IT will be 10 years this week since Scotland voted for independence, and the Scotland that we are living in today is most definitely not the Scotland that the Better Together campaign promised that we'd be living in if the country voted against independence.
The director of that campaign, Blair McDougall (below), now sits as a Labour MP in Westminster where he recently voted against the abolition of the two-child cap on benefits and in favour of stripping the Winter Fuel Payment from the great majority of pensioners.
After a decade and a half of Conservative rule that Scotland didn't vote for, which foisted an equally unwanted Brexit upon us, we now have a new Labour Government in Westminster, elected on a promise to deliver “change”.
It has only been a couple of months, but that promise of change is showing all the signs of going the same way as the promises that Better Together made to Scotland a decade ago.
Today, Keir Starmer was in Italy where he was in discussions with that country's far-right leader about copying its version of the British Conservatives' insane Rwanda plan – processing asylum seekers and undocumented migrants in Albania, one of the poorest countries in Europe, riven with corruption and organised crime.
Meanwhile, back at home Starmer is glibly brushing off criticism for failing to declare donations he accepted from Labour peer and donor Lord Waheed Alli. According to the Sunday Times, the donations worth over £5000 to pay for clothing and the cost of a personal shopper and alterations for Starmer's wife Victoria, both before and after the General Election. Alli also pays for Starmer's suits and glasses.
Alli was the centre of controversy and allegations of cronyism following July's General Election after it emerged that he had been given a security pass to Downing Street despite having no official role.
Starmer is amongst the top 1% of earners in the UK – his personal wealth is estimated to be worth several million pounds. The Mail on Sunday reported in May 2020, when Starmer was elected as Labour leader, that he owns seven acres of land in Surrey worth up to £10m. He and his wife also own a home in London which was worth over £1m in 2020.
His annual salary as Prime minister is £80,807, which is in addition to the £91,346 he receives for being an MP, a total of £172,153 annually plus expenses. The Prime Minister enjoys free accommodation in Downing Street plus the free use of the country estate at Chequers. Yet apparently, he needs to rely on donations for clothing for himself and his wife.
It all smells terribly like Boris Johnson receiving donations in order to buy luxury wallpaper for the Prime Minister's flat in Downing Street. Labour rightly criticised Johnson for that but when Starmer does it he's just following the rules. Labour does not care about the optics of Starmer's wife receiving free designer clothing while her husband tells pensioners that they're going to have to freeze this winter because Starmer wants to pander to the right wing by adhering to the Conservatives' nonsensical fiscal rules.
Back in 2019, the Labour Party in Scotland had a furious meltdown after it emerged that the SNP Lord Provost Eva Bolander had claimed £8000 of clothing on expenses. She later apologised and repaid some of the amount in question. Labour branded her spending as “grotesque” and demanded her resignation.
Glasgow Labour MSP James Kelly said at the time: “While services for homeless people across Glasgow are being cut, the SNP Lord Provost has been touring the city in a grotesque spending spree at the taxpayers' expense.
“In just one trip to John Lewis she spent more on herself than what a worker being paid the national minimum wage earns in a whole week. Eva Bolander should pay back the money and resign.”
Kelly does not have much to say about his boss receiving free designer clothing from a very wealthy individual to whom Starmer gave free run of Downing Street while that same boss axes the Winter Fuel Payment and warns of even more difficult times ahead.
But never mind, Starmer and his wife will continue to have some lovely brand new designer outfits, and Westminster will continue to be a cesspit of sleaze and protestations that it's all in compliance with the rules. But it’s all “change”, eh.
'Indy remains very much alive'
Meanwhile, a new poll has found that 57% of people in Scotland want a second referendum on Scottish independence. The poll, carried out by Opinium found that 24% of people wanted a referendum by the end of 2025, a further 18% by the end of 2030 – a total of 42%, while just 32% don't think another independence vote should ever be held.
The same poll found that including don't knows, 49% believe that the permission of Westminster should not be needed for another independence referendum to be held, with only 37% disagreeing and presumably believing that the government in Westminster should have the final say.
Excluding don't knows, this means that 57% of Scots believe that the decision to hold another independence referendum should not be dependent on the permission of the British Government.
Independence is overwhelmingly the preferred choice of the younger generation of Scots with 63% of 16 to 34-year-olds saying they would vote Yes in a second independence referendum, the same percentage of over 65s who said that they'd vote no.
Despite the victory of the Labour party in Scotland at this year's Westminster General Election, albeit their 37 Scottish seats were won on less than 36% of the popular vote, certainly does not spell the end for Scottish independence, no matter how much the Labour Party and the anti-independence media in Scotland might wish otherwise.
The question might be deferred, but it remains very much alive, and when it does come before the Scottish people again, as it assuredly will, Scotland will vote for independence.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel