whose intemperate pool quote on the issue ended ‘it makes no sense at all to highlight some SNP voters who aren’t convinced about independence, but then pretend without a shred of evidence that every Green voter is voting tactically on the constitution alone’. Leaving aside the logical and evidential flaw in his argument (it’s half of his vote, not all of them), we thought it worth showing some more shreds of evidence beyond the report we published, in case he is interested in learning about why people vote for his party in Scotland.
Before we go into detail we should be clear – with only 80 Green voters in our poll (c.50 on a weighted basis), some of the cross-cuts we refer to here are low n, but hopefully show enough evidence volume of evidence for those declaiming the political purity of their vote to at least countenance that the Greens benefitted from some SNP/Pro-Indy voters lending them a hand up the D’Hondt ladder.
The Background: The Greens are a party with very little ‘core’ support
As was published in our report on Thursday, we asked voters the day after the election the question ‘In this election which party did you want to win the most seats’. We thought this would be the best way of working out what the ‘true desire’ of Scottish voters was, excluding tactical voting or use of the list as a ‘second preference. The results aligned fairly well against the actual regional vote share of all the parties, other than the Greens.
The implication of this is fairly clear – whilst the Greens clearly have a good brand and people who like them there are very few people in Scotland who wake up in the morning defining themselves as a ‘Scottish Green’ politically.
The Evidence for Tactical Voting
In our analysis we stated that around 50% of the Scottish Greens’ vote was tactical in order to maximize Yes MSPs. This was a result of the response to the question Which of the following was most important in your voting decision at this election for your peach regional list vote?, where around half indicated that they just wanted to elect as many Pro-Indy MSPs as possible (a number that grows for SNP to Green switchers)
Uncovering the true intentions behind people’s voting patterns is notoriously difficult to do, not least because of how people post-rationalise their behaviour. However, we have a number of triangulating points that imply that a substantial proportion of the Green vote on the list was from SNP supporters who are strongly in favour of Independence
- 73% of Scottish Green list votes came from voters who voted for the SNP with their first vote (and 10% from Labour voters), making them the only one of the five largest parties to rely predominantly on one other party’s votes for a majority of their regional vote
- 68% of the Scottish Green regional vote wanted the SNP to win the most seats – again this is highly unusual vs all other parties. 90% of SNP regional voters wanted the SNP to win the most seats, a number that is 77% for Labour, 85% for the Tories
- The Scottish Green regional vote was substantially more nationalist than their constituency vote – with 65% of their list voters being either 9 or 10/10 in favour of independence (slightly more than SNP voters…) vs 46% of their constituency voters.
- Scottish Green list voters prioritise having a second referendum more than SNP list voters (with 31% having preparing for a 2nd referendum as a top 3 priority for the Scottish government vs 26% of SNP voters)
- Although a low n so to be taken with a pinch of salt, we also see a huge amount of switching from voters who voted Greens in the constituency to the SNP on the list (c.78% of Green voters)
The Implications of Tactical Voting
With the assumption that c.50% of Scottish Green votes were tactical votes lent by SNP voters, a Scottish Green vote of 4% (vs the 8%) and an SNP vote of 44% (vs 40%) would have had the following implications for the Scottish Greens at a regional list level, losing 6 of their 8 seats, giving 2 seats (and a majority) to the SNP, 3 seats to Labour and a seat to the Tories
- Losing their final list seat in Central Scotland to Labour
- Retaining their seat in Glasgow (slipping from 4th to 7th)
- Losing one of their two Lothian seats to the SNP
- Losing their Highlands & Islands Seat to the Labour party
- Losing their Mid Scotland & Fife Seat to the Labour party
- Losing their North East Scotland Seat to the Tories
- Losing their West of Scotland seat to the SNP
For the leadership team of Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater, there is a happy coincidence between their position on independence and their own self-interest as politicians seeking election. The Green cake was baked with pro-independence ingredients – and the party cannot protest when people wish to point out that they are eating it. The question it leaves hanging is who in Scotland is best able to represent environmentalists who do not view Scotland’s constitutional question as among the most pressing issues around climate change.
Full data tables for our ‘Morning After Poll’ are available at: https://www.stackdatastrategy.com/data
Our Scottish Future’s “Morning After Poll” Reveals “Middle” Scotland
Our Scottish Future is today releasing the full findings of our exclusive “morning after poll” taken as Scotland voted in the election ten days ago.
The poll asked 1,000 Scots to set out why they voted as they did, what views they held on independence and another referendum, and what they want from the Scottish and UK Governments over the coming 5 years.
Key findings include:
- A half of “Middle Scotland”, the voters who are open-minded about independence and the Union, backed the SNP – but they did so because they felt the party provided the best vision and leadership, not to get a referendum
- In total, only 54% of SNP voters agreed we should start preparing for a referendum immediately, and one in five were either against independence or unsure.
- Tactical voting for the Greens on the list by pro-independence supporters may have deprived the SNP of an overall majority. Had SNP constituency voters instead stuck with the SNP on the list, Nicola Sturgeon could have gained three more list seats.
- Scotland is divided 50-50 on whether to have a referendum in this parliament, and support among many is conditional on whether the economy has recovered, and whether the options on both sides are clear.
- Voters do not want the SNP to be “referee and captain” of the process, and they want the SNP to provide more facts about independence.
- A majority of Scots think the best way for the pro-Union side to make its case is through cooperation, not confrontation with the Scottish Government.
The poll was carried out by Stack Data Strategy. 1,000 Scots were polled between the 7th and 8th of May 2021. Responses were weighted to census figures on age, gender, education level, and recorded 2021 vote in the Scottish Parliamentary elections’
Analysis of the poll is available here.
Writing in its introduction, authors Henry Stannard and Evie Robertson conclude:
“There a third ‘Middle’ Scotland that neither conforms to a binary Pro-Union or Pro-Independence view of the world, but that is greater in size than either of the extremes in the constitutional debate. Citizens in this Middle Scotland are both primarily Scottish and meaningfully British. They vote in their droves for the SNP not because they want a referendum, but because the SNP appear to offer good leadership and government within a devolved state. They do not oppose a referendum in principle, but have deep concerns over its practicality that must be resolved.”
“We hope that politicians from both sides can start listening to them.”
Next week, Our Scottish Future will publish the results of a major consultation exercise carried out this winter and spring with Yes and No voters.
Entitled “Scotland in a Zoom”, it brought together Scots with different views on the constitution and sought to find out what they had in common and how they might agree on the next steps for Scotland and the constitution.
Our Scottish Future is a new campaign set up to advance the patriotic, progressive and positive case for Scotland as part of our wider family of UK nations. The campaign intends to speak up for “middle Scotland” – people who voted Yes, No, Leave and Remain – and who are now looking for something better than a binary choice between hardline nationalism and no-change Unionism.
Full data tables are available at: https://www.stackdatastrategy.com/data
Scotland Does Not Have The Facts on Independence, Poll Reveals
SNP Must “Open the Books”, Says Brown
A clear majority of Scots do not believe the SNP has given them enough facts about independence in order to make a fully informed choice on whether to leave the Union, a new poll by Our Scottish Future reveals today.
Nearly 60% said they did not have enough information at their disposal on independence, the poll shows.
And when asked about the key issues that will be affected by Scotland’s departure from the United Kingdom such as the English border, Scotland’s security arrangements, tax, currency, EU membership, and UK negotiations, fewer than a third of Scots say they feel confident about knowing what would likely happen.
Today, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown declares that the SNP must “open the books” and warns that the SNP Government cannot be both judge and jury when setting out the case for an independent nation.
Instead, he argues that the SNP should be prepared to open its case up to public scrutiny through parliamentary hearings.
Today’s poll – taken over the same weekend that people voted on May 6th – also assessed people’s priorities in the wake of the election.
Delivering a second referendum on independence was ranked 5th for SNP voters – below NHS catch up, reducing COVID, protecting and generating jobs and eliminating poverty.
Among “middle Scotland” – the 40% of voters identified by Our Scottish Future who are open minded on the question of independence and the Union – preparing for a second referendum was bottom on the list of priorities.
On the facts of independence, the poll asked people: “Do you believe that campaigners for independence have given enough information about what Scotland would be like if it became independent (eg: on currency, taxation, legal rights, EU membership, the border) for you to make a fully informed choice at a future referendum?
A total of 58% said No. Only 30% said Yes. The remaining 12% said they did not know. Among those strongly in favour of independence, 66% said they had enough facts, but 24% said they did not. But of “middle Scotland” voters, 60% said they did not feel they had enough information.
Mr Brown says today that the SNP should commit to public hearings in both the Westminster and Holyrood parliaments, so that MSPs and MPs are able to call experts on currency, finance, borders, and the EU, to get the facts on the table.
“Middle Scotland’s support for the SNP and for independence is conditional – and they are now asking the SNP for honesty, for openness and for getting the facts on the table. It is time for the SNP to open the books.”
“When even a quarter of committed independence supporters agree we don’t know enough to make an informed choice on independence, surely the onus is on the SNP to come clean?”
“I believe that it is time for the SNP to agree to hold public hearings on what independence means for everything from the pound to the pension.”
“Whether they are Yes, No, or undecided, people deserve to know the truth – from maintaining the Union, to reforming and renewing it, to leaving it altogether.”
The poll also asked voters to set out their top three priorities going forward. “NHS catch up” was the most popular, followed by “reduce COVID/vaccines”, “protect and generate jobs”, “education catch up” and “reopen economy”.
“Prepare for a second independence referendum” was 8th on the list. Among middle Scotland, it was bottom, and even among SNP voters, it came in fifth.
1,000 Scots were polled by Stack Data Strategy between the 7th and 8th of May 2021. Responses were weighted to census figures on age, gender, education level, and recorded 2021 vote in the Scottish Parliamentary elections .
