TRICKY things, anniversaries. Forget one – and trouble may ensue.
However, it can also be an error to attach too much importance to the simple passage of time.
In a co-ordinated effort this week, SNP leaders at both Holyrood and Westminster drew attention to the fact that it is three years since Brexit. Since the UK, Scotland included, left the European Union.
The purpose of the endeavour, of course, was to remind us that people in Scotland voted by two to one in favour of remaining in the bloc, contrary to opinion throughout the UK as a whole.
Further, the objective was to argue that the only way for Scotland to return to the EU embrace was to adopt independence, because the main UK political parties have accepted Brexit, with varying degrees of fervour.
The aim, then, was to stimulate the case for independence. However, it also reminded us that the demand for a further referendum on that topic is currently stalled.
An aside first. There was a brief flurry of discourse this week over the point that SNP leaders see EU membership as an intrinsic element of the independence offer. Not something to be put to the people of Scotland in a separate plebiscite.
Those who got excited over this were swiftly reminded this had long been Nicola Sturgeon’s position, that she said as far back as April 2021 that she did not plan an EU referendum in addition to the independence version.
This is not merely efficiency or thrift. It is a political choice. Ms Sturgeon believes that rejoining the EU is a key element in the independence package, that it sweetens the deal.
Further, it revisits an old SNP theme which is intended to counter language suggesting that independence involves breaking up the UK or leaving our chums in England.
The argument goes that Scotland would instead be joining the EU, although no longer as an equal partner with England. Not leaving, but joining, to paraphrase Stevie Smith.
That argument dates back to the period when the SNP first adopted the policy of EU membership, of “Scotland in Europe”.
However, I am equally intrigued by another mode of SNP language. That is the language of escape, of flight.
In the Commons this week, Stephen Flynn initially provoked ironic Tory cheers when he reminded the House that it was three years since Brexit.
The SNP Westminster leader then went on to note the IMF forecast that, alone among advanced nations, the UK would register no economic growth in the year ahead.
His answer? Scots should “jump aboard the independence lifeboat”.
At Holyrood, Angus Robertson, the External Affairs Secretary, set out the proclaimed benefits for Scotland of EU membership then argued that Scotland could “escape” the attendant economic damage via independence.
As I have noted previously, this language modifies the previous SNP offer which was that Scots should have the confidence to govern themselves.
Only slightly, I acknowledge. However, the shift is discernible and is, of course, founded upon the precept that the UK is a broken economic model, with Brexit making matters decidedly worse.
Something which the PM vigorously contests. He said the economy had been hit by Covid, energy prices and the war in Ukraine. To SNP derision, he said it was nothing to do with Brexit.
Let us set that aside for a moment, while noting in passing that most analysts reckon Brexit in these initial years has proved a hindrance to trade, stripping growth from the UK economy.
Instead, let us ponder two other questions. Does reversing Brexit help the independence cause? And are we any closer to indyref2?
How about those EU benefits, cited by Angus Robertson? They include freedom of movement, which might counter labour shortages, and joining “the world’s largest single market, seven times larger than the UK”.
On that latter point, opponents would lodge two caveats. They would say that the UK has a working trade deal with the EU and is creating new trade links elsewhere.
Europhiles say the deal with the EU is decidedly imperfect and that the other links either replicate the EU structure or, in the case of Australia and New Zealand, might pose potential threats to UK agriculture.
There is another point which did not feature in Mr Robertson’s list. How about trade with the rest of the UK? Scotland would be in the EU but bordering non-EU England. Would that not simply create an amplified version of the problems surrounding the Northern Ireland protocol?
The answer is yes, potentially. Hints of compromise on Northern Ireland were dismissed this week by EU sources. SNP leaders say the English border is an issue to be addressed but voice confidence that agreement would be reached.
Another thought. Why does EU membership have to be intrinsic to the independence campaign? Not all Nationalists think that way.
I spoke to Alex Neil, former SNP Cabinet Secretary. He told me the EU had become like a religion for his erstwhile colleagues.
He added: “If they put as much effort into campaigning for independence, then we might have achieved it by now.” He argues for a separate referendum on the terms of entry to the EU.
Again, set that aside. Is there notable zeal for the EU in Scotland? Not support on balance, as in 2016, but real fervour.
I am not sure there is. Certainly not anything like the passion evinced by the firmest supporters of independence.
For SNP leaders, this is a calculation, not first principles. They reckon Scots need clarity, need that “lifeboat” and so would welcome the EU.
So are we any closer to indyref2? Not really. The Brexit anniversary matters little in that regard.
Nicola Sturgeon will put her plan for a “de facto” election referendum to a special party conference. SNP strategist Stephen Noon suggested this week that Holyrood might prise a second referendum from a UK Labour Government in return for endorsing the Gordon Brown package of UK constitutional reform. Disarmingly, he also conceded his friends think he is “overly optimistic”.
Nicola Sturgeon told MSPs that “we need to find a way back to Europe”. No firm sign yet of whether, when or how.
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