‘The long-held belief that Scottish politics is relatively immune to these forces now looks dangerously complacent, especially in the context of Reform UK’s strong polling ahead of the Holyrood elections.’ Charlie Ellis explores how the populist right exploits local grievances, and warns that some progressive voices risk adopting the same binary logic.
The Complacency Trap
While researching the spread of radical right narratives in supposedly non-political online spaces, I found myself pausing. My analysis suggests there is far more for the radical right to exploit in Scotland than many assume. The long-held belief that Scottish politics is relatively immune to these forces now looks dangerously complacent, especially in the context of Reform UK’s strong polling ahead of the Holyrood elections.
Facebook groups devoted to the past and present of Scottish cities are, unsurprisingly, havens for nostalgic and declinist perspectives. More importantly, the recurring narratives in these forums echo core radical right tropes. They reveal a public appetite for simple and definitive explanations for complex social and political problems. That appetite creates fertile ground for Reform UK and other populist right movements to capitalise on existing local grievances.
The Progressive Paradox
I noticed that the same binary language appears in debates about urban change, but from voices that would place themselves far from the radical right. My point is not that these progressives endorse radical right ideas; rather, their political style can look strikingly similar.
For anyone certain they are on the “right side” of urban debate, this article offers a necessary provocation. Grounded in Bernard Crick’s theory of pluralism, I argue that politics is not a victory for one “truth,” but the conciliation of competing interests. Politics exists only when we abandon the impulse to eliminate our opponents and begin the difficult work of compromise. The goal of debate should not be to “convert” through a barrage of “pontifical fact,” but to engage with the perspectives of others. While populism offers the allure of clarity and speed, it destroys the intricate, essential friction of a free society. Ultimately, populism and politics are not just in competition; they are fundamentally irreconcilable.
Populist Narratives: Cars and the Globalist Agenda
Populist discourse thrives on simplified binaries. Transport congestion, for example, is often blamed on interventions by the “clowncil,” a confusion of correlation and causation that resembles blaming hospitals for poor health. In this framing, cars symbolise the common person, and restrictions on them are framed as assaults on personal freedom. Online commentators then conspiratorially link local measures to a wider transnational agenda involving bodies such as the World Economic Forum. References abound to “15-minute cities,” a theory that falsely claims urban-planning initiatives designed to reduce car dependency are covert mechanisms to restrict individual movement or impose state control. Local policy becomes evidence of external control.
This binary logic pits car drivers, cast as the mainstream majority, against cyclists, portrayed as part of the metropolitan liberal elite. The narrative works because it contains a grain of truth. At a meeting of the pro-cycling campaign group Spokes that I attended, the broad consensus in favour of change could easily be read as dismissive of pro-car perspectives, which in turn fuels populist resentment. Yet, even at that meeting, there were acknowledgements of contrary views.
Held at Augustine United Church in May 2023, the event showed strong support for radical action to ease congestion and cut emissions. One attendee described the meeting as “very one-sided,” noting that car travel is essential for some residents, particularly caregivers. Councillor Dr Scott Arthur, then the Council’s Transport Convenor and now an MP, clarified the council’s position: the aim is to reduce car dependency, not to ban cars, by creating a city where a car is not necessary. He rejected the binary framing and emphasised that most people who cycle also use cars. He urged a focus on making the city usable and accessible for everyone.
Another audience member questioned why such meetings were held in the city centre rather than in areas such as Pilton or Moredun. The panellists conceded that these debates are often dominated by a narrow set of voices, leaving a silent majority unheard. They agreed that widening the conversation about the city’s future is essential.
At the same meeting, Scott Arthur acknowledged that policies such as 15- or 20-minute neighbourhoods have provoked controversy, conspiracy theories, and even threats. Adrian Davis of the Transport Research Institute argued that “pluralistic ignorance” distorts public discourse, saturating it with erroneous information. This includes the influence of noisy commentators on media networks such as GB News, who are skilled at getting radical right tropes into public debate. Davis suggested that a loud minority tries to make the majority feel marginalised, while surveys such as the British Social Attitudes report indicate broad public support for significant change. However, Davis’s slightly dismissive tone, delivered to an audience of cyclists, risked confirming the populist narrative that progressive ideas are mainstream and that dissenting voices are marginalised by a liberal elite.
Political philosopher John Gray has posed a related question: Did liberals create populism? Gray argues that progressive mobilisation of scattered attitudes and values can coalesce into a political movement when people feel a progressive agenda is being imposed across many areas of life. That perception of imposition, he suggests, helps fuel populist backlash.
The Roseburn Path Controversy: Purity versus Compromise
The debate over repurposing Edinburgh’s Roseburn Path for a tram extension offers a revealing case study because it does not fit the usual car-versus-cyclist script. The “Save the Roseburn Path” campaign includes many active-travel advocates, creating a more complex and instructive conflict. I followed the debate with interest, as the Roseburn Path (and the wider North Edinburgh Path Network) is something I use regularly, both for bracing walks and for getting from A to B undisturbed by traffic. Even so, I found aspects of the online discussion a little perturbing. Bernard Crick, who spent his final decades in Edinburgh, used these very paths when cycling from his flat in Canonmills to the Western General Hospital for cancer treatment. His view of politics was very much in mind as I watched the Roseburn Path debate unfold.
The proposal to convert a disused railway line, currently a thriving active travel corridor, into a tram route has sparked a fierce local debate. Campaigners argue that the conversion would permanently destroy a designated nature network and urban green space, undermining biodiversity and public health while removing one of Edinburgh’s safest commuting links. Euan Baxter of “Save the Roseburn Path” has gone as far as to label the council’s proposal the “destruction of a park.”
This rhetoric is explicitly catastrophist. By framing the tram as an existential threat that would “permanently destroy a unique green space,” the campaign risks overstating its case. While I recognise the “now or never” urgency felt by campaigners (one of whom told me, “once it’s gone, we can rant all we want, but it will have gone”), the reality is more nuanced. If the tram project proceeds, it will substantially alter the path’s character, but it will not be obliterated.
Despite the likely liberal and environmentalist politics of many campaigners, the movement sometimes exhibits a populist character. Populism is marked by the claim that one’s views are self-evident and that any opposition signals a hidden and corrupt agenda. The campaign speaks in the voice of a unified “we,” implying that it represents an incontrovertible public interest fighting decisions imposed by an unspecified “they,” often labelled the “clowncil” or “big business.” This posture taps into long-standing public scepticism about large projects.
That conviction breeds strategic intransigence. Compromise is framed as weakness. Opponents claim the authorities are imposing “crazy ideas” and insist that sharing the path is simply not possible. Yet alternative perspectives exist. A local railway historian argues that restoring the route to public transport use is logical and that active travel could coexist with a tram, although some greenery would be removed during construction and would later recover. Proponents of integrated solutions maintain that improving the streetscape can benefit everyone, demonstrating that compromise and creative design can produce shared gains.
More broadly, these debates often display political immaturity and a lack of historical perspective. Cities evolve through political decisions and civic leadership. The urban forms we admire today are the product of past political choices.
This public intransigence contrasts sharply with Bernard Crick’s view of mature politics. Crick, a prominent professor of politics and essayist who worked on the Northern Ireland peace process, argued that real politics involves publicly staking out positions while remaining willing to compromise behind the scenes. The failure to conciliate, as seen in rigid activist postures, leads to polarisation. Ben Ansell made a similar point in his 2023 Reith Lectures, arguing that politics requires “agreeable disagreement” and that compromise is essential because, inherent to a pluralist politics, “no one gets everything they want.”
Going Down the Wrong Path
The common thread in online declinist rhetoric and the intransigence of some activist campaigns is a demand for purity and simplicity over the “messy” work of politics. Bernard Crick famously argued that the desire for a single, unified truth is an escape from the reality of freedom. When movements adopt rigid, uncompromising stances, they treat political life as a series of technical problems to be solved or moral crusades to be won, rather than a continuous process of conciliation. By rejecting the legitimacy of diverse interests, these movements inadvertently amplify the binary logic and anti-establishment distrust that the radical right exploits.
This approach risks normalising a populist style of engagement that views the “other” as an enemy to be defeated rather than a neighbour to be bargained with. For Crick, the alternative to the frustration of political negotiation is not a more “efficient” government, but the eventual slide into coercion. By abandoning the pluralist centre, progressives may inadvertently provide the blueprint for those who seek to erode Scotland’s democratic values, replacing the “peaceful conciliation of interests” with the hollow, exclusionary noise of the populist shout.
* Charlie Ellis, ‘Declinism, Urban Discourse, and the Seeds of the Radical Right in Scotland’, Forthcoming: Scottish Affairs, Volume 35, Issue 3.
Feature image: The Good Society? from a poster designed by David McAllister for the Sceptical Scot public discussion in 2015 – cancelled because Theresa May’s snap election.clashed with the date.
Leave a Reply