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
That’s not even an over-enthusiastic interpretation of my comments… it’s something you have completely made-up.
Okay, that’s an over-enthusiastic interpretation of my comments. It will indeed be the voting public, but boy does he have an input!
For one calendar month, if even that. Three options:
i. Currency union (yeah, and I would like a date with Scarlett Johansson) which would place part of, at least, economic and financial control in the hands of a foreign Government. Hardly independence.
ii. Simply using St£rling – or, based on previous rhetoric which McMoonface really meant and and thought about, the €uro – or pegging her own currency to St£rling/€uro, which’d place economic and financial control wholly in the hands of a foreign Government. Definitely not independence, more like colonial status.
iii. McMoonface making real his threat to renege on a share of debt, and reintroducing the pound Scots to start from scratch. No borrowing history, no trust whatsoever given his belligerent threats so far. End result, hilarity.
Scarlett just called, she wants to know if she should wear the red dress or polka dot skirt. That’s a meaningless word salad which relies on an EWNI agreeing to it. Make no bones – It would be an EWNI who choose, not George Osborne or Ed Balls.
And they have told youse to get to Forfar.
~alec
DC Rooney
I don’t think it is mutually beneficial. The Eurozone shows the problems of currency union without political union, and I think for a sterling zone to work both countries would have to surrender a fair amount of sovereignty. I do not see the point of becoming independent to then surrender control of monetary policy.
I think we can pretty much rule out a currency union, though. While the SNP are trying to portray the intervention of ‘the three Chancellors’ as bluff and bluster, it actually fits with the UK’s historic reluctance to join a monetary union which was hardened by the failure of the Euro. Added to this, several supporters of Yes (the Greens and SSP among others) oppose a sterling zone anyway. Even if all this were to be discounted as bluff, I would like to know the alternative strategy just in case the Westminster political establishment is telling the truth.
dougthedug
Scotland already is a member of the EU as a part of the UK and any negotiations to become an independent member would be conducted while it was still part of the UK and therefore they would be negotiated from within the EU.
The SNP has never said that there would be no negotiations.
DC Rooney
I don’t think anyone disputes that an independent Scotland could continue using the pound even if rUK refused a currency union (which I believe is in keeping with the historic reluctance of the political establishment to enter currency unions). Independent nations can use whatever currency they wish. However, very few nations do this because it essentially means you abandon sovereignty over monetary policy. This would mean that, perversely, a Yes vote would actually lead to the loss rather than increase in independence.
Even assuming that the rUK would accept a currency union (there is no evidence that this is the case) I don’t think the SNP assumption that it is beneficial is entirely correct. Currency union without political union is fraught with difficulties which are best avoided.
Alec
Scotland is not a member of the EU. The UK is.
That’s true. Along the lines of “so, Mr. Salmond, does Scotland want to accede in six or 12 months?”.
~alec