A sense of stagnation weighs heavily on the Scottish independence movement. In the recent writings of respected commentators, frustration and a palpable sense of impotence rise from the page. Scots face the contradictory forces of progressive, far-reaching, aspirations directed by a Scottish National Party (SNP) who appear conservative adherents to tradition and gradualism – leaders who seem unwilling or unable to recognise the decisive leap required.
Independence cannot be reasoned into existence through endless negotiation or polite requests. Our leaders must instead trust intuitive direction and collective imagination to create the country we will build together.
SNP paralysis and the failure of gradualism
The diagnosis finds stark confirmation in John Swinney’s first 100 days as First Minister. A referendum on independence – or perhaps merely a referendum on the right to hold one – was to have been secured by now. Yet nothing concrete has emerged to repay the continued trust that the independence movement has placed in the Scottish National Party.
Independence does not even merit discussion at the upcoming SNP autumn conference. This is the party that places self-determination at its core, yet paradoxically continues to seek permission for the very autonomy it claims to champion. Such an approach represents an abdication of duty to both sides of the constitutional debate.
Swinney must assert the default position: Scotland is a nation. The Act of Union is the anomaly, a constitutional arrangement in place for only three centuries. All Scots, regardless of their current constitutional preference, require clarity on this fundamental point.
The gradualist strategy that has defined the SNP for years has delivered diminishing returns. It has produced a politics of managed expectation rather than transformative ambition. The result is a movement that feels stuck, its energy drained by repeated delays and unfulfilled promises.
Not a Union, but a project of dominion
In an earlier analysis, not a union, but the project of a union, the deeper relationships at play were examined through the lens of Adam Smith’s reflections on the loss of Britain’s American colonies. Smith observed that the United Kingdom could not relinquish dominion without losing face internationally and unsettling the governing elite. That insight carries as much weight today as it did two and a half centuries ago. Recognition of a new Scottish nation by the UK state will not come through goodwill alone. There must be consequences for any refusal to accept Scotland’s democratic will.
These consequences need not be framed as hostility toward the peoples of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The true locus of resistance lies elsewhere. The opponent is better understood as the City of London and the interlocking institutions of the City, Whitehall and Westminster. These centres of financial and administrative power have long shaped the rules which the wider United Kingdom operates under.
Ordinary citizens across these islands are not the enemy; many share the same sense of disempowerment. Whether the vehicle is the SNP itself, or a new party formed to replace the hollowed-out organisation that successive leadership cycles have reduced to a husk. The independence movement must treat the populations of the other nations as potential allies rather than adversaries. The strategic opportunity is clear.
The consequence of refusal: extending the offer
The punishment that the Scottish independence movement can impose for any refusal by the UK establishment to accept the will of the Scottish people is straightforward: the offer of independence could be extended to everyone else. Recent political currents already point in this direction.
The rise of Reform as an anti-establishment force, the surge of support for Labour on a message of “change,” and the subsequent collapse of that support once delivery failed under Keir Starmer, serve as warnings. Offering all the nations of the United Kingdom genuine independence from the dominance of the City of London could prove popular far beyond Scotland.
How would such a strategy work in practice? The Scottish independence movement should make its position explicit. If the Westminster establishment opposes the assertion of full legislative competence at Holyrood over Scotland’s future, the contest will move to the wider UK stage. Candidates committed to this vision will stand in every UK constituency.
Plan B: a freeport for the City and new currencies for the nations
The manifesto of such a UK-wide party would be unambiguous. It would seek to dissolve the current union and establish the four home nations as independent states, free from Westminster control. In its place, a freeport would be created encompassing the City of London, Whitehall and Westminster. This residual entity would retain the pound sterling. The populations of the newly independent nations would each establish their own currency, issued by a domestic central bank.
These new states would orient their policies toward improving living standards at home. The central aim would be to maximise the potential of healthy, secure populations so that they can contribute to human advancement in every sphere. Power, in this conception, lies in discarding the existing global rule-book when it works against domestic interests. Governments should no longer be vulnerable to lawsuits from foreign corporations seeking to exploit populations or natural resources.
Where humanity requires access to a nation’s natural assets, the first option should be for the host country itself to add value before any export occurs. Nations may choose differently, but the principle establishes a balanced foundation for trade and development. The current pattern of asset-stripping resource-rich countries by powerful geopolitical interests does the opposite: it blocks vast populations from the advancements taken for granted in more developed economies.
Mark Carney, the central bankers’ central banker, has spoken at Davos of the asymmetries and “useful fictions” embedded in the rules-based international order. Those same distortions that disadvantage the global south also work against ordinary citizens within the United Kingdom. A politics that names this reality and offers an alternative has the potential to resonate widely.
Toward a politics of imagination and consequence
The path of polite gradualism has exhausted itself. Continued reliance on requests for permission only reinforces the anomaly of the Act of Union rather than challenging it. Scotland’s leaders must assert legislative competence at Holyrood as the starting point. Should that assertion meet determined resistance from the UK establishment, Plan B (an implicit threat to begin with, possibly) becomes the necessary response: a campaign that invites the peoples of England, Wales and Northern Ireland to join in breaking free from the same institutional constraints.
This is not a strategy of grievance but of constructive consequence. It reframes independence as a shared opportunity rather than a zero-sum contest. By identifying the City of London and its associated institutions as the true centre of resistance, and by offering ordinary citizens across these islands a stake in a different future, the movement can escape the cycle of frustration that currently defines it.
The choice is clear. Independence must be treated as the natural condition of a nation, not a privilege to be granted. If the existing establishment refuses to recognise that reality, then the offer of self-determination expands. New currencies, new priorities focused on domestic living standards, and a rejection of rules that prioritise external extraction over internal development can form the basis of a more equitable settlement. The leap required is one of imagination as much as organisation. Scotland’s future, and potentially that of its neighbours, depends on the willingness to take it.
