Sitting in Edinburgh this morning it's a little hard not to have a Scottish perspective on some of the events of the last day, especially as I was discussing them rather later into the night than I originally planned.
The news that I was able to discuss with the enthusiastic audience I met last night was that Ruth Davidson was expected to resign as leader of the Tories in Scotland at any moment. And this, I suggest is not just a Scottish story, even if that is where it will have most immediate impact.
If referenda have transformed and redrawn the dividing lines of politics in the UK as a whole then it is important to remember that the impact has been different in the constituent countries of the UK.
Northern Ireland approved the Good Friday Agreement in a referendum.
Scotland and Wales chose devolved government in the same way.
Scotland was divided by its 2014 referendum on independence.
England has suffered the same fate on Brexit.
And these events are not unrelated. The Good Friday Agreement has created Brexit division. And questions about the future membership of the Union will be asked for a long time, most especially if we hard Brexit.
In this context Ruth Davidson's resignation cannot be ignored. In a country rather short of charismatic Unionists (look at the leadership of Scotland's Labour Party and LibDems to see what I mean) she stood out as by far the most important Unionist in a weak field. The election of so many Scottish Tory MPs (themselves a dire bunch of individuals, prone to persistent uncouth behaviour at Westminster, even by its own low standards) must be very largely down to her campaigning ability.
But she also campaigned against Brexit and very specifically Boris Johnson.
I am sure she has family reasons for leaving her post, and she has held it for a long time in political terms. But there is no heir apparent who has any chance of replacing her in the political arena of Scottish politics.
What this means is that on the day when Johnson and the Queen indicated that democracy will be ignored in the single-minded pursuit of the destruction of the well-being of the UK, Scotland, which remains profoundly in favour of EU membership, is left without a single heavyweight Unionist to argue that it should remain in the UK to achieve that goal.
Will this tip the balance in favour of independence? I do not know. But I am sure it will help.
But that requires the SNP to take the lead, and what struck me very forcibly in my discussions with many grass-root SNP members last night is how frustrated they are with their own leadership. Nicola Sturgeon is perceived of as being remote. It is thought she does not listen.
There is real anger that the move, spearheaded by Angus McNeil MP, to bring a resolution to the SNP October conference to suggest that a pro-independence majority in any election, whether at Holyrood or of Scottish seats at Westminster, should be taken as the mandate to leave the Union has been blocked by the leadership.
I should declare a bias: I have known Angus for some time. But the fact that I enjoy his company does not change my view on this issue. He and his colleagues are saying that Scotland does not need Westminster's consent to leave the Union. And in international law that is a simple statement of fact. The very name of the United Kingdom makes clear that it is made up of separate nations. And international law provides a right to self-determination. A majority in any election for those seeking it would be more than sufficient for this purpose. No one requires a referendum on such an issue.
Except for Westminster.
And the SNP are very clearly, in the eyes of its membership as I heard them, failing those members by insisting on having Westminster's approval before Scotland can leave. As one put it, that's like insisting, to use a footballing metaphor, on playing away all the time, with very limited traveling support on a decidedly hostile ground. And it's unnecessary.
Johnson is showing contempt for parliament, for our constitutional conventions, MPs and so the electorate. Even his Scottish leader can no longer tolerate that, and rightly so.
Nor should the rest of Scotland. There is an urgency and vibrancy that is akin to suppressed optimism for the future in Scottish politics that needs to be set free from the deeply pessimistic oppression of Westminster. The SNP's leadership needs to have the courage to give its membership what they very clearly want. The time for speeches of condemnation is over. We're living in revolutionary times. And Scotland has the legal right to go its own independent way in the scenarios that Angus McNeil has described.
And maybe that's exactly what is required for the sake of England too. England has to realise just what an unacceptable place it is becoming. This is one way of getting that message across.
And that, in turn, might let the Welsh and people of Northern Ireland decide what they also want for their futures. Decision time is coming, and maybe quite soon.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Yes frustration is a problem. I am a patient man, but the inactivity of the SNP leadership is doing my head in. England is past saving, let them have there Brexit. We in Scotland need to move and move fast.
For clarity i am a SNP Member.
Angus Bredan is absolutely right and the reaction against the now multiple attempts to outlaw his proposal from debate at the SNP conference in Aberdeen in October will be massive. The SNP need to be facing the current crisis with more decisiveness and boldness. Nicola has been right to play the game long – from her position as FM, and she and we have garnered great advantage from her statesmanlike approach. And Angus has been right to push – from his position – for the potential of a twin-track approach which by threatening an ‘independence election’ if Article 30 is refused or mired in nonsensical caveats, makes it clear that the will of the peoples of Scotland cannot and will not be held hostage by the ‘British’ parliament. Given the current collapse of any pretence at the operation of the ‘British’ constitution, Angus’s proposal should be speeding to the forefront of our party’s policy – and the wider grass-roots YES movement is beginning to watch to see if our party still really has the stomach for the fight. I believe that it very much has and will show that at Aberdeen – whatever the platform is attempting to finesse.
I’ve felt for some time that Ms Sturgeon would make a fantastic Foreign Secretary of an independent Scotland, but a rebel leader against Westminster? Not so much.
I personally feel Joanna Cherry would be the right person to lead The SNP at this time and I agree with Willie John In NS capacity, there are times for politics and there are times when fight Is required, and a strong fighting attitude Is required now more than ever, The time for being diplomatic Is running short…
I believe the opportunity was missed when the SNP had all but three MPs elected to Westminster , that i believe was Scotland’s answer to Cameron’s proclamation of EVEL on the steps of No 10 just hours after the result , since then its been dont scare the horses , Alex was and is a gambler ,his show on RT despite all the tut tuts and condemnation from the usual suspects gets a fair amount of viewers , and its only recently a few brave people in the SNP have appeared on the show ,Angus being one of them , This self imposed arms length approach to the wider “YES” movement is baffling its as if the leadership want the fruits without getting involved , I thought we were all in this together .
Maybe the recent behavour by this rancid Tory party will waken a few at the top of the SNP , because the audience is falling asleep , so Wakey bloody Wakey .
I was at your meeting yesterday evening. There was a lot of energy in the room. I feel that FM’s statement that referendum legislation will continue on its way through the constitutional process at Holyrood is totally inadequate in the circumstances. She needs to harness the energy in the Yes movement and tell us what the plan is. PM Johnson doesn’t give two hoots for the niceties of our famously unwritten Constitution and FM may need to step out of her comfort zone to grasp the opportunity
Thanks Jan
Good luck
I was so disappointed by inaction and obsession with self id, not to mention SNP MPs and advisors sticking the boot in towards Indy supporters I left. Joanna Cherry would be an excellent leader in my opinion. While this hierarchy is in charge, we’re gubbed.
Yes, of course, in theory. I would love it if Scotland were solidly pro-independence and we could simply say “hell mend Westminster, we’re off”. But – and this is the crucial but which so many independentists seem to be ignoring – we do NOT yet have a majority for Yes. One poll, carefully adjusted, suggested we might squeak it. But you cannot declare UDI when half the population don’t support it.
I am completely mystified as to how so many intelligent people are simply ignoring this absolutely basic fact.
I agree with this.
Any independence vote without Westminsters permission (as ridiculous as that is) has a strong possibility of backfiring.
Unionists and their supporting media titles would jump on this right from the off. Any lead for independence could well be reduced.
It sets a very dangerous precedent to accept that our self determination (or indeed that of any other people) is contingent on the gracious permission of the “metropolitan” power. Arguably Scotland vis-Ã -vis the UK is in a fairly unique constitutional set up when compared with other analogous cases like Catalonia or Quebec, but the fact remains that, per the Claim of Right & centuries of Scots history, it is the Scottish people who are sovereign and not their parliament – still less the “union” parliament in Westminster!
If britnats don’t respect the 2014 precedent of the Edinburgh Agreement and the ability of Holyrood to be the ultimate authority with regard to referendums, then all bets are off. If those are the “new” conditions, pro-independence Scots should simply ensure every subsequent election to Westminster or Holyrood is plebiscitary, and that >50% of votes for pro-indy parties is de-facto independence. the international community is unlikely to demur.
I will have to confess to one of those that kept the Prof up late in the bar! I think we might usefully call on the Bard:
Scots, wha hae wi’ Wallace bled,
Scots, wham Bruce has aften led;
Welcome to your gory bed,
Or to victory!
Now’s the day, and now’s the hour;
See the front o’ battle lour;
See approach proud Edward’s power–
Chains and slavery!
Wha will be a traitor knave?
Wha can fill a coward’s grave!
Wha sae base as be a slave?
Let him turn and flee!
Wha for Scotland’s king and law
Freedom’s sword will strongly draw,
Freeman stand, or freeman fa’,
Let him follow me!
By oppression’s woes and pains!
By your sons in servile chains!
We will drain our dearest veins,
But they shall be free!
Lay the proud usurpers low!
Tyrants fall in every foe!
Liberty’s in every blow!–
Let us do or die!
Noted!
And you were by no means the last to leave….
Questions:
If it is wrong to have a hard border dividing the island of Ireland, would it be right to have a hard border dividing the island of Britain?
If it is wrong to allow the Ulster-Scots’ political independence of Dublin by their dominance in the statelet of Northern Ireland, why is it right to allow the Caledonian Scots to aspire to independence from Westminster?
If the British resident in Europe should have had the vote at the referendum, should not the hundreds of thousands of Scots living in England and Wales have the vote in any referendum on Scottish independence?
If English (and Welsh) determination to leave a union of nations is a manifestation of a narrow and self-indulgent nationalism, why would it be the manifestation of an internationalist outlook for Scotland to leave a union of nations?
If a hard border across the island of Ireland would bring economic chaos to the island of Ireland, would not a hard border across the island of Britain bring economic chaos to the whole island of Britain?
Should Scotland be independent, would persons of part Scots ancestry such as myself (grandfather) be hopefully eligible for Scottish citizenship?
Following on from the previous question, does anyone know how many potential Scottish citizens there may be living south of the border? Might in fact the number of such Scots be greater in number than the population of Scotland?
Scotland is recognised as a nation
Northern Ireland had to be created as a wholly artificial one
And none of these border issues would arise but for English intransigence
As for citizenship, I suspect the answer is yes
But I have to say you are usually a reliable commentator, and much of this suggests and unappealing closed mindedness
And I am not Scottish
Thank you, Richard. Please understand me – I am not a sceptic, nor opponent of Scottish independence. But these are questions that assuredly will arise, and will be asked, and should be asked – if not by me – by many others in the event of a referendum on Scots independence. Scotland is a nation, yes. But the Ulster Scots would also claim to be a distinct ethnic group, separate from the Gaelic/Catholic Irish of the greater part of the island, and therefore claiming the same right to independence as the Scots , or Welsh, or Corsicans or whatever. I believe that “Ullans” – Ulster Scottish – has been registered as a minority language matching Scots Lallans. As for a border – were Scotland to be in the EU, and England/Wales outside, the same problem would surely arise on the iusland of Britain as on the island of Ireland. There would necessarily have to be a border for trade purposes – tariffs, regulatory standards etc – on the EU/rUK border, just as there has to be between the ROI and the UK (NI). It is perfectly legitimate to ask what would happen at Berwick and Carlisle/Gretna to control trade between different countries. To ask the question is not to question the right of a nation to secede from a union. It is simply to face difficult and challenging realities. Likewise, we are only too aware that Britain’s (England – and Wales’s) potential crashing out of the EU will have serious consequences for Ireland. We would be inflicting great damage on Ireland – needlessly and heedlessly. Think of supply chains, phytosanitary checks on livestock, regulatory standards, tariffs. How much of Ireland’s foreign trade is with the UK and is likely to be disrupted by these in the event of a crash out? So would not these problems be operating between E+W and Scotland? How much of Scotland’s exports go to England +W, and how dependent is Scotland on trade with the country to the south of the border?
All of these questions will or should be be asked by the electorate in the event of a referendum on Scottish independence – or indeed if the Scottish MPs from Westminster withdrew to Edibnburgh as Sinn Fein withdrew from Westminster in 1919 to establish the Irish Republic. The questions will arise. Would it not be be as irresponsible – and perhaps arrogant – to ignore these practicalities and realities in the event of Scottish indpendence, as it was for Johnson, Gove, Cummings, Farage, IDS, Rees Mogg esq, etc to ignore/forget about/be ignorant of, the problem of the EU/UK border in Ireland?
Mike,
Richard has already addressed some of your points, but if I may I’d like to offer my own response too?
1. A hard border (in either location) would only become necessary if the rump UK made it so. It is entirely in their hands to avoid one. Only the insistence on having a pure brexit by a relatively small cabal of extremists in the Tory party playing to the basest instincts of little Englanders in the shires makes this an issue.
2. If the majority of Scots vote for independence, then that is what should happen. Scotland is an ancient, historic nation. The gerrymandered Ulster statelet is not! “Aspiring to independence” as you call it is a right under international law, not a something for Westminster to graciously bestow or allow.
3. Why should Scots in the diaspora in England be allowed to decide the future of Scotland when they don’t live there? I returned to Scotland last year after 25 years in England. Why should Scots who now live in England (most of whom probably have no intention of coming back) get to have an equal say with those most directly impacted; those resident in Scotland? Arranging some “blood and soil” test of who would be eligible would be not only hard to do administratively, but divisive socially and politically.
I always like to ask those proposing this (almost always Scots unionists in England with very little real connection to the “motherland”) if they would still support it if it meant they would be obliged to surrender their British citizenship in the event Scots vote Yes. Few seem willing to do so, which suggests that when the chips are down they are more British than Scottish. We should not hesitate to call their bluff in my view; if you want a say, move back to Scotland. Simple!
4. The UK union & the EU are not the same. Recent event have demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the English nationalism underlying brexit which is narrow, parochial, xenophobic and regressive. Faragism, brexit and anti-immigrant sentiment are the hallmarks of the alt-right, Trumpism, Hungary’s Orban, Salvini in Italy, Le Pen in France. they are a million miles away from the inclusive, pro-immigration, pro-EU, progressive civic nationalism exhibited by the SNP & Plaid Cymru.
5. On the hard border: see 1 above. The hard border anywhere will be the responsibility of brexiteers, nobody else. I’d sooner see a hard border at Gretna and an independent Scotland (and United Ireland for that matter) in the EU, whatever the initial pain, than contemplate Scotland being dragged out of the EU to share in the little Englander’s No Deal dystopia. Brexiteers need to be clear: they can have their No Deal, or maintain the union, they can’t do both. Polls now show a majority in England would actually prefer brexit to keeping Scotland or NI in the union. Seems it is about to become a self fulfilling prophecy?
6. Yes, you would be eligible for citizenship as the 2014 White Paper said. It’s the same principle as many/most countries like Ireland operate. It will be interesting to see how many Scots in the diaspora avail themselves of the opportunity post independence, particularly amongst those agitating against it now!
7. I saw estimates during #indyref1 that there are around 800,000 potential Scots citizens resident in the rest of the UK. Nothing like 5.5 million. If there was some way to contrive to give them the vote, it could of course swing the outcome if one assumes the majority would most likely prefer to retain the union. However, the quid pro quo for that would doubtless be that those resident in Scotland who were not born here, or of Scots parentage, would not be allowed to vote. Since it was this group which ensured aNo vote in 2014, this might be an appealing course for “blood & soil” regressive nationalists, but it isn’t the course the majority of Scots or Yes movement supporters would endorse; indeed most of us would actively oppose it.
Re Mike’s questionnaire (in order of his questions):
1. Irish border issues are covered by the Good Friday Agreement (GFA), an international treaty which enabled the ending the gangsterism and terrorism which flourished in NI during the Troubles. No such issues affect Scottish/English relationships and, in the event of Scotland achieving independence, border requirements would be negotiated by the 2 parties according to circumstances e.g. would Scotland intend joining the EU, EFTA etc.
2. The issue of de facto Protestant dominance of politics in NI is addressed in the GFA by provision for a border poll on reunion should a majority in NI be in favour of one. No such “get-out” is available to Scotland in the UK. The Scotland Act gives all control to the UK PM and, of course, the unwritten UK “Constitution” has no clear provision for secession of a constituent nation. The UN Charter does provide the right to secede to any people if a majority so wish, but how it would fare in the labyrinth of the UK “Constitution” is anyone’s guess.
3. Surely the only criterion for having a vote in a referendum is whether the individual will be personally affected by its outcome? In the Brexit referendum, UK citizens resident overseas could vote by post only if they had been registered in UK constituency electoral register in the previous 15 years. EU citizens were denied a vote regardless of their length of UK residence, except for Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and Gibraltar. My view is that only permanently resident people should be entitled to vote in referendums. If Scots living anywhere outside of Scotland were given a vote, few of them would have to live with the outcome, few of them would fully understand the key issues involved as they don’t see the impact day-by-day and their perception of Scotland could be vastly out of date.
4. Scotland would be leaving the UK in order to have sovereign control over issues which are entirely controlled by Westminster e.g. nuclear weapons, economic policy, energy policy, constitutional issues etc, etc. Its aim is to develop our economy and environment in ways that are controlled or restricted by UK policies. Whether it would join the EU is not entirely clear at this stage, but it did vote substantially against leaving the EU, only to find that electoral arithmetic meant it was being dragged out its wishes. This is particularly galling for Scots as, in the 2014 Indyref, a major factor in swinging the vote against independence was the UK’s statement that the only way for Scotland to remain in the EU (Scotland received significant funding from the EU for projects that the UK wouldn’t/didn’t support) was to remain in the UK.
5. Who says there would be a hard border between Scotland and England? See 1 above.
6. Yes.
7. No and no.
Thanks Ken
Appreciated
Apologies for typos in my post at 6:04pm:
In item 4, I wrote “Its aim is to develop our economy and environment in ways that are controlled or restricted by UK policies” when I meant to write “a Scottish Government’s aim should be to develop our economy and environment in ways that are NOT controlled or restricted by UK policies”, which somewhat alters the meaning. Too many thumbs, too little time.
“A majority in any election for those seeking it would be more than sufficient for this purpose. No one requires a referendum on such an issue.” I have to say, very respectfully, I disagree. On a day when we are talking about democracy and the undermining of it, what you (or your friend) are proposing is equally undemocratic.
In 2017, the SNP got 36.7% of the votes. In our FPTP system it won them 35 seats, but nearly two thirds of voters plumped for parties that ran on a Unionist manifesto. The SNP’s high watermark (2015 GE when they got 56 seats) they did achieve exactly 50.0% of the votes. That’s a tie, not a mandate for such a massive change in governance.
We have to be consistent here. If we are saying that 51.8% of votes (but only 30-odd% of the entire electorate) is enough for us to question the democratic mandate of Leave – and I do – then the SNP haven’t achieved a mandate to leave the UK yet. And even if they won more seats in a forthcoming GE, purely because it is based on FPTP, I don’t think that would give them a mandate either. If the SNP said before such an election, “if we get a >50% share of the vote we will assume a mandate for independence”, then I suspect they would achieve a vote share somewhere between the 2015 and 2016 results.
FTPT is Westminster current form of (supposed) democracy, so anything using their choice, and apparently the people’s choice, of democratic choice is not, I would say, undemocratic. But you may be correct about the SNP vote share – who knows, until they try it?
But the glaring omission in your comment – as most other people are doing too – is that the ‘Mandate for independence’ if you like, is only the start of the process, it is the start of negotiations and putting together the infrastructure required – there was always going to be a referendum on the final outcome, that is, you still get a choice before the final hurdle after the various deals are done. Politicians have come out with ‘threats’ that this will happen ‘next time’ – um, well, as far as I was aware it was always going to be thus. Why they thought that idea was a no-go for brexit? Well, because reasons I guess. I think it would be a good idea for the SNP to emphasise the point that there will be a final referendum. Then maybe they will sail past the 50% mark in the stupid FPTP vote.
Sturgeon is right to hold her position, this is just a tremor, the precursor to the Brexit earthquake and the tsunami shortly afterwards. Unions break from the centre and Gers figures make it much more difficult to argue the benefits of the union to English voters. The deception that is GERs is a double edged sword.
A no-deal Brexit (almost guaranteed now) will prove the catalyst for a ‘Yes’ vote. Nicola is right to delay triggering the Indyref 2 starting pistol until then.
Firstly, so you know where this is coming from, I’m Cornish, English, British and European, not currently resident in any of the above. I’m also a unionist but feel that my EU unionism is stronger that my UK unionism.
I take it for granted that if BoJo forces a destructive, no-deal Brexit on the UK, the clamour within Scotland to leave the UK and re-join the EU will be irresistible and it will happen.
I also consider it likely that that a sensible non-sectarian party will emerge in NI that will gain a majority for the six counties to leave the UK and join the RoI (and therefore the EU), albeit with extreme devolution that enables it to respect some but not all of the traditions of those of an orange persuasion.
I have no idea what Wales will do (but see PS below).
So BoJo, as a faithful agent of the fascist he tries so hard to impersonate, will be able to deliver a depressed, friendless England as a vassal of the US; a sort of temperate Puerto Rico (well temperate until Mr T’s climate change plans come to fruition). Why would Mr T want to buy Greenland when he can get his agent to serve up England on a plate completely free of charge?!
I just wish I had a parent or grandparent born in a civilised country so I could apply for citizenship there.
PS: My late father was born in Wales. He was never Welsh. His parents just happened to be working there when he was born. So come on Wales. Follow Scotland’s example and go for it.
I understand everyone’s frustration but you have to remember that we’ve already set a precedent by the 2014 referendum. Thatcher herself said that a majority of SNP MPs would be enough, but a lot has changed since then, i.e. devolution itself enabled under a referendum, which in hindsight was a good idea (maybe a fluke) as it makes it harder for WM to suspend the Scottish Parliament. We need to wait for the outcome of Brexit before we move. Politically it would be stupid to open up the attack from a 98% hostile media on Angus’s and Chris’s plan B, as it will be reported as plan A. We must be seen to occupy the moral high ground. It’s politics. It’s not always logic. Take the emotion out of it. It would be more useful to take soundings (if not already done) from EU leaders to see what they would view as an independent Scotland. Precedent was set perhaps by East Germany but this is a murky area, and it may depend on the EU’s relations with England. That’s why currently Scots Gov is cautious. There’s no point in declaring we’re Independent if we’re the only ones saying it. I’m in favour of the plan but it’s not the right time just yet (I’m not Theresa May). The FM is not remote, she is a first class leader and politician highly respected around the globe. And I’m sure will lead us to Independence. Name me another UK politician with that CV? We need calm heads and a political mind, and above all we need to get behind the FM and show solidarity. The recognition of our right to Independence is spreading throughout the UK and is being taken seriously. We don’t need anything to jeopardise this. For the record I am an SNP member and an Englishman.
I’m deeply concerned about how all this will play out. I agree with the comment above – Nicola would make an excellent First minister of a newly independent Scotland, and would also be excellent if we’d had 20 years to build a proto-indy state as a route to indy (has been excellent at that, and it was possibly the plan after 2014). But she doesn’t seem cut out for a fight to achieve independence, and I suspect this is going to be a very messy fight now. It’s also going to come at us so fast it’ll be hard to see, and there isn’t much sign the SNP leadership expected or prepared for that.
We’re now facing a no-deal Brexit in a few weeks, and amidst the chaos, one of the first things a far right, pro-Brexit government will *have* to do is effectively end devolution. If the UK is making trade deals with the US, Japan, China, Russia etc and these include health, education, food etc, it can’t possibly be England only. Devolution will never survive such trade deals, negotiated in haste, with little leverage, by pro-Brexit English nationalists with no interest in, or knowledge of, devolution. It simply can’t survive that. But there will be so much else going on, will people even realise what’s happening? They won’t be as daft as to simply shut Holyrood (probably won’t be anyway), it’ll be more skeekit than that. But it’ll have to happen fast.
I really hope the SNP do have a plan, and there’s maybe been discussions going on in the background with the EU and/or international organisations looking at emergency scenarios such as this one. Because it’s all very well saying “there isn’t a majority for UDI”, but if we wait until people wake up and realise devolution is gone, and Scotland and her resources are already signed up to horrendous international trade deals that may be too late.
Interesting and I suspect very relevant insights
May I say that I believe this is a very thoughtful and useful initial exploration of the known unknowns?
Can I just check I’ve understood your last paragraph correctly i.e:
What you seem to be suggesting is that the SNP should be having secret negotiations with the EU with a plan for Scotland to ‘declare UDI’ and presumably remain in the EU without another referendum as there isn’t a majority in favour of UDI?