His interference in UK politics isn’t the winner Musk imagines. Keir Starmer may be a useless dingbat, but he’s our useless dingbat – that appears to be the general consensus.
Read more by Neil Mackay
Nevertheless, as long as this billionaire brat lasts as MAGA’s doctrinal spokesman – Donald Trump’s Metatron – British politics risks destabilisation.
Musk will eventually fall from favour, though. All Trump’s minions do. In an administration housing two such egos, only one can survive, and the power of patronage rests in Trump’s hands Post-Musk, the MAGA movement will, however, remain a destabilising force for Britain. Who knows what madness will spew out of Trump’s mouth, directed at Starmer or Britain in general?
So our little nation must learn to pull together. The likes of Kemi Badenoch will find that amplifying Musk – not that he needs amplification, so perhaps ‘parroting’ is more apposite – becomes a net negative, guaranteeing likes online, but not voter approval.
There’s a whiff of treachery about siding with some super-rich foreigner. The average punter doesn’t like it. Nor does it pay, as Nigel Farage discovered when Musk roundly humiliated him, despite the Reform leader behaving like Trump’s running dog in Britain.
Chaos is coming, globally. When it sweeps our way, voters will expect politicians to present a united front. Domestic differences will need to be set aside. It doesn’t matter if you’re left or right, standing shoulder to shoulder against any Trumpian onslaught will be the measure of every politician.
That’s not to say British politicians can turn their backs on Trump. They can’t. America remains an ally. Trump is president. We must deal with him. But we must also stand up to him collectively if he behaves contrary to British interests.
All this matters very much in Scotland. Like Northern Ireland – and even Wales somewhat – Scotland is where animosity to the British state runs strongest.
I’m a moderate independence supporter, but I don’t want that ambition to remain a constant source of division between Edinburgh and London.
When we face chaos from overseas, we must find a way to calm waters at home. Imagine, if after the 2026 Scottish election, there’s a Yes majority in Holyrood. The SNP, Greens and Alba would have every right to demand another referendum.
With no mechanism to decide how or when a referendum can happen, we’d find ourselves in another period of screaming and finger-pointing between the UK and Scottish governments.
Should Trump pull one of his wheezes at such a juncture – interfering in the debate, say, just for the hell of it, just to make headlines, just to distract from some scandalous behaviour – we can expect total meltdown.
Governance would derail, the media would become a bloodied shark-tank, and the public would be rightly furious at the entire spectacle.
So, with that in mind, isn’t it about time that we finally decided how, if and when a referendum becomes a reality in Scotland?
We cannot go on with this ad hoc, rules-free, make-it-up-as-you-go-along dithering. It’s a recipe for division and distrust. It’s also thoroughly anti-democratic – both for unionists and Yes voters.
Unionists shouldn’t have to be forced to listen to the likes of me demanding a referendum every five minutes, and Yes voters shouldn’t be denied the right to exercise their vote should a time come when democracy is clearly on their side.
I’ve been rather hard on John Swinney of late; the first chapter of his premiership seemed merely to echo the failures of his predecessors. But he is, maybe, shaping up into a half-decent First Minister. I certainly think his heart is in the right place, and he’s an intelligent man. I wait to be proved wrong, though. All politicians prove you wrong in the end.
We must stop the wrangling about the process for holding an independence referendum (Image: Jamie Simpson)
Whatever the truth about Swinney and his talents, he did, however, hit on a solution to Scotland’s intractable debate about when/if/how another referendum should take place. He suggested that a similar approach as Northern Ireland be adopted here.
After the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, the Northern Ireland Act ruled that a referendum will be called by the Secretary of State “if at any time it appears likely … that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom”.
In other words, if opinion polls show sustained and prolonged support for a United Ireland – which we can gloss as an independent Scotland – then a referendum should be called. It’s fair, and it should be replicated here in Scotland.
Doing so would kill stone-dead the endless debates about process which have plagued Scotland for years now, and prevent SNP politicians – as Nicola Sturgeon so tiresomely did – declaring ad nauseam, ad infinitum, that “indy is coming” for electoral manipulation.
Independence isn’t going away, no matter what unionists may wish. Recent polls put Yes well ahead of No. The potential cuts being considered by the Starmer government will only fuel indy’s fires.
Sturgeon was very wrong – as was often the case – when she said recently that independence was “off the radar”. Independence is doing better without Sturgeon, than with her. That may, indeed, be her grumble.
A decade ago there was fury among Yes supporters over claims of the “Ulsterisation– of Scottish politics. It appeared to equate Scotland’s constitutional debate with tribal hate, when in fact the referendum was an entirely peaceable, if often heated, exercise in democracy.
Perhaps we need some real “Ulsterisation”: the importation of Northern Ireland’s solution to its own constitutional difficulties – an agreed mechanism, enshrined in law and respected by both sides, which triggers a referendum only when a clear and sustained majority is found in polling.
In a world rapidly going to hell, such a step might teach other nations a much-needed lesson in cooperation, mutual respect, and the value of democracy.
Neil Mackay is the Herald’s Writer at Large. He’s a multi-award-winning investigative journalist, author of both fiction and non-fiction, and a filmmaker and broadcaster. He specialises in intelligence, security, crime, social affairs, cultural commentary, and foreign and domestic politics.