Author: Tommy Sheppard

We’re all going to die. And we all hope it will be quick and painless. But what if it isn’t? What if the last months of your life become an endurance test of agonizing pain without respite? Wouldn’t you want the right to end it? I know I would. And I’d want public health professionals to help me. Which is why I welcome the first steps towards reform of assisted dying law taken by the Scottish Parliament last week.

There is a long road ahead. Those opposed to change have signaled clearly they will not accept Parliament’s decision. They will do everything they can to prevent it progressing. So those who want choice at the end of life will need to work harder than ever to get it.

Perhaps the most pernicious aspect of the campaign against reform has been the suggestion that offering the right to die is an attack on the rights of disabled people. Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy has led this attack. She says the MacArthur bill devalues disabled people, making it easier to get support to die than to live.

This is wrong. I’m sure there are still plenty of people who harbour negative, maybe even hateful, attitudes towards people with disabilities. But you will not find them amongst the ranks of those seeking the right to die. Indeed, campaigners for assisted dying are amongst the loudest voices calling for increased palliative care. The objective is to widen options and choice, not narrow them.

Disabled people support reform every bit as much as the population as a whole, four out of five wanting change. Indeed, it is because of the passionate struggle by a number of high-profile disabled campaigners that this debate has moved up the public agenda.

Nonetheless, the manner in which some of the opposition to this bill is conducted will cause anxiety amongst many disabled people. So we should be crystal clear that the proposed changes are not about giving anyone the right to do things to you but giving you the right to make choices for yourself. Clear too that this is not about capacity, but suffering.

Opponents of this bill talk about a slippery slope. The intention is to make people think that if they allow the principle of a restricted right to die to be established, soon those restrictions will be loosened and removed. They point to other countries where this is exactly what has happened.

They omit to say that the evolution of policy in other countries has only happened each time after public debate and democratic votes. And it happened because many of the fears about potential abuse of the legislation did not materialise. No-one is being hoodwinked. This is not a slippery slope but rational civic engagement.

Much has been said about the role of doctors and other health workers in this debate. I get that some will feel very strongly that they cannot provide assistance to someone to die. So I am relaxed about providing an opt-out so professionals are not obliged to act against their own beliefs.

But I am extremely unimpressed by references to the Hippocratic Oath and the notion that helping someone end their life runs counter to the mandate to “first do no harm”. This bill deals with people who are in the final stages of their life, suffering from an incurable illness which is causing chronic and extreme pain.  They are already experiencing a great deal of harm, visited upon their body by the disease which has consumed it. Denying someone in this situation the choice of ending their pain is not doing no harm, it is allowing that harm to continue.

There will always be some who are opposed to giving human beings autonomy over their own bodies for religious reasons. They believe that our existence and purpose comes from a supernatural deity. That life is God given, and only He can end it. This is not a rational position so it is not really something you can argue with.

It is also somewhat paradoxical. Most religions say that material life on earth is but one phase of existence; death is not the end. So it is unclear why anyone holding this view would want to eke out the last embers of life on earth no matter how much agony it requires. Why not accept the body is done and allow the spirit to move on to a different plane? Why see death as the denial of life rather than its completion?

Whatever. Theology isn’t really my bag. The point is some people hold strong religious beliefs which compel them to take a different view on this than I do. And I respect their right to do so. Indeed, I will continue to fight for the freedom of everyone to have whatever faith or belief which gets them through this life.

No-one will force them to choose to end their life if their beliefs prevent them. In return, I ask that they do not deny me the right to control how I depart this earth.

I have a great deal of respect for Kenny MacAskill. He has contributed much to this nation’s journey to independence. And so, when the new leader of the Alba party offers a strategy to move forward on that journey, we should listen thoughtfully to what he has to say.

His current position is that all parties who agree on the objective of Scotland being an independent country should say so in their manifestos for next year’s elections, and if between them, they receive a majority of the votes cast, that should be regarded as a mandate for independence.

There are a couple of problems with Alba’s approach, not least for them. All parties, particularly smaller ones, face a hard quest for relevance amidst a competitive political terrain. It is not clear how this strategy provides Alba with any relevance at all.

In essence, if you say it is the sum of votes for different parties that counts, then a vote for any one is just as valid as the other. In such circumstances why would anyone not already inclined to do so vote for Alba. They would simply deny another pro-Indy party their vote; it wouldn’t increase the total.

Unless the suggestion is that Alba is better positioned than others to convert a voter who currently does not support independence. That seems a stretch. Most people on the move from a unionist position would stop off at the first broad based platform they arrive at rather than going all the way over to what many see as a hard independence position.

The main problem though is not that we don’t have a mandate, but that we have no means of executing it. This is where the Alba position is at best misleading. The last Scottish parliament saw a majority of members elected who were pledged to hold another referendum giving the people who live in Scotland a choice on how it should be governed.

The fact that this has not happened is not a willful betrayal by the Scottish government, it is because the Supreme Court has ruled that it would be unlawful. Unless that situation is changed it is hard to see how a new parliament elected on the same mandate takes things forward.

This is where is it naïve to simply suggest that if people vote for parties and candidates who support Scotland’s independence then it will somehow automatically  happen. It won’t. Any new parliament, no matter how big the pro-independence majority can still be ignored and dismissed by a UK state hellbent on frustrating Scottish aspirations.

Don’t get me wrong. This is not to say that the SNP should not put the objective of independence front and centre of its campaign for 2026. Indeed, as the Labour government fail to deliver for Scotland, the notion of taking charge of our own affairs will become ever more popular.

Elections in Scotland are always an opportunity for people to express their view on the country’s constitutional future. And mandates are always stronger the fresher they are. But pretending that votes for the objective will make it happen is just a lie. The telling of it will result in yet more disillusion and frustration, not less.

What is needed now is a clear strategy that says how we can change the rules to allow Scottish self determination to take place. That means demanding and fighting for a change in the law the Supreme Court said currently prohibits it. That will require persistent methodical campaigning to raise awareness and demand change invoking every legal, political and social means at our disposal.

This is a challenge to all pro-Indy parties, but the SNP in particular needs to come up with such a plan. Those complaining that last week’s Programme for Government doesn’t mention a strategy for independence are looking in the wrong place. The PfG is about delivering on those things which we can control and if Scottish ministers can build a reputation for competence in those areas, it will undoubtedly help the arguments for self-government.

I presume that this is what John Swinney has in mind when he spoke last week of creating the conditions within which independence can happen.  But those conditions must also include setting out a believable strategy as to how people can exercise the right to choose their own future. This is what party members should now be focused on. The National Council scheduled for June 21^st is the opportunity to sketch out that plan, finalising the details at our autumn conference.

If we can do that, then we have good reason to ask people who support Scotland’s independence to vote for us next year, and they have good reason to do so. And there’s the rub, because unless the SNP wins those elections and forms the next Holyrood administration then we will spend the next five years stuck in the constitutional chaos of devolution.

Did you watch aghast as the English council election results rolled in on Friday? As Farage’s Reform UK swept into the county halls of Englandshire, having won the Runcorn by-election earlier in the day.

True, it’s only a part of England, the most rightward leaning part at that. And yes, less than a third of the people voted in most places. Nonetheless, these votes matter. They offer legitimacy to a party founded on hatred and division throughout most of England, and real executive power in large swathes of it. Democrats everywhere should be worried.

This is different from UKIP’s victory of 2013, the previous high water a mark for Farage’s right wing populist adventure. Then he was tapping into a widespread, if latent, Europhobia and focused on the single issue of leaving the European Union. That particular boil was lanced by the Brexit referendum.

Reform’s victory last week is much more wide-ranging. The party has succeeded in putting together a coalition of the disaffected and disgruntled and mobilising it to become the main party of the right in England today. It will take more than policy appeasement for the Tories to get this back. 

So, what does this mean for us?  For starters, it matters to Scotland who runs England, because they end up running the UK. These results suggest that it might be possible for the English right to get back into government using Reform as the vehicle once provided by the Conservative Party. If that happens, it will be nothing but bad news for Scotland.

But Reform UK have a foothold here too. True, the Scotland page on the party’s website has nothing to say about Scotland, but they exist, and people are voting for them. So, what is the threat and what is to be done about it.

Let’s start with the opinion polls. Last August Reform UK were polling at around 3% in Scotland. Then, as the dust settled in the aftermath of the general election, their support began to grow. By early October they had doubled their poll rating, most of it corresponding to an equal drop in the Tory vote. By now they were in contention for list seats, knocking on the door of the Scottish parliament.

The Reform UK rise continued and by November broke through the ten percent barrier, by now taking support equally from Labour and Conservative. In the last six months they have risen further to 13%, but nearly all of this seems to have come from Labour whose Scottish support has now dipped under 20%. In the same period the SNP climbed back to 30% and other pro-independence parties have held or increased support.

Pollsters also try to find out where support for parties is coming from. Last week’s Survation poll in Scotland showed Reform UK support at 12%. When these Reform UK voters were asked who they had voted for in last year’s general election more than a quarter said Labour, whereas fewer than one in twenty had supported the SNP.

All of this suggests that Reform UK in Scotland are growing at the expense of other unionist parties and very few are crossing the Yes/No divide to back them.

We can also look at real votes. Reform UK have contested several dozen local council by-elections since last July. Studies of these results their supporters second preferences that overwhelmingly going to other unionist parties, the Conservatives in particular.

The rise of Reform UK in Scotland represents a split in the unionist vote. Interestingly, this is occurring in a period when the constitutional debate is fairly muted, and the main political drivers are economic factors and disillusion with Starmer’s government. Reform UK is whipping up and weaponizing fear of immigration. But disaffected Labour voters in Scotland may also be choosing Reform UK as a disruptor of the status quo.

The SNP needs to show that political independence for our country offers a better prospect for change than backing a party which supports the institutions and values which create the architecture of our current despair.

We also need to clear that Reform UK in Scotland is an ultra-unionist party. When they get round to it, they might even make this clear themselves.

I say ultra, not just because they are enthusiastic supporters of the union, but because the party embodies and celebrates the most objectionable aspects of it. They are British nationalists with better PR than their forebears.  They feed off a residual xenophobia, seeking a fortress Britain which repels Johnny Foreigner. They take a jingoistic pride in Britain’s imperial past, affronted that anyone should question our role in the enslavement and impoverishment of most of the world. They epitomise the worst of the UK, power, privilege and inequality.

Labelling Reform UK as the stormtroopers of the union is telling it as it is. And it will clarify matters as approach the next Scottish election. It will prevent independence supporters lending them their support unwittingly. And it will offer a distinct and better alternative to many who are understandably angry at the betrayals of the current Labour government.

Last week’s poll giving Yes an 11-point lead in Scotland’s constitutional debate has had a strangely muted reaction. Pretty much ignored by the mainstream unionist media, it’s not exactly set the heather on fire within the independence movement either. The poll, commissioned by this newspaper, may of course turn out to be an outlier, and maybe folk are being cautious until they see more.

Strangely, to my mind, publication of this significant lead for the Yes side, provoked a reaction on our side which typically questioned the bona fides of the SNP on the matter, rather than whether Westminster’s continued dismissal of Scottish opinion was legitimate. My fellow columnist Lesley Riddoch asks if the party’s passion has been muzzled and whether independence will now get top billing. Correspondents to the paper demand that the party now prioritise independence in the run up to the 2026 Scottish general election.

Without trying to be difficult can I just point out that whatever it is you think the SNP and its Holyrood government have been doing, whilst they have been doing it support for Indy has increased. It seems implausible to suggest that the actions of the main pro-independence party can have no effect of public opinion. Might it just be that John Swinney’s stewardship has led more people to either support or be entirely relaxed about the prospect of Scotland becoming an independent country?

Maybe I’m being too gentle with the party leadership. It could just be that people are so sick to the back teeth with Labour and Trump that any alternative looks increasingly better.

Whatever, my main point is this, there is a world of difference between saying you think Scotland should be an independent country and doing anything about it. The poll gives us no insight into how strongly people feel or whether independence is a priority for them.

Which brings me to the voting intention figures. The Find Out Now poll asked the exact same group of people how they intended to vote in next year’s election. In the regional vote, the one that determines party share in the parliament, 25% said they would vote SNP (not very good), 14% Green (pretty good) and 7% Alba (their best ever).

That means that the support for all of the pro-independence parties combined adds up to 46% of those surveyed. That’s a full ten percent less than the number of people who would vote Yes. Even if you look at the figures for the constituency ballot the combined total is 47%, more or less the same margin.

That is the big story of this poll. It shows, yet again, that even if the electorate are now pro-independence, they are not prepared to vote for parties who advocate it. This is not just the SNP’s problem; it should be a concern for the whole Yes movement.

Now there might be a few people who genuinely support independence but are wedded to a unionist party, perhaps even fighting the good fight from within, but they will be few and far between. The main reason why this gap exists is not because some independence supporters are voting for other parties; they are not voting at all.

And the reason for that is not because they believe the SNP (and others) don’t have the intention, the passion, the goal of independence. It is because they do not see how it can be achieved.

The letters pages in this paper call for the SNP to prioritise independence in the coming election putting it front and centre.  That’s really not the problem. I have no doubt that the SNP will advocate an independent Scotland in the coming election.

And the way to do it begins with asking people to endorse a demand to change the Scotland Acts to remove the prohibition on the Scottish parliament acting on the union. A parliament with a majority committed to that should then lead and fund a massive public engagement programme to deepen and widen support for that objective, aiming to build insurmountable political pressure for change. That is when we will need the citizens assemblies, civic conventions, and a professional campaign running through every strand of Scottish life.

There are only two alternatives to this. You either put up with the status quo and wait for unionist largesse to do the right thing and recognise the democratic wish of people in Scotland, or you ignore the status quo and hold a referendum anyway. The first may never happen, and the second provokes a battle we cannot win.

I would like to see all Yes supporters unite behind the SNP to win as pro-independence majority next year, as they did in 2011. But even if that doesn’t happen there is still a chance now that we would elect an independence supporting parliament for the simple reason that the unionists are more disunited than we are.

Lesley is right about one thing, if that happens, it has to mean something. So, every party, every candidate, fighting these elections on the side of Scotland’s autonomy should pledge to fight to change the law to allow the right of self-determination.

In spite, or maybe because of, my semi-retirement, I’ve devoted a few recent Saturdays to events organised by components of the Yes movement. Not large gatherings, but useful get-togethers nonetheless. Good to keep the brain exercised on topic, lest the intellect withers.

These events bring together the already converted. I know most of the people. I quite enjoy the fact that I’m not the oldest at these meetings, not by a long way, an experience which is sadly less and less common.

For now, I think it’s fair to say these events are not exactly hoatching with energy and passion; anyone seeking a new momentum behind the drive for independence will need to look elsewhere. But some activity is better than none and things, as they say, can only get better.

What worries me more than the numbers is the way the organisers view themselves as observers rather than creators of Scotland’s political landscape. There’s little understanding of how to use the coming election to advance the central objective of independence. No sense of the movement itself becoming a political force; putting its own champions into government.

Our movement has been in the doldrums for some time, indeed for most of the years since the heady heights of the 2014 referendum campaign. As I’ve argued for a while now the reason why that exuberance is proving so hard to re-ignite is that a substantial chunk of people who believe in independence no longer see how it can be achieved.

Westminster says no. The Supreme Court says no. And until we get a convincing narrative to counter that it will be difficult to move through the gears. That begins by explaining to people that UK law needs to change if their right to self determination is to be exercised.

As our campaigns atrophied in the wake of unionist denial, we started arguing about other stuff, with a tenuous relationship to independence.  Identity politics assumed an importance it would not have had if the campaign for self-government had not been derailed. 

The next iteration of this phenomenon – which has been high on the agenda at recent events – seems to be a growing focus on changing the structures of the devolved government.

Whilst no-one is suggesting we shouldn’t improve how we make decisions, reform of Holyrood has never been high on the agenda of the Yes movement. I guess this is because we’ve all regarded devolution as an interim set-up, a stepping stone towards a new independent government. And once we have the power to do so a new modern constitution would be replete with improvements.

Perhaps this has been a mistake. Perhaps arguing for reform of the current arrangements can be a way to make the case for independence. But it would be a mistake to look at these reforms just within the framework of today’s devolved parliament because a new one would not only have much wider scope and authority, but a quite different relationship to the institutions of government in the UK, Europe and beyond.

The thing which animates people most is the notion of a second chamber at Holyrood. Not a debate about whether an independent parliament in Scotland should have a senate, but whether the existing one should.

One keynote speaker at the recent Scottish Independence Convention event in Glasgow argued that the Scottish government would be improved by the creation of a second chamber established as a citizens’ assembly of one hundred people; selected at random and paid to take a sabbatical from their work for two years. 

I have a several serious concerns about this. Firstly, the malaise of distrust and hostility to elected politicians which this proposal seeks to tackle is hardly likely to be salved by creating another hundred of them.

Secondly, it is not democratic to have people who are elected compromised or controlled by people who are not. The comparison is often made with jury selection, randomly done and seeking to represent a cross section of the population. But juries are there to determine facts in a specific case, not opinions. It is not their role to represent others.

Most of all, this just isn’t the biggest problem. Way ahead of creating a second chamber would changing the voting system to allow voters to express preferences and encourage smaller parties and independents.

Or changing the parliament so that the executive is not drawn from its members. Currently any governing party will have to deploy nearly half of their number to ministerial positions. This results in the brightest and most able people getting mired in the administration of things, rather than directing the apparatus of government.

Don’t get me wrong. I love talking about constitutions and a big part of the attraction of a new independent country is getting a better one. But that is something to be done when we have the power to do so. Making this the focus of debate now is, as the cockneys say, a bit previous.

Today is the first working day of the new tax year. Usually, it is when tax rates change. But not today. Consider that. The new Labour government elected on a promise of change doesn’t see the need for change.

The balance of who pays what established under successive terms of Conservative governments is just about right. No need for the rich to pay more. No need for the poor to pay less. It’s pretty astonishing that any government would just abandon one of the key tools available to it to rebalance the fortunes of its citizens.

That this should be the case is a result of just how toxic the debate on tax has become. Years, decades of misinformation about how taxes are a burden on the individual and a drain on business have created the illusion that the taxes you pay go to someone else. That money is being taken out of your wage packet and given to others. For their benefit, not yours.

It’s nonsense of course. Taxes are how we fund the things together that most of us could never afford individually. They are in essence the membership fees we pay to join civilised society. They fund the schools, hospitals, roads and so much else which is available to everyone.

Taxes are also a mechanism to try to temper the grossly unequal distribution of wealth in capitalist economies. Or at least they ought to be. This can be achieved by linking the amount people pay to the assets they have. And this is where things have gone wrong.

The richest in the UK pay less tax today than they did under Thatcher. In order to protect this historical advantage, taxes on the rest of us have been kept high. The result is that most people perceive that the tax they pay is unfair, and many resent it. So, when the likes of Reform talk about cutting taxes, it resonates.

Paranoid of being seen to raise personal taxation Labour have tried to finesse balancing the books by raising National Insurance on employers. It goes up today. There are two things wrong with this and they belie Labour’s lack of progressive thinking on tax.

Firstly, not all businesses are equally affected. The biggest change is not the 1.5 percent rise in the rate of National Insurance, but its application to millions of part-time workers who have previously been exempt. And this has a hugely disproportionate effect on small businesses especially in the hospitality and retail sectors. So, whilst this change will have marginal effect on large corporations, just watch as your local restaurant goes under.

But the second problem is that this is a tax on business operations, not profits. I believe that businesses should contribute more to the public finances. But this should be based on ability to pay. Those who make the biggest profits should pay the most. A fairly organised economy needs a thriving small business sector where operators are able to make profits which can then be taxed. This policy will result in the opposite.

Those of us who believe we need to re-organise the economy so that it works for the people who live here need to now begin the long, slow journey to building a new narrative on tax.

Let’s start with a shout out for Tax Justice Scotland, an alliance of unions and campaigning groups formed at the end of last year and determined to change the terms of the debate. Go online and check them out.

Perhaps the biggest element in changing that debate is to shift it away from just looking at incomes. There is great income inequality of course. It’s increasing. And people who earn more should pay more. But in terms of inequality incomes are a poor second to the accumulation of wealth.

Take a look at Gary Stevenson’s videos on YouTube for a useful primer on how the financial system works to siphon resources away from the working and middle classes to the super-rich, and how in turn they use that wealth to perpetuate inequality.

If we are serious about those who can afford it paying more, it is time to work out new ways of taxing accumulated wealth. Little of this is held in cash. The bulk is assets like land, buildings, stocks and material goods.

We also need, and this is lacking in Tax Justice Scotland’s script at the moment, an understanding of what can be achieved by the limited powers of the devolved Scottish government and how they can be frustrated by Westminster.

Not being independent means you have no control over the movement of capital and labour within your borders. Without that people and companies can simply leave if asked to pay more.

The exception is land. The great estates simply cannot move if they are asked to fulfil a social obligation.

So, as we start thinking about manifestos for 2026, along with shifting the balance of power and demanding better economic levers in Scotland, we need to look again at maximising the ability we do have to ask the wealthiest to pay more.

What would we think if a government minister were to use his or her custodianship of public assets to generate profits which were then paid directly into their bank account? Even in today’s jaded politics I’m certain this would invoke howls of outrage.

And what if it was then discovered that members of parliament were determined to defend the practice and refused to scrutinise what had been going on? Couldn’t happen, surely.

Yet this exactly what happens in today’s Britain were the head of state uses public assets for private aggrandisement. King Charles III is by virtue of his office also the Duke of Lancaster. The Duchy of Lancaster is not a place but a massive commercial operation holding land, property and investments worth £700m. Last year it generated over £27m profit – all of which went to the King’s personal account. Nice work if you can get it.

This is important because whilst the Duchy runs like a private estate, it is most definitely a state asset. As the recent report “Ditch the Duchies” by the campaign group Republic shows the Duchy hasn’t been private property since at least 1461 when the English King Edward IV passed a law “confiscating the Duchy of Lancaster to the Crown of England for ever”.

Plenty of subsequent laws make it clear the Duchy is a crown asset not the personal possession of the Windsor family. Indeed, it is described as such in the current Royal Tax Memorandum (an agreement between the Treasury and the Royals) in 2023. This is why the King cannot sell any of part of the Duchy – it doesn’t belong to him.

It’s also why not a penny of corporation tax was paid on the whacking profits the duchy makes every year. It is exempted as a crown asset. An almost identical arrangement is in place for Prince William with the Duchy of Cornwall (again the name is misleading as most its land is in Devon). He gets slightly less in profits in his bank account – just £23m last year.

These financial arrangements look even worse when two other things are considered. Firstly, the beneficiaries of this provision are already phenomenally wealthy. King Charles if one of the richest people in the world with a personal fortune estimated at over two billion pounds.  It’s not as if he needs the money.

Secondly the King and other royals already receive a small fortune every year from the taxpayer. This is called the Sovereign Grant – £86 million last year. In another act of accounting sophistry monarchists will argue that this money comes from revenues raised by the Crown Estates and since there’s a good deal left over the royals actually make the country a profit. This is palpable nonsense. The Crown Estates are most definitely public rather than private assets.

Does all this matter? Well, a bit. In a country where we are told there’s not enough money to cover welfare payments for disabled people or end the cap on support for the poorest families, it is a bit shocking that our taxes are used to keep one family in such lavish opulence.

But this is not just about the money. The confusing and deliberately opaque picture that emerges from royal funding is bad enough. What is worse is the obfuscation and deceit practised by elected politicians to keep it that way.

One of the unintended consequences of last year’s election is that a bunch of SNP representatives who were recalcitrant if not critical when it came to taxpayer funding of the royals have been replaced by Labour ones who for the most part can’t tug their forelocks hard enough. In what looks like standard response from Labour head office they have been telling constituents that the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are private institutions “responsible for their own commercial activities” whilst they are also “Crown bodies subject to Crown exemption”. They can’t be both.

For too long all Westminster parties have colluded in preventing scrutiny of the royal finances, giving them all the benefits of a private corporation without any of the social obligation to pay income, corporation or inheritance taxes.

If there is a glimmer of hope in all of this, it is that the public seem increasingly disinclined to practice supine deference to the aristocratic masters. As opinion polls show increasing support for abolition of the monarchy, the royals themselves face public protests at their carefully stage-managed events.

Last week’s Republic protest at Commonwealth Day offered a taste of what is to come in the year ahead.  The Palace must be wondering whether there’s really much to be gained by association with the Commonwealth. After all, three quarters of Commonwealth have ditched the monarchy and are now republics, and more are planning to follow suit.

To my mind the monarchy is intertwined with the British state and so its abolition goes hand in hand with secession from the union. But not everyone who Scotland’s independence agrees so I see no need to make republicanism a pre-condition for our campaign.

I am confident though that as support for abolition rises the realisation that independence offers that possibility will be a winning component in our campaign.