THE vote in Scotland and Northern Ireland to remain in the European Union has been treated as more of “an irritation” than a central concern in the UK Government’s Brexit planning, according to a paper by two leading European experts.
In their analysis, published today, Dr Kirsty Hughes and Dr Katy Hayward, state the EU context has underpinned existing constitutional settlements in the two countries and that both “look set to be badly hit by a ‘hard’ Brexit, if that is what transpires”.
They say: “Partly intentionally and partly unintentionally, the UK government’s handling of the Brexit process has reinforced and underlined the centralised nature of the UK political system and the dominant power of Westminster even after 20 years of devolution.”
The two experts Hughes, the director of the Scottish Centre on European Relations, and Hayward, of Queen’s University, Belfast, have also written a blog based on the paper, which is published in The National today.
They conclude: “There has been a remarkable lack of concern at UK level over the fact that two of the four constituent parts of the UK voted ‘remain’. In both Northern Ireland and Scotland, the ‘remain’ voice has not been adequately represented since the vote.
“This is particularly the case in NI – where the absence of an executive and assembly has meant there is no proper representation for the range of views that exist there. This has been exacerbated by the unanticipated and disproportionate influence of the ‘leave’-supporting DUP.”
A press statement setting out the research said: “Devolution – and the implications of two devolved areas voting remain – appears to have been viewed more as an irritation than a central concern in the UK’s Brexit planning to date.”
The paper concludes unless the UK changes tack to back a ‘soft’ Brexit, a differentiated solution for Northern Ireland is likely, meaning a border in the Irish Sea. However, it argues that for Scotland, any differentiated outcome is highly unlikely as it is lacking political support by the UK Government and in Brussels.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel