Is it enough for the SNP to govern well within the limits of devolution, or should it now focus on breaking those boundaries in the pursuit of Scotland’s independence? As a lifelong supporter of the SNP and a committed independence activist, I’ve spent decades believing that, more than any other party, the SNP has Scotland’s interests at heart. The party has embodied the values of self-determination, striving not only to govern effectively but to prove that Scotland could succeed on its own. However, as I watch the party now, I feel an unsettling tug, a sense that political hegemony dominance in government may be holding the SNP back from the radical push needed to make independence a reality.
This isn’t a critique of the party’s values or its vision. The SNP’s record in government shows an impressive dedication to creating a fairer, more progressive Scotland. Governing Scotland has required the SNP to carefully demonstrate Scotland’s competence in managing its affairs, showing that it can thrive under the weight of domestic and global challenges. This strategy was essential, particularly after the 2014 referendum, to reassure Scots that independence wouldn’t jeopardize stability but enhance it. And yet, as we continue down this path, the question persists: Has the SNP become so entrenched in proving governance capability that it risks losing its radical core, its willingness to challenge the very limits it has carefully navigated for so long?
The dual role of the SNP as both the governing party and the driver of transformative change has created a complex balancing act. As Scotland’s government, the SNP must manage the immediate needs of its citizens healthcare, education, economic stability priorities that are crucial for any governing party. But these are not just matters of management; they are also markers of credibility. The SNP has worked to show that, unlike Westminster, it can approach these issues with a progressive and inclusive vision. Yet, while the party has excelled at fulfilling the responsibilities of government, this approach may appear to temper the more radical edge needed to propel the independence movement. Governing effectively, of course, demonstrates Scotland’s readiness for self-rule, but it can also make the SNP seem cautious, almost too comfortable within the devolutionary framework that it ultimately seeks to transcend.
The successes of the SNP in government are numerous. From leading the way on social policies like free university tuition and prescriptions to addressing housing needs through ambitious affordable housing programs, the SNP has shown a deep commitment to improving the lives of Scots. The Scottish Child Payment, the expansion of free childcare, and moves toward a National Care Service all exemplify how the SNP has harnessed its governing powers to enact meaningful change. These successes bolster the case for independence by showing that Scotland’s priorities can be met more effectively by a government focused solely on Scotland’s welfare. And yet, these very achievements in governance can paradoxically lead to a sense of inertia regarding the independence question. The SNP’s emphasis on responsible governance sometimes risks overshadowing the vision of a fully self-governed Scotland.
At the same time, the UK government’s persistent interference with Scotland’s legislative agenda has highlighted the limitations of devolution. Many of the SNP’s transformative policies have been blocked or restricted by Westminster, demonstrating that even when Scotland chooses a different path, its autonomy can be curtailed. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill and proposed drug policy reforms are recent examples where the UK government stepped in, curtailing Scotland’s ability to address its unique social challenges. These incidents reinforce why independence is necessary: as long as Scotland remains within the UK, it cannot fully control its policies or realize its vision for a more equitable society. The SNP’s experience with these legislative barriers should serve as a clarion call, a reminder that true progress will always be constrained within the current constitutional arrangement.
This contrast between progressive aspirations and governing constraints was starkly illustrated by the recent responses to Donald Trump’s presidential election win. When Trump secured his victory, Patrick Harvie of the Scottish Greens took a clear and public stand, condemning Trump’s record on human rights and calling him out for what many in Scotland see as troubling values. John Swinney, in contrast, took a more measured approach, offering congratulations as a diplomatic gesture and affirming that Trump would be welcome in Scotland. Swinney’s response may have frustrated those who hoped to see the SNP take a bolder moral stance, but it also highlights the responsibilities he bears as Scotland’s First Minister. Unlike Harvie, who has the freedom to speak without the weight of government, Swinney must consider the diplomatic and economic ramifications of his statements. Trump’s investments in Scotland may be controversial, but they have tangible impacts on local economies and jobs. Swinney’s response exemplifies the difficult line that the SNP must walk as both a government and a movement: it must govern responsibly while advancing a vision of independence rooted in Scotland’s values.
The SNP’s commitment to responsible governance may be prudent as a long-term strategy for building support for independence. For many undecided Scots, independence still represents a leap into the unknown, and the SNP’s steady hand at the helm of government helps to address these fears. By demonstrating competence and stability, the SNP aims to show that independence isn’t a radical upheaval but a natural progression toward self-determination. This is a powerful narrative, and it’s one that resonates with voters who might otherwise be hesitant. But for those of us who have dedicated our lives to independence, this careful, incremental approach can feel frustratingly slow. We see the urgent need for Scotland to break free from the constraints of devolution and to make a decisive move toward full sovereignty.
However, as much as the SNP has achieved, it must also recognize that independence cannot be won by one party alone. Independence is not a political victory to be secured by the SNP; it is a national cause, one that transcends party lines and political rivalries. Scotland’s path to independence will ultimately depend not on the SNP’s strength in Parliament but on the collective will of the Scottish people. While the SNP can provide leadership and push the boundaries of devolution, it is the people of Scotland who must drive the movement forward, using the tools and platforms available to make the case for independence. The SNP must be prepared to engage in coalition-building, to work with other pro-independence parties, and to support grassroots efforts that galvanize public support beyond the reach of traditional political structures.
This is why the SNP needs to rethink its strategy. To truly advance the cause of independence, the party must continue to govern effectively, yes, but it must also be willing to step beyond the role of government and embrace its role as a movement. It must recognize that the independence cause is bigger than any single political party and that, ultimately, it is the people of Scotland who will decide their own future. The SNP’s strength as a governing party has been its greatest asset, but to achieve independence, it must learn to share that strength with the nation it seeks to serve. Only by embracing a broader, more inclusive approach can the SNP help Scotland realise the dream of self-governance, a dream that belongs not just to the party but to all of Scotland.
Is Scotland truly thriving within the Union, or are we merely surviving under the constraints of an arrangement that no longer serves us? As a lifelong activist for Scottish independence, I find myself increasingly questioning not just the policies of Westminster but the very structure of our relationship with the UK. The SNP’s efforts to demonstrate that Scotland can govern itself within the limits of devolution have proven Scotland’s competence as a nation. But how much longer can we afford to focus on navigating Westminster’s restrictions when we should be boldly pursuing independence?
Over the years, Scotland has been politically and economically exploited in ways that would anger any nation committed to self-determination. The reality is that Westminster is no longer hiding its hold over Scotland. Today, it actively legislates to restrict the ambitions of Scotland’s governing party, the SNP, blocking policies that could otherwise transform our society. This was not the case under earlier Unionist administrations, which kept devolution within tight confines to avoid “upsetting the apple cart.” But the SNP, the only true Scottish party in Westminster, has pushed the boundaries, confronting this glass ceiling head-on. As a result, the UK government has countered by tightening its grip, obstructing progressive Scottish legislation through unprecedented use of its legislative vetoes. The question now is not whether Scotland can govern itself but whether we are prepared to break free from a system designed to contain us.
At the core of this reality is Scotland’s own wealth, its natural resources, and its economic contributions, which have been funnelled southwards with little regard for Scotland’s interests. North Sea oil, which should have transformed Scotland’s future, was instead managed by Westminster with no consideration of a sovereign wealth fund. Norway, which discovered similar resources, wisely established a fund that now secures the nation’s prosperity. Meanwhile, Scotland’s share of that wealth was used to prop up UK-wide spending, and Scots saw little benefit. This is not an isolated example; it reflects a systematic approach by the UK government to control and exploit Scotland’s economic strengths for its own ends.
More recently, Scotland’s attempts to pursue progressive, forward-looking policies have been directly obstructed by Westminster. Consider the Scottish Deposit Return Scheme, designed to encourage recycling and reduce waste. While Scotland aimed to lead the way by including glass in the scheme, Westminster intervened, blocking this inclusion and thereby undermining Scotland’s ability to innovate in environmental policy. Or take welfare policy: changes introduced by Westminster, such as the rollout of Universal Credit, have disproportionately affected low-income Scots, creating financial strain and increasing reliance on food banks. While the Scottish Government introduced measures like the Scottish Child Payment to counteract some of these policies, it is forced to work within a limited budget dictated by the Barnett formula, which restricts Scotland’s fiscal autonomy. These examples highlight how the UK’s approach to Scotland is not one of partnership but of restriction a system in which Scotland’s unique needs and values are subordinated to a centralised agenda.
Brexit represents perhaps the most vivid example of Scotland’s position within the Uniona reminder that even when the Scottish people vote overwhelmingly for one outcome, Westminster has the final say. Scots voted decisively to remain in the European Union, with 62% choosing to stay. Yet, despite this clear mandate, Scotland was compelled to exit the EU due to the overall UK vote. The aftermath of Brexit has exposed Scotland’s vulnerability within the Union, from economic setbacks to the loss of vital EU funding that once supported Scottish industries and communities. As an activist, I cannot help but feel that this was an affront to our democracy a stark reminder that, as long as we remain in the Union, Scotland’s voice can be drowned out.
Beyond exploitation, Scotland’s very infrastructure has become dependent on English control, an unsettling realization as we look toward the future. Take, for instance, our renewable energy resources. Scotland has some of the greatest renewable potential in Europe, particularly in wind and tidal energy. Yet, as we generate this clean energy, we rely on transmission lines controlled by UK authorities to send it southward. While a new “electricity superhighway” is being constructed to carry Scottish energy to England, this infrastructure dependency means Scotland cannot fully benefit from its resources. It’s not just energy. Our transportation networks, like the East Coast and West Coast Main Lines, and even our digital infrastructure, are integrated into a centralized UK system, making it difficult for Scotland to independently control or enhance its connectivity.
The impending closure of Grangemouth, Scotland’s only oil refinery, scheduled for next year, is yet another blow. Grangemouth has long been central to processing Scottish oil, but without it, Scotland will lose the ability to refine its own natural wealth domestically. After the closure, our crude oil will be exported for processing elsewhere, forcing us to import refined products back at a premium. This dependency not only weakens Scotland’s economic autonomy but also leaves us vulnerable to external price fluctuations and supply disruptions. The closing of Grangemouth will essentially mean that Scotland’s own natural resources will flow through the hands of others before they benefit our people a situation no self-governing nation would accept.
Reflecting on these realities, I feel an intense anger over Scotland’s position in the Union and the erosion of our infrastructure. The loss of Grangemouth and the dismantling of our wealth-generating industries feels like a betrayal not only of Scotland’s resources but of our potential as a nation. I can only describe it as the greatest modern heist of a country’s wealth, perpetrated without military force but with the quiet consent of those too resigned to resist. And yet, too many Scots accept this as normal. There is a pervasive dependency mentality, one that Westminster seems content to foster, which has dampened our collective spirit for independence.
The frustration doesn’t end with Westminster. The disunity within the independence movement itself often leaves me questioning whether we are truly prepared to fight for a Scotland free from these constraints. We lack a unified national conversation, a concerted push to bring these issues to the forefront of every Scot’s consciousness. The independence movement must gather itself and move forward as one, not as a fractured assembly of voices each pulling in different directions. We need an energetic, determined approach that transcends party lines and focuses on Scotland’s future as a collective national endeavor.
Scotland’s future within the Union is bleak. One hundred years from now, if we remain, I fear Scotland will be little more than a region of “North British England,” with a diluted identity and a stagnant economy. The land that once held promise of wealth, culture, and independence will become little more than a playground for the wealthy, its people and heritage subordinated to the interests of a central government with different priorities. This is not the Scotland I want to see, and it is not the Scotland I have spent my life fighting for. I want a Scotland that is vibrant and self-sustaining, where our public services are fully funded, our culture is shared with pride on a global stage, and our political system is accountable solely to the people of Scotland.
Now is the time to act. We must unite and move decisively toward independence, not only to preserve Scotland’s resources and infrastructure but to protect the very identity of our nation. The Union has become a barrier to Scotland’s growth, and every year we remain, we lose more of what makes us uniquely Scottish. As independence activists, we must rally together, harnessing our collective passion, energy, and determination to secure Scotland’s future.
If we don’t act now, what will be left of Scotland to fight for?
Is Scotland doomed to repeat the mistakes of its past? This question echoes through Scottish history, a cautionary reminder that disunity has often been Scotland’s greatest enemy, allowing English influence to seep in and weaken our sovereignty from within. Today, as the independence movement grapples with internal divisions and a persistent Unionist presence in Holyrood, we must ask ourselves if we are on the verge of repeating a painful history. To understand what’s at stake, we need to look back at two critical periods when Scotland’s leaders torn by rivalry, personal gain, and foreign influence compromised the nation’s future. The lessons of these eras are clear: only a united Scotland can hope to stand independent.
During the Wars of Independence in the late 13th and early 14th centuries, Scotland found itself facing the overwhelming power of Edward I of England. William Wallace, a figure of courage and resilience, rose from humble origins to lead an uprising against English forces. He won a decisive victory at the Battle of Stirling Bridge in 1297, showing that the Scots, despite being outnumbered and outarmed, could stand against the might of England. Wallace’s success, however, was short-lived, as he faced not only the English army but also the fractious Scottish nobility. Many nobles, more concerned with their own power and wealth, either withheld their support from Wallace or openly allied with the English crown.
Sir John de Menteith is perhaps the most infamous example of betrayal during this period. Appointed warden of Dumbarton Castle, Menteith ultimately captured Wallace in 1305, handing him over to the English for execution. Menteith’s betrayal symbolized the dangers of divided loyalties in a Scotland torn by rivalries. Wallace’s death was a crushing blow to Scottish morale, yet his martyrdom became a rallying point for continued resistance. However, disunity persisted among Scotland’s leaders, and even as Robert the Bruce emerged as a champion for Scottish independence, he too faced internal opposition.
Bruce’s journey to the throne was marked by violence and rivalry, most notably with John Comyn, a powerful noble with his own claim to Scotland’s leadership. In 1306, Bruce killed Comyn in a church after a heated argument, further fracturing Scottish nobility into factions loyal to either Bruce or Comyn’s allies. This split forced Bruce into years of conflict, not only against England but also against Scots who sided with the Comyns. It was only after years of battling fellow Scots and consolidating power that Bruce was able to lead a united force to victory at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, securing Scotland’s independence. The cost of these rivalries, however, was heavy, paid by ordinary Scots who suffered through years of warfare and instability. The Wars of Independence underscore a harsh truth: internal divisions left Scotland vulnerable to English influence and prolonged a struggle that might have been won sooner if Scots had been united.
Fast forward to the early 18th century, and Scotland again found itself at a crossroads, its leadership divided and vulnerable to English influence. The failed Darien Scheme a disastrous attempt to establish a Scottish colony in Panama left Scotland’s economy in ruins and many of its nobles in debt. England saw an opportunity in Scotland’s financial desperation and offered to cover the country’s debts in exchange for union. The Treaty of Union in 1707 was not a decision made by the Scottish people; rather, it was orchestrated by a group of nobles who accepted English payments in exchange for their support.
James Douglas, the Duke of Queensberry, was one of the most significant figures in securing the Treaty of Union. As a key architect of the Union, he used his influence and England’s payments to sway the Scottish Parliament. Many of the Scottish nobles who voted for the Union received substantial sums of money, known as the “Equivalent,” ostensibly to offset the losses from Darien but effectively serving as bribes. The Earl of Mar was another figure who initially supported the Union for personal gain, only to later switch sides and support the Jacobite rebellion. His shifting loyalties underscore how self-interest, rather than national loyalty, motivated many leaders of the time.
The Treaty of Union was deeply unpopular among ordinary Scots, who saw it as a betrayal by their leaders. They had no vote or voice in the matter, yet they were the ones who would bear the consequences. Scotland’s parliament, its independent institutions, and its sovereignty were sacrificed in exchange for financial relief that primarily benefited the elites. This betrayal by Scotland’s own leaders, motivated by English gold and personal gain, left a bitter legacy that resonates even today.
These historical lessons are not just echoes of a distant past; they are warnings for the present. In Holyrood today, we see Unionist MSPs—Scots elected by Scots who serve the interests of English-centered political entities like the Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat parties. These Unionist Scots often work to maintain the status quo, resisting independence and supporting policies that tie Scotland’s fortunes to Westminster’s agenda. This influence within Holyrood is reminiscent of the nobles who sided with England for personal or political gain, sacrificing Scotland’s autonomy for external approval.
The SNP, meanwhile, has achieved remarkable progress in governing Scotland, proving that the country is more than capable of managing its own affairs. Under their leadership, Scotland has taken strides in education, healthcare, and social policy. Yet, in their dedication to proving competency within the confines of devolution, there is a danger that the SNP risks losing sight of its roots as a party of radical change. While governance is essential, it cannot come at the expense of the independence cause. If the SNP continues to prioritize governance over the transformative goal of independence, it may end up as merely a competent regional administrator rather than a catalyst for national liberation.
The broader independence movement also finds itself fractured, divided between political parties and civilian groups, each pushing their own vision of Scotland’s future. In many ways, this resembles the clan rivalries of the past, where competing factions vied for power and influence instead of uniting against a common foe. Today’s independence movement is divided among the SNP, Alba, the Scottish Greens, and various civilian organizations, each pointing fingers and criticizing one another’s approaches. This internal discord weakens the movement, making it appear less like a united push for self-determination and more like a fleeting moment of political ambition.
This disunity is precisely what Westminster relies on to maintain control. As long as Scots are divided politically and ideologically any push for independence can be delayed, diluted, and dismissed. Scotland’s “addiction to politics,” its constant focus on internal debates and rivalries, may ultimately prevent it from achieving the very independence it seeks. Just as in the past, when Scotland’s leaders were swayed by English influence and personal ambition, today’s divisions within the independence movement risk compromising the entire cause.
If Scotland is to avoid repeating history, it must learn from these past mistakes. The independence movement needs unity, not factionalism; a shared vision, not competing agendas. Ordinary Scots, who bear the brunt of political decisions, deserve a movement that prioritizes the nation’s future over individual ambitions. Only a unified, decisive push for independence can hope to overcome the legacy of betrayal and division that has held Scotland back for centuries.
So, as we look to the future, we must ask ourselves: Will Scotland break free from its past and finally unite for independence, or will we once again allow disunity to shape our fate? The answer lies not in our history, but in our willingness to learn from it.
In Scotland today, the dream of independence is as potent as ever. But instead of uniting under this national cause, we’re tearing ourselves apart, distracted by division, personal vendettas, and political infighting. We are living in a moment where Scots who fight for independence are at odds with one another, divided not by ideology but by allegiance to political factions. The question we have to ask ourselves is simple, yet searing: What has become of the Scottish independence movement?
Our history shows us, painfully, what happens when Scotland turns against itself. From the Wars of Independence to the Treaty of Union, Scotland’s ambitions have often been compromised by disunity. Today, we are witnessing a repetition of these destructive patterns. Unionists at Holyrood serve not the Scottish people’s aspirations, but English-centered interests. Rather than uplifting Scotland, they belittle those who dare to question the Union and criticize those who dream of a self-determined future. And yet, while they cling to Westminster’s agenda, it’s the independence movement that’s bogged down in infighting SNP against Alba, Alba against the Greens. Accusations, attacks, and factional rivalry are undermining the cause we claim to serve.
The truth is, the independence movement has become too political for its own good. We are addicted to the politics of division rather than the national purpose of unity. Social media is flooded with memes and commentary that divide rather than inspire. It’s almost as if, instead of being focused on a free Scotland, we’re more focused on seeing who can criticize Nicola Sturgeon the most or point out Alex Salmond’s flaws. But while we point fingers at each other, Westminster continues to tighten its grip on Scotland’s resources, infrastructure, and future.
Scotland’s wealth, our resources, even the very power lines transmitting our renewable energy are bound to English infrastructure. We’re becoming dependent on another nation’s systems for our own basic functions, and the longer we argue amongst ourselves, the deeper this dependency grows. Yet instead of rallying around this urgent reality, we’re splitting hairs and clinging to factionalism. Do we not see the danger here? Scotland’s reliance on English-controlled infrastructure will only deepen if we fail to act as one.
If we are truly committed to independence, we need to change our approach. The independence movement must operate on multiple fronts. We need a political front that unites every pro-independence party—SNP, Alba, Greens working together to establish a Scottish government and opposition at Holyrood that’s unified in its purpose. We need an international front, one that takes our case to the world, engaging with the EU, the UN, and any platform willing to hear us. And we need a grassroots front, a movement that ignites the passion of ordinary Scots with a revolutionary mindset, one that ignores the noise of Unionist criticism and focuses on winning the hearts and minds of the undecided.
We already have the elements we need. We have parties that can govern. We have organizations like Salvo and Liberation Scotland advocating on the international stage. We have grassroots movements like All Under One Banner and Believe in Scotland, ready to mobilize people. But we’re so consumed by ego and pride, by accusations and grudges, that we’re blind to the possibility of what we could achieve together. It’s time to set aside these differences.
Imagine what a truly unified independence movement could look like. A movement where SNP supporters and Alba members march together, where the Greens and SNP hold a shared stage, where leaders from all factions stand shoulder to shoulder to call for unity. Imagine if, instead of trading insults, we focused our energy on the cause itself, on a vision of a Scotland where we control our wealth, our infrastructure, our future.
The clock is ticking, and 2026 the next Scottish Parliament election is not far off. If we want independence within our lifetime, we must start now. The same tired accusations, the same repetitive arguments, they all must end. If we are standing beside someone carrying a different political flag, we should embrace them, not attack them. We should recognize that, despite our differences, we are all fighting for the freedom of Scotland.
In the end, once independence is achieved, we’ll have plenty of time to debate policies, to argue over party visions, to hold our leaders accountable. But right now, our nation’s future hangs in the balance. We cannot afford to let this moment slip by, distracted by the bickering and internal power struggles that have hindered us before. Scotland deserves a unified, focused, and unstoppable movement toward independence.
So, we have to ask ourselves: Can we put aside our differences for the good of Scotland? Or has there been too much division for us to unite as one?
The answer isn’t written in history it’s waiting in our future. But it’s up to us to decide if that future will finally be one of freedom.