THE 10-year anniversary of the independence referendum has brought with it many events. Among different factions of the movement, activists are using this time to offer up their own diagnoses of why, in 2024, another referendum (or some alternate version of leaving the Union) is not on the immediate horizon. While these disparate groups have differing outlooks on the cause of the problem, one thing connects them all – the sense of disappointment and frustration is palpable.
On Saturday, activists and academics from the left of the independence movement gathered at Glasgow Caledonian University for an event organised by Conter – for those unfamiliar, they're a news website and pressure group who describe themselves as "against the Scottish establishment". With speakers including Jim Sillars and Kenny MacAskill it would clearly not be an event catering for the nostalgic and optimistic side of the movement. What it did promise, however, was interesting and thought-provoking discussion and debate on a range of topics including class, race, economics, and more. I understand some readers will expect such a conference to be simply "SNP-bashing", but there were valuable contributions from across the political spectrum which deserve to be heard and discussed.
The lecture hall was packed, certainly appearing close to sold-out. There were figures in attendance from all parties and none, trade unions, and campaign groups like Stop the War. Opening the day was a session featuring myself, Cat Boyd, Gerry Hassan, Liam McLaughlin, and Jim Sillars. As someone who spends most of my time writing and editing, I was nervous to present on the same stage as those who are known for their barnstorming speeches. To be honest, I wasn't sure if a representative from The National would be appreciated by a crowd with, to say the least, frustrations, about the state of the movement. The warm reception from my fellow panellists, and those in the audience, was welcome.
Sillars may be best-known these days for his scathing take-downs of the current SNP leadership, but he kept criticism to a minimum – delivering a powerful speech arguing for more of a focus on improving people's lives among pro-independence figures with platforms. He quoted a woman named Zara who had been living in terrible conditions, forced to sleep in a broken bed with springs digging into her back nightly. People like Zara, he said, must be the priority for Scotland's political leaders. He received rousing applause from the audience, though his suggestion that the UK Government stopping new oil and gas licenses would mean Scotland can profit in the future was not so well received among the environmentalists present.
Boyd gave a very personal speech reflecting on what she felt were her own misgivings during the 2014 campaign, suggesting that left-wing activists had been too eager to win "cheap" applause with simplistic arguments than communicate honestly to the electorate about the potential challenges of a Yes win. Her frank assessment won over the room quickly, and left many with questions on what they would have done differently if they could go back to that time.
Later, Professor Tom Montgomery presented fascinating research on the independence campaign which I hope this newspaper can explore further in the coming weeks. During the same panel, alongside Isobel Lindsay and MacAskill, I asked for one thing each participant would do to change the current trajectory of the SNP. Lindsay suggested a change in advisers, Montgomery called for discussion on what the party stands for and aims to achieve, while MacAskill, unsurprisingly, felt there was simply no possibility for reform.
This session, which was primarily about the challenges facing the SNP, was probably one of the more pessimistic of the day. It prompted some upset in the room. Bill Ramsay, convener of the SNP Trade Union Group, stood up to protest the lack of left-wing SNP figures invited to speak. Only former SNP MP Alyn Smith was appearing on a panel. He later told me this was a "glaring omission", adding: "If deliberate that was a bad show, if by omission then a manifestation of the intellectual narrow mindedness of the conference organisers who are so quick to point out to others."
Later, we enjoyed presentations from Professor Costas Lapavitsas on the global economy and sociologist David McCrone on the wider independence movement. The highlight of the day for most was the lecture from Professor John Curtice, who had the audience completely captivated with a series of polls demonstrating how Brexit and independence support interact. The expert's 45-minute session absolutely flew by, with the most serious and stern academics laughing at John's entertaining turn-of-phrase. It was standing room only up the back.
The final session of the day was the highly anticipated debate between Jonathon Shafi and Smith (both columnists for this newspaper). It was a tough one to listen to. Shafi argued that the SNP had failed to deliver on issues that matter to independence supporters, such as land and council tax reform. Smith accepted there were problems in the party that he would always be loyal to, but his rebuttals fell on deaf ears within the room. It had been a long day, and an agitated audience was impatient with the former MP. Afterwards, though, many leftists expressed respect for the long-time politician for making the effort to attend and engage. Perhaps this move could open the door to more engagement from the SNP to the more critical sections of the grassroots.
While I heard fascinating debate and analysis on the state of both the independence movement and the wider world, my concern lies with the lack of solutions offered by frustrated panellists. Shafi's contributions certainly opened the space to discuss specific policy ideas, and Sophie Johnson of Stop the War had important observations on how the Yes movement could better engage with anti-war campaigners amid Israel's ongoing bombardment of Gaza. Largely, though, there was a feeling that many in the room were withdrawn, and resistant to the possibility of improving relations among independence supporters or pushing the SNP to be the more radical party they want to see. In future, sessions with a focus on coming up with specific and tangible plans would be welcome.
The resistance is understandable. Throughout the day there were references to the massive 2014 Radical Independence Campaign event, attended by thousands of people and considered hugely successful. The fact that the SNP organised a major event in Glasgow on the same day remains a sore point for many of these campaigners, and representative of how they feel the party of government views them.
It is not 2014 anymore, and there were not thousands of people at GCU on Saturday. There were, however, a solid group of passionate independence supporters who feel alienated and rejected by the mainstream Yes movement. There are opportunities to work together, and I would like to see more figures like Smith make that effort in the coming weeks and months.
Overall, the conference featured a strong day of panels with a varied mix of speakers. I particularly enjoyed Professor Lapavitsas's analysis of the global economy, and would like to hear more from him moving forwards. Ten years on from the referendum, this is the time to hear from new voices as well as those with extensive experience. Independence Live were filming throughout the day, and I hope readers will take the time to watch some of the sessions to hear differing perspectives on where we are a decade on from the vote.
