Can Scotland Support Independence While Holding the SNP Accountable?

Scottish independence belongs to the Scottish people—not to one political party. Holding the SNP accountable does not weaken the cause; it may be essential to protecting its credibility.

Scotland’s independence movement faces a question that every serious movement for national change must eventually answer:

Can its supporters remain committed to the cause while honestly confronting failures within the party most closely associated with it?

The answer must be yes.

Supporting Scottish independence cannot mean granting the Scottish National Party immunity from scrutiny. It cannot require independence supporters to defend every SNP decision, excuse every failure or treat every legitimate question as an attack upon Scotland.

The SNP has played an indispensable role in bringing Scotland’s constitutional future into modern political life. It remains Scotland’s largest political party and the principal party of government. Its successes, failures and internal decisions consequently affect the credibility and direction of the independence movement.

But the SNP does not own Scottish independence.

The cause is older than the party’s present leadership, broader than its membership and greater than the fortunes of any individual politician.

Independence is a national question

The central question of Scottish independence is not whether the SNP deserves permanent control of government.

It is whether the people of Scotland should possess the sovereign authority to determine how their country is governed.

Those are not the same question.

An independent Scotland would continue to hold elections. Governments would change. Parties would rise, divide, lose support, form coalitions and leave office. Scottish voters could elect an SNP government, replace it with another government or create political parties that do not yet exist.

Independence would not guarantee the SNP power. It would transfer final constitutional authority to Scotland’s democratic institutions and electorate.

That distinction is essential because opponents of independence frequently present dissatisfaction with the SNP as evidence against Scottish self-government itself. Yet criticism of a governing party does not ordinarily invalidate a country’s right to govern itself.

Failures by a British government do not lead people to conclude that the United Kingdom should cease to possess national authority. Failures by an American administration do not mean the United States should surrender its independence. Governments are held accountable through democratic institutions; the existence of political failure does not erase the nation beneath the government.

Scotland should be evaluated according to the same principle.

The movement is already larger than one party

The composition of the Scottish Parliament demonstrates that support for independence is not confined to the SNP.

In the May 2026 election, the SNP won 58 seats and the Scottish Greens won 15. Together, those two openly pro-independence parties returned 73 members to the 129-seat Parliament—a majority of MSPs. The Scottish Parliament’s independent researchers explicitly recognized that the election once again produced a pro-independence parliamentary majority. Official Scottish Parliament analysis of the 2026 election.

The two parties do not hold identical positions on economics, energy, the environment or the route by which independence should be pursued. Their shared support for independence does not eliminate their political differences.

Other organizations have also advocated different independence strategies. Alba, for example, argued that an election could be used to establish a direct democratic mandate for independence negotiations rather than simply another request for a referendum. Alba’s published independence position.

Beyond political parties, the movement includes civic organizations, campaign groups, writers, constitutional researchers, community advocates, cultural figures and people who have never joined a party.

It now also includes Scotland’s Les Misérables—a survivor-founded Scottish independence and justice cause whose position arises from questions of authority, accountability and the protection of vulnerable people.

These groups do not have to agree about every policy or strategy to recognize that Scotland’s constitutional future cannot be reduced to the reputation of one party.

Why the SNP still matters

Saying that independence is bigger than the SNP does not make the SNP irrelevant.

The party remains the largest organized political vehicle for independence. Its 2026 manifesto asked voters to return an SNP government and described an SNP majority as the means of securing a path to another referendum. SNP 2026 manifesto.

Because the SNP makes that claim, its conduct matters enormously.

A party asking the public to trust it with Scotland’s constitutional future must demonstrate responsible financial governance, transparent decision-making and respect for democratic scrutiny. It cannot credibly argue that Scotland should possess greater authority while resisting accountability for the authority it already exercises.

The standard should not be lower because the stakes are high.

It should be higher.

A movement that asks Scotland to trust itself must also prove that it can tell the truth about itself.

A current test of credibility

Questions surrounding the SNP’s finances have created a serious test for the party and for the wider independence movement.

Following Peter Murrell’s conviction for embezzling funds from the SNP, the UK Parliament’s Scottish Affairs Committee began pursuing broader questions about political-party financial regulation and institutional oversight in Scotland.

On September 9, 2026, the committee formally opened an inquiry into the Electoral Commission’s oversight of party funding and governance in Scotland, including safeguards connected to public “Short Money” provided to opposition parties at Westminster. It also opened a separate inquiry into whether the Lord Advocate should continue serving simultaneously as the Scottish Government’s chief legal adviser and the head of Scotland’s prosecution system. Official Scottish Affairs Committee announcement.

The opening of an inquiry is not a finding of wrongdoing by the Scottish Government, the Electoral Commission or the SNP’s current leadership.

That qualification matters. Responsible reporting must not convert questions under investigation into conclusions that have not been established.

But the absence of findings at this stage does not make scrutiny improper. Political parties receive public trust, donations and—in certain circumstances—public money. Their financial systems must be transparent enough to demonstrate that those resources are being used lawfully and for their intended purposes.

Independence supporters should be able to say that clearly.

Two misleading responses

The controversy creates two temptations, and both should be rejected.

The first is the unionist argument that failures connected to the SNP disprove the case for independence.

They do not.

A criminal act, a financial scandal or a governance failure may expose serious problems within a party. It may justify investigation, institutional reform or electoral consequences. But it does not answer the constitutional question of whether Scotland should possess the authority to govern itself.

If misconduct by political leaders permanently disqualified nations from self-government, few independent countries would remain independent.

The second temptation is the claim that serious criticism of the SNP necessarily serves the Union.

That is also false.

Suppressing legitimate questions does not protect the independence movement. It makes the movement vulnerable by allowing unresolved problems to deepen and by suggesting that loyalty to the cause requires loyalty to a party.

Accountability is not betrayal.

It is one of the conditions of trustworthy government.

Westminster scrutiny raises another constitutional question

The new inquiries also contain a constitutional complication.

The Scottish Affairs Committee is a committee of the UK Parliament. Its work now reaches into questions involving Scottish political finance and the institutional design of Scotland’s prosecution system. Relevant Holyrood committees declined an invitation to conduct the work jointly, according to the Westminster committee’s announcement.

That creates two legitimate questions at once.

First, are Scotland’s institutions being scrutinized adequately?

Second, which parliament should lead that scrutiny when the issues overlap Scottish and UK authority?

Independence supporters may reasonably object when Westminster appears to assume responsibility for examining Scotland’s internal constitutional arrangements. But that objection cannot become a reason to avoid examination altogether.

The strongest response would be for Scotland’s own democratic institutions to demonstrate that they are capable of rigorous, independent and transparent scrutiny.

If Holyrood believes Westminster is exceeding its proper role, Holyrood must be prepared to show how Scotland will provide accountability more effectively.

The answer to contested scrutiny is better scrutiny—not silence.

What accountability should require

A credible independence movement should expect every party claiming to represent it to support:

transparent financial records and properly documented use of party funds;
meaningful independence for auditors, regulators and investigators;
clear separation between party interests and government responsibilities;
parliamentary scrutiny that does not depend upon the convenience of the governing party;
protections for whistleblowers and people who report misconduct;
honest correction when statements prove inaccurate;
cooperation with lawful investigations;
publication of evidence whenever legal and privacy obligations permit it; and
institutional reforms when existing safeguards have demonstrably failed.

Those standards should apply to the SNP, the Scottish Greens, Alba or any future party seeking leadership of the independence movement.

They should also apply to unionist parties.

Accountability cannot be credible if it is demanded only of political opponents.

The position of Scotland’s Les Misérables

Scotland’s Les Misérables supports Scottish independence, but it is not an extension of the SNP or any other political party.

Its position begins with a survivor’s pursuit of justice and has developed into a wider cause advocating for accountability, protection of vulnerable people and complete Scottish constitutional authority.

That independence matters.

The cause must be free to recognize when the SNP advances Scotland’s right to choose its future. It must also remain free to question the SNP when its decisions, conduct or institutional responses fall short of the standards Scotland will need as an independent country.

The principle at the heart of the cause is that authority and responsibility should rest together.

That principle applies to Westminster, which retains powers Scotland cannot presently exercise. It also applies to Scottish institutions and political leaders exercising powers Scotland already possesses.

If Westminster fails, Westminster should be held responsible.

If the Scottish Government fails, the Scottish Government should be held responsible.

If a political party fails, that party should be held responsible without transforming its failure into a verdict against the entire Scottish nation.

This is how Scotland’s Les Misérables can remain firmly pro-independence without becoming subordinate to party politics.

Its allegiance is to justice, truth and Scotland’s right to determine its own future—not to the protection of any political organization.

A Christian understanding of political loyalty

Christian readers have a particular reason to understand this distinction.

No political party should be treated as morally indispensable. No leader should be protected from truthful examination because of the cause that leader claims to represent.

Scripture does not teach that good purposes excuse dishonest conduct. It repeatedly connects authority with responsibility and warns against partiality, false witness and the misuse of power.

Christians may support Scottish independence. They may believe that independence would create clearer national accountability and give Scotland powers needed to protect its people. But that belief should never require political idolatry.

A political party can be useful without being infallible.

A leader can advance a just cause while still making decisions that deserve criticism.

A movement can defend itself against misleading attacks while accepting truthful correction.

Discernment requires holding all three ideas at once.

Independence would increase Scotland’s responsibility

The case for accountability becomes more important—not less—when considering independence.

An independent Scotland would assume authority over matters presently reserved to Westminster. Its institutions would carry greater responsibility for national finances, international relations, immigration, constitutional protections and other functions of a sovereign state.

That would require public confidence.

Scotland would need institutions capable of investigating wrongdoing without political interference. It would need transparent financial controls, a credible civil service, independent courts, accountable prosecutors and a parliament willing to scrutinize whichever party governed.

Independence would not excuse Scotland from these obligations.

It would make them Scotland’s responsibility in full.

The independence movement should therefore welcome the development of stronger safeguards now. Every improvement in transparency and institutional accountability helps demonstrate that Scotland is preparing not merely to obtain power, but to exercise it responsibly.

The cause must be strong enough for the truth

Scotland does not have to choose between supporting independence and holding the SNP accountable.

It must be able to do both.

The SNP’s contribution to the independence movement should be recognized. Its failures should be investigated honestly. Confirmed facts should be distinguished from allegations. Political criticism should be evaluated according to evidence rather than accepted or rejected solely because of who made it.

Unionist parties should not be permitted to use the wrongdoing of individuals as a substitute for answering Scotland’s constitutional case.

Independence supporters should not be permitted to use the constitutional case as a shield against legitimate accountability.

Scottish independence is not immunity from scrutiny.

It is a claim that Scotland’s people should possess the final authority to govern their country—and the democratic power to remove those who misuse that authority.

That cause does not become weaker when Scotland demands integrity from the parties speaking in its name.

It becomes worthy of greater trust.