This is folly Exclusive interview with Nicola Sturgeon former First Minister of Scotland

I think it is folly and really stupid politics to challenge reform by being more like reform. I've felt threatened by a man in my life, I've never felt threatened by a trans woman. Scotland needs to attract people there because our own demographic curve is challenging. We need to bring more people into the country. Hello Nicola, welcome to How the Light Gets In. Thank you, lovely to be here. So you've been passionately involved in Scottish politics your whole life. You joined the SNP at 16 years, served in various ministerial positions, led the party. What made you dedicate your life to this cause? I have been a passionate believer in social justice and a vision of society where everybody gets to have a fair crack at the whip and gets to make the most of themselves and their talents and their opportunities. When I was growing up in a former mining community in the west of Scotland, when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister and the process of de-industrialisation, unmanaged de-industrialisation, was casting many people onto the unemployment scrap heap, that vision seemed very, very distant. So I became involved in politics to try to further that objective and vision. And I got involved in the Scottish independence movement because it seemed to me that the best way to achieve that was by Scotland becoming independent. Because when I was growing up, Scotland was governed by a Conservative government, Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, but Scotland didn't vote Conservative and hadn't ever given Margaret Thatcher permission to do what she was doing. So there was a democratic deficit standing in the way of the kind of society I wanted to see Scotland become. And that's what activated my involvement in politics and has sustained it in all the years since. So Thatcher was your inspiration? It's a strange way to put it, but yes, in many respects, Margaret Thatcher inspired me into politics, not because I supported her, but because I opposed much of what she stood for and railed what she was doing to the community I was growing up in and to many of the people I was growing up with. There was a real sense of hopelessness back then, in the 1980s, and I really pushed back against that. And that's what drove me into politics. Did you have any positive examples along the way at the beginning or later on? Yeah, I mean, I got involved in politics and then very quickly found individuals that inspired me. Back then, there were very few women in politics, even although Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister. So people in my own party, like Winnie Ewing, for example, was somebody that showed me that women could be involved in politics. And internationally, I was, like many people of my generation, inspired by what was happening in parts of the world, like South Africa with Nelson Mandela. So that inspiration of how to have hope and belief in a better world and commit yourself to try and, in a small way, to do something to bring it about. I wanted to ask you some more about your support for an independent Scotland. One of the reasons is that you wanted more democratic control, I assume. Is there another reason you have this vision of an independent Scotland? I often find it quite strange that people who support Scottish independence or Welsh independence – I spent yesterday evening with some supporters of Welsh independence – that we're often asked to justify why we believe in independence as if it's something unusual to support a country being independent. Most countries across the world are independent. We live in an interdependent, very interconnected, globalised world. But within that, countries have their own governments and navigate their own destinies. And that's what I want to see for Scotland. Scotland used to be an independent country many, many years ago. We lost our independence in the early 18th century. And Scotland is a nation that I believe should be independent in order to ensure that we build a country, for better or worse, that reflects the democratic aspirations of the people who live there. And that denial – and I'm using that word quite deliberately – of democracy for Scotland on many occasions really came to the fore very powerfully over the issue of Brexit. Scotland voted to stay in the European Union in the Brexit referendum by a really significant margin, and yet we find ourselves now outside the European Union. That's not democratic, but that comes about because Scotland is not an independent country able to take decisions like that for ourselves. And when you look across Europe, there are many countries in the European Union who are of similar size to Scotland, smaller than Scotland, who thrive and succeed as independent countries. And that's what I would like to see for Scotland. What Scotland does as an independent country will depend on the governments that are elected from election to election. I hope that it would pave the way to a much more equal, cohesive country, where we tackle some of the concentrations of wealth and power at the very top and redistribute that to make it a fairer place for everybody. Speaking about Welsh independence, the famous Welshman Raymond Williams said that Britain was both too small and too large for useful politics. Too small because it couldn't really engage on the global scale, but too large because it contained too many different peoples, such as the Welsh and the Scots within it. Do you agree with that? I agree with it in part and up to a point. I don't think Britain is too small. I don't think Scotland or Wales are too small to succeed as independent countries. There are many, many countries already succeeding as independent countries that are smaller than Scotland or Wales, let alone Britain as a whole. And I think not always for positive reasons, because it has often, or to a large extent, come about through the experience of empire. Many would say that perhaps not so much post Brexit, but over past decades, generations, Britain has more than punched above its weight on the global stage. So I don't believe that power and influence in a global sense is determined always by the size of the country. It's about what you contribute to the world and what you argue. I think where I do agree is that, and it's not a question of size, the United Kingdom is made up of four different countries. And because England is, and I love England, my grandmother was English, so this is not an English comment in any way, shape or form. But England is by far the bigger of these four countries and therefore will outvote Wales or Scotland or Northern Ireland. It would be better, I think, if instead of being in the United Kingdom as is, these countries were independent and cooperating in a kind of federation, a British-Irish federation. There is the British-Irish Council. I used to go to it when I was First Minister of Scotland and sitting around that table is the UK, the Republic of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Crown dependencies. If Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland or all of them were independent, we'd still sit around that table, but the relationship would be different. It would be one much more of equals. So it's a difference, cultural in part and also historical. For instance, Scotland doesn't have that colonial history you were referring to. We do. Scotland was an active participant in empire. Much as it might be nice to pretend we had no responsibility for that, we do. And I think like all colonial form or colonial powers, we've got to face up to and think about the implications of that. I mean, sure, there are cultural differences between the component parts of the UK, but there are cultural differences between the North and the South of Scotland. And I think that's a good thing. I think diversity of culture, of ethnicity, of faith is a really healthy thing in any country. I think the instability, political instability, I mean, in a UK sense, and again, it's exemplified by Brexit. England voted to leave the European Union and so did Wales narrowly. And because of weight of numbers, that outvoted Scotland and we just had to suck it up and leave the European Union against our wishes. So that disparity of size and influence and power, I think leads to a deficit of democracy, which is one of the reasons that I think it would be far better. The relationship between Scotland and England would probably be a lot better if it was one of equals rather than one in which how people vote in England gives us governments we don't vote for or takes us out of the European Union, for example. So actually, it seems that polities, based on what you're saying, should be smaller in order to represent, to be truly democratic and represent what the voice of the people of a certain place. Again, I don't think it always comes down to size. It doesn't. It's not because Scotland's a small country, but we are a country. But right now, we are not an independent country. So our decisions, we can take some decisions on our own account. We have a devolved Scottish parliament. That's the parliament I am a member of and used to be first minister in. So we have responsibility and control over certain things, but not everything. So it's about, in an interconnected world, how as a country do you, as far as you possibly can, given the globalised environment we live in, how do you chart your own course and your own destiny? And that would be true of Scotland, whether we were a big country or a small country or a medium-sized country. It's about those who live in a country, no matter where they come from, incidentally. I think anybody who lives in Scotland has got a say in the future of the country, even if their family's been there for generations or are more recent immigrants. It's about how that population, that polity, gets to decide the direction of the country. So if Scotland had become independent in the referendum, how would the SNP have split, do you think? Or would it have represented one side of the political spectrum? I think that's an interesting question. I don't really know the answer to it because it's, by definition, a bit hypothetical. Although I think Scotland will become independent in due course, so we may get to put it to the test. I suspect the SNP would have continued and probably, for some time after Scotland became independent, would have been the governing party of the country. But in the fullness of time, that probably would have changed and other parties would have been elected to government. And that, in a sense, is the beautiful essence of independence. It's up to people to decide who they want to govern them. The SNP is a party that supports Scottish independence, but we also have a very distinct place in the left of centre of the political spectrum. We're a social democratic party. We have been the governing party in Scotland for almost 20 years. So we stand for much more than independence. So it's not the case that the SNP would inevitably split or fracture or cease to exist once Scotland becomes independent. Is that how you would define yourself as a social democrat? Yes, broadly, yeah. And how does that square with the support you've given in the past to constitutional monarchy? You've said it was a model to be admired. Scotland is a constitutional model. The UK is a constitutional monarchy. I think at heart I'm probably more republican than monarchist, but I believe that it's not the biggest issue that Scotland has to confront at the moment in the fullness of time. If Scotland was independent and wanted to consider whether it continued to be a monarchy or move to become a republic, well, that would be the essence of democracy. I happen to think that there are more fundamental issues that probably demand immediate attention than that one. But that's... What do you think is the most fundamental issue? I think we've got massive issues of social and economic inequalities in not just Scotland, but the UK as a whole. I think we've got very pressing issues around climate change and the need to transition to a low carbon, zero carbon economy. These are big generational challenges. That's before we start to think about the global turbulence that we're seeing right now. So whatever my view on whether Scotland or the UK should be a republic or a monarchical system is interesting to debate. I suppose I'd say just pragmatically it's maybe not the most pressing issue we need to deal with right now. Is it difficult or has it been difficult to be a single issue party in the UK? The SNP is not a single issue party. So is the priority to fight reform or Westminster, for instance? I don't understand that question. Would the focus of the SNP be to fight the policies of reform or to get an independence? I don't think it's either or. I think in politics you don't get to choose, we'll just do this and not that. We live in a complex world and if you are a serious party of government and seeking to wield power and influence, you have to navigate the world as it is. I abhor the politics of reform and absolutely I think we all need to stand up and not just challenge that but provide the alternative to people who are being attracted to the offering of reform because they are struggling in their own lives to pay their bills and put food on the table for their kids. We've got to offer an alternative. I think it is folly and really stupid politics to try to challenge reform by being more like reform, a pay limitation of what they offer, which I would argue is what Labour is doing right now, particularly over issues like immigration. I think people need a real alternative, not what's a pay limitation. So I think it's a real priority to challenge that right now. But independence, this is the thing I've argued all my life, perhaps not as successfully as I could have done. Independence is not some abstract idea. Independence is integral to all of these issues. It's about how in Scotland we build a stronger, fairer economy. It's about how we better protect public services. It's how we deliver living standards for people that make them less likely to see the politics of Nigel Farage as something that might offer solutions. So independence is not some end in itself. It's not about flags and embassies. It's about how we build a more cohesive, fairer, happier society. Is the end in itself a kind of democracy and community? Yeah, it is about democracy and a country being able to determine the kind of society it wants to be. And if I look right now at many of the things Scotland is having to accept and put up with because we're not independent, we've already talked about Brexit and the fact that we're no longer in the European Union, and that's got massive implications for our trade, for living standards and many sectors of our economy. But I mentioned immigration a moment ago. Scotland, put aside whether you think immigration is good or bad in principle, I think it's good. I think a diverse society with people of different cultures and faiths and outlooks and perspectives, I think that's good. I think that's healthy. But even if you disagree with me on that, Scotland needs to attract people there because our own demographic curve is challenging. We need to bring more people into the country. If we don't do that, we'll find it difficult to recruit people into the National Health Service or social care, to recruit people into some of the key sectors of our economy. So that's another example of how our fundamental interests are being undermined because a government at Westminster is taking decisions on immigration that run counter to the needs of the Scottish economy. If we were an independent country, we could fashion these decisions based on what we think our best interests demand. An independent Scotland would then be part of various alliances, the British Isles, the EU, NATO as well. During the referendum, Scotland risked leaving the EU at the time. Would that have been worth it, do you think? No, I don't accept that would have happened. One of the great ironies of that period from 2014 through to the Brexit referendum in 2016 is that in the Scottish referendum, those who were arguing against independence said, if Scotland becomes independent, we'll be thrown out of the European Union and that will be terrible. The same people a couple of years later were arguing to take us out of the European Union. So that is quite ironic. There would have been a process of negotiation for Scotland to transition its EU membership from being there as part of the UK to being there as an independent country. But I don't accept for a moment that that would not have been a possible thing to achieve. I don't believe there was ever any possibility that the European Union would decide to... Scotland has been a member for 40 years, a net positive contributor to the European Union with many of the assets and the resources that Europe values. The idea that Europe, the European Union, which throughout its existence has tried to enlarge itself, not reduce itself in size, would have sought to punish Scotland for taking a democratic decision by shutting the door on us, I just don't think ever passed the test of credibility. Have you engaged as the SNP with other independent struggles around the world, either to support each other or for solidarity? The SNP has very strong relations with political parties in other parts of the world that have independence movements, Wales being the prime example. Plaid Cymru is the sister party of the SNP. We've got very strong links. We have links with parties in Catalonia, the Basque country, for example. But no two independence movements are exactly the same. No two sets of circumstances are the same. So while it's important to, I think, have those links and learn and share, you have to argue your case in your own context and your own environment. Okay. Can I ask you what you think about the recent Supreme Court decision on gender? I think the Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority in the land. So what it says in terms of its interpretation of the law as it stands, there's no gain saying that by definition. If it says that's what the law means, that's what the law means. I think it is fair to say that its interpretation of the Equality Act is a very different one to how that has been understood for many years before that. But that's its judgment. I think two things beyond that, though. Courts decide what the law is. They don't decide what the law should be. That's for politicians and for parliaments and governments. And secondly, how that Supreme Court judgment is translated into practice really matters. And I don't think some of the knee-jerk interpretations we've seen, I don't think are inevitable interpretations of what the Supreme Court judgment means. I read the former president of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale, say exactly that yesterday, that she thinks the judgment has been over-interpreted or misinterpreted. So I think it's important now to take a pause and to think carefully about what that judgment means in practice. I don't believe the vast majority of people want us to go from that judgment to a situation where the lives of trans people become almost impossible to live. And I think that is a danger and a risk in some of the early interpretations that we've seen so far. So how do you interpret it? I think they've interpreted something in terms of what terms mean in the Equality Act. I don't think that means that we have to exclude trans people from vast swathes of life. I'm a feminist. I've been a feminist all my life. I believe that women need protected and women's rights need strengthened in many parts of the world. Women's rights are under assault, but they tend to be under assault from men. And the threat and the risk to women come from abusive and predatory men. And there's probably not many, if any, women alive who haven't at some point in their lives felt threatened in some way by a man. I'm only speaking personally. I've never felt threatened by a man in my life. I've never felt threatened by a trans woman. And I think we just need to, it is not beyond us and shouldn't be beyond us to find a way that women feel safe and protected, but trans people get to live their lives as well. And I think we live in a world right now where we're all being encouraged to see our neighbour as the source of our problems and turn on each other. And that's happening across many different facets of life right now. And it's really dangerous. And the people it suits are the people who hold all the power and the wealth right now. Because as long as we're looking at each other, we're not looking at where the real problems are coming from. Are the real problems coming from the 1%, the ruling class? Yeah, I mean, that's a shorthand way of describing it. But yeah, I mean, you take somebody like Nigel Farage, you know, he, yeah, sure. He's not wrong to say that working class people and, you know, many people across the UK right now are struggling. But when he tries to convince people that that's the fault of the immigrant, or, you know, the gay person, or if you're a young man, that it's the fault of a young woman, then that is mis... Whatever the diagnosis of the problem is, that's misrepresenting the solution. And we've got big systemic issues of inequality in this country. And that's what we need to tackle. And perhaps it's more convenient for those who hold all of that wealth and power to let people think that the problem lies somewhere else. And a bit like on the trans issue, for women, the problems come from men who abuse and rape and assault and harass and are misogynist. And that's what we should be focusing on. Yeah, abortion rights have been taken away in parts of the world. There are parts of the world where women's rights are under real attack. Misogyny is on the rise, even in our own country. That's what we should be focusing on. Not the tiny, tiny number of trans people in this country. I agree. You have declared your intention to step down from politics in 2026. What do you envision as your life post politics? I'm looking forward to it. I mean, it'll be a bit of a wrench to leave parliament after, by the time I stand down next year, I will have been in parliament for 27 years, which is almost exactly half my life. So it's going to be a big transition. But I'm looking forward to it. I think the prospect of now doing other things in life is really exciting. I have written, it's now finished, a book which will be published. I can see some bookmarks advertising it on the table there. So that is published in the summer and I am looking forward to talking about it. I'm looking forward to people reading it. I'm slightly terrified at the prospect of people reading it. I'd like to write more and, you know, various different things that help pursue the causes I care about. Women's rights being one of them, tackling climate change, tackling poverty, child poverty. These are the causes that just because I'm no longer in parliament, I won't give up trying to find ways to progress. Your memoir is called Frankly. What do you have to be frank about? Everything. I mean, it's for others to judge when they read it, but it's a pretty no holds barred account of my life and my time in politics and not everybody will agree with it. One of the interesting things when you write a memoir is that your story is your story and I've tried to tell my story, as the title would suggest, as frankly and as authentically as I possibly can. But you impinge on other people's stories as you do that and somebody else might have a different perspective on the events that I'm writing about. But this is my account. I've been fortunate. I mean, I don't know whether it's fortune or luck, but it just happens to be the case that my life has coincided with probably the most momentous period in recent Scottish history. The establishment of the Scottish Parliament, the independence referendum, Brexit, which is obviously a UK phenomenon. And so to tell the story of my life intertwined with all of these big events has been important to me to write all of that down and I hope it's an enjoyable read. What would you hope for Scotland over the next 50 years? I hope Scotland will become independent. I think Scotland will become independent and I hope that we use the powers that independence gives us to build a country that is fairer, where we relegate child poverty to the dustbin of history, that we have a country where people succeed on the basis of their talents and their skills and their passions, not the wealth that we're born into or the circumstances that we're born into. A country that utilises and properly exploits its vast natural resources to transition away from fossil fuels and help lead the world in the climate transition. So that's the kind of Scotland I hope to see in the next few years. And I'm not going to be in frontline politics, but I'll certainly continue to do whatever I can to help bring it about. And finally, what do you wish for your legacy? I think legacy is something that should be left to other people to talk about. I always think it's slightly uncomfortable to hear a politician talk about their legacy. I was the first woman First Minister in Scotland. I hope, amongst lots of other things, I hope I've made it more possible for young women to envisage not just a life at the top of politics, but envisage being able to follow their dreams wherever those might lie and achieve whatever it is they want to achieve and not be held back because of their gender or their background. I came from a working class background. And so I hope I've made it possible for women and girls to believe that you can be what you set out to be if that's what you dream. Thank you, Nicola. Thank you.