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
What @mark_myword:disqus said.
~alec
Scott Creighton
Scotland cannot lose something it does not already possess. It has no control over economic/monetary policy as this is a reserved power. So what exactly would it be losing by becoming independent? It would be ceding some small sovereignty in order to repatriate the vast majority of its sovereignty. A small price to pay. After all, we are all inter-dependent in this world. Indeed, the only country I can think of that is fully independent is North Korea. But who would want to have the kind of independence ‘enjoyed’ by North Korea?
Duncan Fraser
“It’s not for an EWNI to offer answers.” – It’s plain from that you think hostility or at best dis-interest is an acceptable response post-independence. Instead of negotiation for the common good, you advocate that EWNI stand on the sidelines and indulge in schadenfreude even as their own economies suffer.
I quite like Forfar. It’s a solid old market town, which has suffered from central government neglect of traditional industries at the expense of dodgy venture capitalism.
DC Rooney
We are not occupied. The United Kingdom has an independent monetary policy and Scotland, currently, is a component part of the UK. As such the Scots do possess a monetary policy (after all between 1997 and 2010 the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a Scot). If by Scotland you mean the Scottish Parliament then yes you are right the devolved government does not have a monetary policy, but I do not wish to hand power over economic policy to a foreign country (as rUK would become) so that Ian Grey or John Swinney can feel more important.
I agree with you completely that we are an inter-dependent world, and that is why I am voting NO in September. All nationalism, even the social democratic nationalism of the SNP, is, by nature, divisive. I think that in this inter-dependent world we would be far better placed to campaign to reform the existing structures: I want a Mancunian or a Londoner to have as much access to social justice as a Glaswegian and I do not think independence best serves that wish.
Alec
Wheel out the question begging, it’s getting boring.
The only people to gain from a currency union would be Scotland. An EWNI would only experience restrictions and constraints… any individual loses could be absorbed just as the UK absorbed the 2008 Financial Crash.
I am quite sure you don’t know what venture capitalism is. You clearly don’t know what a currency is.
~alec