Scotland 'not like Manchester', Swinney says in dig at PM Burnham

Swinney’s point was constitutional as well as political. He argued that Scotland should not be treated like a large English city or region. Scotland has its own parliament and government, he said, and should determine its future as a nation. He linked that argument to his promise that Scotland would soon become independent.

His remarks came shortly after Burnham visited Scotland and proposed working with the SNP to give local communities more power. Burnham also said he wanted to move beyond “the old politics of conflict”. Swinney’s line about Manchester was therefore a veiled response to Burnham, even though he did not name him in the speech.

The disagreement is about the destination, not only the amount of devolution. Burnham has said a second referendum is “off limits”, while Swinney announced a new independence campaign. Their competing positions keep Scotland’s constitutional future at the centre of Scottish politics.

Scottish independence means Scotland leaving the United Kingdom and becoming an independent country. It would change who has final authority over Scotland’s laws, government and constitutional arrangements. Swinney says independence would provide Scotland’s “best possible future”, while opponents currently reject holding another vote.

The obstacle is legal authority. In 2022, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the Scottish Parliament cannot organise another independence referendum on its own. The UK government must agree to the vote. That ruling matters because it gives Westminster control over whether the constitutional question can formally be put to voters.

Scotland voted against independence in 2014, by 55% to 45%. The Scottish government hopes to hold another referendum by 2031, but Burnham has said such a vote is off limits. The SNP therefore plans a campaign called Choose Scotland, while the legal route remains dependent on agreement from the UK government.

The 2014 referendum produced a clear result against independence. Scotland voted 55% to remain in the United Kingdom and 45% to leave. That result remains important because the SNP is seeking another referendum, despite the previous outcome and the UK government’s opposition to holding one.

At the latest Scottish election in May, the SNP won what the article calls a record number of pro-independence MSPs at Holyrood. MSPs are members of the Scottish Parliament. However, the article does not provide the exact number of those pro-independence representatives, so it cannot be calculated from the supplied information.

The election result was politically mixed. Although the number of pro-independence MSPs reached a record level, the share of pro-independence votes fell from about 50% in 2021 to about 41% this year. Swinney presented the result as evidence that the independence campaign had momentum.

Bringing the bus network under public control means the government would have a stronger role in deciding how services operate. Instead of leaving most decisions to bus companies, public authorities could set expectations for routes, frequency, fares and standards. The aim is to provide a network designed around public needs.

Swinney said this would happen through franchising and regulation. Under franchising, operators generally run services under public contracts that specify what must be delivered. Regulation sets the rules those operators must follow. The article does not say that every bus company would become publicly owned; it describes greater public control of the network.

The planned change is due by the end of the parliamentary term in 2031. Swinney linked it to the need for more frequent buses, cheaper travel and climate benefits. Bus operators already receive government subsidies to participate in the existing £2 fare-cap schemes, so public funding is already part of the system.

Greater public control could change the balance between commercial decisions and public priorities. The Scottish government could use contracts and regulations to protect routes, improve frequency and coordinate the network. Swinney argues that more buses would help commuters and the climate, while the £2 cap makes travel cheaper in areas covered.

The mechanism would be franchising and regulation. Public authorities could specify routes, timetables, fares and service standards, then require operators to deliver them. This could preserve services that are valuable to communities but less attractive commercially. However, the article does not promise that every fare will fall or that every route will improve.

Taxpayers would remain important because operators already receive government subsidies to join the fare-cap scheme. Greater control could require public money for contracts, oversight or services that do not cover their costs. The policy is planned by 2031, so its eventual effect on fares, service quality and spending is not yet known.

The ruling is important because it settled who has legal authority to initiate another Scottish independence referendum. The Supreme Court decided that the Scottish Parliament could not hold such a vote without approval from the UK government. That makes Westminster’s agreement a legal requirement, not merely a political preference.

The decision affects the practical route to a referendum. Swinney can campaign for independence and build political support, but the Scottish government cannot simply organise a binding vote by itself. The article says successive UK prime ministers have refused to countenance another referendum, and Burnham has told Swinney that one remains off limits.

This creates a direct conflict between democratic and legal arguments. Swinney points to the SNP’s election victory and a record number of pro-independence MSPs. He says “the stars are aligning” and plans a major campaign. Yet the proposed vote by 2031 still depends on UK government agreement.

Devolution divides government responsibilities rather than making Scotland fully independent. Scotland has a devolved parliament and government that can make decisions in areas transferred to Holyrood. The UK government remains responsible for matters reserved to the United Kingdom and, under the Supreme Court ruling, must agree to another independence referendum.

This division explains the dispute. Swinney argues that Scotland is a nation and should ultimately become independent. Burnham offers deeper devolution, which would give Scotland more power while keeping it within the United Kingdom. The two positions propose different answers to the same question: should Scotland gain more authority inside the union, or leave it?

The constitutional disagreement also affects democratic claims. The SNP points to its election victory and pro-independence support, while the UK government points to the legal requirement for its consent. Until that position changes, Scotland can campaign for independence but cannot unilaterally hold the referendum described in the article.