Scotland's Future - Launching Soon
We must learn from our history to shape our future today. If you’d like to stay updated on our website updates, feel free to contact us as we are launching soon!
Welcome To Our Site
Just a Little About Me
Proud Scot, born and raised here. Working class and proud. Always voted SNP. Fought hard for Yes in 2014, gutted on 19th Sept but never gave up. After years of Westminster saying no, we MUST find another route. This blog is about that - learning from our history to shape our future.
How we got here
1603 - Union of the Crowns. Scotland didn't join England, we gave them our King. James VI becomes James I. Two countries, one King, two parliaments.
1698 - The Darien Disaster. Scotland tries to build its own colony in Panama. Five ships sail from Leith. It fails. We lose a quarter of our national wealth. England blocks us from trading.
1707 - Union of the Parliaments. Broke after Darien, we're told union is the only way to survive. Our parliament votes itself out of existence on 1st May 1707. No vote for the people - 79 petitions against, riots in Edinburgh, Treaty burned in Dumfries.
1999 - Devolution. After 292 years, we get a parliament back - but Westminster keeps the keys. We can run health and education, but not our economy, energy, or constitution.
2014 - We ask to leave. 45% Yes, 55% No. We're told we're "Better Together" and Devo Max is just around the corner. It never comes.
2022 - We ask to vote again. Supreme Court says Scotland can't hold its own referendum. Even on Devo Max.
So here we are in 2026. We run almost everything day-to-day, but we can't decide our own future.
"The Doors They've Shut"
In 2014 we did it their way. We voted. We accepted the result.
Then Brexit dragged us out of Europe against our will. 62% of us voted Remain.
Since then Scotland has voted SNP every single election and asked for the power to hold another referendum.
Westminster has said no. No Section 30. No referendum. No respect for our Parliament.
So if they won't let us ask the question - what do we do next?
SECTION 30 - THE WESTMINSTER LOCK
SECTION 30 - THE WESTMINSTER LOCK
Since 2014 the only route Westminster accepts is a Section 30 order.
That’s when the UK Government agrees to temporarily give Holyrood the power to hold a legal referendum.
Scotland has asked for it. The Scottish Parliament has voted for it. Westminster keeps saying no.
That means they hold the key to the only door they say is allowed - and they won't open it.
THE OTHER ROUTE - What If Westminster Says No
If Westminster won't give us a Section 30, we have to look beyond Westminster.
Westminster says Scotland needs its permission to have a say on our own future. But in the modern world, the right to decide your own future is not a gift from your neighbour. It is a right of all peoples.
It is written into international law.
The UN Charter, Article 1(2) - says the UN exists to develop respect for "the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples."
The International Covenants on Human Rights, 1966 - Article 1 in both: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status."
That is how almost every new country since 1945 has become independent. They didn't ask permission first. They exercised their right, and the world then recognised them.
Let's be straight about Scotland, though.
The UN will not come in and give Scotland independence. Article 2(7) of the UN Charter says the UN does not intervene in the internal affairs of a member state like the UK. The UN sees the UK as one state, and sees Scotland as an internal matter for the UK to sort out.
And that is exactly the trap we are in.
Self-determination for Scotland is not about getting the UN to intervene. It is about proving that our right to decide inside the UK has been blocked.
In 2014 we voted. We were promised Devo Max was coming. It never came. In 2022 we asked to hold our own vote - even just on Devo Max - and the Supreme Court said Scotland can't do that without Westminster's permission.
When a state blocks every democratic route for its own people to have a say on their future, it can no longer hide behind "this is an internal matter."
That is when the world starts to listen.
So the question is no longer: "Will Westminster give us permission?"
The question is: "How does Scotland use its recognised right in international law to have our voice heard, even when permission is refused?"
The Party Landscape: True Scottish Parties vs Branch Parties
To understand Holyrood from 1999 to today, you have to understand the legal status of the parties in it. The name on the ballot paper is not the same as the legal registration at the Electoral Commission.
Two legal types of party in Scotland
A) Scottish-Registered Parties
Registered in their own right under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA). Constitution, leader, treasurer, accounts - all lodged in Scotland.
• Scottish National Party (SNP) - HQ Edinburgh • Scottish Green Party - HQ Edinburgh. Fully independent of the Green Party of England and Wales. • Alba Party - HQ Edinburgh • etc.
These parties only exist in Scotland. If they win at Westminster, their MPs take a Scottish party whip.
B) Westminster-Registered Parties operating in Scotland
They are NOT registered as separate parties in Scotland. They are registered as an Accounting Unit or description of a UK party.
• Scottish Labour Party - Accounting Unit of The Labour Party • Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party - Accounting Unit of The Conservative and Unionist Party • Scottish Liberal Democrats - Description of the Liberal Democrats
Electoral Commission status for these is: they are not a separate registered party under PPERA in their own right - they are a regional part of the UK party. That's why their finances are filed in London.
Why it matters - Manifesto and Policy
Westminster Election (Reserved: economy, defence, foreign affairs, constitution)
• Branch parties fight on a manifesto written and signed off in London. The Scottish leader has input, but does not have final sign-off. • Scottish-registered parties write their own Westminster manifesto in Edinburgh.
Holyrood Election (Devolved: health, education, justice, housing)
• Branch parties write a Scottish manifesto in Edinburgh, but it must be compatible with the UK party constitution. • Scottish-registered parties write it entirely in Edinburgh. Leader in Scotland signs off.
This is why we get the Barnett trap we covered in 2.5. In 2003, Scottish Labour MPs voted for Foundation Hospitals in England. That raised English health spending, which via the Barnett Formula automatically raised Holyrood's budget. Same party, two parliaments, one whip - but two different health policies.
Why it matters - Money and Control
[This is where your next line comes in - 3. How that changes financial backing and how things are run...]
HOW THAT CHANGES FINANCIAL BACKING AND HOW THINGS ARE RUN
AREA: ACCOUNTS
True Scottish Party: Own accounts to Electoral Commission Scotland. Must stay solvent themselves.
Branch Party: Accounts filed as part of UK party in London. Bankrolled by UK party.
AREA: WHERE MONEY COMES FROM
True Scottish Party: Members subs in Scotland, Scottish donors, Short Money / allowances, fundraising.
Branch Party: UK HQ funding, UK donors, plus Scottish subs passed up then back down. Short Money goes to London first.
AREA: SPENDING LIMITS
True Scottish Party: Scottish treasurer controls limits for Holyrood and local.
Branch Party: UK treasurer controls overall limits. Scottish treasurer is a sub-treasurer to London.
AREA: STAFF
True Scottish Party: Employed by Scottish party. Contract is Edinburgh.
Branch Party: Employed by UK party. Contract is London, even if based in Edinburgh.
AREA: CAN BE WOUND UP?
True Scottish Party: Yes, by members in Scotland.
Branch Party: No. Only UK party can be wound up. The Scottish unit can't close itself.
IN PLAIN ENGLISH: A True Scottish Party lives or dies in Scotland. A Branch Party can't go bust in Scotland - because it's not a separate party.
THE HISTORY BEHIND GERS - WHO IS IAN LANG?
First published in 1992 by the Scottish Office in Edinburgh under John Major's Conservative Government.
The man behind it was Ian Lang, Baron Lang of Monkton. Born 1940, MP for Galloway 1979-1997, Secretary of State for Scotland 1990-1995, then President of the Board of Trade 1995-1997. Made a life peer in 1997.
In 1992 there was growing support for a Scottish Assembly. Oil price was low, about $15-20 a barrel. The Scottish Office wanted to show Scotland was a net beneficiary of the UK.
A leaked internal memo from Lang at the time said:
"I judge that it is just what is needed at present in our campaign to maintain the initiative and undermine the other parties."
In other words, GERS was created to win a political argument against devolution.
Since devolution in 1999 it has been compiled by economists in the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser of the Scottish Government, using ONS and HM Treasury data. It is now Accredited Official Statistics, produced independently of Ministers.
It has been used by both sides. In 2013 the SNP Government used GERS in Scotland's Future White Paper to argue Scotland paid more tax per head. From 2015 as oil crashed, Unionists quoted it as proof Scotland can't afford independence.
WHAT IS GERS FOR TODAY
Official purpose - Scottish Government says to "estimate a set of public sector finance statistics for Scotland through detailed analysis of official UK and Scottish Government finance data."
It shows where Scotland is today INSIDE the UK. Not where it could be.
What it is NOT for:
1. It is NOT Holyrood's budget. Holyrood budget is about £60bn. GERS is £117.6bn because it includes pensions, welfare, defence, debt interest controlled by Westminster. 2. It is NOT a guide to an independent Scotland. GERS 2024-25 itself says it reflects being in UK and "not an independent Scotland with its own policy." 3. It is NOT a measure of affordability. No country's affordability is judged on a regional snapshot inside another country.
Why it matters now:
Under Barnett, Scotland's budget is decided by spending in England. If England spends more, Scotland gets a share. If UK pays more debt interest, Scotland is allocated a population share. GERS shows the result of that system.
In plain English:
today is useful to understand where we are under devolution. It is useless to tell you where we would be under independence or full devo-max, because both would change the numbers completely.
Referendum & Democracy - What Do They Mean?
What is a referendum?
A referendum is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to decide a single political question. From the Latin meaning "something to be referred", it is a form of direct democracy where the people make the decision themselves, rather than through elected representatives.
What is democracy?
Democracy, from the Greek demos (people) and kratos (rule), means rule by the people. It is an ongoing system of government where the population retains power over how they are governed, typically through elected representatives, free speech, rule of law, and the ability to make future decisions.
Does democracy end after a referendum?
No. A referendum is an event within a democracy, not the end of it. After a referendum, parliaments continue to govern, laws can still be changed, courts continue to function, and people remain free to debate the decision. If democracy ended after a vote, it would cease to be a democracy.
Can you have more than one referendum on the same topic?
Yes. There is no law or principle of democracy that says a topic can only ever be voted on once.
There are many examples of repeat referendums on the same issue in democratic countries - the UK on Europe in 1975 and 2016, Scotland on devolution in 1979 and 1997, Quebec on independence in 1980 and 1995, and Ireland and Denmark on EU treaties.
What is required for a second referendum is not permission from the first result, but a new democratic and legal mandate - usually a new Act of Parliament and, in the UK context, agreement on the process for holding it.
In short: a referendum settles a question for that moment. Democracy is what allows that question to be revisited in the future if the people, through democratic means, choose to do so.
THE QUOTES - WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAID
Everyone quotes them, most people get them wrong. Here is what they actually said, word for word.
MARGARET THATCHER
From her memoirs The Downing Street Years (1993) page 624:
"As a nation, they [the Scots] have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way."
That is the origin of the phrase. She was saying Scotland's right to leave is recognised, but she opposed devolution as a half-way house.
JOHN MAJOR Two quotes get used.
As Prime Minister, Foreword to Scotland in the Union 1993:
"No nation could be held irrevocably in a Union against its will"
b) Later, Ditchley Foundation Lecture 9 July 2011:
"My own view on Scottish independence is very straightforward: it would be folly - bad for Scotland and bad for England - but, if Scots insist on it, England cannot - and should not - deny them."
That second one is often paraphrased as "who is England to stand in their way."
ALEX SALMOND - "ONCE IN A GENERATION"
It was never in a legal document.
Edinburgh Agreement 15 Oct 2012 signed by David Cameron, Alex Salmond, Michael Moore and Nicola Sturgeon only says they will "deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect". It does not contain "once in a generation" or "once in a lifetime".
The phrase came from campaign rhetoric to maximise turnout. The White Paper Scotland's Future called it a "once in a generation opportunity", and on Andrew Marr 2014 Salmond described it as a once-in-a-generation opportunity.
Salmond later said on BBC 5 Live:
"The phrase was not once in a lifetime, it was the opportunity of a lifetime."
His point was it was a political rally call at the time, not a legal clause that would bar future referendums. Westminster later treated it as a pledge.
enough to make that case and allow people to decide."enough to make that case and allow people to decide."
enough to make that case and allow people to should be respected.
THE £ - CURRENCY - DEVO-MAX v INDEPENDENCE
DEVO-MAX / FULL FISCAL AUTONOMY ( Part 1 )
What it is: Scotland stays in UK, keeps the pound properly. Bank of England stays your central bank, lender of last resort, sets interest rates, prints notes. Scotland raises most of its own tax and runs most domestic spending. Defence and foreign affairs stay at Westminster.
Currency: No change. No risk. You keep sterling as a full member of the monetary union. No exchange rate with England, which is still Scotland's biggest market by over 60%.
Trade off: You don't control interest rates. Rates are set for London and South East, not Scotland. And if GERS shows a big deficit, devo-max with no Barnett means tax rises or cuts - you can't print money.
INDEPENDENCE - THE CURRENT PLAN
2014 plan: Formal currency union - Scotland and rest of UK share pound and Bank of England. Westminster said no - both Tories and Labour said "a currency union is not going to happen" because it needs banking union and fiscal union.
Current SNP Scottish Government plan - Building a New Scotland 2022-23:
Sterlingisation
On Independence Day Scotland continues to use pound sterling informally. Wages, bank accounts, shop prices stay in sterling. No immediate change.
Scottish Pound
Scottish Pound: Move to a new Scottish pound "as soon as practicable" when three tests are met:
1. Scottish Central Bank has credibility 2. Foreign exchange reserves enough - briefing papers talk about £40bn plus needed 3. Scotland fiscally sustainable
On Currency Day sterling deposits would be converted to Scots pounds. Taxes would have to be paid in Scots pounds, that is how you force it.
Pros
Scotland gets full monetary sovereignty eventually, can set rates for its own economy, can devalue to help exports, can join EU with own currency.
Cons economists raise
During Phase 1 you use sterling but with no central bank, no lender of last resort. Like Panama using US dollar. If banks wobble, who bails them out? • You need to build huge reserves while running a deficit - where from? • When Scottish pound launches it will float. Markets will price Scotland's 11.6% deficit and oil volatility. Likely weaker than sterling at first - good for exporters, bad for importers, mortgages, inflation. • Border with England becomes a currency border. Businesses face exchange costs and hedging, like Ireland does with UK.
Other options on paper - Euro immediately (needs own currency first), peg to sterling like Denmark pegs to Euro - but official policy is sterlingisation then Scottish pound.
In plain English
Devo-max = pound stays safe and boring, but monetary policy stays in London.
Independence = pound stays for a bit, then new Scottish pound that will float. You get control eventually, but you have to get through a risky transition no country Scotland's size has done while running a double digit deficit.
That is why even pro-independence economists say GERS doesn't tell you about independence - because independence would have to change tax, spend and currency in a way devo-max wouldn't.
SCOTLAND'S FUTURE - WHAT ARE THE WHITE PAPERS?
If Westminster won't give us a Section 30, we have to look beyond Westminster.
But when the world does start to listen, it will ask one question: what is your plan?
The White Papers are the plan on paper.
WHAT IS A WHITE PAPER?
A White Paper is not law. It is a Government prospectus. It says: if you vote for this, this is what we will do.
THE FIRST ONE - 2013
Scotland's Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland
Published 26 November 2013. 670 pages. For the 2014 referendum.
It said:
• Keep the King as Head of State • Keep the pound in a formal currency union with the UK • Take a fair share of UK debt • Remove Trident in the first parliament • 15,000 Defence Force + 5,000 reservists • Scottish Broadcasting Service to replace BBC Scotland • 30 hours childcare, £160 pension • 650 questions and answers at the back
It set Independence Day as 24 March 2016 if there had been a Yes.
THE CURRENT ONES - BUILDING A NEW SCOTLAND 2022-2025
13 separate papers. On gov.scot now.
1. Independence in the modern world 2. Renewing democracy 3. A stronger economy - KEY CHANGE: No more pound union. Use sterling for a transition, then Scottish pound 4. Creating a modern constitution 5. Citizenship 6. Migration 7. An independent Scotland in the EU 8. Our marine sector 9. Social security 10. Culture 11. Place in the world - apply to join NATO 12. Education and lifelong learning 13. Justice
MY VIEW - FOR NOW, THE NEXT STAGE MUST BE FULL DEVO-MAX - AND LOCKED IN SO THEY CAN NEVER TAKE IT BACK
Look, I want independence. I've wanted it all my life. But I'm 60 now and I'm being honest with myself and with you.
Westminster has spent our fortune - oil, gas, now wind - and we have nothing to show for it. Election after election we get a government we didn't vote for. 7 PMs telling our First Ministers NO.
If we keep doing the same thing, we will get the same result. Devo-Max is not surrender. Devo-Max is how we take the power and the money NOW, and prove we can run everything ourselves.
DEVO-MAX - ONE OF THOSE TERMS EVERYONE USES BUT HAS NEVER HAD ONE OFFICIAL DEFINITION.
What would change:
• Holyrood in charge of almost everything domestic - health, education, justice, housing, most tax and welfare, economic development, energy, environment. • Westminster keeping really only defence, foreign affairs, currency and macro framework.
That means Section 35 orders and the UK Internal Market Act 2020 fall away - those areas wouldn't be reserved anymore.
That means Section 35 orders and the UK Internal Market Act 2020 fall away - those areas wouldn't be reserved anymore.
Why it still isn't independence - yet:
1. Sovereignty. Under the Scotland Act 1998, the Scottish Parliament exists because Westminster says it exists. 2. Entrenchment. For it to be "they couldn't pull out of it" it would need to be entrenched. A new Act that removes Section 35, repeals the Internal Market Act for Scotland, and includes a legal lock - requiring consent of Holyrood and maybe a referendum before it could be changed. The Sewel Convention is political, not legally enforceable - Supreme Court confirmed that in 2017.
MY 3 NON-NEGOTIABLES TO LOCK IT IN:
1. WESTMINSTER STAYS OUT. FULL STOP. No Section 35, no Internal Market Act backdoor. Entrenched in law. 2. THE MONEY STAYS HERE. Every penny Westminster takes from Scotland remains here. All taxes, plus oil, gas, and green energy. Scotland has approx 25% of Europe's offshore wind resource - the new oil. No more Barnett Formula. No more pocket money narrative. 3. WE PAY OUR WAY - THEY PAY TO CROSS THE BORDER. We pay a fee for shared services we choose. They pay market rate for our energy to keep the lights on in London.
MY 3 NON-NEGOTIABLES TO LOCK IT IN
1. WESTMINSTER STAYS OUT. FULL STOP. No Section 35, no Internal Market Act backdoor. Entrenched in law. 2. THE MONEY STAYS HERE. Every penny Westminster takes from Scotland remains here. All taxes, plus oil, gas, and green energy. Scotland has approx 25% of Europe's offshore wind resource - the new oil. No more Barnett Formula. No more pocket money narrative. 3. WE PAY OUR WAY - THEY PAY TO CROSS THE BORDER. We pay a fee for shared services we choose. They pay market rate for our energy to keep the lights on in London.
A Big Thank You.
If you've made it to the bottom of this site, thank you. Genuinely.
This hasn't been a quick project for me. It's been hours at the kitchen table, late nights reading, re-reading, checking every line, trying to get this right - not because I wanted to build just another website, but because I believe this conversation about Scotland's future matters too much to leave unsaid.
I'm not a politician, or a lawyer, or an expert with all the answers. I'm just someone who cares deeply about this country and wanted to put what I've learned in one place, as clearly and honestly as I could.
Whether you agree with everything here or not, the fact you took the time to read it through means the world to me.
Thank you for listening. Thank you for caring enough to read to the end.
Alan J Young
📘 My Personal Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/share/g/18zrtE2aWP/
🏴Scotland's Future Group
Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation - Robert Burns, 1791
If Westminster won't give us a Section 30, we need to understand how we got here in the first place.
In 1707 Scotland's parliament voted itself out of existence. It did not do so because Scotland had been conquered. Through many warlike ages, as Burns says, force had failed.
It did so because, in the words of the time, every man had his price.
Robert Burns wrote this song in 1791 when the full truth of what happened was well known. The English treasury had paid £20,000 in arrears of salary and compensation to Scottish nobles and officials to secure the Treaty of Union. Daniel Defoe, who was a spy for England in Edinburgh at the time, recorded it himself.
Burns called it what it was.
Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation
Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation ( With the Modern Toung )
Such a Parcel o Rogues in a Nation - Modern Scots Version
Fareweel tae a' oor Scottish fame,
Fareweel oor auld an ancient glory;
Fareweel even tae the Scottish name,
Sae famed in martial story.
Noo Sark rins ower Solway sands,
An' Tweed rins tae the ocean,
Tae mark whaur England's province stands –
Such a parcel o rogues in a nation!
Whit force or guile couldnae subdue,
Throwe mony warlike ages,
Is wrocht noo by a coward few,
For hirelin traitor's wages.
The English steel we could disdain,
Secure in valour's station;
But English gowd has been oor bane –
Such a parcel o rogues in a nation!
O wad that I had seen the day
That Treason thus could sell us,
My auld grey heid had lain in clay,
Wi Bruce an leal Wallace!
But pith an pouer, tae my last oor,
I'll mak this declaration:
We're bocht an sauld for English gowd –
Such a parcel o rogues in a nation!
Contact
We believe in creating meaningful experiences that inspire and connect. Let us help you bring your vision to life.
You can join us @ https://www.facebook.com/share/g/18zrtE2aWP/
Email us
All comments are welcome.
ANYTHING you would like see on the site, leave a comment, or just want to get in touch.