Ben Wray has an excellent editorial in Source Direct this morning, the daily newsletter from Common Weal, which i think the best think tack in Scotland, if not wider afield as well. In it he says that we have to 'get ready for a nastier British nationalism'. He makes these comments:
Ruth Davidson, who is apparently now acting as an unofficial advisor to Boris Johnson on Scotland, wrote in The Sunday Times that the big mistake made by unionists was "not sticking the boot in after the 2014 referendum".
"That was, morally, the right thing to do, but tactically it was a mistake," she said. "A huge strategic error in fact."
Davidson indicates where Johnson's strategy towards Scotland is going - towards ratcheting up hostilities with the SNP, knowing that in any conflict they hold the trump card of a constitutional veto.
And pulling together his previous arguments in the piece, which note the unholy alliances now assembling against independence, he adds:
Putting together Galloway, Blair and Davidson's interventions, the collective impression is of a British nationalism that is consolidating around an anti-democratic, right-wing and demagogic politics of confrontation. There's nothing here that would make you think that there's attractive new devolution packages coming down the road to Holyrood, and definitely not a Section 30 order. As Davidson indicates, lessons have been learnt. Forget a pretence about respect and conciliation - the best route to defending the Union is to get nasty. The independence movement will have to work out how to deal with a British nationalism which is closer to the standard politics of the Spanish state than what we have been used to.
Nothing has ever suggested a nation can be successfully oppressed against its will when that will has become apparent. It is becoming apparent that Scottish sentiment is changing, which is hardly surprising in view of Scottish opinion on Brexit. I am sure some will want to "stick the boot in". But if they do a sorry road lies ahead, which will end in more than tears. I sincerely hope that wiser heads prevail and that Scotland achieves what it wishes fro without the oppression that many see to want to impose on it, which will backfire.
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:
Wholeheartedly agreed.
Scotland needs many a steady hand at the tiller now.
English friends moved to Scotland about 20 years ago; they would have nothing to do with Independence at the last vote. Currently they are very much open to it. Their change of heart seems to chime with recent polling with the balance being tipped in favour of Indy.
I’m sure it was Ghandi that said:
1st they mock you, which they did with the ‘14 referendum – then stopped laughing when they nearly lost.
Then they fight you (the “British” way with an uppity indigenous population) – which it seems they are planning to do.
Then they lose – and the sooner the better
This will be what happens
But they’re in the ‘angry as hell’ phase right now
Sometime they will claim it was their idea, all along and push Northern Ireland (at least) out as well
It is the British State that is now driving the move to independence, not the SNP. They have shown their true colours and people increasingly don’t like what they see. They have also confused the SNP with the wider independence movement who are all parties and none.
We clearly got the referendum in 2014 because of Cameron’s smug overconfidence. He was absolutely convinced that he could campaign for No and win. After all he’d won office, just, in 2010 then won the AV referendum. The closeness of the Scottish referendum might have been a lesson for a better man but that’s another topic.
He was a gambler who loved settling constitutional questions with referenda, confident in his own campaigning skills.
If Yes had been polling at 54% or higher I don’t think we would have got a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014.
Johnson’s gamble however is that they can get the numbers down somehow. Away from corona, away from Brexit, maybe in 2025 most Scots will favour No and they can run another referendum to quiet the issue for a generation.
The flaw is that the longer they frustrate the vote the more support Yes grows.
Alternatively Johnson feels that Scotland is lost but wants that historic failure to be the legacy of someone else.
Simon says: “The flaw is that the longer they frustrate the vote the more support Yes grows.” Indeed, and once support for independence in excess of 50% is established in an official election/plebiscite (i.e. not an opinion poll), continuing refusal of a vote to leave the UK becomes, in effect a denial of democracy and therefore impossible to sustain.
Simon also says “…. Johnson feels that Scotland is lost but wants that historic failure to be the legacy of someone else.” Johnson has long voiced disparaging opinions about Scotland and its people, so I’d venture that he’s more concerned with his legacy – a bit late for that now! – than with the future of Scotland, in or out of the UK Union.
Sadly independence for Scotland is likely to be a flop until the country’s politicians get it into their heads that genuine independence or sovereignty requires fiscal and monetary sovereignty. How exactly are they going to negotiate that with both England and the EU?
Agreed.
They will also need some robust politicians to deal with the orthodox bullies both at home and abroad.
It seems that Colonel Ruth Davidson has sat on one tank too many to be considered a credible expert on Scotland. Her only talent as leader of the Tory Scottish Branch Office was for self publicity, thus the pugilistic bombast of her latest ridiculous utterance. It has long struck me that her dislike of Boris Johnson is only exceeded by her abhorence of most Scots but she will do anything for publicity.
I consider the remark about “sticking the boot in” to be similar to the language of fascist thugs. I find it inexplicable that a political figure could use the image of violence.
Of course, what they are trying to do is to de-legitimise the movement for an independent Scotland as a political aspiration and implant the notion that Unionism is the only legitimate political position. It will backfire.
Having turned their back on all their promises, vows and aspirations of 2014, how are they “to put the boot in” without a leg to stand on?
Fiscal and monetary sovereignty will not require negotiation with either the UK or EU. I think most people now realise that the creation of a new Scottish pound as soon after independence as possible is the way to go. The division of assets is where the main negotiations will take place. Will the UK grant Scotland its share of the National Debt/Credit?
I am addressing the liability issue in the morning
And if the liability issue is resolved so is the asset issue
The only aspects I will not be addressing are likely to be pensions and nuclear decommissioning
“Fiscal and monetary sovereignty will not require negotiation with either the UK or EU.”
Not true because of the issue of fair trading and the need to regulate government subsidy to private enterprises.
You appear to confuse fiscal and monetary Sovereignty with the need to trade on the international stage. The UK seems to be making rather a hash of the FTAs with both the EU and USA.
Scotland already has its own currency as the Scottish Banks issue their own notes, it is a simple matter to treat Scottish Branches as issuing Scottish Pounds and sending the English notes back to England just the same as Euros or other currencies get sent to their respective homes.
Scotland does not have its own currency
Scottish notes are pounds sterling
That the notes are different does not make them a Scottish currency
The divorce negotiations should be quite simple. rUK wishes to be the ‘Continuing State’ in international law. That means they keep the seat at the UN, all the assets (Falklands, embassies) and all the liabilities (National Debt, state pension). Scotland gets whatever is physically in Scotland and our territorial waters (Rockall, oil). Nautical boundaries will be decided by the UN Law of the Sea and not Blair’s annexation of a large part of the North Sea. The only things I can see that need to be discussed are the state pension, and Faslane. There will be technical issues about the transfer of records for pensions, welfare and taxation and there will need to be a handover process e.g. to replace HMRC collecting tax with Tax Scotland.
There is no need for us to e.g. try to claim part of the Bank of England as it is not worth it (8% of the reserves is less than £5 billion) and if you do try to claim any assets then you get the liabilities as well. The liabilities are bigger than the assets.
We are in remarkable accord, although I would suggest it is all nuclear issues
I am dealing with the asset issue tomorrow
Thanks for that Richard. Will the pensions issue be dealt with later?
Many of us OAP’ s are particularly interested in the mechanics of how state and private pensions might operate in an independent Scotland with a new currency while their private pension resides with an English pension trustee and denominated in pounds sterling.
I’ll be candid: what is the issue?
The state pensions will be paid
As will private pensions – but they will be paid in sterling in all likelihood (although Tim Rideout might suggest otherwise, I think)
I would imagine pensions would work just the same as for all those British pensioner immigrants to Spain et al
Hi Pentlander, the State Pension will be paid in just the same way as it is paid to people in Spain or Portugal. For that matter also the same as it is paid to somebody from Poland who works in the UK for 10 years and then goes back to Poland (who would get 10 years out of 35 years worth). Private pensions from a UK annuity or any rUK company pension would also be paid just as now. These would all be paid in sterling, so there will be a currency risk. My proposals include the Sterling Pensioner Guarantee – the Scottish Government guarantees to make up any shortfall if the S£ rises against sterling. That way all such pensioners have a one way bet on independence. If the S£ plunges their pension will be much higher in S£. If, as is more likely, the S£ rises then ScotGov makes up the shortfall. It is possible in the negotiations that ScotGov might take over the UK state pension liabilities in exchange for some sort of payment from rUK. Anyone currently working will cease paying rUK NI on Independence and will start paying into some sort of ScotGov state pension (which will hopefully be paid out at something more typical of the average EU state pension).
You might Find that Any negotiation Will be Done under the Vienna Convention
“Oppressed” – please explain how, and by who, Scotland is oppressed?
Oh for heaven’s sake…..do you really not have sufficient wit to understand such a thing?
Just go and do some reading
Even try some empathy
Because let me tell you what your comment is: it’s the language of the oppressor
here’s a post refuting Northern Irish Unionist objections to a United Ireland. Scottish readers might find it useful to bear in mind when chatting with their NO neighbours and workmates, as many of the objections are probably broadly similar .
Specifically for pensions:
You will note that when the Republic of Ireland gained independence in 1921, the Irish government honoured State pensions
“Reorganized European states include Ireland in 1922 and Germany in 1990. There were no issues with pensions, mortgages and so forth. Regardless of UK commitments, the Irish State will honour public sector pensions just as they did after Partition”.
https://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2019/11/16/20-unionist-objections-to-a-united-ireland/
Scotland would have to do the same – but that does not mean their are issues to Resolve especially when people move between the countries and re tax deduction
Richard, most public sector pensions in Scotland are already administered by ScotGov – NHS, emergency services, teachers, all ScotGov employees. Local authorities all have their own funded schemes. Only thing at issue would be UK civil servants in Scotland – HMRC, military, and the like. There are not actually very many of those – around 10,000 for the MoD for example.
Agreed
But Scotland must also not pick up the cost of people who move north whose pensions were not earned there
Ruth Davison gets it wrong on fact as well as the politics of the post referendum period. Following the No vote, rather than applying the soothing balm of all things Union (such as extending HS2 to include Scotland for example, itself an amazing indicator of English insensitivity) the half-witted Cameron thought then was a great time to ramp up the stupidity by introducing English votes for English Laws and thereby negate the No vote. That English MPs could not be outvoted was of no consequence but what they really needed post ref was to exclude the non-English : a petty, overt “sticking the boot in” was indeed the Tory reaction.