Sturgeon: Independence: Five questions to answer in 2021

Question One: First Minister, can you explain your comment about Scotland being “unique”?

This is a particularly frustrating tendency of the First Minister and many other nationalists: the idea that Scotland is uniquely different to other nations. Ms Sturgeon says in her article that “Scotland, like all nations, is unique”, but what does that literal fact prove?

If Scotland was unique in any profound political sense, we would need a unique political system, but Scotland is largely the same as its neighbours: it faces the same problems, the same issues, the same challenges, and that’s why we cede some of our sovereignty.

READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon: Scottish independence 'has never been about separatism'

Ms Sturgeon accepts this when she talks about the EU, so why doesn’t she accept it when she talks about the UK?

Question 2: Why are you saying the majority of Scots support independence?

A tactic used by the SNP (and other parties as well) is to state something which is not proven and to state it frequently, loudly, and repeatedly. “Devolution is under threat.” “A referendum will happen next year.” “Independence is inevitable.” And now: “the majority of Scots support independence”.

Ms Sturgeon does it again in her article. “A consistent majority of people in Scotland,” she says, “now say they are in favour of becoming an independent country” even though we cannot know if that’s true or not. The polls show a majority of those who express an opinion now support independence, but that’s not the same as a majority of Scots. Around 10% of those questioned say they don’t know and you don’t need great statistical skill to realise 10% could swing the result.

READ MORE: Opposition needed to challenge the SNP on Scottish independence says Tony Blair

So, the question is: why is Nicola Sturgeon saying it anyway, that the majority of Scots support independence? And the answer is she’s saying it in the hope of bringing about a three-stage process. Stage one: we believe it. Stage two: we accept it. Stage three: we support it. It’s happened before and it can get parties over the line.

Question 3: In what way are England’s values different from ours?

Nicola Sturgeon loves the V word: values. The founding values of the EU, she says, are dignity, freedom, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, and these are Scotland’s values too, she says. She also writes that “unfortunately for those of us in Scotland, we are … at the sharp end of a very different project, driven by very different values: Brexit.”

But what is she suggesting here exactly? Is she suggesting the other nations of the UK – specifically England – do not support values such as dignity and freedom? If so, that’s a pretty outrageous thing to say and a rather unjustified example of Scottish moral superiority. My question would be: in what way exactly are England’s values different from Scotland’s? And in what way are “Scotland’s values” not universal values?

Question 4: Why wouldn’t you be comfortable with a federal UK?

In some ways, this is the most important question because it goes to the heart of the intellectual inconsistency of a party that supports leaving the UK and joining the EU. Ms Sturgeon says that more and more people in Scotland believe our aspirations can best be met by contributing to the shared endeavour and solidarity of the EU.

READ MORE: Boris Johnson doubles down on 'once in a generation' referendum claim

But what is the difference between a shared endeavour between Scotland and its neighbours across the Channel, and a shared endeavour between Scotland and its neighbours on the same island?  The other obvious question is how the First Minister could justify continuing to promote independence (as she surely would) if the UK was more federal. Scotland’s membership of a completely federalised UK would not, in any material respect, be different to Scotland’s membership of the EU. In both cases, decision-making is pooled on some subjects and we do not always get our way.

As she makes clear in her article, Ms Sturgeon accepts this shared-sovereignty model when talking about the EU – indeed, she appears to be in love with it – but when the same principles are applied to the UK, it’s a different story. In her article, she also suggests an independent Scotland would be a “bridge to aid understanding between the EU and the UK”. It’s the best joke in the article.

Question 5: Why are you still calling this a “hard Brexit”?

The final question is the most tricky one in a way, strategically, for the First Minister. She says Scotland is the victim of a “hard Brexit” and that there will be disruption in the short term and new barriers in the longer term. But you can sense the strain in this part of the article, and for obvious reasons.

The first problem is that if you say something will be a disaster before it happens, some people will believe you, but you can’t go on saying it if the disaster doesn’t happen. Most Scots will not notice any changes post-Brexit and if they do, they’ll be small, and that’s undoubtedly going to neuter the ability of the SNP to carry on catastrophising. It’s why you can hear the slight beep-beep of a reverse from the First Minister and the downgrading of her language to phrases like “short-term disruption”.

The second problem is that Ms Sturgeon’s desire for a softer Brexit highlights the inconsistency running through her outlook. She is desperate to cede sovereignty to one union but take it back from another, and for many voters that’s confusing. Such as Scots who voted Yes in 2014 and Leave in 2016. Or Scots who voted No in 2014 and Remain in 2016. Or Scots who are desperate for a coherent internationalist philosophy. Or even Scots who started 2021 with a resolution, quickly broken, to be less grumpy.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.