UNBELIEVABLY, there’s still endless chatter about a second referendum on the European Union. I understand why people are tempted to join this discussion in order to give the Tories a kicking they sorely deserve. However, there are two main reasons why the Yes movement must ignore this as a pointless distraction. First, if another EU referendum did take place, all the evidence suggests that Leave would win again, casting British liberalism further into the abyss of social media bubble politics.
Second, morally, however much we agree or disagree, it’s already done. Of course, we should encourage Britain to take, say, the path of non-EU Norway, rather than the road of wining and dining dictators and Trump and cutting corporation tax to damn near zero. But like it or not, Brexit is going to happen, one way or another.
If we’re all going to respect Britain’s right to self-determination in Europe then Britain, of course, should equally respect Scotland’s right to self-determination. Indeed, the uncomfortable fact is, if people want a country in the European Union, their best option is to move to Scotland and campaign for a second independence referendum.
But that leaves another issue. Should a grown-up Scotland with all the powers of self-determination choose to surrender those powers back to the European Union? We’ve pretty much concluded that we’d prefer the EU to Boris Johnson or Donald Trump, but surely our political horizons don’t end there. Only after independence can we really discuss what Scotland wants, free from the distractions of Ukip-style populism infecting British politics.
Our relationship with Europe is a funny one. In the 1970s and early 1980s, Scotland was unquestionable one of the most “Eurosceptic” areas of Britain. Today, we act like Scotland has a history of pro-EU politics that’s more ancient than our mountain ranges when actually pro-EU Scotland is far younger than Ewan McGregor, for example.
Another funny thing is this. The European Union, famously, splits opinion between the establishment and the masses. Broadly speaking, in most countries, the political elite relish the European Union far more than voters do. In Scotland, the independence movement is seen as anti-establishment, radically democratic and anti-neoliberal, yet seems palpably enthusiastic about one of the most elitist, post-democratic and neoliberal institutions on the planet.
In most of Europe, the idea of a popular mass movement for the European Union sounds like a contradiction in terms. It’s a bit like hearing about a Mexican movement for Donald Trump. However, in Scotland it could be a real possibility. It’s possible, perhaps even likely at this stage, that the Yes campaign next time could be a narrowly focused pro-EU mash-up.
Personally, I would guard against that. Polls since the Brexit referendum have shown little impact on support for Scottish independence. Yet it seems that, rather than talking about the prospects of independence, we’re locked into casting up fears about what might happen to Brexit Britain. So far, those fears haven’t materialised. Will they? Perhaps. But timing will be crucial.
Perhaps the polls aren’t moving because voters haven’t yet realised how bad Brexit is going to be. Let’s entertain that possibility. 2016 has proved that just about anything can happen, so I’m a little unwilling to make strong predictions.
But I do believe there’s something else here. Basically, it seems that the people who are most annoyed about Brexit are the liberal, cosmopolitan upper professional class. These are the people who were the least likely to vote for Scottish independence because they felt little reason to protest against the status quo.
Today, they might be slightly more likely to vote for independence. They’re certainly annoyed at Westminster. Indeed, they actively hate the status quo. However, the one thing this class hates is “pointless” political protest and upheaval which might risk their living standards, which is why many remain simultaneously opposed to Brexit and to Scottish independence.
Perhaps a second-run of Yes Scotland can put forward a sterile, pro-business, pro-stability campaign designed specifically to attract these liberal voters. It could downplay protest politics and equality. It could rely on a common hatred of Westminster incompetence and Westminster greed to build a coalition of the willing.
But such a strategy poses dangers. When Alex Salmond first proposed a Scottish independence referendum, support for a new Scottish state lay at 27 per cent. The fact that it rose to 45 per cent in two years of campaigning essentially came down to voters in the most deprived parts of Scotland, voters who had been patronised and ignored while politicians chased middle class “swing voters”.
It wasn’t just because “Labour heartland” areas voted majority Yes. It was the huge, unprecedented turnouts in these areas that helped shift things our way. The Yes campaign made that achievement through mobilising anti-austerity protest politics.
According to some research, 38 percent of Yes voters also voted to leave the European Union. I’m certain that such figures represent the same heavily marginalised working class communities looking for another way to kick the political establishment for decades of neglect.
Whether the Yes campaign is pro-EU or not is a tactical question. I’ll support independence inside or outside the EU. However, a narrowly pro-EU campaign could be a tactical disaster, posing real logical problems while putting less focus on the basic moral fibre that gives a campaign backbone.
Equally, it’s a mistake to become fixated on Theresa May and her Brexit negotiations.
I get the feeling we’re waiting for a single, apocalyptic “proof” that Brexit will be a disaster that’s somehow going to send support for independence skyrocketing to 60 per cent. Meanwhile, the world is moving fast. We’re no longer setting the agenda. Sure, we’re responding with regular outrage on social media, but we’re dancing to their tune.
The big question we aren’t answering is how an independent Scotland can be a different, better sort of society. That’s a debate we’ve got to begin and win all over again.
And if, like some suggest, the next referendum is really only 18 months away, we’ve got to rediscover the spirit of solidarity and justice that once set us apart from establishment politics.
And we’ve got to do it fast.
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