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
“…You might as well say that the Highlands are not an equal partner in Scotland….”
We are talking about national boundaries, not regional boundaries. We are talking about Scotland repatriating its sovereignty from Westminster. As far as I am aware, if Scotland repatriates its sovereignty then it will be doing so for the entire country of Scotland thereby, ipso facto, that region of Scotland known as the Highlands and Islands.
Scotland has little to no say in monetary policy at present. Fact. Upon independence and a successful negotiated currency union, we will have little to no say in monetary policy. Fact. We have nothing in this area and we lose nothing either. But we gain so much more. Fact. Think of it as Devo-Super-Max (via the back door).
Mark Myword
The issue of Scotland in the EU, and the position of rUK thereafter, is extensively discussed by Prof Kenneth Armstrong, Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge, in a submission to the External Relations Committee of the Socottish Parliament – Jan 16th, 2014. I seem unable to get a link to work, but I am sure you will find it on the Centre’s website. He analyses Scotland’s position in relationship to the powers granted in the TEU and the TFEU. The international position of the rUK would depend upon the UN recognising rUK as the continuing state. There is plenty of precedent – perhaps the closest is the recognition of the Russian Fedration as the continuator of the USSR after the latter collapsed and numerous states became independent.
uglyfatbloke
Things is..and both sides rather avoid this point – constitutionally it’s not really a question of Scotland leaving the UK, but of dissolving he Treaty of 1707. Although politicians talk of the ‘four countries’ of the UK, there are in fact only two. Wales was incorporated into England in 1537 and N.Ireland is a province, not a country. The UK of GB was formed by the Treaty of 1707, so dissolving the Treaty actually dissolves the UK. In practice of course the rUK (or whatever we would want to call it) would inherit successor status, but that does not mean Scotland would not. The usual parallels offered such as Czechoslovakia or the disintegration of the USSR or Pakistan/Bangla Desh are not really valid since none was formed from a union of independent countries.
Prof. Armstrong’s opinions might well turn out to be correct in application should the situation arise, but there’s no harm in getting our heads around the constitutional position as it exists.
Alec
Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me? You raised the matter of one lesser constituent
part of a political union not having unchallenged control over the rest, and
the canard that Scotland has no say in monetary policy.
I responded that the first part was an uncontentious observation
that democrats accept, and that Holyrood and devolved/reserved matters are not
synonymous with Scotland plus Scottish politicians have most definitely had a
disproportionate influence on UK monetary policy.
Sorry if you didn’t like that, but as someone who doesn’t
plainly not like English people all that much, I stand by it.
There will be no “successful negotiated currency union”
regardless of how much you click your heels together or wish really hard. Accept it.
For someone who believes a referendum on Scottish independence is an
inalienable right, you are showing a remarkable contempt for the electorate of
an EWNI in your blithe assumption that you can speak for their well-being and
impose a currency union on them… it’s safe to bet that a referendum there on
one – with an independent Scotland or anywhere else – will be rejected.
Not facts. Your [refutable]
opinion. Always be wary of someone who
elides the difference between their personal opinion and irrefutable fact.
~alec
Duncan Fraser
You are correct I chose the wrong terminology. ‘Buccaneering Capitalism’ is how George puts it I believe.
You are wrong to state that the rUK would not gain from a currency union – their balance of payments deficit will increase perhaps to an unsustainable level.
Scotland can probably make do with a ‘pegged’ pound as a half-way house while we contemplate plan ‘b’ at our leisure. Don’t say we didn’t warn you though.