Sir Tom Devine: My fears for Scotland in the wake of Brexit

“The world has become a more unstable place. The EU for all its faults and weaknesses has helped to keep peace in Europe for the longest time since medieval times. Brexit could not have happened at a more inopportune time since the UK first joined the EU.”

Since stepping away from Edinburgh University in a full-time capacity in 2014 (he remains the Sir William Fraser Professor of Scottish History in the University) Sir Tom has not exactly been taking it easy. He is currently at work on two more books but has been able to observe more closely the ebb and flow of international affairs.

In 2014 just a few months before the first referendum on Scottish independence, and to the surprise of many, he revealed that he would be voting ‘Yes’. “Some people with whom I had previously enjoyed rewarding professional and personal relationships still haven’t talked to me as a result of that,” he says. Has he remained a supporter of Scottish independence in the interim period?

“My sympathies still lie in favour of Scottish independence as the best long term route for the nation on many levels,” he says, “however whether or not I’d be willing to cast my vote in that direction within the next couple of years depends on two things: the quality of the SNP government’s attempts to deal with the daunting economic questions - especially in conditions that are much less benign - and the progress of the Brexit negotiations.

“The vital element is timing. As far as possible until we see how things are going my advice to Nicola Sturgeon would be that our gunpowder must be kept dry. I think the chances of a favourable vote are much greater the more apparent a hard Brexit becomes. At the moment there is still lack of clarity in this area. And I’m firmly of the belief that Brexit will not occur anyway.”

This is not merely a gut instinct informed by his own preference. “The hard Brexit being pursued by Theresa May will erode support for Leave and strengthen Remain. And the last UK ambassador to the EU warned that negotiations would go on for at least 10 years; that will encompass two UK general elections: a lot could happen. The 27 member states all have to agree with final outcome and each has a veto.”

And then there’s the small matter of an impending second referendum on Scottish independence. “If Scotland voted to leave the UK then Theresa May would have to resign. Meanwhile, the growing uncertainty as negotiations proceed will start to impact on the UK economy as the phoney war is followed by cold realities. And it’s inevitable that a powerful political movement will emerge to represent the so far unrepresented in England of 49 per cent Remainers and fill what is a yawning political vacuum at present.”

Sir Tom is convinced that Brexit, far from being a blessing to the cause of Scottish independence may yet turn out to be a curse. He urges caution. “Brexit means that the second independence referendum will be fought on ground and at a time that is not of the Scottish Government’s choosing. The First Minister Sturgeon is now boxed in and has no choice but to go for the second referendum if she is to avoid undermining some credibility.”

He cites a weaker economic case that has yet to be publicly addressed by the SNP and greater global uncertainty adding to the angst of older voters who played a crucial role in 2014’s outcome. And if the UK does indeed leave the EU then we face a hard border with our biggest trading partner and that’s before you take into consideration the dilemma facing Nationalist strategists; that a substantial minority of SNP supporters voted for leave.

Yet, while his personal preference is for Sturgeon to wait a while longer to see how Brexit begins to play out the academic sees several reasons for optimism even if she calls it for next year or 2019. “Support for independence is now much higher than it was at the start of last campaign and Better Together will have a much reduced offering. The UK Government which will still be expected to coordinate a new No campaign is fighting a war on three fronts which also includes the vexed issue of a hard border between north and south in Ireland and all that that might entail.

“And the thought of unending UK rule by a right-wing Tory government is a powerful weapon if wielded astutely. It’s also the last chance saloon for supporters of Scottish independence. Defeat will mean that the cause is lost for this generation and the one after that. Such a prospect might concentrate the minds of waverers and soft unionists.”

It’s become clear over the last week or so that Unionists are gearing up for a second referendum. Might it be the case that faced with the prospect of this ‘war on three fronts’, some recent rhetoric from supporters of the constitutional status quo has become tawdry and unedifying? “I agree; it’s almost as they have become oblivious to the so-called partnership that Gordon Brown and David Cameron talked about in 2014. They seem to be goading the Scottish Government to the precipice of a second referendum,” Sir Tom says.

“And speaking as one who has never been a Scottish nationalist and who has never been a member of the SNP there is unambiguous evidence that the SNP is in no way, shape or form a racist party. This was shown to best effect in 2014 when the Scottish Government decreed that anyone living in Scotland, no matter their country of origin would have a vote in the referendum. This was the right and moral thing to do.”

TOM DEVINE FULL TRANSCRIPT

WE’RE living, I think, in a very unpleasant global, political climate. From Russia we’re seeing a great deal of sabre-rattling from a belligerent, post-Communist regime and this has been exacerbated by the terrible Brexit outcome from last year’s vote on the EU membership. For all its weaknesses the UK is one of Europe’s major powers and one of the continent’s most stabilising influences. It has undoubtedly been a force for good.  That is not to say that Britain leaving the EU has dealt it a death blow but it will have a major effect.

Brexit itself has had ramifications well beyond its effect on Britain; it has given comfort to extreme right wing parties and other xenophobic interests in Europe and it has contributed undeniably to the weakening of the EU. There has also been a powerfully negative impact in terms of non-liberal developments. Let’s not forget there are already authoritarian governments in power in countries like Hungary and Poland and we must hope that something similar doesn’t emerge doesn’t emerge in Scandinavia and France over the next couple of years. We are experiencing fragile moments in Europe’s history.

This uncertainty has also produced a significant degree of anxiety within the Irish part of the British archipelago – and especially for the government of the Irish Republic - with the theoretical establishment of a hard border. Meanwhile all independent fiscal experts including the IFS and the IMF suggest that in the medium to long term Brexit has the potential to wreak incalculable damage to our economic system.

As far as Scotland is concerned, the SNP government has been placed in an impossible position. It’s been forced to the precipice of fighting another referendum campaign at a time and on a ground not of its choosing.

Yet, to my mind, the most alarming and disgraceful consequence of Brexit is the legitimisation it’s given to anti-immigrant feeling in England. By all criteria this has been powerfully negative. Taken with those other developments from Russia in the east to the presidency of Donald Trump in the west I regard the times we are living in to be among the most politically challenging that I have encountered since I became politically aware in early 1950s.

There can be no doubt that the world has become more unstable. The EU has helped to keep peace in Europe for longest time since medieval times and we need it more than ever with the continuing baleful influence that Russia is exerting, to the rise of Isis on the back of instability in the Arab countries through to the potential re-emergence of tension in Northern Ireland. The Trump presidency has a potential to fan some of these flames. Brexit couldn’t have happened at a more inopportune time since the UK first joined the EU.

There is a disequilibrium in terms of the old world order. The developed societies which have stood the test of time for many decades are being rocked to their foundations. Indeed the confluence of these regional instabilities can be captured in the phrase ‘a perfect storm’. The political structures that have contributed to the stability of the past half century or so have now become more unstable than at any time since.

Yet, to what extent have the elites which have traditionally administered these political structures been responsible for the current sense of global instability? In my opinion, while they have maintained a degree of stability some of their behaviours at crucial times have sewn the seeds of much of the instability we are seeing. The ruling elites in Europe and North America especially are partially guilty for the phenomena we’re discussing. This began with the process of deindustrialisation across the developed world. The human cost of this process was rarely factored in and more often simply ignored and it is still present. This was further exacerbated by the financial crisis of 2008. The effects of this were felt across the globe and there ensued a general acknowledgement – and a combustible one - that the austerity it produced was one-sided. Furthermore, the people who caused it had not only been seen to escape condign punishment but, in many cases had been seen to enrich themselves with it.

This resulted in an enormous amount of resentment leading to outright anger. And it’s a trans-national anger which means that it is outside the control of national governments. In Africa, which has suffered grievously from western exploitation followed by indifference there has been increased instability which has caused an extraordinary increase in immigration from the third world. This, in turn, has bred an epidemic of populist anger whipped up by hard-right demagogues who have gained a degree of influence in democratic politics.

Circumstances like these can have the potential to trigger global armed conflict. In the past this has been avoided by deploying calmness and reason, but we’re not getting this today. In the midst of this the UN has become a paper tiger, lacking both the power and influence that its founders hoped it would have. Internationalism is weak and there is a lot of anger; clearly this is a recipe for significant discontent between nations. Could it eventually play out in the military sphere? Well, I think the jury on that is out at the moment.

Coming back to Scotland, we currently enjoy more material interconnectedness with the rest of the world through trade, finance, relationships and travel that at any other time in our history. One of the positive aspects of this situation is that the best future for small countries lies in their amicable relationships with larger blocks. This is truer to a greater extent than when it was thought that internationalism and transnationalism in political affairs were regarded as the best way forward.

So, in Scotland’s case, is its future as a small country best served in an amicable relationship with the rest of the UK or with the EU? And given that the UK Is hell-bent on leaving the EU on the hardest possible terms is there not a case for Scotland’s best interests being served in making its own deal with Europe as an independent country?

No matter what your preferred answer is to either of those questions the future is problematic. At the moment the overwhelming amount of Scottish trade is done with England (though there is nothing to suggest that this won’t continue to be the case even if there were a hard border between the two entities). In 2014 that wasn’t necessarily seen as a negative to the nationalist dynamic as there was an assumption that London and Edinburgh would simply sort it out if Scotland had voted to leave the union.

The situation is entirely different now. What is the rational response of voters likely to be? There can be no doubt at all that the economic case for independence is currently weaker than it was in 2014. And the intellectual vacuum on 2014 on currency, pensions and future economic prospects has still to be filled.

If there is to be a second independence referendum then the minds of the Scottish people will have to be concentrated that they are in the last chance saloon. For, if there is another No vote then the possibility for Scottish independence will be lost for our generation and probably the one after that. Ironically, this concentration of minds may be to the advantage of the Nationalist cause in the sense that it demonstrates that they are not thinking merely in the short term but actively considering the long-term position.

However, I think it would be wrong to go to the polls for another referendum on the assumption that Brexit will actually happen. I think that the chances of it happening are now less than they were in June, 2016. The Brexit press initially said that it was Holy Writ that it was going to happen. Now questions are starting to be asked. The road to a full Brexit and especially if that is also a hard Brexit is not only going to be longer than is being suggested by government but it is going to be extraordinarily rocky.

The hard Brexit being pursued by Theresa May will erode support for Leave and strengthen Remain. The last UK ambassador to the EU warned that negotiations would go on for at least 10 years; that will encompass two UK general elections: a lot could happen. The 27 member states all have to agree with final outcome and each has a veto.

Of course, the pro-independence parties could adopt a position on the moral high ground now more so than before with the emergence of a right-wing conservative government in England which looks like it is set to rule the UK for a very long time and the failure of the Labour Party to lay a glove on it.

Regrettably though, the financial bottom line both in relation to referendums and general elections seems to be pretty important. Whether it will be different in relation to a second independence referendum is open to debate. The difference between this one and the previous one is that this is a zero sum game now: it’s this or it’s the status quo.

Not all the aces in the pack though, are in the hands of the unionist camp. Apart from a long-term Tory hegemony which doesn’t go down well in Scotland, there’s another linked area. I find it difficult to believe, especially given the state of the Labour Party in Scotland and given that Westminster is now obsessed comprehensively with the Brexit issue that the Better Together operation can be as effective as the last time.

Westminster has far fewer goodies to bring in to play and so the kind of behaviour and machinations that occurred in the days before the first referendum are now obsolete. It almost seems oblivious to the so-called partnership that Gordon Brown and David Cameron talked about in 2014. It almost seems that they are goading the Scottish Government to the precipice of a second independence referendum.

Is this behind the desperate tactic of describing Scottish nationalism as racist, as we have observed recently? Speaking as someone who has never been a Scottish nationalist and who has never been a member of the SNP there is unambiguous evidence that the SNP is in no way, shape or form a racist party. It goes out of its way consistently and continuously to show otherwise; he best example being that anyone who lived in Scotland, no matter their country of origin, had a right to vote in the first referendum. I think that was absolutely the right thing to do. If the Scottish Government had gone down the quasi-sectarian route it would have lost a lot of support among a lot of Scots.

In last few days the mood from Westminster I’m sensing is that Theresa May and her cabinet are much more concerned with the possibility of a second referendum. And I sense that there may be some possibility of flexibility on Scottish demands in terms of the Brexit negotiations. It must be a nightmare for the Westminster government to be facing a potential conflict on three fronts if you include Northern Ireland which could produce the prospect of direct rule again.

There’s a moral dimension too. Some reluctant No voters last time around may be persuaded to enact a moral and ethical backlash in retaliation to the continued hard Right direction of the UK government; anti-immigration and the lies that were told during the EU campaign about NHS spending.

There’s no doubt that the British people were sold a pup in terms of the promises and facts of the Brexiteers. Nor are the terms of Brexit the same as many of us assumed they were or would be. It is now fundamentally important and morally imperative that the UK parliament has a sovereign decision over the final terms of Brexit. I personally know a number of people who are enthusiastic internationalists and Europeans who will change their vote from No in 2014.

However, for many the decision will be made on the everyday necessities: the ordinary means of subsistence; the opportunities for a career; the education of their children; the future of their children: these will be the moralities which will be decisive in any future referendum.

And it’s imperative that the Scottish government this time around tries to answer publicly some of the flank attacks on economic issues, some of which were devastating last time around.

My sympathies still lie in favour of Scottish independence as the best long term route for the nation. Whether or not I’d be willing to cast my vote in that direction within the next couple of years depends on two things: the attempt to deal with the daunting economic questions and the progress of the Brexit negotiations.

My advice to the First Minister would be to suggest that the vital element in all of this is timing. As far as possible until we see how Brexit progresses the gunpowder must be kept dry. I think the chances of a favourable vote are much greater the more apparent a hard Brexit becomes. At the moment there is still lack of clarity in this area. And I still don’t believe that Brexit will occur anyway.

I’d also like to see more signs of genuine social progress being made by the SNP government. To an extent the current government has been disappointing on social reform; the position of disadvantaged communities in our large cities and on the problem of concentrated land ownership in Scotland.

I suspect more would be supportive of the independence agenda if the relative neglect in these areas could be repaired as soon as possible. The SNP government are much more vulnerable in their domestic policies than at any other time since they gained majority government in 2011.