New times, same old debate
According to Nicola Sturgeon, ‘the UK that existed before June 23 has fundamentally changed.’ Brexit means ‘seismic changes’ that will have a ‘deep impact’, and in this context Scotland needs ‘a new conversation and a new debate for these new times’.
I agree with all of this. Leaving the EU is a titanic decision that redefines Britain, for good or ill, in our own eyes and in the eyes of others. It changes the way our country is run, who runs it, and how we are in the world. Politically, culturally, even tonally, we are suddenly a different place, and are required to be different people. The practical consequences, the challenges and, yes, the opportunities are not yet even half-understood, including by those who fought so hard to secure Brexit — indeed, those slab-faced, grimly determined men now running the Brexit ministries in Whitehall seem just as befuddled and unsighted as the rest of us. Hard Brexit or soft Brexit? In the single market or out? EFTA or EEA or neither? A prefab deal or a custom-built option?
There’s a lot of thinking to be done, not least by the many Scots who voted No in the independence referendum and Remain in the EU referendum. Having won one and lost one, we find ourselves in a confusing position: the country we explicitly chose to keep in 2014 has been replaced by one we explicitly voted to reject in 2016. An unwanted gamble with our future prosperity, reputation and influence has been forced on us in part by English nationalists, many of whom are no less unappealing than the wide-eyed, hollow-skulled, gape-mouthed cybernats who ultimately did so much harm to the Yes campaign. Sometimes, we learn, the zoomers win — that’s democracy. But these are queer times in which no answer is final, and so we are left with a question: what are you going to do about it?
It doesn’t help that the institutions tying the UK together are in a parlous condition. As Ms Sturgeon points out, we may be ‘witnessing the end of the Labour Party’, which is in ‘utter chaos and collapse’. The Right of the Tory party is nauseously resurgent. The few remaining Lib Dems seem mainly focused on securing the introduction of a 5p charge on paper cups in Starbucks. The Union doesn’t work so well when the largest partner bulldozes through its preferred option against the wishes of the periphery. We no longer know where we stand with the Americans, to whom we have owed a substantial measure of our continued global prominence since the end of the Second World War and who, convinced we’ve gone bonkers, will now be downgrading our importance in the chain of command.
The point of Britain today, and what the point of it will be tomorrow, is unclear and almost unknowable. The relationship between its constituent parts, which once rested on shared values and fellow-feeling, no longer seems a safe long-term bet. On all sides, the romance is gone, and what’s left is transactional — if it’s worth it, we’ll stay together, but it’s not unthinkable that we could split.
All of which provides a rather obvious opportunity for the SNP. To that end, Ms Sturgeon travelled to my home city of Stirling yesterday to unveil a fresh drive for independence. (Stirling rather neatly encapsulates her challenge — it has an SNP MP and MSP, but voted 60 per cent against independence in the independence referendum and 67 per cent for staying in the EU in June.)
The First Minister made a reasonable pro-European case: that Scotland expects to have its voice heard ahead of Article 50 being triggered in order to shape the best outcome — ‘or, more accurately, the least bad’; that she wants to protect to whatever extent she can the benefits to Scottish businesses of free movement and the single market; that she wants to safeguard the future of our universities and the ability of students to participate in the Erasmus exchange programme. She was also right to point out that Theresa May’s government shows every sign of pushing through a Brexit designed by the hardline outers in her Cabinet that would pay little heed to the closeness of the referendum result and the ambiguity felt by many Britons towards the situation we are in.
And this, Ms Sturgeon argues, is a legitimate reason for Scotland to reconsider its constitutional status. A new debate on independence ‘would not be a rerun of 2014’ because ‘the UK that Scotland voted to stay part of… has changed — and so too have the arguments for and against independence.’
There will be a ‘listening exercise’, in effect a creepy SNP data-gathering exercise that will attempt to winkle out what would make people vote for independence, while collecting their names, postcodes and email addresses for future use in campaigns. More interestingly, there is to be an SNP Growth Commission, chaired by my friend Andrew Wilson, a former MSP and RBS bigwig.
It’s obvious that if the SNP is ever to convince a majority of Scots to back independence, it needs to have a credible economic case — and to say the least, it lacked one in 2014. Mr Wilson is a clever centrist, an economist with a sympathy for the private sector and free markets and one of the movement’s most convincing advocates. He understands the mindset of No voters better than anyone else I have met in his party. If, as Ms Sturgeon said, ‘we want to build, if we can, a consensus on the way ahead,’ he is the right man for the job.
But even this charming fellow has his work cut out. Yesterday morning, as Ms Sturgeon supped her porridge, YouGov released a poll showing that 54 per cent of Scots would still vote against independence. Even with Brexit, the collapse in the Labour vote and abysmal personal ratings for that party’s UK and Scottish leaders, the Nats are making no headway on their raison d’etre. Indeed, Ruth Davidson now enjoys a higher popularity rating than Ms Sturgeon, and even Mrs May, leader of the apparently loathed Westminster Tories, had an impressive score of +13 (compared to -42 for Jeremy Corbyn).
This tells you a few things, including that Scots are a sophisticated and complex political audience who are impressed by competence, and who will not be gulled into backing independence by silly online surveys and bombastic rhetoric without basis in fact. We might rant against the reality of Brexit, but that doesn’t mean we’re particularly keen to swap one insecurity, which is at least cushioned by the economic might of the UK, for the even greater insecurity of independence, with little go-it-alone Scotland exposed to the squalls of the international markets. When Ms Sturgeon says that ‘the idea of Westminster as some sort of safe harbour for Scotland is completely redundant’, a majority of Scots would respond, ‘steady on, hen.’ The fact that the economic data shows no real impact from Brexit — yet, at least — also rather undermines her case.
For all its electoral success, the SNP still fails to understand that to achieve its main goal it needs to sue for peace. It has to solder together a nation brutally snapped in two during the indyref campaign, a breach it played a significant part in bringing about. It needs to develop a mature relationship with Westminster and the UK Government, rather than incessantly whining like an angry, spoiled child — Ms Sturgeon’s speech yesterday suggests there remains significant work to do on this front, as did her downright odd response to the recent GERS figures. It has to build an elevated national tone and a confidence that is based on real policy achievement rather than empty swagger and wise-guy promises. Hatred of the Tories is not enough: most voters do not hate. Independence, if it is ever to happen, cannot be based on rage and rejection.
Will they ever get there? A few days after the 2014 referendum a friend of mine was talking to a senior SNP figure — one of the really nice ones — and asked whether the defeat meant he would ease off on the whole indy schtick for a while. ‘I’ve been a member of this party for decades,’ came the response. ‘I would live in a cave if it meant Scotland being independent.’ Fair enough, but most ordinary Scots think that’s a ridiculous position. We don’t feel what he feels. It’s not at all clear, even now, for all their trimming and recasting of the message, that the SNP really understands this. Their insatiable lust for separation and their always-on anger seems in the end to override clear thinking and good sense. Which is why those of us open to a genuine discussion find they fall short of being worthwhile and reliable interlocutors, and why their ultimate goal will continue to elude them.
This article appeared in the Scottish Daily Mail on September 3, 2016
