Parliament is in recess. Schools have broken up. Summer is officially here. And Scotland is to get a rare visit from a tourist who is usually reluctant to go so far beyond the boundaries of privilege. Boris Johnson is heading north.
Johnson is not, of course, going to enjoy the scenery or the company, although we can be sure that the company in question will have been very carefully selected in advance to prevent disquiet to the Prime Minister. Nicola Sturgeon is not amongst the invitees. Instead they will all be reinforcing what Johnson thinks is the case for the Union.
The reason is not hard to see. As Politico notes:
A poll earlier this month found support for Scottish independence at 54 percent, versus 46 percent for remaining part of the U.K. Polling expert John Curtice said it was “the first time in polling history” that backing for independence had been ahead “over such a sustained period.”
Johnson chose to give himself the title of Minister for the Union when becoming PM. So far he's proved dismally poor at it. And that is hardly surprising.
Scotland does not want any Brexit, and it is getting a hard one.
Scotland has resented interference and messaging from London on Covid 19 when it has managed many aspects of the crisis better than London has.
And in the summer bail-out package, of whatever limited new money there was (and there was not much) Scotland got just £21 million.
At the same time there are new and enormous threats to devolved powers.
Of course Scotland resents this. For those who do not come from the environs of London or have a south east England mentality, it is almost impossible (apparently) to understand that Scotland is another country. It is not a region, as Jacob Rees Mogg would have it. Nor is it just another part of the UK. For a majority of Scots it is a distinct and separate nation with a shared parliament with other countries in the United Kingdom. And that's rightly thought, because that's true. The Act of the Union did not remove Scottish nationhood.
Does Johnson get that?
Or will we hear yet more of his ‘project fear' that claims Scotland is too small and so could not survive as an independent state today even though that's glaringly obviously false as Scotland would be a mid-sized state in world terms if independent.
What should worry Johnson is that previous PM's could say this and enough would believe it. But Johnson has three problems.
First, he's trashing the U.K. as a whole, so Scotland now believes it could not be worse off.
Second, no one believes a word Johnson says any more. His credibility is shot.
Third, Scotland believes as a result that it can do better.
And based on that Scotland will, when Sturgeon finally has the courage to do so, or is pushed out by those who have, go for independence. And I think it will win it.
Johnson's days in Scotland are numbered. It's now a question of when and not if Scotland goes, in my opinion.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
The BBC’s Scottish webpage reports that the SNP’s Ian Blackford has dissed Boris Johnson’s comments about the “sheer might” of the United Kingdom.
“Sheer might” – is that a Spoonerism?
Thank you. That had me laughing all day!
You lot are easily pleased
I just smiled….
Apparently the main purpose is to visit with Armed Forces personnel.
I can see comparisons with General Melchett from Blackadder proving popular in both print and social media
🙂
Times are grim and you don’t get many laughs reading this blog…. but the Spoonerism gag is fantastic!!
Clive Parry- very well said. I shall be laughing at that all day. Thanks
I am not sure too many people are bothered by this. The big issue for me is that it will strengthen the grip of the Tories and make their re-election much easier
Electorally that is a myth
Labour could win (at least did in the post) without needing Scottish seats
“Electorally that is a myth“.. no it isn’t it’s mathematical fact. Yes Labour could get elected without Scottish seats but the overriding probability is that it’s easier for the Tories to get a majority if the 59 parliamentary seats that reside in Scotland, mainly occupied by SNP MPs, are no longer there.
Only 4 times since 1918 have Scotland’s MP’s made a difference to which party became the govt in Westminster. Consider, there are 650 MP’s and 533 of those are from English constituencies and 59 from Scotland. England, in effect, already has it’s own parliament and, therefore, what England wants the devolved administrations get.
Pure myth. Labour has in the past won with enough seats that it did not need the Scottish seats it had to have a majority. But ignoring that, it is not right that England is forcing a government on Scotland that it did not vote for and does not want. Now you say that Scotland should stay in the Union so it can do the same to England. That would be equally wrong. It is time for BOTH nations to run their own affairs without foreign interference.
I suspect the last six months will have accelerated the prospects of a border poll in Northern Ireland too. It will become the Untied Kingdom.
Brandon Lewis was on Radio 4 this morning, defending the union (UK). Pity that the interviewer didn’t lead him into the unity/union debate by extending that to working with our (EU) neighbours more closely.
Stronger together!
Discussion on RS Kaye Adams programme discussing Johnson visit and the first contributor was Andrew Poulson, Joint Leader of East Dunbartonshire Council. He and Murdo Fraser are rolled on each and every time either the SNP or independence is to be mentioned in any discussion.
Both were big on the new buzz term ‘broad shoulders’ of the UK government supporting Scotland through this crisis with the inevitable claim that we would have ‘failed’ without their largesse. Other ‘supporters’ of the union made similar claims.
Jackie Brambles, the presenter for the day, did attempt to rein in some of Poulson’s wilder claims but being ‘impartial’ had to stop short in calling him out too strongly.
Only one contributor my wife confirmed, a woman and unfortunately I didn’t hear her, made the point that we would have done even better if independent, having set up our own central bank and currency, and done exactly the same as the UK has done with QE!
Needless to say her comments were not explored any more fully other than allowing Poulson and Fraser the opportunity to reiterate the benefits of the UK’s ‘broad shoulders’ taking the burden.
Disappointing but I am only too well aware of how weak the SNP are on independence coverage
All newspapers except The National support the Union.
ITV in Scotland and BBC Scotland are Unionist too. BBC Scotland feeds London BBC with their carefully manipulated output.
Where pray can SNP be strong?
I have commented elsewhere that I simply cannot see Johnson granting an s30.
I very much doubt he will want to be the PM who oversaw the breakup of the Union, if polls are to be believed.
I have asked what the plan is for continued refusal.
UDI would be damaging on a world stage, not to mention future EU membership. It would also give Unionists an even bigger stick to beat independence supporters with.
A majority for independence supporting parties in 2021 Holyrood elections may help, but still relies on permission for a referendum being granted.
There is also another possibility, if Johnson (or Cummings) gives in, a Devo Max question may be insisted upon as a way of allowing the referendum. This may be preferable to some, it may have even won in 2014 if it had been on the ballot paper.
The only other option is if Johnson comes under pressure from Conservative Suits (the ones who allegedly caused Theresa Mays departure) put pressure on Johnson as a way to rid England from Scotland after leaving the EU. This is something mentioned elsewhere.
If, as Richard thinks, Johnson does not last until 2024 and Gove is elected by the Conservative Party members, I cannot see him allowing an s30 either.
Maybe some commenters on here who are in Scotland could suggest what could happen.
I’m afraid, I’m with you Jim. I can’t see any PM wanting to be the one who oversaw the breakup of the union or even take the risk, especially when they look in the rear view mirror and see Cameron’s legacy will be as the PM who caused Brexit and nearly lost Scotland.
Devo max is an interesting point. Like many, I wasn’t especially politically aware or motivated at the time so I would have voted for “more powers” without giving it much thought. Instead I was forced into a more stark choice that led me to assess the choices in more depth and, ultimately, become a Yes supporter. I also led me to this blog and a deeper appreciation of Economics too – although I confess that at the time the currency debate was utterly bewildering.
A devo max option next time, if there is a next time, could well split the Yes and No votes and lead to an uneasy 3 way tie though.
They promised more than Devo max in 2014 but the Smith Commission gave diddly squat.
Moreover Scottish MPs were relegated to second with EVEL.
Scotland will not forget.
The Scottish Parliament can and should declare independence unilaterally and secede from the union – as Kosovo seceded from Serbia. Here is an extract from the UK’s legal submission to the International Court of Justice in the Kosovo case:
Quote 5.5 Consistent with this general approach, international law has not treated the legality of
the act of secession under the internal law of the predecessor State as determining the effect
of that act on the international plane. In most cases of secession, of course, the predecessor
State’s law will not have been complied with: that is true almost as a matter of definition.
5.6 Nor is compliance with the law of the predecessor State a condition for the declaration
of independence to be recognised by third States, if other conditions for recognition are
fulfilled. The conditions do not include compliance with the internal legal requirements of
the predecessor State. Otherwise the international legality of a secession would be
predetermined by the very system of internal law called in question by the circumstances in
which the secession is occurring.
5.7 For the same reason, the constitutional authority of the seceding entity to proclaim
independence within the predecessor State is not determinative as a matter of international
law. In most if not all cases, provincial or regional authorities will lack the constitutional
authority to secede. The act of secession is not thereby excluded. Moreover, representative
institutions may legitimately act, and seek to reflect the views of their constituents, beyond
the scope of already conferred power. Unquote
A referendum under UK law is not required and is not a prerequisite for Scotland to achieve independence – a nation’s independence is a matter of international law.
The full UK submission to the IJC can be read here
https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/141/15638.pdf
I think this is legal precedent that England would have great difficulty arguing with
Does the same apply to England leaving the UK?
Craig Murray has been arguing along similar lines for a couple of years, although his favoured route is via a National Convention of elected representatives, MP’s, MSP’s, Councillors, who would make the declaration, to be followed at some point by a confirmatory referendum. And he mentions the UK’s legal submission as well – (hoist by their own petard?)
But, and we’ve covered this before and RM makes the same point again this morning, we need our own currency and central bank, otherwise we may as well stay in the UK.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/scottish-independence-is-within-our-grasp-if-we-heed-the-lesson-of-toom-tabard/ and other links in the article.
I’m sure the SNP are well aware of this. Their challenge is to get overwhelming support for Indy….a small majority won’t do, as the Catalan nationalists found.
If they consistently get 70 per cent plus and overwhelming ele total dominance that’s it.
“no one believes a word Johnson says any more. His credibility is shot.”
Johnson never had any credibilty to lose – the man is & always has been a congenital liar.
This goes back 3 decades to the time when – as the Torygraph man in Bx he lied about EU legislation.
The visit to military bases in Scotland could be coupled to another of your posts with respect to the use of the military in the near future.
Working on the basis that things go very badly wrong in 2021 – the fatberg might need the military for another purpose: stopping Scottish UDI.
That said, the fatberg is a bully & a coward (the two go together) – faced by a Scotland that says enough is enough – he will probably back down & blame the break-up of the Uk on everybody apart from himself. It is the Tory way.
Seemingly a small thing, built not important; the UK is formed by a Treaty of Union, not an Act.
Sorry!
Yes and no. There was a Treaty of Union in 1706, but the treaty did not create the UK.
There were two Acts of Union, one passed in England in 1706 and one passed in Scotland in 1707, to bring the agreed Articles of Union between England and Scotland into effect and create the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was not at that stage the UK.
The United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Ireland) was formed by two further Acts of Union passed in 1800, one in Great Britain and one in Ireland.
One poll does not make a nation Richard
You seem to be an economist with opinions but no added value on the glaring challenges that exist for Scotland to become independent. Hopefully your case has more depth than the naive suggestions put forward by Rob Willox in the comments
I work with Common Weal
You won’t find better arguments
What part was naive – having own currency and central bank? And what glaring challenges? As Richard commented Common Weal have done excellent work on this and many other areas.
It is – the ‘Union’ – over. Pete Wishart in the HoC was right; the only remaining question is will the Tory/English ruling class – for that is, in reality, what they are – allow a peaceful and largely amicable divorce/funeral …. or will they, as in Ireland, as in India etc. drag things on, into misery and possible (entirely caused by them) disorder and worse – even the violence which has so long been imperial Briatin’s hallmark?
I’d love to be able to say they’ll pick the former, I really would…. but I and many many more ‘hae oor doots’.
The one thing that recent polling in England has shown – and this is a cause for optimism re. the polarities posed above – is that with 49% of English voters wanting English Independence (explicitly from Scotland, Wales and N Ireland), there is no demonstrable political capital in fighting (le mot juste?) to prevent Scotland breaking away. Just possibly, the growth of that sentiment may save us all from the worst Bourbon inclinations of the ‘new-order’ Tory, Britnat right; and I suspect the Cummings doesn’t care! I truly, truly hope so.