Anne-Marie Houde explores how emotional narratives associated with the Brexit years continue to shape how disagreements between the UK and the EU are interpreted.

Last month, the United Kingdom (UK) reached an important milestone in the controversial project of leaving the European Union (EU): it has been a decade since the Brexit referendum. Ten years on, the relationship between the UK and the EU looks calmer. Keir Starmer set out to negotiate a ‘reset’, while a warmer tone has been established. Brexit no longer dominates the headlines, yet the emotions of the Brexit years seem to resurface every time a potential issue arises in the wider relationship.

To illustrate this dynamic, our research examines the so-called ‘vaccine war’ between the UK and the EU during the COVID-19 pandemic. This conflict arose from the race to determine who had the most effective vaccine and who could roll it out the quickest to the widest part of their population. While the EU was pushing the German-developed BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine, the UK was working on an alternative, the ‘Oxford vaccine’, created by the British-Swedish company AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford. The conflict escalated when the EU and UK fought over vaccine supplies, EU politicians and countries started to cast doubt over the AstraZeneca vaccine, and ultimately issued a warning to stop using the AstraZeneca vaccine on parts of its population due to safety concerns. Outrage followed from the UK media and politicians: the EU’s response to concerns over the vaccine was seen as retaliation for Brexit and became emotionally politicised.

Looking at what British media like the Guardian, the Telegraph, and the Daily Mail, as well as politicians like Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Matt Hancock, and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State Dominic Raab, had to say on the topic between January and April 2021, we observe two dynamics. First, pride in the UK’s collective success and the ‘Oxford vaccine’ was strongly encouraged, with newspaper articles and political speeches emphasising the UK’s national success and the collective achievement that ‘winning the vaccine war’ represented. These ‘triumphs’ were closely linked to Brexit and to the sense that British people could now feel vindicated in having left the EU, as it had enabled them to secure the best vaccine and the fastest rollout. These positive emotions were used to depoliticise the vaccine issue within the UK: criticising the government became a lot harder when it was seen as being a killjoy of British pride. Moreover, raising doubts about the vaccine’s efficacy or potential side effects was cast as endangering lives, reckless, and outright dangerous. This remained the case until the NHS itself acknowledged these issues, at which point, rather than addressing the political and media frenzy surrounding the vaccine “war”, public discourse largely dropped the topic and moved on.

At the same time, emotions about the EU were also running high, but in a much more negative direction. The vaccine issue was politicised at the European level as the EU was accused by both the media and politicians of being incompetent for allegedly moving more slowly and having worse contracts with AstraZeneca, driven by envy, which led them to question the superiority of the “British” jab, and bitterness about Brexit altogether. Consequently, the EU and European countries were described as looking to sabotage the UK’s efforts in the vaccine rollout as retaliation for leaving the Union. The EU was compared in several media pieces to dictatorships, making the UK seem much more desirable by comparison. In sum, next to an angry, vindictive, inefficient EU, the UK could feel proud and like it ‘got it right’ with Brexit. While the vaccine itself was depoliticised at the domestic level thanks to an insistence on positive emotions, the EU issue was emotionally negatively politicised. Throughout the ‘vaccine war’ episode, colourful language was used to foster these dynamics and shaped where responsibility lay. Domestic criticism became harder to mount because success was celebrated as a national achievement, while problems were increasingly blamed on Brussels.

Years after the pandemic and the ‘vaccine war’, the emotional (de)politicisation of the EU or of EU-related issues is still not a thing of the past. While the political context has changed, the emotional dynamics that characterised the Brexit years continue to shape how disagreements between the UK and the EU are interpreted. Technical disputes can quickly become symbols of something much bigger: whether Brexit is succeeding or failing. This matters because emotions help increase or decrease politicisation, as well as shift blame, shield from criticism, and narrow down discourses to make political choices acceptable or not. As a consequence, Brexit remains a tempting prism through which EU–UK relations can be framed by politicians and media alike, as it activates emotions and can be used both to politicise and depoliticise issues, to engage audiences with seemingly banal and otherwise unremarkable topics, and to deflect or shift blame onto others. As the UK and the EU seek to reset their relationship, it remains essential to pay attention to these emotional dynamics and how they influence (de)politicisation. Agreements can be negotiated, but if old emotional narratives continue to frame how these developments are understood, the politics of Brexit will continue to influence UK-EU relations long after Brexit itself has faded from the headlines.

Amid geopolitical upheaval and a cost-of-living crisis, the UK can hardly afford to remain captured by emotional narratives from a decade ago. Politicians and the media need to critically reflect on what vision of the country can offer a more hopeful future, rather than continuing to reproduce emotionally charged, decade-old ideological and partisan narratives.

By Anne-Marie Houde, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Public Policy, the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford.

The NHS 10-Year Health Plan made clear that digital transformation is essential to delivering safer, more efficient, and personalised primary care. And yet, too often, pharmacy is excluded from the NHS’ digital infrastructure.

It should be a priority of policy makers and health officials to provide pharmacists with access to the digital tools and insights they need to deliver the best care possible.

This requires three shifts: access to the Single Patient Record, meaningful integration with the NHS app, and shared performance metrics and data frameworks that demonstrate pharmacy’s impact.

Supporting pharmacists with access to records

Interoperable digital systems across the NHS would allow pharmacists to make better informed decisions, and to access and update patient records in real time, supporting improved and safer clinical outcomes.

Central to this is the rollout of the Single Patient Record, enabling pharmacists to view, update, and share information across care settings – we welcomed the commitment in the 10 Year Health Plan to increase community pharmacy access to them.

This is not just a technical improvement, but rather the foundation for proactive, truly joined-up care.

Crucially, it would also help change patient behaviour and promote self-care.

When patients are confident that a pharmacist can see their records, can act on them, and can update them with their visit, they’re more likely to come to the pharmacy as their first point of contact, rather than the GP. Not only will this make best use of pharmacists expertise, but can also reduce pressure on GP services.

Driving digital integration through the NHS App

The NHS App is another critical enabler of digital, joined up care. But for it to deliver its full potential, it must be developed in partnership with the wider healthcare ecosystem, including pharmacy and industry.

Trust in the app is critical. Patients are more likely to engage with it if they see information and insight from brands they already know, and healthcare professionals with whom they already interact. Integrating pharmacist expertise and clinically proven self-care treatments into the app will therefore help drive adoption.

The app must also deliver the joined-up healthcare experience patients expect. For example, if a patient uses a digital tool or visits a pharmacy and self-care is deemed inappropriate, the system should allow for a seamless transition, either by booking a GP appointment directly or making a formal clinical referral through the pharmacy. This ensures no patient falls through the cracks and reinforces the pharmacy as a reliable entry point to the wider NHS.

Demonstrating pharmacy’s impact through shared data

To fully recognise the value of community pharmacy, its contribution must be measurable.

Indeed, existing data already proves the sector’s readiness to deliver when empowered. For example, from April 2024–February 2025, community pharmacies exceeded hypertension case-finding targets by 181 per cent.¹

Digital integration would strengthen this further by ensuring pharmacy interventions are consistently captured and recognised within patient records.

Shared datasets and performance metrics can clearly quantify avoided GP appointments, prevented hospital admissions, and improvements in key clinical outcomes like blood pressure control and medication adherence.

These shared metrics would enable commissioners to plan future services around pharmacy’s proven impact, ensuring sustained investment in a sector ready to lead prevention and access over the next decade.

A connected NHS

A fully connected, digital NHS must see  community pharmacy as a core partner, and provide it with the digital insight and tools to play that role.

Our vision is for a health system where community pharmacists are seamlessly integrated into patient pathways, and equipped with interoperable tools and real‑time data to deliver proactive, personalised care at scale.

At Opella, we are ready to support this transition, co-developing trusted, accessible solutions that support pharmacists and empower patients to act earlier in their healthcare journey.

Digital integration is not simply about modernisation, it is essential to unlocking the full potential of community pharmacy, and building a more sustainable and effective NHS.

Reference

1. The Pharmaceutical Journal (2025). Pharmacies achieve more than double target number of blood pressure checks, NHS England data reveal. Available at: https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/news/pharmacies-achieve-more-than-double-target-number-of-blood-pressure-checks-nhs-england-data-reveal. (Last accessed 9^th March 2026)

As we told you last week, we’ve now had counsel draft our application for a group proceedings action on behalf of donors to the “ringfenced” independence referendum campaign funds which were stolen and spent by the SNP on party business.

The draft can be read below. We’ve already gathered dozens of people who are unhappy about having their donations misappropriated by the party, and we invite any others who’d like refunds and compensation to join the group by getting in touch via the Wings contact form.

(There will be no cost to you from becoming involved in the claim.)

——————————————————————————-

FORM 13.2-AA Rule 13.2(1A)

IN THE COURT OF SESSION

(Group Proceedings Action) (Chapter 26A)

SUMMONS

IN THE CAUSE

JOHN TAMSON, residing at [address]

REPRESENTATIVE PARTY

against

THE SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY, an unincorporated association having its principal office at Gordon Lamb House, 3 Jackson’s Entry, Edinburgh, EH8 8PJ; and JOHN RAMSAY SWINNEY, Party Leader, STUART MACDONALD, Treasurer, and IAN MCCANN, Nominating Officer, all having a place of business at Gordon Lamb House aforesaid, as Officers of the Scottish National Party representing same and as individuals

DEFENDER

Charles III, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories, King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to THE SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY, JOHN RAMSAY SWINNEY, PETER GRANT, and IAN MCCANN.

By this summons, the court having authorised JOHN TAMSON to be a representative party in group proceedings and having granted permission to JOHN TAMSON to bring the proceedings, the representative party for the pursuers craves the Lords of our Council and Session to pronounce a decree against you in terms of the conclusions appended to this summons. If you have any good reason why such decree should not be pronounced, you must enter appearance at the Office of Court, Court of Session, 2 Parliament Square, Edinburgh EH1 1RQ, within three days after the date of the calling of the summons in court. The summons shall not call in court earlier than 21 days after the date of service on you of this summons.

Given under our Signet at Edinburgh

Solicitor for the Representative Party

Conclusions

1. For declarator that the Defender held the sums donated by each group member to the Defender’s ring-fenced independence referendum fund in trust for the purpose of funding a future independence referendum campaign, and for no other purpose.

2. For declarator that the Defender’s knowing application of the said ring-fenced funds to purposes other than a future independence referendum campaign constituted a fraudulent breach of trust.

3. For payment by the Defender to the Representative Party of the appropriate sum by way of damages which represents a reasonable assessment of the losses suffered by each individual Group Member, being (i) repayment of the sums donated by each group member to the Defender’s ring-fenced independence referendum fund, together with (ii) such further sum as represents reasonable compensation for the fraudulent breach of trust hereinafter condescended upon, in order that the sum assessed for each group member may be transferred to the group member named in the Group Register, together with interest thereon at the rate of eight percent per annum from the date of each Group Member’s donation(s) to date, or at such other rate and from such other date as the court thinks fit, until payment.

4. For the expenses of the group proceedings.

Articles of Condescendence

The Parties’ Designations

1. The Representative Party is John Tamson. He resides at [address]. His date of birth is [date]. He is [occupation]. The Representative Party donated sums to the Defender’s ring-fenced independence referendum fund, as hereinafter condescended upon, and has a claim against the Defender arising from the Defender’s fraudulent breach of trust. The individual group members are designed in the Group Register, which is produced herewith (hereinafter “the Group Members”). Each of the Group Members donated money to the Defender’s ring-fenced independence referendum fund and has not received a refund of those sums.

2. The Defender is the SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY, an unincorporated association and registered political party, having its principal office at Gordon Lamb House, 3 Jackson’s Entry, Edinburgh, EH8 8PJ. The Defender is registered with the Electoral Commission. JOHN RAMSAY SWINNEY, Party Leader, PETER GRANT, Treasurer, and IAN MCCANN, Nominating Officer, are convened as the Officers thereof, as representing the Scottish National Party and as individuals.

Jurisdiction

1. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this claim against the Defender. The Defender has its principal office in Edinburgh, within the jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, the subject matter of the present action concerns wrongs committed in Scotland. There are no other proceedings pending before any other Court between the parties hereto in respect of the subject matter of this cause of action. There are no proceedings elsewhere in respect of any of the Group Members named in the Group Register in respect of the subject matter of this action. No agreement exists between the parties prorogating jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present cause to any other Court.

Subject Matter of the Group Proceedings

1. These group proceedings arise out of the Defender’s solicitation from the public, including the Group Members, of donations expressly and repeatedly represented as being ring-fenced for the exclusive purpose of funding a future independence referendum campaign; the creation thereby of a trust in respect of those funds; and the subsequent deliberate and dishonest application of those funds to purposes other than the stated purpose, without the knowledge or consent of the Group Members, constituting fraudulent breach of trust.

The Defender’s Fundraising Representations

1. In or around March 2017, the Defender launched a fundraising campaign soliciting donations from the public. This was done by way of a website with the domain name www.ref.scot to collect donations “as part of a fundraising campaign for the proposed second referendum”. The website included a video message from the then First Minister and Party Leader of the Defender, Nicola Sturgeon, in which she urged supporters to sign a pledge “to support Scotland’s referendum” and to make a donation to the SNP’s “independence fighting fund”. Potential donors were asked, and many agreed, to set up direct debits by which monthly donations to the Defender would be made for the purposes of funding campaigning for an anticipated future Independence referendum.

2. On 29 March 2017, by email from the Defender’s then party fundraiser, Jim Henderson, those that had by that date executed direct debits to make donations to the Defender for the purposes of funding a future referendum were told inter alia as follows:

“Thank you for your recent donation which will be ring fenced for a future independence referendum. Your decision, with many other members and supporters, to make a monthly contribution will mean that we are able to build up a sizeable war chest to fight the campaign when the time comes.”

The email went on to set out various reasons why a referendum was necessary, with a heavy focus on the then-possibility of the UK exiting the European Union, and concluded:

“We are starting to build the resources that will ensure we are not outspent in the referendum campaign. Your generosity and support will be vital to making that happen.”

3. In June 2017, after concerns were raised that money donated as aforesaid might instead be used for general election campaigning, Scottish Labour MSP James Kelly asked the Electoral Commission to investigate. The Defender’s response at that point, made publicly and widely reported including in an article in the National newspaper published in hard copy and online on 13 June 2017, was to deny misuse. The Defender’s spokesman told the National newspaper, in comments quoted in said article, as follows:

“Money raised on ref.scot is ringfenced for the purpose stated on the website – and we haven’t been actively raising money on that website since the election was called in April. Our general election appeal will pay for election campaign expenditure.”

4. In or around May 2019, the Defender launched a further fundraising campaign soliciting donations from the public on materially identical terms. The Defender represented that donations had “been put into a ring-fenced fund to build up a war chest to fight a future Independence Referendum.” Those representations were again made to donors by email from the Defender’s party fundraiser.

5. In March 2020, a donor requested repayment of moneys donated by him to the ring-fenced fund. The fourth named defender, Ian McCann, replied in writing: “your other donations are in a ring-fenced fund to fight the next referendum, whenever we are in a position to call that… We are not in a position to refund those monies.”

6. In the summer of 2020, the Defender launched a further fundraising campaign soliciting donations from the public, again on materially identical terms. In the campaign documentation, donors were given an option to “add my personal donation to the ring-fenced Independence Referendum Campaign fund”.

7. Later in 2020, the Defender’s then Treasurer emailed Members of the Defender, saying inter alia:

“I felt it was important to get in touch today to quash rumours spreading on social media about one of our fundraising appeals.

This follows publication of our 2019 accounts by the Electoral Commission, with our opponents claiming all sorts about our Referendum Appeal Fund.

I wanted to reassure you that these funds remain earmarked for the referendum and are ready to be fully deployed at a moment’s notice”.

8. At the Defender’s party conference in November 2020, its then Treasurer issued the following statement:

“I have noted in the welter of social media posts that some people have questioned why our annual accounts don’t reflect ring fenced money which has been donated or levied for specific purposes. This is not what our annual accounts are for under accepted accounting principles which we adhere to. However, I am happy to confirm that the internal books of the party (which I hasten to say are audited by external auditors) show sums ring fenced for election campaigns. An example within this would be the political levy on parliamentarians. There are sums ring fenced for a Referendum which reflects specific donations for this purpose.”

9. In 2021, the Defender’s then Treasurer issued the following further statement in the Financial Review section of the party’s annual accounts for 2020:

“Donations made to the independence related fundraising appeals have been treated in this way. They are recorded within HQ as being related to these appeals and amounts equivalent to the sums raised will be spent for the intended purpose. Of course, the SNP is the party of independence and, as such, every penny we spend – directly or indirectly – is in support of winning independence. However, through this internal process we will ensure that an amount equivalent to the sums raised from these appeals will go directly to our work to secure a referendum and win independence.”

10. The said representations were not qualified or limited in any way. There was no suggestion that the donated funds could be used by the Defender for any purpose other than a referendum campaign. The acknowledgement emails sent to donors were clear and unambiguous: the money was to be held for and applied exclusively to a future independence referendum campaign.

11. It is understood that the total sums raised by the Defender through the said ring-fenced fundraisers exceeded £600,000. The precise total donated by Group Members falls to be ascertained upon recovery of documents in these proceedings.

The Trust Thereby Created

12. Where persons subscribe money to effect a particular object, and place the money in the hands of certain persons to carry out that object, a trust (or quasi-trust) is thereby created. The trust so created is for the purpose of either carrying out the object of the subscription, or, if that cannot be done, of paying back the money. The persons holding the trust funds are not entitled to outlay the moneys for purposes other than the object for which they were pledged.

13. In the circumstances, the Defender held the sums donated by the Group Members in trust for the exclusive purpose of funding a future independence referendum campaign. Alternatively, if no referendum campaign materialised, the Defender was bound to return the donated sums to the donors. The Defender, through its office-bearers and those responsible for the custody and management of its funds, occupied a position of trust in relation to the Group Members as donors. The Defender was not at liberty to treat the moneys thereby donated as its own.

The Fiduciary Relationship

14. By virtue of the terms upon which the donations were solicited and accepted, and the trust thereby created, the Defender and its responsible office-bearers stood in a fiduciary relationship with the Group Members. They were subject to a duty of loyalty, requiring them to act in the interests of the donors by applying the ring-fenced funds only for the stated purpose.

The Diversion of Funds

15. Despite the said representations, the “ring-fenced funds” were not in fact “ring-fenced” (viz, held separately) or applied for the stated purpose. Instead, the funds were absorbed into the Defender’s general finances and applied to the Defender’s ongoing party activities, unrelated to any independence referendum campaign. No independence referendum campaign has taken place since the donations were solicited. The funds were not returned to the donors. They have been spent for other purposes.

16. On or about 3 June 2026, the second named defender, John Swinney, in his capacity as leader of the Defender, publicly confirmed that the ring-fenced referendum funds had been applied to “the ongoing activities of the Scottish National Party.” This admission constitutes a public acknowledgment that the funds were diverted from their stated purpose.

17. This diversion was without the knowledge or consent of the Group Members. No communication was sent to donors informing them that the ring-fencing had been breached or that their donations were being applied to purposes other than those represented. The donors were not asked to, and did not, consent to such diversion of funds.

Fraudulent Breach of Trust

1. Those responsible for the custody and management of the Defender’s funds occupied a position of trust in relation to the Group Members. The deliberate and dishonest decision to apply trust funds to an unauthorised purpose constituted a fraudulent breach of trust which (a) amounted in criminal law to embezzlement; and (b) in civil law gives rise to a right of reparation in the Group Members.

2. The Defender’s office-bearers breached their fiduciary duties to the Group Members by (a) applying the ring-fenced funds to purposes other than those for which they were donated, in breach of the duty of loyalty; (b) failing to maintain the funds separately or to account for them; (c) concealing the diversion from the Group Members; and (d) making false representations as to the continued existence and application of the ring-fenced fund. These acts and omissions contributed to said fraudulent breach of trust.

Loss and Damage

1. As a result of the Defender’s fraudulent breach of trust, each of the Group Members has suffered loss and damage, being at minimum the sum donated by them to the ring-fenced independence referendum fund and not refunded. The Group Members have further suffered distress and inconvenience at the revelation of breach of trust, which distress and inconvenience gives rise to claims in reparation given the intentional nature of the wrongdoing.

Prescription

2. The donations in question were all, or at least mainly, paid to the Defender more than five years ago. However, the obligations in respect of which enforcement is sought herein have not suffered prescription, since obligations arising from fraudulent breach of trust are imprescriptible in terms of s.7(2) of and Schedule 3 to the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973.

Necessity

3. The Representative Party has called upon the Defender to repay the sums donated by the Group Members to the ring-fenced independence referendum fund, and to compensate the Group Members for the Defender’s fraudulent breach of trust. The Defender refuses or at least delays in doing so. This action is accordingly necessary.

PLEAS-IN-LAW FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE PARTY

1. The Defender having solicited and received donations from the Group Members upon the express representation that those donations would be ring-fenced for a future independence referendum campaign, the Court should declare that a trust was thereby created in respect of those funds, and that the Defender was bound to apply those funds exclusively for that purpose, as first concluded for.

2. The Defender having diverted said trust funds to other purposes without the knowledge or consent of the Group Members, and having done so deliberately and dishonestly, declarator should be granted as second concluded for.

3. The Representative Party and the Group Members having sustained loss and damage as a consequence of the Defender’s fraudulent breach of trust, the Defender is liable to make reparation therefor and decree should be granted as third concluded for.

IN RESPECT WHEREOF

Halliday Campbell

Solicitor for the Representative Party

——————————————————————————-

The SNP have made it clear that while they expect to be recompensed for the money Peter Murrell embezzled from them, they do NOT intend to repay the donors that the party embezzled the “Referendum Appeal Fund” (current balance: £0) from.

Well, let’s see about that, shall we?