Andrew Tickell: Scotland sees what Brexit is. Why should we settle for less?

I don’t know what the opposite of line-by-line scrutiny is, but that’s what the ­European Union (Future Relationship) Bill received, notwithstanding the hugely ­significant powers it will enshrine in law. It’s no way to govern a serious country.

Tory Brexiteers belch away about ­“restoring sovereignty”, but it is striking that their rhapsodies for parliamentary ­democracy always seem to end up with MPs performing the noble office of ­uncritically ­rubber-stamping whatever their ­government proposes. For many of them, the fantasia of “restoring parliamentary sovereignty” seems to take the form of insulating the executive from as much scrutiny as possible, whether by courts, other ­devolved parliaments or international ­institutions. None of this bodes well.

READ MORE: Andrew Tickell: How Scots have learned to love independence in 2020

But another formula entered the Tory catechism of cliché this week. Despite the fact this deal would pass with Tory votes alone, Sir Keir Starmer junked his six tests and trooped his MPs into the lobbies to support the government. No doubt disappointed by this missed opportunity to ­accuse the ­Labour Party of being unpatriotic Trotskyists who want to nationalise your granny and abolish the pound, the Tories turned their fire on SNP – who indicated they couldn’t and wouldn’t join the phoney ­consensus which was already guaranteed to power the deal through the Commons with an overwhelming majority.

The bat signal having gone up, Scottish Tory politicians scrabbled to brand the vile nationalists as proponents of a damaging No-Deal Brexit. Tory MSP Jamie Greene tweeted: “Make no mistake, Nicola Sturgeon will be bitterly disappointed that a deal has been agreed between the UK and EU. She desperately wanted a chaotic exit to make the case for independence and her plan has been left in tatters.”

With political tweets, it is always difficult to discriminate between a ­politician’s ­actual views and the moonshine they feel the need to put out to keep their ­supporters’ spirits up – but if Greene ­honestly believes this analysis then he ­really needs to work himself into his opponents’ shoes and take a walk.

So in a festive spirit, let’s unpack his analysis a bit, as characteristic of the genre. It’s certainly true that a No-Deal Brexit would have demonstrated the ruling dysfunctions of the British state in a particularly unforgiving fashion. Falling off the edge of the transition period on January 1 without any legal parachute or any notion of where we’d be landing would have represented a catastrophic “failure of statecraft” – in Boris Johnson’s phrase – which would have been the crowning disaster in a disastrous year for his administration.

You don’t need to be the Brahan Seer to understand that this outcome seems likely to stir up still more critical feeling towards the UK government, and raise yet more questions about its attitudes and competence.

But what Greene fails to appreciate is that not everything which might seem to be to your short-term tactical advantage is really in your longer-term strategic interests. A politician with half their wits about them needs to keep at least one eye on the horizon rather than just living for the day and enjoying opportunities for a cheap shot at your opponents. When you have the political imagination of a mayfly, struggling to look more than 24 hours into the future, a No-Deal Brexit might have seemed to give succour to the Nats – but its consequences would only have made making the practical, pragmatic case for how Scotland becomes independent still more challenging.

READ MORE: Scotland can do so much better than unstable ­Brexit Britain

This is not a separatist movement, and the case for Scottish independence is one which seeks to change this country’s relationship with its nearest neighbour rather than bringing all engagement to a shuddering halt. A No-Deal Brexit would have done precisely nothing to realise that goal. Indeed, it could only have extended the uncertainty about what the future relationship of an independent Scotland in Europe and the rest of the UK might look like, beyond serving as a salutary and damaging example to Scots that striking accords can be extremely difficult, even when several interests seem to converge.

As this column has been arguing since 2016 (a grisly thought in and of itself), it has always been in the interests of the strategic supporter of Scottish independence for the rest of the UK to reach an accord with Brussels which maintains the closest possible alignment with the EU27. And from that perspective at least, a bad deal is much better than no deal.

THERE are other ironies here we shouldn’t overlook. As Douglas Ross and his outriders try to make the SNP wear No-Deal Brexit around their necks, they’d do well to remember the only people you encountered in British political discourse who worked hard to make the idea of No-Deal Brexit not only thinkable but apparently attractive was members of his government and its sympathisers in the wider media.

If you’ve got a solid constitution and an appreciation of irony, watching the worm turn this week has been a wonderful lesson in how partisan politics reliably melts the brain but enhances flexibility marvellously, enabling the kind of volte-faces which make Rudolf Nureyev look like a cumbersome plodder.

Accuse your opponents of being “separatists” till you are blue in the face. That doesn’t transform them into the isolationists who go reiving along the borders of your imagination. The case for Scottish independence has always been about recasting the political relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom, not ending it.

In 2014, that was based on a vision of continuing EU membership for both parties, co-operation and shared institutions. Splendid isolation wasn’t what it was about. Although the tone of the constitutional discussion has darkened since 2016, with attitudes hardening, it isn’t about separatism now either.

And this is the real sting for Boris Johnson and his colleagues. Although it might be a gratifying end to a hard year to conclude that the Brexit deal launches the Nats sorrowfully into 2021 – I have to tell you this is not so.

You can guarantee this Tory administration’s impulses will be to try to argue out of both sides of their mouths at once on the implications of this deal. For the UK audience, this agreement will be presented as a largely frictionless accord providing British producers with almost seamless access to the European market.

In Scotland, by contrast, you may rely on Alister Jack and his colleagues presenting the idea of an independent Scotland in Europe as erecting insurmountable barriers in the way of Scottish traders who hope to bring their goods to market in England and Wales. Both of these provisions can’t be true simultaneously – but when has the UK Government baulked at this kind of flexibility?

Why should Scotland settle for trading on second best terms with the bloc? Why shouldn’t this country seize the advantages of free movement of goods, services and people? Debates will continue on this with arguments on both sides – but notice already that the whole mood and trajectory of the conversation is a million miles away from the 2014 scare stories. All this, thanks to the Brexit deal. In settling its future relationship with the EU, the UK Government is also settling the political and policy terrain over which the future of Scottish independence will be fought.

It’s now incumbent on those of us who make the case for Scottish self-government to go to work. Whatever happens, Scotland will share a land frontier with the rest of the UK. Whatever happens, this country will continue to have a trading relationship with the rest of Britain. Whatever happens, our people will cross borders for work, to study, to holiday and to visit friends and families. The kind of accord struck between Brussels and London was always going to regulate these movements across new European frontiers. So take heart. Because clarity on this is clarity on what Scottish independence could mean in this post-Brexit world.