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”
Scott Creighton
“We are not occupied.”
I don’t recall saying we were.
“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).”
And no one disputes this. The point is that Scots have little to no influence over UK monetary policy even as partners within the UK. How can 59 Scottish MPs possibly ever hope to outvote over 600 rUK MPs? As I said, having little influence over monetary policy will not be something that we are unused to. We cede a little to gain so much more.
“If by Scotland you mean the Scottish Parliament then yes you are right the devolved government does not have a monetary policy…”
No, it does not have monetary powers–these are reserved powers.
“…but I do not wish to hand power over economic policy to a foreign country (as rUK would become) …”
We will all still be British and even still have our British passports. The UK Govt have confirmed this. We will still have the Queen as our Head of State. I think we will be more close cousins rather than “foreigners”.
“…so that Ian Grey or John Swinney can feel more important.
I look at the track record over the last 15-20 years of UK chancellors and observe the pig’s breakfast they have made of the UK economy. Swinney, on the other hand–in spite of having one hand tied behind his back–has successfully managed to balance Scotland’s books using only the pocket money given to us by Westminster. I know who I would trust better to run our economy.
“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.”
‘Nationalism’ is an emotive word. But there are two quite distinct forms–the nasty, exclusive, xenophobic ethnic nationalism of the likes of UKIP, BNP, EDL etc and the inclusive civic nationalism of the SNP. Do not confuse the two. My solidarity with people in pursuit of a progressive society does not stop at Gretna Green or even Dover. National boundaries are no barrier to having international solidarity.
A progressive society is now impossible in the UK given that Labour are quite indistinct from the Tories, having sold their soul to win Middle England votes during Blair’s tenure. Labour is progressing even further to the right with Ed ‘Son of Thatcher’ Milliband’s announcement to be hard on benefits. An independent Scotland is the only hope of reversing these right wing, punitive policies and to build a truly progressive society which can then become a beacon for the rest of the rUK and who will, hopefully, rise up against the dark star that is London and start demanding a fairer distribution of the UK’s wealth. But they need to see it can be done. An independent Scotland can show them the way. What Salmond is effectively trying to achieve is Devo-Super-Max via the back door, the option most Scots prefer but which Cameron forced off the ballot paper. I suspect Cameron may well rue the day.
robertcp
Do you agree that an independent Scotland would have to apply to join the EU? As I said, I think that the application would be successful.
dougthedug
After the referendum in the case of a Yes vote Scotland will be negotiating to be a full member of the EU but it will be doing that from inside the EU.
If you want to call that applying to join the EU fair enough but it will be doing it as an internal EU region shifting status to a full member rather than applying as an external non-member.
uglyfatbloke
Not quite as simple as that, so matter how both sides chose to dress it up. Pakistan was not a national Union formed through a Treaty, whereas he UK most certainly is. If independence comes – which I very much doubt – rUK ‘s position in the EU will change and it is perfectly possible that Scotland could be excluded, however a mechanism for doing so would have to be agreed across the member states.
Nobody seriously doubts that Scotland would have any major issues about getting into the EU, but it is very questionable as to whether negotiating from inside would be the best approach.
Alec
You just did when you equated Holyrood with all Scotland and her Westminster representation.
No, that it how you’re attempting to redefine the conversation. Scottish Westminster representatives may not have the same relative chance of exercising control as their English counterparts, taken as a whole and not a collection of disparate parts – although they have historically had a jolly good stab at it – but that’s what comes from being a relatively smaller constituent part of a Union.
You might as well say that the Highlands are not an equal partner in Scotland.
~alec