X Close

Nicola Sturgeon’s exit marks the end of SNP progressivism

Nationalists have fallen out of love with Sturgeon's brand of politics. Credit: Getty

Nationalists have fallen out of love with Sturgeon’s brand of politics. Credit: Getty

13 March 2025 - 7:00am

Nicola Sturgeon has announced that she will not be seeking re-election in next year’s Holyrood election. In some ways, the news is as symbolically significant to Scotland’s nationalist movement as the death of Alex Salmond last year. Not in terms of emotional weight or shock: it was somewhat expected after she resigned in disgrace over her party’s financial scandals and her support of the Gender Recognition Reform bill. But it signals the definitive end of an era for the SNP, the wider independence movement and, indeed, British politics.

History will remember the former first minister for consolidating the progressive credentials of the independence movement, shifting it away from a “big tent” in favour of an emphatically Left-wing vision. Like her predecessor Salmond, and the Labour Party, she effectively used English conservatism — particularly the Thatcherite brand — as a bogeyman to stoke nationalist sensibilities.

Unlike Salmond, however, Sturgeon removed the last vestiges of a broad ideological coalition of independence supporters. As the years went on, she was content to alienate Eurosceptics, small c-conservative nationalists and moderates within her party. While it may have put off voters, it made nationalist separatism more palatable to those previously wary of tribal and antagonistic politics. She was ultimately undone by hyper-progressive overreach, coaxed on by the SNP’s weak coalition with the Greens.

John Swinney, who — like his predecessor Humza Yousaf — was viewed as a Sturgeonite continuity candidate, now has an opportunity to rejuvenate the party. Given his expressed commitment in leading beyond the 2026 election and into 2031 — 31 years after he became leader of the party for the first time — there must be a semblance of optimism that he can lift the SNP out of its current visionary stagnation.

Part of the SNP’s challenge has always been that its natural place is in opposition. As a party whose raison d’être is to break up the UK, it’s far easier to capitalise on the failures of the establishment when you are not the establishment. By the time next year’s election rolls around, the SNP will have controlled Scotland’s devolved legislature for 19 years. Polls suggest that the party will win a comfortable majority in 2026. Despite the dramatic resignations of both Sturgeon and Yousaf, Swinney seems to have steadied the ship, if not put the wind in its sails. Only 19% of Scots hold a favourable view of Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, making it all the more unlikely that Swinney will have to reform the party in opposition.

Whatever happens next year, unlike in 2004, there is no bombastic, charismatic Salmond-like figure to seize power, shape the party around a common vision, and return the Scottish question to the top of British politics. Under Sturgeon’s progressive leadership, the future stars were supposed to be Humza Yousaf and Mhairi Black; the former is standing down next year, while the latter did not seek re-election as an MP at last year’s general election.

There’s a minute possibility that in the next few years the socially conservative Kate Forbes could have a crack at the top job. If the “vibe shift” that has elected Donald Trump in the US grips Scotland, it is highly unlikely to grip SNP members. And yet progressivism has reached its electoral limit, and the door may open for Forbes.

The safer strategy for the SNP is for Swinney to attempt to return the independence movement to a broad coalition. In such an ideologically fractious climate, this is no small task; but if it truly wants independence, the SNP will need more than just support from the centre-left and far-Left.

Sturgeon kept the party’s power centralised to the point where all decision-making was delegated to a carefully-selected loyalist clique at the top, with dissent below swiftly clamped down on. If Swinney wants to be remembered as more than just a seat-warmer for a new visionary or, worse, a mere Sturgeonite puppet, he must take full advantage of Chief Mammy’s strings finally being cut.


Nina Welsch is a writer and former librarian.

CleverclogsNina

China is threatening America in the AI race

Reports sugget Zhipu AI  has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

Reports sugget Zhipu AI has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

1 July 2026 - 10:18am

China is trying to catch up with America on artificial intelligence. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Zhipu AI — one of China’s six “AI tiger” LLMs — has released a new model that can rival leading US systems, including Anthropic’s Mythos, in cybersecurity tasks such as pinpointing security bugs. While this marks a milestone in China’s drive to catch up with Western AI capabilities, strong performance on a single benchmark does not mean it has taken the lead. Chinese models still lag behind their Western counterparts in broader capabilities, such as autonomous operation. Skepticism is therefore warranted before resorting to hysterical conclusions, but complacency about the geopolitical implications of China’s AI advances would be an even greater mistake.

On the infrastructure side, Chinese AI is still constrained by access to advanced chips, with American labs way ahead in computing capacity as well as investment. Analysis from earlier this year suggests that Chinese models are likely to be at least a few months behind those in the US. But they are still continuing to make progress, or that the geopolitical importance of AI will be decided only by whose LLM has ventured deeper into the technological frontier. The practical applications of AI, countries’ to capture foreign markets, and the application of AI into the real economy will matter just as much.

Here, China may hold an advantage. As with its dominance across many critical supply chains, Beijing may not need to produce the most advanced AI systems — only those that are affordable and widely deployable. In doing so, it could consolidate global influence by supplying functional, low-cost AI at scale.

Beijing seems to be pursuing exactly that path, developing an AI “open-source” strategy that offers affordable, widely available AI models for companies and individuals to use and modify as they wish. The production of the DeepSeek AI model, which matched the performance of Silicon Valley tools such as ChatGPT at a fraction of the cost for users, created goodwill among Chinese models with developers.

The four most popular models on OpenRouter, an AI hardware platform for developers, are now all Chinese. The goal for China is not only to win the frontier-model race, but to make its systems the default layer of AI adoption across industries and global markets. For most economies, the choice is increasingly between an affordable tool they can deploy now and a more robust one that may be out of reach.

And while the countries adopting Chinese models may be exposed to political pressure and cyber threats from Beijing, safer and more capable alternatives matter little if they are unaffordable. American AI companies are already under pressure to monetize products whose operating costs are rising. If Chinese open-source models become the cheap default for startups, universities, governments and businesses across the developing world, then America’s AI lead will be eroded from below.

Perhaps more concerning for America in the long run is how AI can give Chinese manufacturing even more strength, through the ongoing integration of AI as a general-purpose technology. China’s new Five-Year Plan mentioned AI more than 50 times and includes an “AI+” action plan aimed at spreading AI across the economy.

Beijing has been pioneering automation of its critical infrastructure for years, with promising recent results in increasing warplane production capacity. In that regard, China’s open-model strategy and manufacturing dominance will reinforce each other. Cheap, adaptable models accelerate deployment across the real economy while those deployments generate real-world data and use cases that can feed back into further model improvement.

The United States should not dismiss the importance of its lead in the AI race. That lead worries Beijing, not least because a more automated Chinese economy would also become more vulnerable to AI-generated cyber threats. But nor should Washington assume that China cannot catch up with American capabilities over time.

This AI competition represents part of a broader struggle over tech supply chains and geopolitical influence. Decisions over whether to adopt US or Chinese models could produce a more fragmented global reality, with different regions relying on different cloud providers, chips and security structures. The result will likely be a global economy which is divided into competing spheres, rather than one which produces a single winner.


Miquel Vila is a political and geopolitical risk consultant focusing on industrial strategy, critical infrastructure and global supply chains.

miquelvilam