When voters go to the poll in September’s referendum they deserve to know how Scotland’s ministers will respond if they can’t get their way.
For years, if not decades, Alex Salmond has based his campaign for Scottish independence on building his stature within the minds of Scottish voters, and appealing directly to nationalistic tendencies.
As he prepares to deliver a major speech today on independence, the SNP should, if it is not already aware of it, accept that its audience is now bigger than the people of Scotland alone.
For Scotland’s voters to have any confidence in Salmond plans for independence, the Scottish government must persuade the whole of the European Union that it should be accepted as a member state whilst appealing to the rest of the UK that Scotland should be able to retain the pound.
On both points the omens aren’t good for Scotland’s first minister.
When voters go to the poll in September’s referendum they deserve to know how Scotland’s ministers will respond if they can’t get their way. Any failure to provide an alternative will lead Scotland into pursuing a radically different path to the fantasy dreams of the SNP without any democratic legitimacy whatsoever.
In his speech last week on currency union, George Osborne, followed shortly after by Ed Balls and Danny Alexander, made crystal clear that based on the advice received by permanent secretary to the treasury Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the remainder of the UK would not accept Scotland staying within the same currency.
Whilst in his response today Alex Salmond will launch a stinging attack on the chancellor’s position, it would behold him to accept some humble pie, and realise that all three of the UK’s main political parties are only giving voice to the views of the people they are there to serve.
A YouGov poll published over the weekend shows that 58 per cent of voters in England and Wales would oppose an independent Scotland using the pound. This is an increase of 15 per cent since the question was last asked in November. Salmond needs to woo, not bully the rest of the UK.
But there is something else far more curious that has emerged over the weekend.
Speaking to the Andrew Marr programme yesterday, the president of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso declared in no uncertain terms that it would be “extremely difficult, if not impossible” for an independent Scotland to join the European Union.
Accepting the fact that the SNP disagree with this view, it nevertheless raises the question as to why its White Paper on independence failed to outline the scepticism within the Commission about the prospects for Scotland joining the EU on its own. What else did ministers in Scotland omit to mention when they published their prospectus for independence?
Outlining the challenge faced by the Yes campaign on the European Union, the Scotsman’s leader column this morning notes:
“The Yes campaign now has to find a credible pathway through the deep uncertainties surrounding the status of an independent Scotland, and in particular to assure Scottish exporters that their interests will not be prejudiced. While there may be room to establish a status of Scottish exceptionalism to ease the evident concerns of Spain, that, as matters stand and with seven months to go, is starting to look a very tall order.”
Scotland needs a credible plan McB from Alex Salmond today. It’s doubtful that he’ll deliver though.
58 Responses to “Alex Salmond needs to woo, not bully, the rest of the UK”
Alec
The Indian Independence Act 1947 is a good approproximation of one.
Indeed, but under what terms?
Alec
I am quite sure you don’t know what “buccaneering capitalism” is either. Or socialism, never mind what a currency is.
Never said that. Then again, I would put it in referendum to the electorate in an EWNI because I support their right to self-determination. You and the SNP Brains Trust clearly don’t.
There will be no currency union. Accept it and offer an alternative.
~alec
uglyfatbloke
Not really. The Indian Independence Act was also contingent on the many pronely states joining the Indian union, but the clue is in the term ‘Act’. There is a widespread tendency – on both sides – to confuse the ‘Act’s of Union with the ‘Treaty’ of Union. They are not the same thing in any sense.
EU terms is a different issue of course. Many Scandinavian observers believe that Scotland would get better terms negotiating from outside rather than inside and of course a process of exclusion would have to be arranged as well.
terms of continuing membership would also need adjustment for rUK . Disunion – for want of a better term that is as neutral as I can think of offhand – would provide an excuse for possibly ending the EU rebate or reducing he number of MEPs or demanding Schengen or even…you never know – ending the UK-only subsidiarity that allows us to have a non-democratic electoral system.
It’s a great big can of worms waiting to be opened.
Alec
Fair enough. Out of interest, how would you define the difference between an Act and a Treaty in this context?
~alec
robertcp
We disagree. My view is that an independent Scotland would need to apply from the outside, although I agree that some preparatory work will be possible before Scotland is actually independent.