THERE is an understandable desire around to have another indyref at the first available opportunity. But there are, as former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld once famously remarked, “known unknowns”.
First up, there are most probably EU elections, unless at the last minute Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn caves in and we leave the EU in June with a deal, but that’s most unlikely.
We need to get past that poll, hopefully with Scotland endorsing pro-EU parties.
Then there may be a second EU referendum or there may be a General Election. Indeed there could be both. The Tory party will almost certainly have a new leader and, who knows, Corbyn could be replaced too. Or perhaps the SNP could could be in an informal coalition with Labour to govern Britain.
Come to think of it, maybe Rumsfeld’s other category of “unknown unknowns” better describes the next six months or so.
Possible turns of events such as I have galloped through above will affect significantly Scotland’s prospects for independence and maybe some or all of them could improve our chances.
For example, if the polls are correct and the SNP in Scotland and Farage’s new Brexit Party in England dominate the EU parliamentary elections, then both nations may begin to more fully accept the inevitability of Scotland’s independence from England and vice versa. Also, with the possibility of Labour and the SNP sharing power in Westminster, a blanket refusal to countenance a second indyref is far less likely than is the case with our current robotic Prime Minister.
Nicola Sturgeon isn’t dithering or hesitating as some would have it. If we had polls for independence in similar percentages to those favouring remaining in the EU, then we’d be independent already. Nobody works harder for independence or wants it more than she does. Trust the First Minister to move with alacrity at precisely the right moment. Just like poor Donald Rumsfeld, it is pretty difficult to really know exactly what’s best, but waiting a little longer could be a wise policy.
I would love to see another indyref before the next Holyrood elections in 2021, where the crafty Unionist policy of tactical voting, emergent at the last poll, could mean that, even with another increase in the SNP vote, there may not be an overall SNP (with or without Green support) majority for independence at Holyrood. That would amount to a massive wasted opportunity and so we can’t wait too long either. Hurry slowly, Nicola!
David Crines
Hamilton
WHILE I agree with Andrew Wilson that our position should be that all negotiations with rUK should be conducted in a fair, respectful and courteous manner, I have to profoundly disagree with him in terms of effectively stating now how much we intend to pay for what. That is why Clause 18 of the Growth Commission motion before the SNP Spring Conference is profoundly wrong.
We should not commit to any particular payment for anything until after the negotiations have taken place. That is exactly the point of having a negotiation in the first place. So yes, if rUK agree to provide the funding for existing pensions (given that they have taken all the contributions to pay for them), and negotiate in good faith then it might end up that the Scottish Government does agree to make some sort of payment to rUK. On the other hand if rUK refuse to co-operate, which would be quite likely, then we would be mad to hand over £3 billion a year for nothing.
Personally I would advocate the simplest possible divorce – rUK keeps whatever is located in rUK, plus any properties around the world (embassies and the like), while Scotland keeps whatever is located in Scotland. All UK civil servants in Scotland would be offered a transfer on similar terms to the Scottish Government, and likewise military personnel.
The net foreign reserves of rUK are currently US$55 billion (BoE accounts for Feb 2019), so 8% would be a fairly trivial $4.4bn. I would let them keep that and the current UK National Debt. The act of creating our new Scottish currency, which is used to buy up our existing Sterling in a voluntary exchange (just as when you get dollars at the Post Office for a US holiday) would mean our new Scottish Reserve Bank (the central bank) would have of the order of £50bn of net foreign reserves immediately. In that context a few billion from the Bank of England is irrelevant.
I would be content that the new Scottish military work closely with that of rUK, as indeed they would have to do anyway if we are both in Nato. They might also share capabilities. Beyond that, unless needed for a short period, we should not pay a fee to rUK to run things for us. The example given is overseas aid. Why we would we give £1bn to rUK to do that for us? The existing staff are in East Kilbride, and there is no reason why we should not do that directly. Any other services just means money and jobs going out of Scotland that can and should be located here.
That would be quick to negotiate, draws a line under the divorce and it easily deals with Mr Wilson’s perfectly valid concern about UK civil servants who should, of course, not be left facing any uncertainty. In short, you don’t start a negotiation by putting your final offer on the table.
Tim Rideout
Dalkeith
IN his article on Thursday Andrew Wilson produces loads of numbers without stating where they come from. The national debt of £4.3 trillion with assets of £1.9 trillion cannot be correct, the international financial markets would have relegated the UK to third-world status by now.
William Purves
Galashiels
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 here