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”
Bob Siren
“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”
We are a member state silly, and there is nothing in the law to stop us being one, and even if there was, said law would apply to the rUK also, hurrdurr.
“There is no provision in EU law for, in the meanwhile, depriving Scottish EU citizens of their existing rights as EU citizens. Such a step can in EU law can only be contemplated when an existing member state has been legally shown to have committed serious violations of European democratic or human rights provisions.
The idea that the Scottish people could be ejected or indefinitely suspended from the EU for opting for national independence is laughable.”
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/17/barroso-scotland-ludicrous-remarks
Alec
The comes from an opinion piece, written by someone who is no more authoritative – or, even, influential – than any other euwonk; and considerably less so than an actual President of the European Commission.
“EU citizenship” is whatever the EU decides it is. And an independent Scotland would have to negotiate her position in the EU based on a re-negotiation of that currently enjoyed by the UK. I doubt very much she wouldn’t get something or other, but it would hardly be more independence of a foreign Government – and definitely a lot less – than currently surrendered to Westminster and Whitehall.
Plus, given this primarily is a piece about financial union with Sterling (whose owners after any Yes vote have made clear their determination not to repeat the mistakes of the Euro), I’m unsure what relevance Barroso and the EU have to that.
~alec
Duncan Fraser
Independence will by necessity be a gradual process. It could be argued it is already under way, and began with devolution.
A formal currency union would be a sensible ‘half-way’ house for the rUK as well as Scotland. The UK governments own finance experts actually agreed with this until they were persuaded to take a political line: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/191786/ScotlandAnalysis_acc-1.pdf
By the way, refutation involves introducing facts in order to counter an argument logically. Stating that your opinion is ‘blindingly obvious’ does not cause it to become fact.
Alec
Say that as much as you like, Westminster and Whitehall would not be working to an 18 month schedule… unlike Salmond who’s imposed this rapid non-gradual timescale. The ball will be in their court.
There is nothing remarkable or contentious about the observation that financial union in which part of economic control is subjugated to a foreign government is pseudo-independence, or that the dominant country – in terms of population and economic size – would have the final say.
Please drop the superficially reasonable cant about independence being a gradual process (or earnestly predicting that “cooler heads will prevail”). It might be that those cooler heads will not be in your camp.
In the event of a Yes vote, it change will have been brought on entirely and solely by Scotland under the direction of Salmond. It’s not for an EWNI to offer answers.
Find some Scottish able to do so. There don’t seem to be many at Holyrood.
~alec
Scott Creighton
The Scottish Government did the right thing today in sticking to their preferred Plan A of a currency union with the rest of the rUK upon Scottish Independence. Of course, this isn’t the Scottish Government’s only option–there are other models and each of these have
been presented in the SG’s White Paper, ‘Scotland’s Future’. Whatever happens after a YES result, Scotland will continue to have the pound, perhaps not in a formal currency union with the rUK if Westminster continues to remain pig-headed after the result, but it will most assuredly have the pound nevertheless. We will have our currency. Make no mistake about it.
Osborne gave a less than emphatic ‘no’ to a formal currency union whilst Salmond says ‘yes’ to a formal currency union. These are the respective positions–at least for the moment. The REAL negotiations over the CU option will begin only after a YES result in the referendum and not before. I fully expect that after a YES result, Westminster will be
‘persuaded’ against its diktat rejection of the proposal (before negotiations have even begun) and will instead come to accept the rational, logical and common sense view of the SG. But as a campaign tactic, Westminster–for the moment–have to make the currency union option seem as if it is off the table.
The fact is the formal currency union option will only truly be off the table if it cannot be negotiated in the 18 months after a YES result. And that is the time when the SG will have to consider implementing one of the other options it presents in the White Paper–and not a moment before.
Salmond is being very astute here and has totally ‘played’ Westminster. He probably anticipated the knee-jerk reaction from Westminster of saying NO to a formal currency union and how being told by Osballs that we can’t use our own currency would be received by many Scots. Salmond well knows that the more Westminster say to us “No you can’t”, the more Scotland will tell WM, “Yes we can.” If Westminster had just turned round and said of the SG’s common sense proposal, “we’ll think about it or said “we’re not prepared to pre-negotiate it” then that, probably more than anything, would have taken the wind right out of Salmond’s sails, his ploy of getting WM to rebuff Scottish wishes would have
floundered.
But alas, Westminster simply cannot help itself–the colonial, imperialist mentality simply has to assert itself and try and place Scotland back in its box. That was (and remains) a grave miscalculation by Westminster and that is why I suspect they will lose this debate and, quite probably, the referendum. They just don’t ‘get’ us.