As PM Johnson is welcomed by the far-right, we must show our ambition

His welcome was echoed by Matteo Salvini, the far-right leader of Italy’s anti-immigration league, who wished Boris Johnson “all the best”. In Brazil, far-right authoritarian president Jair Bolsonaro said the new PM could “count on Brazil”.

The leader of Australia’s “One Nation” populist far-right movement declared herself “absolutely thrilled”. Meanwhile, in Germany, Alice Weidel of the anti-immigration far-right AfD said: “The EU grandees are getting the British Prime Minister they deserve.”

The one thing Mr Johnson seems set to unite is the extremist far right who now appear to count him as “one of us”.

The situation is deeply serious. Many have lauded Johnson’s more liberal past instincts. They should remember Mr Trump was once a Democrat. The truth is that Johnson is now seen by the populist right as an encouragement to their agenda of erecting barriers between countries, opposing migration and self-defeating beggar-thy-neighbour economic nationalism.

The prosecution of “do-or-die” Brexit is bad enough ... what happens next could double down on darkness.

READ MORE: Alyn Smith: Brexit will be Jo Swinson and Boris Johnson's true test

Many good people will be trying their best to hope for the best. All of them had better be very careful that they in no way contribute to permitting a policy agenda of historic self-harm and a politics of division and extremism.

This week I bumped into a former Labour Holyrood cabinet minister. A long-standing Labour party family loyalist, I was astonished when they told me that they now believed Scotland’s independence was “inevitable”, adding: “Given the choice I am now far more aligned to where we want to take our country than what is being done at Westminster.”

I will not betray the confidence of that discussion by saying who it was. It is up to them to say so publicly if they feel they can. What was clear to me was that their nearest and dearest and the next generation was what mattered most to them and drove their view.

They are not alone. Very large numbers of people have surprised me greatly by the journey they are either on or have already traversed.

It is not about one man’s leadership of one party at one moment in time. The decision to choose independence is about the decades to come and what we would work to create, not just about the rejection of Boris Johnson.

But what is also true is that the conditions that have created a country in which Boris Johnson could assume leadership, drive the threat of a no-deal Brexit and be welcomed by right-wing extremists across the world are having an impact on hearts and minds.

Changing their mind from 2014 and looking forward to a different future and direction as an independent Scotland in Europe will for many also involve loosening the very real ties that have bound the UK for decades.

The choice that is emerging is really about the choice between two roads we will collectively travel: the one we are on now, to the margins and the extremes; or another towards taking responsibility and rejoining the community of nations in Europe.

Done properly, Scottish independence will be the antithesis of Brexit Britain. And “properly” means approved in a legitimate vote based on a clear and rigorous plan anchored in honesty and truth. A plan that sets out a clear prospectus for how the transition will work, the trade-offs that will be chosen and the goals that will be pursued.

READ MORE: Ruth Wishart: Disaster looms – we must fire indyref2 starting gun now

Brexit is about separation, withdrawal and rejection, anchored in lies without any prospectus or plan – it pursues a past that never existed.

Independence must be about re-joining, reconnection and co-operation, pursuing a future as a modern, outward-looking social democratic society and globally ambitious competitive economy. Where Brexit snarls at the rest of Europe, Scottish independence must smile.

Boris’s Brexit pretends it will all be alright on the night. Scottish independence must echo with the words of John F Kennedy as he implored the United States to reach for the stars, or more specifically the Moon. In 1962 he spoke in Houston: “We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organise and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”

Scottish independence may seem a more modest goal by comparison. But it is a choice we must take knowing that it will not be easy, that the challenge of self-responsibility is hard. It is a choice that will measure the best of our energy and skills and could be the making of us. Effort, challenging and hard. But so very worth it.

We must postpone no longer.

Murdo's moment has past

MURDO Fraser was the front runner to become leader of the Scottish Conservatives in 2011. He was honest enough to announce in advance that he wanted greater devolution to the Scottish Parliament and for the Scottish Conservatives to break from the UK party and become a new centre-right party more reflective of Scottish values.

This went down very badly with key grandees who loathed both suggestions and organised behind Ruth Davidson, who won by the narrowest of margins – just 566 votes.

Now we hear that Murdo’s mission sounds a lot more attractive to despairing Tory politicians who are struggling to put a brave face on the reality of Boris Johnson and Brexit.

But rebranding in despair will have much less impact than Murdo’s idea to do so positively to reflect where Scotland was going. Changing the name now, in crisis, will only mean anything if the policy reality marks an actual departure from their Westminster colleagues. Will they take the Westminster Tory whip without meaningful condition? Will they take roles in the UK Government? In which case, what would any new brand really mean?

It is a conundrum that few in politics would envy. A material and painful reckoning is coming whenever the Scottish electorate next go to the ballot box. They need to decide now what they want to do about it. Rather than gritting their teeth and trying to make the unworkable work, they need to live the reality of putting country before party and in doing so could serve their party.

If they are complicit in any partisan attacks on devolution under the guise of “promoting the Union” they will secure only the hardening of a smaller and smaller group of the entrenched who never wanted a Scottish Parliament to exist. Ruth, Murdo and colleagues have been working very hard to throw-off that legacy. The risk they now run is every effort they make becoming vapour. It is a major political test.