I know what you expect me to say. You expect me to say that Nicola Sturgeon’s new push for independence is outrageous, a blatant example of ignoring the 2014 referendum, and worst of all, a failure to talk about the real problems of independence – the currency, the border, all the rest of it. But I’m not going to say that. I’m going to say something different.
What I’m going to say is that there’s quite a bit in the first pamphlet – entitled Why Not Scotland? – that I actually love, mainly because there are a few signs – just a few – that the SNP has accepted and acknowledged some of the failures and unanswered questions of previous campaigns. In this sense at least, the paper represents a small step forward for the SNP.
But let’s start with the pamphlet’s main contention, which is that lots of small countries are independent so why not Scotland, an argument based on the questionable idea that size is a definitive factor.
Why not, in that case, compare us to Liberia, Mauritania, or Kyrgyzstan? The truth is that a country’s success depends on any number of historical, economic and political factors, and none of the countries the SNP mentions have been in a close union for more than 300 years.
That said, it’s hard to argue with the paper’s assessment of the UK’s economic situation – specifically, that Brexit has been disastrous. Leaving the EU, it says, has created higher barriers to trade with our neighbours and is likely to lead to slower growth compared to our competitors.
All true, although the obvious next question is: wouldn’t leaving the UK also create higher barriers to trade with our neighbours for Scotland? Perhaps one of the other pamphlets will answer that question. I do hope so.
Asked about the problem at the launch, the First Minister accepted there would be regulatory and customs issues at an English/Scottish border but suggested the issues could be managed in a way that did not affect businesses.
Notwithstanding your view of Ms Sturgeon’s management abilities, or everyone’s experience of the Northern Irish protocol, this is at least public acknowledgement of the problem. The real test, of course, will be the proposed solution which, again, we’re told will be in one of the other pamphlets. I’m excited to see what they come up with.
The main point here is that, here and there, you can detect in the first pamphlet the first few signs of a slightly more realistic approach. This for example: “independence does not guarantee success”.
And this: “an independent Scotland could not be transformed overnight”. And this: “independence by itself will not guarantee improved performance”. All of it suggests a slight dialling down of the independence-as-panacea approach.
It was also good to see the First Minister confirm her intention to obey the law, particularly when the UK Government has just confirmed its intention to break it over the EU protocol.
A referendum will only happen, she said, if it’s legal, although she also said she could find a legal way forward without a Section 30. Perhaps the details on that will also be in one of the future pamphlets. There’s a lot to pack into those pamphlets isn’t there?
In a way. that’s the bigger point here. This first hand-out is just the first few steps with none of the detail, the base camp of the mountain that the SNP have to climb. Some people will be impressed by the arguments about “comparable small countries”, others won’t be.
But the real test will be an honest acceptance of the problems and good, realistic solutions to them that can convince sceptics battered and bruised by the 2014 referendum, the realities of Brexit, and the cost of living.
We’re told all of this will be in the pamphlets to come. But it is at least positive that the first of them balances the idealism that nationalists expect with a drop of the realism the rest of us need.
Voters like me are looking closely at what the SNP is saying and how they are saying it. Is it more of the same stuff we got in 2014? Or is it different? More realistic? More honest. More cautious? Can it work? Roll on the next pamphlet.
Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel