Matters Archives - Scotland Matters

How Devolution Has Shaped Young Scottish People’s Views on the UK Union

4 April 2026/in Election 2026, Politics Matters, Scottish Government, Scottish Independence, SNP, Stephen Bailey, United Kingdom /by sm_admin

Written by Stephen Bailey.

There’s now a generation of young UK citizens who have grown up and had their formative experiences and influences entirely since the introduction of legislative devolution in the late 1990s.

They have lived their entire lives under the current constitutional arrangements and the subsequent constitutional crisis they have provoked, never knowing anything different.

This can have a negative effect on their outlook as regards constitutional matters. After all, they haven’t lived through the experiences that shaped previous generations’ outlook on constitutional matters such as a desire to maintain the UK.

Neither have they been made aware of the real issues that lie behind the UK Constitution and a desire to keep the UK together. They have had separatist extremists bombard them with skewed propaganda that manipulates them into a distorted, historically-inaccurate view that to be patriotic they have to hate the UK.

They are being forced and manipulated down a path that could eventually lead to them erroneously backing ‘independence’ and they are being deprived of any kind of balanced outlook.

The increasingly cultish and authoritarian SNP seem pathologically intent on acting like the totalitarian regimes of 1930s and 40s Europe. They are indoctrinating the young, so they are incapable of thinking independently so that the SNP can control them and manipulate them into backing and voting for ‘independence’.

This situation should greatly concern anybody who wants to maintain the UK.

It is an urgent task to counter this undemocratic, sinister manipulation by the SNP (and the anti-UK separatists in other parts of the UK, Wales and Ulster) and educate the young in the real issues surrounding constitutional matters.

A STABLE UK UNION

During the period before the introduction of legislative devolution in the late 1990s, the whole of UK culture and politics was, in the main, reflective of a pan-UK ethos.

Anybody over forty years of age will have been brought up in an era when the concept of a unitary (single) UK with the House of Commons as the national legislature and the House of Lords as the revising chamber was fairly solid – with perhaps the exception of Ulster (‘Northern Ireland’), where a minority of the population wanted control by the Dublin Government.

On the mainland UK, there was occasional constitutional uncertainty and danger.

For example, the debates on devolution in the mid to late 70s, during the Callaghan Labour administration, provided an occasional moment of uncertainty over the status of the UK Constitution. There had also been some committees set up in Parliament in the 1960s to look into constitutional change, which were not acted on. But, by and large, the constitutional question was settled.

In schools, colleges, and universities, young UK citizens were taught about the UK’s millennia-old history and traditions. Even though there are local differences within the Anglo-Celtic story of the British Isles, generally speaking, there was a homogeneous UK culture and historical narrative that the vast majority of UK citizens subscribed to, in varying degrees and, perhaps, with a few caveats here and there.

There were other versions of UK history and of course, since the 1960s, some elements had been increasingly active in their attempts to demolish what they sneeringly dismissed as the ‘Whig version’ of UK history. But the majority of her citizens saw the UK as a single unitary entity with a common UK-wide culture, some regional variations notwithstanding.

Importantly, this belief in a pan-UK culture was transmitted from the older generations down to the young, and so in this way, the UK remained a unified political entity as the young learnt what it meant to be a UK citizen and were imbued with a sense of, and a healthy (but not excessive or disproportionate) pride in, concept of a unified United Kingdom, rather than just their own particular part of it.

THE FRINGE MOVES TO THE MAINSTREAM

Some people weren’t satisfied with the UK’s constitutional make-up like the SNP in Scotland, Plaid Cymru in Wales and IRA/Sinn Fein plus the SDLP in Ulster, but they were mostly composed of fringe eccentrics and student ideologues with no experience of how the real world works.

Consequently, these people enjoyed risible levels of support from the UK public and were no more credible than the Monster Raving Loony Party. They were rightly consigned to the margins of UK politics.

The vast majority of people in the UK either believed, or went along with, the concept of a unitary United Kingdom (i.e. a single country) with legislative sovereignty invested in the UK National Parliament at Westminster (and ultimate political sovereignty (or the ability to decide who governs the country) residing with the electorate across the entire UK).

So it can be said that up to the late 1990s, the UK’s Constitutional arrangements were stable and whilst some minority dissent existed, the vast majority of the public were either happy with, or went along with, these arrangements. They worked well, with perhaps a few caveats here and there, but nothing was seriously wrong with the UK’s Constitution.

Except for a few minority extremists, eccentrics and cranks, this situation persisted until the late 1990s.

THE RISE OF ANTI-UK SEPARATISM

Anti-UK separatism has existed since the Union’s inception, but before the advent of legislative devolution in the late 1990s it was a tiny, extremely unimportant group of extremists and eccentrics, and was perceived as such by the vast majority of people in the UK.

They made attempts to get their ideas across, but got more or less nowhere as people in the UK were generally far too sensible to believe what were (and still are), unrealistic theories with no practicable viability.

They had limited electoral success (extremely limited in Plaid Cymru’s case in Wales) and were prevented from forcing their unwanted ideas on an unwilling UK public by the nature of the UK’s legislature; the Houses of Commons and Lords were the only law-making and revising chambers and the few nationalists that got elected to office in the Commons were contained by the overwhelming majority of Unionist MPs in the Chamber.

LEGISLATIVE DEVOLUTION

It was the introduction of legislative devolution by Tony Blair’s New Labour in the late 1990s that signalled the end of this era of stability.

New Labour ushered in a period of unparalleled instability and ill-considered constitutional change that was to have an extremely negative effect on the UK’s politics and society.

The New Labour government, which came into power after the General Election of 1997, was under the severely mistaken impression that the constitution of the UK was broken and needed fixing, a view that was not shared by the vast majority of the public.

Overall, they wanted to gerrymander elections by giving Scotland its own devolved legislature, so ensuring that she would vote Labour in perpetuity. Scotland’s voting power in the UK Union is decisive – like California’s in the USA. It can decide who will govern the entire UK.

They quickly set about putting their plans into action.

After a softening up campaign in which the real issues behind legislative devolution were either fudged or omitted completely – the most obvious of which was one Labour politician promising that legislative devolution would ‘kill nationalism stone dead’ – referendums were held in Scotland and Wales in 1997 and in Northern Ireland in 1998, which, not surprisingly, considering the preceding propaganda and misinformation campaign, returned ‘yes’ results.

All three constituent parts of the UK were then given their own devolved executives. Scotland received a Parliament and Wales and Northern Ireland got Assemblies. (The Welsh Assembly was later renamed to ‘Parliament’, then the ‘Senedd’).

This plan to secure perpetual political hegemony backfired on Labour as they were displaced as the dominant force in UK politics by the anti-UK SNP in the Holyrood election of 2007, as well as being all but wiped out in the House of Commons (though they later revived at the 2024 UK General Election).

It’s at this juncture that the UK’s traditions of unitary government, began to become eroded by separatist forces that deliberately set out to destroy the UK identity among the young because they desired to loosen the bonds of Union, and eventually destroy the UK as a single nation altogether.

These separatists adopted an extremely aggressive approach towards their goal of independence.

EDUCATING THE YOUNG

One method they employed to achieve their objective was to indoctrinate the young with biased propaganda that distorts the truth behind UK history and pushes a synthetic sense of grievance that Scotland was the victim of English imperialism-the Braveheart myth.

This bodes poorly for the future of a unitary UK and is extremely worrying for all who want to maintain the UK.

Inaction, complacency and apathy on this issue are just not an option and are extremely dangerous at this juncture. It’s the urgent task of all who want to maintain the UK Union to stand up and challenge this pernicious, cultish attempt by modern aggressive anti-UK separatism to subvert our country by undermining belief in its future among younger generations.

Let us teach the young the real narrative of the shared values that shape our nation and help create a truly united pan-UK that will exist into the future.

LIE AFTER LIE FROM THE SNP: NO, SWINNEY, SCOTLAND DOESN’T ‘SUBSIDISE THE REST OF THE UK’, AS THE FOLLOWING DATA PROVES

20 March 2026/in Election 2026, Politics Matters, Scottish Government, Scottish Independence, SNP, Stephen Bailey, United Kingdom /by sm_admin

Written by Stephen Bailey.

The annual ‘Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland’ Reports (GERS) 2023-24 and 2024-25 are available for analysis and are extremely revealing for several reasons. According to the Scottish Executive’s (Holyrood) own website (see (1) or (2) in ‘the ‘Sources’ section below), GERS is described thus:

‘Q: Who produces GERS? ‘A: GERS is produced by Scottish Government statisticians. It is designated as a National Statistics product, which means that it is produced independently of Scottish Ministers and has been assessed by the UK Statistics Authority as being produced in line with the Code of Practice for Statistics. This means the statistics have been found to meet user needs, to be methodologically sound, explained well and produced free of political interference.’

So, GERS is produced by the Scottish Executive’s own economists and statisticians and published under the authority of the Scottish Government’s Chief Statistician (’produced by Scottish Government’), is ‘methodologically sound’ (provides an accurate picture of the state of Scotland’s public expenditure and revenue finances) and is impartial in its analysis (‘produced free of political interference’) BY THE SNP’s OWN ADMISSION (please remember this for future reference).

The 2023-24 and latest 2024-25 GERS Reports (see (1) and (2) in the ‘Sources’ section below) reveal the following salient hard, objective, verifiable facts:

For the 2023-24 period:

Being in the UK meant £22.7 billion extra per year for Scotland’s public services.
— Public spending in Scotland was £2,417 higher per person than the UK average, helping to protect the NHS, schools, and communities. £20,418 was spent on average for every single person in Scotland.
— Scotland made up around 8.2% of the total UK population, but 9.1% of UK public spending was in Scotland.
— Revenue generated: £88.546 billion. Public purse requirement: £111.230 billion-Scotland’s deficit was therefore £22.684 billion.
— Including North Sea oil and gas revenues, Scotland had a net fiscal deficit of £22.68 billion in 2023-24, compared with just over £18 billion the previous year. As a percentage of Scotland’s GDP, the deficit had increased from 8.4% to 10.4%, whereas the UK deficit as a whole fell during the same period.

For the 2024-25 period:

-Scotland’s total public sector expenditure in 2024-25 was estimated at £117.6 billion. Scotland’s total public sector revenue in 2024-25 was £91.4 billion, leaving a total deficit of £26.5 BILLION Pounds.
– Scotland’s deficit has now increased by almost £10 billion in just two years, putting the final nail in the coffin of John Swinney’s Scottish ‘independence’ dream.

– Scotland’s net fiscal deficit was 11.7% of GDP, with this growing larger every year and ‘underlining the collective economic strength of the United Kingdom and how Scotland benefits from the redistribution of wealth inside the UK.’

– Including North Sea oil and gas revenues, the current net fiscal deficit of £26.5bn compared to £22.68bn in 2023/24 and just over £18bn in the year before that.

– While the deficit as a percentage of Scotland’s GDP increased from 10.4% to 11.7%, the UK deficit also increased slightly but is still less than half, at 5.1%. Total Scottish executive revenue increased from £88.5bn to £91.4bn but is still not enough for Scotland to survive without the UK Government.

– SNP expenditure per person in Scotland is also £2,669 higher than the rest of the UK, with this known as the ‘union dividend’. It is an increase of £358 on the previous year [£2,311 in 2023-24]. Scotland accounts for around 8.2% of the UK population, yet 9.1% of UK public spending is in Scotland.
— Since 2014, when Scotland voted to stay in the UK, Scotland benefited from £195.5 billion of extra spending for her public services.

The GERS figures can be used to explain Scotland’s past economic performance (as an integral part of the UK) to inform understanding of the future choices a possible independent Scotland would face.

They describe the starting point (the ‘run-rate’) from where Scotland can start to consider the possible impact and fiscal implications of independence. The GERS figures provide the foundations on top of which any credible economic case for independence must be built.

To suggest that how Scotland’s fiscal balance would look based on the taxes she’s used to raising and the public spending she’s used to receiving says ‘nothing’, ‘almost nothing’ or only ‘relatively little’ about an independent Scotland’s potential finances is frankly insulting to the intelligence of Scots.

In 2023 (the last full-year figures are available for both Scotland and England), Scotland had an estimated nominal gross domestic product (GDP) of £218 billion, including oil and gas extraction (which represents only a tiny fraction of that total, £4.9 billion according to the 2023-24 GERS Report). GERS 2023-24 also reports that Scotland’s total revenue was £88.546 billion (See (1) in ‘Sources’ for full details).

By comparison, Greater London ALONE (i.e. excluding the London metropolitan area) produced just over £500 BILLION (half a TRILLION) pounds, around 1/4 of the UK’s annual GDP of £2.274 TRILLION for that year. (3) and (4)

The London metropolitan area produced around £1 TRILLION in 2023, so the GDP of the entire London area was slightly more than £1.5 TRILLION. Greater London’s economy alone therefore is more than THREE times the size of the ENTIRE Scottish economy, and London’s as a whole is over NINE TIMES BIGGER THAN SCOTLAND’S TOTAL GDP. (3) and (4)

It generates more revenue per head than any other part of the UK. In fact, every county in England has a higher GDP than Scotland’s total, as even the smallest English counties exceed Scotland’s total GDP. As a whole, the UK‘s GDP (total wealth produced) is JUST OVER EIGHT TIMES BIGGER THAN SCOTLAND’S TOTAL GDP.

The myth of the oil argument

The oil argument is yet another SNP-sponsored myth, like their often-repeated ‘Scotland subsidises England’ assertion.

The McCrone Report on the oil fields around the UK was written in 1974, more than 50 years ago. Profitable oil reserves have largely dried up in the following years. Top petrochemical experts have stated that there are around ten years of profitable oil left to extract in the oil fields situated around the seas of the UK. See: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11046740/Sir-Ian-Wood-15-years-of-oil-left-before-independent-Scotland-spending-cuts.html

What’s more, the new oil fields found to the West of Scotland are situated too deep in the seabed to be easily profitably extracted. The cost of extraction would be greater than the revenue gained from selling the oil, so no sensible company would be prepared to participate in such an unprofitable, unpredictable venture.

Considering the objective facts above, it’s clear that England, or the UK, doesn’t steal Scotland’s money.

In fact, the rUK (England, Wales, and Ulster) is Scotland’s biggest single customer by a very substantial margin, as 60%, worth £55.4 billion, of Scotland’s exports went to the rest of the UK in 2023, nearly FOUR TIMES her trade with Europe and very substantially more than her combined trade with both the EU and the rest of the world combined (£37.7 billion).

Scotland pays her share into the collective UK pot, as England, Wales and Ulster does and that significantly increases the UK’s overall economic standing in the world by several places. Scotland certainly DOESN’T subsidise or prop up the rest of the UK, but we’d all be worse off without her in the Union. Economically, the constituent parts of the UK are undeniably substantially better off together. So, the Union is mutually financially beneficial to the entire UK (without even mentioning the many other areas of mutual benefit, such as politically, socially, culturally, militarily et al.) That money is then distributed around the parts of the UK, dependent on need, and Scotland gets MORE public spending per head thanks to fiscal transfers than England, Wales, or Ulster.

The Scottish Executive’s (Holyrood) own annual economic report, GERS, demonstrates how much the UK Government helps to support the country’s finances and is a serious setback for the SNP’s attempts to break up the UK as it highlights the complete lack of credibility of their economic plans for separating Scotland from the rest of the UK.

Scotland gets an excellent deal out of the Union. Scotland’s current (2024-25) deficit (the difference between what she raises and what she spends) is equivalent to 11.7% of Scotland’s economy (measured by Gross Domestic Product).

By comparison, the UK as a whole has a current (2024-25) deficit of only 5.2% of GDP. That means, by sharing economic risks with the rest of the UK, Scotland has a smaller deficit. Added to this, with just over 8.2% of the population, Scotland pays 8.6% of tax but receives 9.2% of spending.

Being part of the UK means £106.6 billion was spent on Scotland’s public services in 2022-23, the highest ever recorded expenditure in Scotland.

The myth of Scotland copying other small countries after ‘independence’ – SNP are CONFUSED ON A ‘SOVEREIGN FUND’

The SNP’s 2018 Growth Commission Report was yet another complete dud.

Its conclusions that allegedly drew on the experiences of other small countries like New Zealand and Norway, and which asserted that a Scotland separated from the rest of the UK could build up a similar-sized sovereign fund, were flatly contradicted by these countries themselves.

It was pointed out to the SNP that it took these countries 30 years to build up a sizeable fund and their economies were of a different kind. Therefore, the SNP were comparing apples and oranges. Once again, the SNP was wrong on the assumptions behind their plans for ‘independence’.

For example, see https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/new-zealand-model-may-not-be-right-for-scotland-warns-kiwi-mp-1428851

And: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/3280030/Alex-Salmond-refuses-to-back-down-after-Norway-says-were-not-like-Scotland..html

In fact, Norway has repeatedly rejected comparisons between its economy and an independent Scotland, emphasising significant structural and historical differences:

* Norway’s government, including former Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store, stated that ‘comparisons between Norway and Scotland have some clear limitations’, noting that Norway has been independent for over a century and took decades to build its oil wealth and sovereign fund.
* Norway’s oil revenues are largely channelled into a sovereign wealth fund (worth ~$1.3 trillion), not directly into the national budget, unlike Scotland’s current fiscal model.
* The Norwegian government did not bail out its banks during financial crises, contradicting SNP claims that an independent Scotland could emulate this model.
* Norway’s high public ownership of key industries (energy, banking, telecom) and progressive taxation are not mirrored in Scotland’s current economic setup.
* Recent reports highlight that Scotland lags behind Norway and Denmark in devolved policies, such as outdoor education, despite SNP leaders citing them as economic models.

While Scotland and Norway share cultural and geographical ties, and both are involved in North Sea energy cooperation, Norway’s unique history, fiscal discipline, and state ownership model make direct comparison unrealistic.

In summary:

With the above facts in mind, the assertion that ‘Scotland subsidises or props up the UK’ and that ‘North Sea oil subsidises the UK’ is simply not backed up by the hard, objective, verifiable, empirical facts.

The above data underlines the collective economic strength of being in the United Kingdom. The pooling and sharing of resources across the UK means that Scots currently benefit by £2,669 more per head in public spending than the UK average (the same is true for Ulster and Wales, which receive a similar-sized fiscal benefit from being in the UK), which equates to substantially more money for schools, hospitals, and other public services. Separating Scotland from the rest of the UK would mean the end of such fiscal transfers and so vastly less money for Scotland’s public services, coupled with ultra-austerity possibly for decades in order to finance the risible services that would exist (financed by vastly increased taxes), if they hadn’t been axed for being unaffordable.

The SNP needs to inform the public what separation would actually cost and what a new Scottish currency would be, its value, how much it would cost to fund and its impact on mortgages, wages, interest rates, among other questions, but it won’t. Why? Because the separatists know that they have no answers to offer, no viable plan for financing a separate Scotland and the objective, verifiable, empirical facts, as laid out conclusively in the GERS Report, which the SNP THEMSELVES produce and accept as entirely accurate, prove it.

Sources:

(1) 2023-24 Government Expenditure and Revenue Report Scotland (GERS): https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-gers-2023-24/

(2) 2024-25 Government Expenditure and Revenue Report Scotland (GERS): https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-2024-25/documents/

(3) Office for National Statistics (ONS) GDP data for all UK regions (I.e. Scotland, England (all counties), Wales and Ulster (‘Northern Ireland’): https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/regionaleconomicactivitybygrossdomesticproductuk/1998to2023

(4) House of Commons Library: London’s contribution to the National [UK] economy: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0153/

Devolution Decoded: Scots Have Consistently Backed the Union

23 February 2026/in Election 2026, Politics Matters, Scottish Government, Scottish Independence, SNP, Stephen Bailey, United Kingdom /by sm_admin

Written by Stephen Bailey.

It is a hard, objective, verifiable, empirical fact that more Scots have voted for pro-UK than pro-‘independence’ parties at EVERY Holyrood election EVER.

Let’s have a look at the figures:

1999 (1): At the 1999 Holyrood election, the Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Labour, and Scottish Liberal Democrats, all of which were part of the pro-UK political alignment, received 364,425, 908,346, and 333,179 votes respectively.

The Scottish National Party (SNP), a pro-‘independence’ party, received 672,768 votes (28.7% of the total).

In total:

* Pro-UK votes: 1,605,950 (Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats).
* Pro-‘independence’ votes: 672,768 (SNP).

These figures reflect the popular vote share. The pro-UK parties collectively secured 93 out of 129 seats and the SNP being given 35 seats.

The electorate in Scotland for the 1999 Holyrood election was 4,027,433.

This figure represents the total number of registered voters eligible to participate in the election held on May 6th 1999.

The turnout for the election was approximately 58.1%, meaning about 2.35 million voters cast valid ballots.

This turnout rate was the highest in subsequent Holyrood elections until 2016.

The total Scottish population in 1999 was 5,072,000.

2003: At the 2003 Holyrood election (2):

* Pro-UK parties (Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats, and others):
* Labour: 663,585 (constituency) + 561,375 (regional) = 1,224,960 votes.
* Conservative: 318,279 + 296,929 = 615,208 votes
* Liberal Democrats: 294,347 + 225,774 = 520,121 votes.
* Other Unionist/Non-’Independence’ parties: 184,641 (constituency) + 299,946 (regional) = 484,587 votes.
* Total pro-UK votes: 2,844,876,

* Pro-’Independence’ parties (SNP, Scottish Greens, Scottish Socialist Party, and others):
* SNP: 455,722 (constituency) + 399,659 (regional) = 855,381 votes.
* Scottish Greens: 0 (constituency) + 132,138 (regional) = 132,138 votes
* Scottish Socialist Party (SSP): 118,764 (constituency) + 128,026 (regional) = 246,790 votes
* Other pro-’independence’ parties: 184,641 (constituency) + 299,946 (regional) = 484,587 votes (Note: Some votes may overlap with ‘Other’ category)
* Total pro-’Independence’ votes: 1,278,306.

The total Scottish electorate for the 2003 Holyrood election was 3,877,460.

The voter turnout for the 2003 Holyrood election was 49.7%.

This applied to both the constituency vote and the regional list vote.

The total population of Scotland in 2003 was 5,068,500.

2007: At the 2007 Holyrood election (3), the vote split between pro-UK and pro-‘independence’ parties was as follows:

Pro-UK parties:

Scottish Labour: 1,243,789 total votes (30.63%).
* Scottish Conservative: 614,778 total votes (15.14%).
* Scottish Liberal Democrats: 556,883 total votes (13.74%).
* Other pro-UK or unionist parties: 40,431 votes (2.0%).
* → Total pro-UK votes: 2,455,881 (approximately 60.5% of total votes).

Note: The total valid votes were 4,059,844, with a turnout at 51.7%. The pro-UK bloc secured a clear majority in terms of both votes and seats.

* Pro-’independence’ parties:
* Scottish National Party (SNP): 1,297,838 total votes (31.96% of the total vote).
* Scottish Green Party: 85,584 total votes (2.10%).
* Other pro-‘independence’ or ‘independence’-leaning parties: 257,008 votes (6.33%), including smaller parties and independents.
* Total pro-’independence’ votes: 1,640,430.

The total Scottish electorate for the 2007 Holyrood election was 3,899,472.

Total Scottish population in 2007 was In 2007 was 5,170,000.

2011: At the 2011 Holyrood election (4), the vote shares for pro-UK and pro-’independence’ parties were as follows:

* Pro-UK parties:
* Labour: 630,461 constituency votes (31.7%) and 523,469 regional votes (26.3%), totalling 1,153,930 votes (28.99%).
* Conservative: 276,652 constituency votes (13.9%) and 245,967 regional votes (12.4%), totalling 522,619 votes (13.13%).
* Liberal Democrats: 157,714 constituency votes (7.9%) and 103,472 regional votes (5.2%), totalling 261,186 votes (6.56%).
* Other parties: 21,534 constituency votes (1.08%) and 149,809 regional votes (7.52%), totalling 171,343 votes (4.30%).

* Scottish National Party (SNP), the main pro-’independence’ party, received 902,915 constituency votes (45.4%) and 876,421 regional votes (44.0%), totalling 1,779,336 votes.

Thus, pro-UK parties collectively received approximately 2,107,144 votes (53.1%), while the SNP received 1,779,336 votes (44.7%).

The SNP were given 69 seats, the Labour Party won 37 seats, the Conservatives gained 15 seats, and the Liberal Democrats won 5 seats.

Notably, despite the SNP’s overall majority in seats, the pro-UK parties collectively received a higher share of the total vote (approximately 50.3% of the total valid votes), but due to the electoral system, the pro-’independence’ bloc was given a parliamentary majority.

The total electorate for the 2011 Holyrood
election had 3,950,626 registered voters.

The total turnout at the 2011 Holyrood election was 50.6%, according to the Electoral Commission.

This represented a slight decrease from the 53.9% turnout recorded in the 2007 election.

The total usually resident population of Scotland on Census Day, 27th March 2011, was 5,295,403.

This marked the highest population ever recorded in Scotland at that time, representing a rise of 233,392 people (4.6%) since the 2001 census.

2016 Holyrood election (5):

Pro-UK parties (Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats):

* Constituency vote:
* Conservatives: 501,844 votes(22.0%).
* Labour: 514,261 votes (22.6%).
* Liberal Democrats: 178,238 votes(7.8%).
* Total (constituency): 1,194,343 votes.
* Regional list vote:
* Conservatives: 524,222 votes(22.9%).
* Labour: 435,919 votes (19.1%)
* Liberal Democrats: 119,284 votes(5.2%).
* Total (regional): 1,079,425 votes.
* Combined total (constituency + regional): 2,273,768 votes.

Pro-‘Independence’ parties (SNP and Greens):

* Constituency vote:
* SNP: 1,059,898 votes (46.5%)
* Greens: 13,172 votes (0.6%).
* Total (constituency): 1,073,070 votes.
* Regional list vote:
* SNP: 953,587 votes (41.7%).
* Greens: 150,426 votes (6.6%),
* Total (regional): 1,104,013 votes.
* Combined total (constituency + regional): 2,177,083 votes.

The total electorate for the 2016 Scottish Parliament election was 4,098,462 registered voters.

The voter turnout in the 2016 Scottish Parliament election was:

* 55.8% for the constituency vote(2,288,369 votes cast).
* 55.9% for the regional list vote(2,289,564 votes cast).

The total population of Scotland in 2016 was 5,404,700.

2021: The 2021 Holyrood election (6)
results show a clear division in voting preferences between pro-UK and pro-‘independence’ parties.
*
* Pro-UK parties received 1,885,578 votes in total:
* Scottish Conservatives: 592,526 (constituency) + 637,131 (regional) = 1,229,657.
* Scottish Labour: 584,392 (constituency) + 485,819 (regional) = 1,070,211.
* Scottish Liberal Democrats: 187,816 (constituency) + 137,151 (regional) = 324,967.
* Total pro-UK votes: 1,229,657 + 1,070,211 + 324,967 = 2,624,835.

* Pro-’independence’ parties received 1,885,578 votes in total:
* Scottish National Party (SNP): 1,291,204 (constituency) + 1,094,374 (regional) = 2,385,578 (Note: This includes votes from both ballots, but the total valid votes were 2,712,783).
* Scottish Greens: 220,324 (regional) = 220,324.
* Total pro-independence votes: 2,385,578 (SNP) + 220,324 (Greens) = 2,605,902.

The total electorate for the 2021 Holyrood election was 4,280,785 registered voters.

The total voter turnout for the 2021 Holyrood election was 63.5%, the highest recorded for a Holyrood election.

This figure applies to both the constituency and regional list ballot

The total population of Scotland, according to the 2022 census, was 5,436,600.

Hard facts don’t lie. A majority of Scots have voted for keeping Scotland in the UK in EVERY Holyrood election EVER and consequently, the SNP have no basis, no justification, for claiming a mandate for ‘independence’.

Sources:

(1) 1999 and 2003 Holyrood election data: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7529/

(2) 2007 Holyrood election data: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP07-46/RP07-46.pdf

(3) 2011 Holyrood election data: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/rp11-41/

(4) 2016 Holyrood election data: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7599/

(5) 2021 Holyrood election data: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9230/

(6) Scottish population figures from the Office for National Statistics: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/populationestimatesforukenglandandwalesscotlandandnorthernireland

Majority of Scotland Rejects Separation in Landmark Poll

11 February 2026/in Election 2026, Politics Matters, Scottish Government, Scottish Independence, SNP, Stephen Bailey, United Kingdom /by sm_admin

Written by Stephen Bailey.

A landmark new poll by YouGov (see link to data in the ‘Sources’ section below) has determined that nearly all Scots reject separating Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom and want to keep the UK together.

It found that only one Scottish region now favours ‘independence’. as voters turn their backs on separatism.

Just one part of Scotland is now out of step with the rest of every other area of this part of the UK. All other areas of Scotland are firmly opposed to breaking up the UK.

Overall, 53% are in favour of keeping Scotland in the United Kingdom compared to 47% who want to remove her from the Union.

Glasgow is now the only area showing majority support for Scotland being removed from the UK, with every other region now opposed to the core aim of the SNP.

The poll breaks down in the following way:

* North East Scotland: Yes 45%, No 55%
* Highlands & Islands: Yes 42%, No 48%
* South Scotland: Yes 47%, No 53%
* West Scotland: Yes 44%, No 56%
* Central Scotland: Yes 48%, No 52%
* Mid-Scotland & Fife: Yes 46%, No 54%
* Lothians: Yes 46%, No 54%
* Glasgow: Yes 66%, No 34%

This latest poll was conducted among 1113 voters living north of the border in the week of January 8th-14th. YouGov asked the question: ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’

When the question was put to the public in the referendum just over 11 years ago in September 2014, the result was 55% to 45% in favour of keeping Scotland in the UK. Glasgow was one of only 4 council areas to vote to break up the UK, along with North Lanarkshire, Dundee and West Dunbartonshire.

This comprehensive and authoritative poll proves that Scots have turned against the separatist agenda and now virtually universally embrace Scotland staying in the UK.

It also shows a majority of Scots reject the SNP’s monomaniacal and pathological obsession with constitutional matters (’independence’) over much more important day-to-day matters like the economy, health, immigration & asylum, housing, education, the UK leaving the EU, tax and crime, for example.

The tide has turned against the SNP and their separation obsession.

Source: https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Copy_of_Internal_ScotlandResults_260114_16_w.pdf

The English and the Union

20 January 2026/in Federalism, Politics Matters, Scottish Government, Scottish Independence, SNP, Stephen Bailey, United Kingdom /by sm_admin

Written by Stephen Bailey.

What do the hard facts show about what the English really feel towards the Union?

It is a gross popular misconception that most English people want to ‘get rid of the Jocks, the Taffs and the Ullish’ (the residents of Ulster (’Northern Ireland’). It, or some variant like ‘Get rid of them’ is often heard coming from ignorant English separatists down the pub, in the street and elsewhere when debating the Constitutional Question in England.

A look at the hard, objective, verifiable facts strongly contradicts this assertion.

Data from multiple polls clearly demonstrates that the majority of English citizens reject the separation of England from the rest of the UK.

There has been much talk from both Scottish and English separatists, as well as pro-English Parliament advocates, that the English are disaffected with the Union, want to break it up, or don’t care if it does break up, and/or want an English Parliament. The facts contradict this assertion. The opposite is true in reality.

It is a common tactic of anti-UK separatism-those who seek to remove their part of the UK, Scotland, Wales and Ulster from the Union, principally, but not exclusively, the Scottish National Party, to provoke antagonism among the inhabitants of the English part of the UK.

They do this by acting in a very troublesome and antagonistic manner to the English, in a deliberate attempt to make them dislike or even hate the Scots, Welsh and Ullish in order to facilitate the advancement of their anti-UK separatist agenda.

The good news is that they have largely failed to do this.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has released the 2021 UK National Census data on national identity in England and Wales. (1)

NOTE: The 2021 UK National Census collected data from the entire usual resident population of the UK, which includes all individuals living in the country, regardless of nationality or immigration status. According to the Office for National Statistics, the mid-2021 population estimate for the UK was 67.0 million, based on the 2021 Census data for England, Wales, and ‘Northern Ireland’, with Scotland’s estimate rolled forward from 2020 due to the delayed census. Therefore, its findings can be regarded as the most authoritative findings currently available.

In ‘Figure 1′ of the Census, we see that more than half of the usual resident population of England AND Wales, 54.8% or 32.7 million people, indicated that they were of solely ‘British’ national identity, a rise since the 2011 Census.

Conversely, the opposite trend was witnessed in the ‘English only’ category, which fell massively from 57.7% in 2011 to 14.9% in 2021:

(A) ‘British only’:

2011: 10,690,999 (19.1%).

2021: 33,677,619, (54.8%).

(B) ‘English only’:

2011: 32,351,735 (57.7%).

2021: 8,898,728 (14.9%).

2011: 4,867,862 (8.7%).

2023: 8,112,809 (13.6%).

The above results prove that there has been a monumental rise in the number of English residents who view themselves as citizens of the United Kingdom, as British rather than just English.

Support for an English Parliament remains low. BSA surveys show only 24% support creating an English Parliament—similar to levels in 1999. (2)

Historical trends suggest that claims of a growing English identity may be overstated. The 2011 ‘surge’ in English identity (49% choosing English over British) has not been replicated. Recent data shows 34% identify as English, 48% as British—unchanged from two decades ago (as discussed above and also see (2) in the ‘Sources’ section below).

It is the inescapable, overwhelming conclusion of a very substantial body of objective, verifiable, empirical evidence in the form of hard data and statistics from surveys and polls of English residents that a similarly substantial majority of the public in England desire keeping the UK together.

However, let’s not be at all complacent. Anti-UK separatism across the UK (Scotland, Wales, Ulster and England) is pathological and monomaniacal in its pursuit of forcing its agenda on a UK public that the polls consistently tell us doesn’t want it. It is the urgent and serious task of all those who want to maintain the Union to push back against this guerrilla war of misinformation being waged by the various anti-UK separatists and maintain the UK.

Sources:

(1) The 2021 UK National Census: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/bulletins/nationalidentityenglandandwales/census2021#main-points

(2) ‘The myth of a growing sense of English identity’: https://constitution-unit.com/2018/12/14/on-the-myth-of-a-growing-sense-of-english-identity/

SNP Fatalism Is Wrong – the UK Is Not Inevitable to Break Up

1 January 2026/in Federalism, Politics Matters, Scottish Government, Scottish Independence, SNP, Stephen Bailey, United Kingdom /by sm_admin

Written by Stephen Bailey.

Here’s how matters stand as concerns the Constitutional Question in the UK.

First, the SNP has never had a mandate to separate Scotland from the rest of the UK (’independence’), and the facts prove it.

It is a commonly touted SNP assertion that all elections, Westminster or devolved, will be referenda on ‘independence’, and that if they achieve a majority of seats, this will give them a mandate for ‘independence’.

The idea that anti-UK separatism has a mandate for ‘independence’ from ANY election, Westminster, devolved, or local council is THE major fallacy at elections for Scottish constituencies and highlights yet another intrinsic flaw in legislative devolution.

The fact is, the SNP has no mandate for ‘independence’ and never has, ever.

Its victories at Holyrood, Westminster and local council elections represent nothing more than the triumph of a small, vociferous minority (never higher than 36% of the total electorate’s vote) of activists running around and shouting the loudest, drowning out the voice of the overwhelming majority.

They only prove that a small and determined group of obsessed, loud and active zealots and extremists can force their will on the rest of the population, completely skewing the genuine will of the majority of the overall population.

Winning a majority of seats in Holyrood doesn’t give the SNP any mandate for ‘independence’ when they only represent around a third of the total registered electorate AND the vast majority of opinion polls on ‘independence’ in Scotland continue to show a majority for Scotland staying in the UK. Added to the above, in EVERY election during the legislative devolution era (1997 onwards), a majority of Scots have voted for pro-UK parties. No matter how you look at it, a majority of Scots support keeping Scotland in the UK. The same is true in Wales-more Welsh people voted for pro-UK parties in ALL devolved elections ever than for separatist ones.

The bottom-line of UK Constitutional Law is that under New Labour’s legislative devolution ‘settlement’ (a misnomer as it’s actually greatly unsettled and bitterly divided Scotland) a Holyrood election cannot deliver a mandate for ‘independence’, as the Constitution is a reserved matter, regardless of what is in a party’s manifesto (i.e. ‘independence’), or their reason for existing being ‘independence’.

ONLY the National UK Parliament at Westminster can deliver a constitutionally legal and democratically valid mandate for ‘independence’. Even a referendum win for the SNP would only be advisory. It would not provide a legally binding commitment to do so as referendums are only advisory.

It is therefore established conclusively with the facts of UK Constitutional Law that the SNP, or any other party, CANNOT receive a mandate for separation from the UK from a devolved election and that the objective, verifiable, empirical data demonstrates conclusively that the SNP has FAILED to earn a democratic mandate from Scots for breaking up the UK even if it was possible under the Constitution.

Please click on the following link for my previous discussion on this topic, which includes a comprehensive set of fully referenced and sourced election and other relevant data: https://www.scotlandmatters.co.uk/2025/10/27/snp-no-mandate-for-independence-uk-law/

AVOID ANTI-UK SEPARATIST SPONSORED FATALISM

This is the idea that something is going to happen, regardless of what or which course of action is taken to avoid it. It is a dangerous and misguided belief.

It seems to have set in among some of those who say they want to maintain the UK. Some of them appear to have adopted the misguided belief, sponsored by anti-UK separatism (the SNP in Scotland, Plaid Cymru in Wales and IRA/Sinn Fein in Ulster) that the separatists represent the will of the Scottish, or Welsh or Ullish (Ulster) people (despite, as above, never winning much more than a third of the total vote of the Scottish electorate in Scotland’s case (36% is the highest percentage in the 2015 Westminster elections (*1), 27.9% in 2021 for Holyrood (*2), 20.72% of the total Welsh electorate in the 2021 Senedd election for Plaid (*3) and 29% of the total Ulster electorate for IRA/Sinn Fein in the 2022 Stormont election(*4) and that therefore somehow ‘independence’ is inevitable.

This is erroneous and based upon specious thinking, not hard evidence, which contradicts them.

Some politicians, at both UK national and devolved levels, are far too keen on appeasing anti-UK separatism. They appear to have no idea how to take the fight to them, and simply exude an air of downbeat defeatism.

This is toxic, and no good will come of it.

It will only aid the continuance of anti-UK separatist rule and give them undeserved confidence that they can force separation from the rest of the UK on an unwilling public. They are ruthless, sociopathic, narcissistic and monomaniacal in their pursuit of separation from the rest of the UK and will just manipulate this defeatist attitude for their own purposes.

THERE IS NOTHING INEVITABLE ABOUT THE BREAK-UP OF THE UK

Don’t aid anti-UK separatism. There is NOTHING inevitable about ‘independence’.

The trends in public opinion are still strongly in favour of the UK. A strong majority of Scots, a vastly substantial majority of the Welsh and a majority of citizens of Ulster (across the communities) support their part of the Union staying in the UK.

The arguments for keeping the UK together are vastly stronger than those of the anti-UK separatists, who have demonstrated time and again that they have no viable plans for ‘independence’, especially, but not exclusively, economically. Breaking up the UK would be a recipe for disaster, financially, politically and culturally.

They are simply trying to force the pro-UK community into submission with continuous pressure of various kinds (a guerrilla war of attrition) as they have no positive arguments to offer for separation and they know it, hence the pressure tactics of the bully.

Don’t let them. The pro-UK side has by far the better arguments and so deserves to win. Don’t let a vociferous minority force its will on the majority.

Onwards and upwards say all those of us who want to maintain the UK. This United Kingdom of Great Britain and ‘Northern Ireland’ (Ulster) is NOWHERE NEAR dead and is fully worth fighting for.

Opinion polls have consistently shown that a majority of citizens in all parts of the UK (Scotland, England, Wales, and Ulster) share a common British identity and still firmly want to keep the UK together.

There is NOTHING inevitable about the break-up of the UK. With a positive will, the empty falsehoods and fallacies of anti-UK separatism can be defeated and a robust, mutually beneficial Union can exist in perpetuity.

DON’T FORGET-SECURE THE UK-VOTE THE SNP OUT OF POWER IN THE HOLYROOD ELECTIONS AND KEEP PLAID CYMRU OUT OF POWER AT THE SENEDD ELECTIONS THIS MAY.

Sources:

(1) 2015 UK General Election statistics: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7186/

(2) 2021 Holyrood election statistics: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9230/

(3) 2021 Senedd election statistics: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9282/

(4) 2022 Stormont election statistics: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9549/

Scotland at Risk: The SNP’s Broken Economics and False Promises by Stephen Bailey

12 December 2025/in Federalism, Politics Matters, Scottish Government, Scottish Independence, SNP, Stephen Bailey, United Kingdom /by sm_admin

Written by Stephen Bailey.

Swinney is kicking off for the umpteenth time on his monomaniacal and pathological ‘independence’ obsession. Below is a new article dissecting the many manifest faults in his plans::

STEPHEN BAILEY: THE SNP JUST WANTS TO FORCIBLY SEPARATE SCOTLAND FROM THE REST OF THE UK AND HAS NO VIABLE PLANS FOR IMPLEMENTING ‘INDEPENDENCE’

They are not offering genuine independence, says Stephen Bailey in his new article.

The SNP are just separatists who want to break Scotland away from the rest of the UK at any cost against the will of the majority of Scots and aren’t offering genuine, viable independence, just as Plaid Cymru is in Wales and IRA/Sinn Fein are in Ulster.

INCORRECT OIL ESTIMATES

All the anti-UK separatists in the devolved parts of the UK (Scotland, Wales and Ulster) have completely failed to devise a remotely plausible economic plan for separating their part of the UK from the rest of the country. As for the SNP specifically, even their own economic advisor, Andrew Wilson, who drew up Alex Salmond’s embarrassingly economically illiterate 2013 ‘White Paper on Independence’, subsequently admitted that they were wrong because fluctuating oil revenue was ‘baked into the numbers’.
See for example, his quote at https://dailybusinessgroup.co.uk/2017/03/snp-growth-guru-admits-party-was-wrong-on-oil/

Added to this, the then SNP leader Alex Salmond’s predictions for the price of oil, on which he based his whole economic plans, were later proved to have been considerably overestimated.

Then to cap it all, the then SNP deputy leader, Nicola Sturgeon herself admitted the SNP had been wrong to base their plans on the price of oil. The Daily Telegraph estimated they could have been out by as much as 13 times.

See for example https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11483905/Nicola-Sturgeon-admits-independence-oil-figures-were-wrong.html

If Scotland had voted ‘yes’ in 2014, it would have been thrown into a state of real economic disaster which would have had very greatly exacerbated the severe economic problem faced during the subsequent 2020-21 lockdown period.

THE SNP ARE CONFUSED ON A ‘SOVEREIGN FUND’

The SNP 2018 Growth Commission Report was another complete dud.

Its conclusions that allegedly drew on the experiences of other small countries like New Zealand and Norway, and which asserted that a Scotland separated from the rest of the UK could build up a similarly sized sovereign fund, were flatly contradicted by these countries themselves.

It was pointed out that it took them 30 years to build up a sizeable fund and their economies were of a different kind. Therefore, the SNP were comparing apples and oranges. Once again, the SNP was wrong on the assumptions behind their plans for ‘independence’.

For example, see https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/new-zealand-model-may-not-be-right-for-scotland-warns-kiwi-mp-1428851

And: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/3280030/Alex-Salmond-refuses-to-back-down-after-Norway-says-were-not-like-Scotland..html

THE SNP HAVE NO IDEA ON CURRENCY

The separatists have compounded their ill-considered plans for separation with a flip-flopping, contradictory policy on currency. Initially, they insisted on retaining a fiscal union with the rest of the UK by keeping the Bank of England in charge of Scotland’s economic policy after ‘independence’.

How can they claim they are advocating genuine independence when a ‘foreign’ country (the rUK) would be controlling Scotland’s economy? They can’t. The reality is that the SNP’s proposals are an illogical rag-bag of half-baked notions with little or no credibility to them.

They then conveniently changed their mind and insisted there would be a new Scottish currency, only to have these plans trashed by experts who revealed that such a currency would be worth 20% less (at least) than Sterling. See https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-average-household-faces-20-hit-to-income-under-loss-of-pound-due-to-independence-expert-forecasts-3916525

GIVING SOVEREIGNTY TO THE EU

The bizarre nature of the SNP’s ‘independence’ plans is further highlighted by the SNP’s conflicted attitude to the EU.

They decry how Scotland is supposedly ruled by faraway dictatorial London in the UK Union but advocate allowing Scotland to be ruled by diktat from the faraway autocratic and dictatorial EU (65% of all Scotland’s domestic policies would be controlled by mandatory directives and regulations decided and enforced by the EU).

See for example, this report from 2015 which said that ‘64.7 per cent of the laws made between 1993 and 2014 have either been made or influenced by the European Union’ at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2974938/Two-thirds-laws-Britain-past-two-decades-inspired-Brussels.html

NOW FOR THE GOOD NEWS

As part of the UK, Scotland enjoys wide-ranging influence over the formulation and implementation of UK-wide policy.

Scotland has provided 10 Prime Ministers and several cabinet ministers who have held positions of considerable power and influence over UK-wide matters.

What’s more, the Scottish electorate has directly decided the result of UK General Elections 4 times since 1945-see https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11552991/The-general-elections-where-Scotland-decided-who-ran-the-UK.html

The SNP are a sham. They are xenophobic, monomaniacal and pathological about forcing Scotland out of the UK against the will of the pro-UK majority of Scots who have clearly stated their desire for Scotland to stay in the UK
in most opinion polls.

See this analysis at the end of 2024 for details: https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/merry-christmas-everyone-union-clear-34367595 And here: https://ballotbox.scot/independence

They and the other anti-UK separatists in Wales and Ulster have no viable plans for separation (especially for the economy). They don’t know at all how they would run the parts of the UK after separation from the rest of the country. They can’t be trusted.

SNP/Plaid Cymru and the UK’s Balkanization

SNP/Plaid Cymru Axis Highlights Legislative Devolution’s Domino Effect and the Balkanization of the UK

11 November 2025/in Federalism, Politics Matters, Scottish Government, Scottish Independence, SNP, Stephen Bailey, United Kingdom /by sm_admin

Written by Stephen Bailey.

Scottish and Welsh separatist parties, the SNP and Plaid Cymru have recently announced a new partnership to form a ‘progressive alliance’ against Westminster. The collaboration was formalized through a meeting between First Minister John Swinney and Plaid Cymru Leader Rhun ap Iorwerth in Edinburgh on October 30th 2025.

The meeting at Bute House marked a significant step in strengthening cooperation between the two separatist parties, building on their previous ties.

Both leaders have stated that a future Plaid Cymru devolved administration in Wales and SNP administration in Scotland would represent a ‘wake-up call’ to the UK Government.

As of November 6th 2025, the partnership remains a strategic political alignment focused on upcoming elections in May 2026, with no indication of formal coalition government yet established.

This newly announced axis of separatists from different parts of the UK highlights yet another major intrinsic flaw in legislative devolution-the ‘Domino Effect’.

The ‘Domino Effect’ can be defined in the following terms. Legislative devolution in one part of the UK (SNP-dominated devolved Scotland mostly, but not exclusively) has enabled anti-UK separatists (the SNP are the prime villains in this) to rise to power, ignore reserved limitations on their remit and use their devolved executive to pursue referenda on separating their part of the country from the rest of the UK. This has encouraged separatists in other devolved parts of the UK (Wales and Ulster) and even England, to pursue their separatist agenda much more aggressively when they wouldn’t have without this encouragement in a kind of knock-on effect like a row of in line dominoes falling after being knocked over by the previous one, hence ‘Domino Effect’.

It is manifestly true that this has been the case throughout the entire UK. Take Wales, for instance. The Welsh separatists, Plaid Cymru, have existed since 1925 (nine years before the formation of the SNP) but in their early years had been more of a cultural movement, trying to promote Welsh language and culture. They had promoted the speaking of Welsh and other Welsh cultural phenomena, like the Eisteddfod (an annual festival that showcases Welsh music, literature, art, and other cultural themes). They had desired separation from the UK, but this was a very much longer-term objective.

After the introduction of legislative devolution in the late 1990s and influenced by the SNP’s aggressive campaign for separating Scotland from the rest of the UK, this stance began to change and Plaid began to adopt a much more militant pro-separation agenda. The domino effect was starting to come into play. They pushed for new referenda on granting the then Welsh Assembly more and more powers, including one in 2011 that substantially increased the areas of its legislative competency. Emboldened by the successful attempts of the SNP to hold a separation referendum, Plaid began trying to jump on the bandwagon and has intimated a few times now that they would push for a separation referendum in Wales if they felt the conditions were right (i.e. they felt they would win). In an ominous echo of the 2007 re-naming of the Scottish Executive to Scottish Government by the SNP in 2017, the Welsh assembly announced that it now wished to be known as the Welsh ‘parliament’, a further ominous step in the direction of independence. Subsequently, the Welsh ‘parliament’ was further renamed the ‘Senedd’

Added to all these depredations, Plaid have also intimated that they will definitely begin agitating for a separation referendum if there is another one in Scotland and Mark Drakeford, the then Labour First Minister in the Welsh ‘parliament’ tried to bribe the electorate by saying he would grant Plaid a referendum on separation if Labour were re-elected in the 2021 elections AND he would allow Adam Price, the Plaid leader, to be First Minister.

To cap it all, the new SNP/Plaid axis has now emerged, as described above.

All of this resurgence of aggressive anti-UK separatism has only come about as a knock-on effect of the SNP’s machinations in Scotland. Events would not have developed in this direction if legislative devolution hadn’t been introduced into Scotland.

A similar, though markedly more pronounced effect is in evidence in Ulster. The introduction of legislative devolution there has witnessed a rising tide of anti-Union separatist sentiment and a volumetric increase in calls for separating Ulster from the rest of the UK and placing it under Dublin control. As with Wales, these clarion calls for Dublin control have been magnified by the megaphone of legislative devolution, which has brought the topic very much into the forefront of the public’s eye, something that just wouldn’t have been anywhere so acute without legislative devolution.

Separatist and even some ‘mainstream’ politicians in England have been affected by this phenomenon as well. Even though the idea of English regional assemblies was conclusively defeated in a referendum held in North-East England on 4th November 2004 by a margin of 77.9% to 22.1%, the knock-on effect of legislative devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has led to a resurgence in the concept of English regional government. This idea was resurrected in 2012 when certain Northern English MPs wrote a letter to ‘The Observer’ newspaper and openly stated that it was time to reconsider having Northern regional assemblies (in England). They were clearly inspired by Scottish legislative devolution. Huddersfield MP Barry Sheerman wrote:

‘The North has a much larger population than Scotland [which has an assembly]… We don’t have a body to deal with strategic problems and issues for the North [of England]’.

The public in these areas of the North started to have concerns that legislative devolution had left the northern regions of England as the poor relations of Scotland in terms of economic and political clout. These concerns were magnified even more when Holyrood got more powers in 2016 and would be further exacerbated if (or it would be more correct to say ‘when’) more powers are added in the future. The continual granting of new powers to the Welsh ‘parliament’ has, and will, continue to have the same effect on England.

What’s more 2021 saw a further unsettling development with the formation of a political party dedicated to the political independence of the North of England from the rest of the UK. There’s even a political party seeking separation for Yorkshire as well.

London is also undergoing the same process of travelling down the legislative devolutionary, constitutionally fragmenting road. An assembly was set up with powers over many matters affecting the capital of the UK and also had a directly elected mayor who answered to this assembly.

London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, has ignored the remit of devolution in London, just like the SNP has in Scotland, as well as Plaid Cymru in Wales and IRA/ Sinn Fein plus the SDLP in Ulster, to look after the Capital’s local affairs and got involved in matters that are the business of the UK Government at Westminster, such as Brexit for example-he approached a foreign country, Germany in this case, during the UK’s negotiations with the EU over Brexit and asked for London to be treated as a separate case from the rest of the UK in the post-Brexit arrangements. He’s acting as if he’s the Prime Minister of a sovereign, independent city-state of London, whose affairs are totally separate from the rest of the UK.

If matters follow the same trajectory as Scotland (especially), Wales and Northern Ireland, this tendency to consider London to be somehow different and separate from the UK will get worse and would pose an obvious, clear and present danger to the constitutional integrity of the UK, as has undeniably been the case in Scotland, Wales, and Ulster.

Recently, the Mayoral Office even acquired an official website with an address of ‘LGOV’, or ‘London Government’, a clear indication that the Mayor sees himself as the Prime Minister of the city-state of London and the Greater London Assembly as the seat of the Capital’s ‘national’ government.

The balkanization of the UK, initiated and accelerated by the introduction of legislative devolution, continues to accelerate, introducing an extremely ominous potential for future further fracturing the constitutional integrity of the UK.

The extreme South-West of England has added another domino to the chain. The Duchy of Cornwall has, for a long time, had a history of a small minority of residents asserting that they have a separate cultural identity from the rest of England. They had a different language and certain elements considered themselves to be of different ethnic origin. However, Cornish became a dead language by the end of the Nineteenth Century having essentially ceased to be used by the vast majority of the population and the concept of a separate Cornish identity as a political issue declined and fell into abeyance as a result.

Despite Mebyon Kernow, (‘The sons of Cornwall’) a political party that pushed for Cornish autonomy (I.e. a Cornish assembly) being formed in 1951, it was the introduction of legislative devolution in the late 1990s that really sparked interest in a devolved assembly in Cornwall. The Cornish Constitutional Convention launched a campaign for a devolved Cornish legislature on the back of the referenda in Scotland, Wales and Ulster that led to the setting up of devolved institutions in these areas. In October 2007, Andrew George, a Liberal Democrat MP stated:

‘If Scotland is benefiting from devolution then Cornwall should learn from this and increase the intensity of its own campaign for devolution to a Cornish Assembly’. Clearly, the domino effect was spreading further in England, thanks to devolution in other parts of the country. In 2009, Liberal Democrat MP William Rogerson presented a ‘Government of Cornwall’ Bill before the House of Commons which argued for a devolved Cornish assembly that was very similar in set up to the Scots and Welsh legislatures. The domino effect-like influence of Scots, Welsh and Ulster legislative devolution is clear from the following statement made by Rogerson:

‘Cornwall has the right to a level of self–government. If the Government is going to recognise the right of Scotland and Wales to greater self-determination because of their unique cultural and political positions, then they should recognise ours’.

But that’s not all. Not content with (trying) to break up the United Kingdom, the SNP are now imperilling the very existence of Scotland as a unitary political entity.

Recent developments have shown that the actions of the SNP are having a type of domino effect within Scotland itself.

The Shetland Isles have voted to explore ways to become independent from Scotland. The Shetland Islands Council overwhelmingly voted to start looking at ways to become financially and politically independent from Scotland. Councillors voted 18 to 2 in favour of a motion to formally explore options ‘for achieving financial and political self-determination’. In a debate lasting more than an hour, members argued decision-making has become increasingly centralized and public funding for the island has been cut under the SNP-dominated Holyrood administration.

Councillor Steven Coutts stated that devolution has not benefited the area and said the Scottish Parliament feels ‘remote’ to islanders, who face some of the highest rates of fuel poverty in the country.

‘The status quo is not working’ he said, adding: ‘Devolution and the Islands Act have not made any tangible difference to the quality of life’.

Other regions of Scotland (the Borders, Clydesdale, Tweeddale; Berwickshire, Roxburgh, Selkirk; Dumfries and Galloway) have expressed similar sentiments and the reason for it is invariably unhappiness at the way the SNP is mismanaging their affairs. The SNP and their misdeeds have had a knock-on effect on Scotland itself similar to that they’ve had on the UK generally as well as England. The SNP and legislative devolution have encouraged a previously unitary, cohesive country, the UK and a part of that country (England) to fragment into several separate entities. It’s just extremely ironic that it’s the SNP’s own actions that have led to this domino effect in Scotland itself.

Added to this, why is the UK Government not enforcing the remit system set up by the devolution ‘settlement’ in which the devolved legislatures (Holyrood, the Welsh ‘parliament’ and Stormont) can only debate and pass legislation on matters that aren’t reserved for Westminster’s consideration? Why does it allow the anti-UK separatists to abuse the remit system to such a monumental degree? It’s irrelevant that separation is the raison d’être of the SNP (or Plaid or IRA/Sinn Fein and the SDLP). They simply have no business getting involved in reserved matters. The then Labour government did nothing to stop Alex Salmond changing the title of Holyrood from the ‘Scottish Executive’ to the ‘Scottish Government’, even though it was extremely obvious that this was a deliberate attempt to subvert the concept of legislative devolution and move Holyrood towards a perceived equal status as a ‘national government’ on a par with Westminster. Added to this, the Welsh Assembly changing its title to ‘parliament’ is something that the UK Government does not appear to have wanted to stop. All in all, there has been an apparent and palpable lack of interest and vigour from Westminster in defending the Union against these increasing encroachments by separatism on UK sovereignty and their pretensions to being national governments, rather than just devolved administrations.

There is a clearly discernible pattern of legislative devolution in one part of the UK, I.e. Scotland, having a knock-on effect on other parts in a domino-like effect. The SNP in Scotland set the ball rolling by aggressively ignoring their devolved remit and this clearly encouraged other devolved regions like Wales and Ulster to follow suit and become more bellicose in their demands for more and more autonomy and even to push for full separation. Moreover, this phenomenon has spread to England, as seen in the North-East and the South-West of the country. It’s even threatening to break up Scotland as many areas of that part of the UK and its associated islands have strong links and sympathies with the UK and don’t feel much of a bond to Scotland, politically or culturally, and have either openly expressed a desire to remain in a constitutional arrangement with the UK or have the potential to do so. Legislative devolution has unleashed an uncontrollable wave of copycat aggressive separatism that threatens to throw the British Isles back to the early Tenth Century days of being a disunited, warring hodgepodge of fiefdoms and kingdoms.

AVOID SNP SPONSORED FATALISM-HARD FACT, A SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY OF SCOTS DON’T WANT TO SEPARATE SCOTLAND FROM THE REST OF THE UK

27 October 2025/in Federalism, Politics Matters, Scottish Government, Scottish Independence, SNP, Stephen Bailey, United Kingdom /by sm_admin

Written by Stephen Bailey.

It is a fact of UK Constitutional Law that no party can receive a mandate for separating one part of the UK from the rest of the country at a devolved election as the Constitution (the heading under which ‘independence’ falls) is a reserved matter and so is for the sole consideration of the House of Commons. Only the HoC can debate, draft, and pass laws on these matters into the Statute Book. The devolved legislatures (Holyrood, the Welsh ‘Senedd’ and Stormont) have no remit to consider these matters. It is only possible to receive a mandate for matters contained within the legislature’s devolved remit, nothing else. That’s the bottom line.

However, ignoring this, it is a hard, objective, and verifiable fact that the SNP has never received a majority of votes from the total Scottish electorate, even less so when considering their vote percentage in terms of the total Scottish population.

These are the hard facts:

– 2015 (Westminster): SNP: 1,454,436 total votes. This was the high-water mark of the SNP’s success and it represented 36% of the total Westminster Parliament electorate in Scotland at the time of 4,035,400. Total Scottish population: 5,373,000.

– 2016 (Holyrood): SNP: 1,059,898 total votes over all constituencies. 953,587 over all regions. The average of both votes is 1,006,743, which is 25% of the total registered electorate for the Holyrood election of 4,030,000. Total Scottish population: 5,374,900.

– 2017 (Westminster): SNP: 977,569 total votes. This was a drop of 476,867 from the 2015 election for the separatists. This represented 24.9% of the total Westminster Parliament electorate in Scotland at the time of 3,930,000. Total Scottish population: 5,424,800.

– 2019 (Westminster): SNP: 1,242,380 of the popular vote. This represented 30.65% of the total Westminster Parliament electorate in Scotland at the time of 4,053,100. Total Scottish population: 5,414,400.

– 2021 (Holyrood): SNP: The SNP got 1,291,204 votes at the constituency level, and 1,094,374 votes over all the regions. The average of both votes is 1,192,789 which is 27.9% of the total registered electorate for the Holyrood election of 4,280,923. This is far less than a third of the eligible electorate and even less of the total Scottish population of 5.48 million.

– 2024 (Westminster): The SNP received 724,758 votes, 30% of the total number of votes. Total Scottish population: 5,546,900.

The SNP has NO mandate for ‘independence’ by ANY metric or definition-the bottom line is that they simply can’t receive one under UK Constitutional Law, but ignoring this they have no mandate in terms of total number of votes received at Westminster, Holyrood or local council elections, opinion polls or surveys.

Its victories at Holyrood, Westminster and local council elections represent nothing more than the triumph of a small, vociferous minority (never higher than 36% of the total electorate’s vote and even less of the total Scottish population) of activists running around and shouting the loudest, drowning out the voice of the overwhelming majority who oppose breaking up the UK.

It only proves that a small and determined group of obsessed, loud and active zealots and extremists can force their will on the rest of the population, completely skewing the genuine will of the majority of the overall population.

Winning seats doesn’t give the SNP any mandate for separation when they only represent around a third of the total registered electorate (even less of the total Scottish population) AND the vast majority of opinion polls on separating Scotland from the rest of the UK in Scotland continue to show a majority of Scots want Scotland to stay in the Union. Added to the above, in EVERY devolved election (I.e. to Holyrood) since the beginning of the devolution era (the last 26 years), the total combined vote of the pro-UK parties is considerably higher than that of the combined pro-‘independence’ parties (click here for the full datasets on this: https://www.parliament.scot/msps/elections). All considerations taken into account, there is NO mandate by any metric to break up the UK.

Click on the following link to see a table of opinion polls on ‘independence’ in Scotland: https://ballotbox.scot/independence/

The fact of UK Constitutional Law is that the SNP (or any other anti-UK separatist party in Scotland or any other devolved part of the UK) simply cannot receive a mandate for ‘independence’ from a devolved election, as the Constitution is a reserved matter.

The winning party can only receive a mandate to form an administration at the devolved legislature to look after the day-to-day matters that are within their remit for that part of the UK, but that’s all.

Even ignoring the facts of constitutional law, the SNP has no democratic mandate for separating Scotland from the rest of the UK, as the objective, verifiable election statistics above prove.

Beware fatalism

The idea that something is going to happen no matter what or which course of action is taken to avoid it is an extremely dangerous and misguided belief.

The election results listed above show that the SNP does not represent the will of the Scottish people. It shows that ‘independence’ is not inevitable. All these beliefs are erroneous and based upon specious thinking.

To fall for that is toxic and no good will come of it. It will only aid the continuance of anti-UK separatist rule and give them undeserved confidence that they can force separation from the rest of the UK on an unwilling public. Those who oppose the UK are ruthless and monomaniacal and will just keep pathologically ploughing on manufacturing one false excuse after another until they get the result they want in their pursuit of breaking it up, and they will just manipulate such a defeatist attitude for their own purposes.

Don’t aid anti-UK separatism. There is NOTHING inevitable about ‘independence’. The 2024 General Election proved that. The SNP just want people to believe this so they’ll give up opposing their separatist agenda. The trends in public opinion are still strongly in favour of the Union as most opinion polls and surveys also continue to show.

A majority of Scots, a vastly substantial majority of the Welsh and a majority of citizens of Ulster support their part of the country staying in the UK.

The arguments for keeping the UK together are vastly stronger than those of the anti-UK separatists, who have demonstrated time and time again that they have no viable plans for independence. For example, Dublin control of Ulster would be a recipe for disaster, financially, politically and culturally.

Don’t let them win. Those who want to maintain the Union have by far the better arguments, the people are behind them, NOT the separatists (as the 2024 General Election proved beyond a shadow of a doubt).

Onwards and upwards all those who want to maintain the Union. With a strong will, the empty falsehoods and fallacies of anti-UK separatism can be defeated and a strong, mutually beneficial Union can exist in perpetuity.

SOURCES AND NOTE:

Electorate figures are those found via the Office for National Statistics by clicking HERE:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/elections/electoralregistration/bulletins/electoralstatisticsforuk/december2021

Note: Electorate figures are calculated on 1st December each year, and released in the following year. That means if we want to know the electorate figures for, say, the Holyrood election in May 2016, then we need to consult the ‘Electoral statistics, UK: 2015’ which were calculated on 1st December 2015 and released in February 2016. The electorate figures for the Westminster Election in Scotland, and the electorate for the Holyrood/Local Elections, are different figures because the franchise is wider for the latter, and includes EU citizens, and since 2016 inclusive, 16-year-olds.

Population data: https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/publications/mid-2024-population-estimates/

Why the UK Is One Nation, Not Four Separate Countries

11 October 2025/in Federalism, Politics Matters, Scottish Government, Scottish Independence, SNP, Stephen Bailey, United Kingdom /by sm_admin

Written by Stephen Bailey.

Robert Black of Edinburgh University has asserted that Scotland was ‘absorbed’ into England by the Acts of Union of 1706-07, rather than being a partner in a union. He has said that Scotland ceased to exist as a state in international law after 1707, while England continued to exist and was merely renamed ‘Great Britain’. According to Black, the evidence supports the conclusion that Scotland was absorbed into a still-extant England, with its legal system altered and its international persona lost, as its treaties were rendered null and void while England’s remained in place. He compared the situation to a corporate ‘takeover’ rather than a ‘merger’, asserting that any corporate lawyer would classify the event as a takeover. However, these claims are contested; the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled in 1953 that Scotland and England had voluntarily merged to form a new country, the Kingdom of Great Britain, a position reaffirmed in a 2022 Supreme Court case. The Law Society of Scotland has also previously stated that Scotland entered the union as a partner, not a dependency.

Black’s view is highly misleading and so inaccurate and the assertion that the UK is a union of four separate countries in a loose constitutional arrangement is just fallacious.

Why?

We all live in a country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and ‘Northern Ireland’ (Ulster). The United Kingdom is a unitary (single) country and ultimate legislative sovereignty (the ability to enact laws across the entire UK) resides solely with Westminster (with ultimate political sovereignty, the ability to decide who governs the UK, remaining with the electorate across all parts of the UK).

Here is the evidence of this:
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

The above is a fact of history and constitutional law, irrespective of the advent of legislative devolution.

Our country, the UK is a unitary, or single, country, not some confederation of sovereign countries held together in a loose constitutional arrangement as separatists and even some who want to maintain the UK assert. The history of its formation is:

Pre the 1706-07 Acts of Union England and Scotland were completely separate sovereign countries. Wales had gone into political union with England during the Sixteenth Century and Ireland had seen various degrees of English influence since the Thirteenth Century becoming part of a country called the United Kingdom with the 1800-01 Acts of Union (’Northern Ireland’ after partition in 1921).

After 1707, both Scotland AND England stopped being independent sovereign countries and formed a single (unitary) composite country, Great Britain, in which legislative sovereignty and the resources of the two countries were pooled for the mutual benefit of both. The Scottish Parliament was abolished after a vote by its members and Westminster became the national parliament of Great Britain in which national legislative sovereignty resided solely (ultimate political sovereignty remained with the electorate across the entire UK). Scotland later became one of four constituent parts of the UK along with Wales and Ireland after the 1800 Act of Union with Ireland (’Northern Ireland’ after partition in 1921), not an independent sovereign country.

The Scottish Parliament voted to merge Scotland with England and abolish itself to form a new single country, Great Britain. Scotland retained its separate and distinctive legal system and religious settlement. England didn’t ‘take over’ Scotland, as Black erroneously claims.

What are the FACTS behind the Union of Scotland and England?

An evidence-based debate about the history of the formation of the United Kingdom is needed. The long-held and popular notion that the Scots were ‘bought and sold for English gold’ simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The argument that the Scots bargained away their Parliament for free trade and access to England’s colonies is just a myth.

Christopher Whatley is a professor of Scottish History and Vice-Principal and Head of Arts and Social Sciences at Dundee University and one of Scotland’s most eminent historians. What’s more, Professor Whatley’s conclusions are the results of four years of painstaking research, examining handwritten records of the speeches made about the Union, piles of burgh and church records, private diaries and the papers of minor politicians whose votes were crucial in securing the Union. Whatley believes many of the materials have never before been studied in detail. He’s studied the FACTS and come to the conclusions he has based on evidence from certified authentic primary historical documents. He hasn’t just repeated popular misconceptions based on separatist propaganda. Neither is it the case of ‘history being written by the winners’ as a broad range of records from many different sources from the time are being used to base conclusions on. Therefore, his conclusions have substantial veracity.

Professor Whatley has researched the issue and found that the evidence supports that several Scottish parliamentarians fervently wanted the Union, and says any debate about its future must recognise this. ‘It was not forced on them. It is of critical importance that the debate should be conducted in today’s terms and not based on some sort of grudge or mythical understanding of how we got here in the first place.’

Professor Whatley’s conclusions are, as previously stated, the results of four years of painstaking research, examining handwritten records of the speeches made about the Union, piles of burgh and church records, private diaries and the papers of minor politicians whose votes were crucial in securing the Union. Whatley believes many of the materials have never before been studied in detail and said his findings took him by surprise.

With the help of his research assistant Dr Derek Patrick, he compiled a list of members of the Scottish parliament from the Glorious Revolution of 1688 to the Union and then carefully tracked back their history, voting records and political ideology. ‘It is the first time this has been done and shows many held pro-Union views, primarily for religious reasons, though also economic and political ones went into this project expecting and hoping to find all sorts of evidence of bribery. But the records that we looked at showed that politicians were not simply ‘bought off’. Most of them were on board already. They didn’t need a bribe to vote for the Union.’

He also cast doubt on the famous book by George Lockhart, also known as Lockhart of Carnwath, whose ‘Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland’ is the key source of information about bribery allegations. It is a critical document in Scottish history. In an appendix, it lists 30 people who received sums of £20,000 of gold that came north from Queen Anne. But Whatley claims that at least four of those people did not even have a vote in parliament and, more importantly, most of those who did receive money were actually long-standing unionists anyway.
‘I’m not saying money didn’t change hands. The idea that bribery was the reason why Scottish parliamentarians gave up their independence is completely misleading. It fails to appreciate that for religious and economic reasons most of these characters were pro-Union anyway.’
Whatley says money was paid largely for legitimate reasons, including for back salaries and as compensation for the Darien disaster, the ambitious scheme to establish a Scottish colony in Panama, which ended in loss of life and financial ruin. The venture was not helped by King William of Orange and many Scots, to this day, believed that their chance of independence had been deliberately sabotaged by the English. They were completely incapable of going it alone afterwards and felt deeply betrayed.
‘I’m not suggesting that these Scottish parliamentarians who negotiated the Union weren’t flawed. Yes, they were womanisers, drunkards and inconsistent. They were politicians – they also wanted to get to the top of the tree. But to reduce it all to the idea that they were bought off for their own personal gain is simply not true.’

Compensation for the Darien venture is sometimes called the great national bribe. But Whatley also challenges that view. ‘It wasn’t a bribe. It was a victory for the Scottish negotiators because they got what they wanted. That is why many walked away from previous discussions. But in 1706, they got something which they would never in any other circumstances have achieved: their money back plus five per cent for a failed scheme. I’m not saying we should be grateful to the English. Leave them out of it. Darien failed for various important reasons, including the location. But the compensation allowed Scottish investors to start from scratch within a new economic environment. I consider it a great negotiating victory, not a bribe to supine Scots.’

Most controversially, Whatley casts doubt on the origins of Burns’s quote. ‘Bought and sold for English gold,’ is one of his most famous and has long been widely thought to refer to the Union Treaty. Whatley points out that it in fact predates the Union, and was used in the late 17th Century to condemn government ministers who supported William on the Darien venture and were therefore seen to be in the pay of the English.

There is also a widely held view that had the Scots not accepted English proposals for the Union, the country would have been invaded. According to Whatley, this is another convenient myth. He said troops were ordered to the border in 1706 but at the behest of Scottish politicians who were concerned about riots, disturbances and even the threat of the parliament being stormed.

At the time it was the Jacobites, who only represented a minority of the Scottish population (FACT: more Scots fought for the Hanoverian pro-UK side than for the Jacobites). Whatley said Scotland was a nation divided and that had troops come north they would have been welcomed by many Presbyterians who feared more than anything else a Jacobite insurgency.

Scots held some very good reasons for desiring Union in 1707-economic, defence, and especially at the time, religious and royal succession reasons, as well as shared identity reasons.

Indeed, it was Scots who had been lobbying for Union ever since the Union of the Crowns in 1603 when James VI of Scotland became James VI of Great Britain. He urged the English Parliament several times to join with Scotland.

Scottish politicians lobbied for Union in 1670, in 1688, in 1689, and 1702.

Many in Scotland saw the obvious benefits of economic access to England’s large market and to its overseas colonies, access which would in time bring Scotland unprecedented prosperity.

Furthermore, some of those who were able to travel outside of Scotland were able to see that parts of England, and the Continent were moving ahead of Scotland, economically and socially, and they believed that Scotland could progress similarly through Union with England.

Militarily, there was the correct belief that (what was then) the English Royal Navy would be able to better protect Scotland against its continental enemies.

There was a desire to maintain the Glorious Revolution of 1688, to keep out the Young Pretender James VIII who was living in France, and to ensure the succession of the Monarchy would pass to the Protestant House of Hanover after Queen Anne died.

Moreover, by 1707, there was a sense that Britain was coming together as a nation in its own right.

After all, Britain had already been regally united for over 100 years, sharing a common Monarch since the Union of the Crowns in 1603 when the Scottish King James VI became James I of Great Britain.

It was James I who also created our Union Jack flag.

So by 1707, the Scots and English had been developing a sense of shared identity, and to an extent living a shared experience, for over 100 years already.

That meant that by 1707 there was already, among some, a shared British patriotism extending to all of the British Islands.

So, there were several compelling reasons for the Union related to the economic benefits of joining together, to a concern to maintain defence against external opponents, to religious reasons to maintain the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the succession of the Monarchy, and to a growing loyalty to the idea of Britain as a nation, and to the idea of being British; an idea which had been developing over the previous 100 years of shared Monarchy and experience.

The UK Parliament at Westminster can delegate (or devolve) power over certain matters to any part of the UK (I.e. Scotland, Wales and Ulster) at any time. However, whilst power to decide policy on devolved matters to whatever degree is transferred to the designated part of the UK, national legislative sovereignty remains with Westminster and is not transferred to the devolved legislature. Therefore Holyrood, the Welsh ‘parliament’ and Stormont are not the sovereign national parliaments of their parts of the UK, they are sub-national devolved legislatures with responsibility over the matters that have been devolved to them (their devolved remit). The Constitution (I.e. ‘independence’) isn’t one of them and so Holyrood, the SNP and the devolved legislatures and separatists in Wales and Ulster have no business getting involved in it, irrespective of it being their reason for existing.

Added to this the leader of the biggest party in the devolved legislatures, currently the SNP in Holyrood, is the First Minister of that devolved part of the UK, NOT the Prime Minister of an independent sovereign nation. They have responsibility over and the authority to speak on purely the matters devolved to them, not national UK reserved matters. The leader of the biggest party at Westminster remains the national Prime Minister of the UK with authority and responsibility over and the authority to speak on behalf of the nation, the UK.

Westminster also has the power, under the UK Constitution to withdraw devolved powers at any time. A bill needs to be introduced into Parliament that repeals the original acts that set up devolution in the first place and it would be abolished. A democratic mandate such as a referendum or winning a majority in a general election on a manifesto commitment to abolition MUST be sought and won before taking such an action. It CANNOT be done without the explicit majority consent of the relevant part of the UK.

The fallacious separative narrative, which is increasingly becoming accepted even by some who are pro-UK that their part of their UK is a sovereign nation that’s in a loose confederation style constitutional arrangement with the rest of the UK just isn’t supported by either history or constitutional law. It must be very firmly challenged and the real facts laid out at every given opportunity if we are going to maintain the UK. Complacency and apathy will just aid the spread of this fallacy with the consequential effect of boosting separatism in its efforts to break up the UK.

The proponents, defenders, and supporters of legislative devolution (which includes the supposedly ‘one nation’ Conservative and Unionist Party) don’t appear to understand this. They have thoroughly embraced and promoted very strong legislative devolution. ALL the mainstream UK political parties have embraced legislative devolution. As a consequence of legislative devolution the SNP, especially, Plaid Cymru and IRA/Sinn Fein plus the SDLP as well, have had their ability to pursue ‘independence’ greatly enhanced and so have utilised their devolved legislatures as a platform to do just that. The result has been a constitutional crisis that is a very clear and present danger to the existence of the Union. It has created a situation in which the UK has become a warring, squabbling hotchpotch of four separate, increasingly fractious, squabbling statelets, the UK Government, and devolved Scotland, Wales and Ulster administrations. The UK is increasingly drifting apart under the legislative devolution ‘settlement’. Legislative devolution hasn’t appeased anti-UK separatism (and certainly hasn’t ‘killed it off, stone dead’ as New Labour suggested it would three decades ago at the beginning of this process).

The folly of this ‘four nations in a loose constitutional alliance’ approach was thoroughly highlighted by the recent Covid-19 pandemic, with Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP always wanting to be different from the rest of the UK irrespective of the merits of such an approach. This contrarian approach to drawing up policy for Scottish matters is a hallmark of SNP administration at Holyrood since they took over from Labour as the ruling party in 2007.

Continuing down this path has manifestly been shown to be inimical to maintaining the UK as a single nation. So why are the Government and all the so-called ‘mainstream Unionist’ parties so thoroughly committed to continuing and even expanding the devolved remit of the devolved legislatures? It’s clear that the devolution process could lead to the eventual break-up of the UK.

It can’t realistically be claimed that it is desired to genuinely want to maintain the UK as a single nation and countenance the process that greatly quickens the break-up of the UK, legislative devolution. Continuing down the path of legislative devolution isn’t a tenable way to secure the UK’s continued existence into the future.

The only viable way to do this is to promote a one-nation (unitary) approach. One nation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and ‘Northern Ireland’, with a legislatively sovereign national Parliament at Westminster. One mutually beneficial country is the best way forward for the UK.

Source: ‘The Scots and the Union: Then and now, Professor Christopher A. Whatley, Edinburgh University Press, 2014