THE former foreign editor of the Times has been praised by the SNP for switching from No to Yes.
Martin Fletcher, whose grandmother was Scottish, outlined his support for Scottish independence in his New Statesman column on Monday.
He wrote: “Brexit has changed everything. Back in 2014 the Scots narrowly voted to remain a member of a UK that was still an EU member state, but that UK has gone.”
Kirsten Oswald, the SNP’s deputy Westminster leader, said the move was not surprising, adding: “People across Scotland and the UK are seeing the contempt the Westminster government has shown Scotland, and how it has backtracked on its promise that Scotland would be an equal partner in the Union.
“Scotland has been ignored throughout the whole Brexit process and we have had multiple Tory governments and an extreme Brexit forced upon us. All have caused untold damage to Scotland.
She went on “It is no surprise that 20 consecutive polls put support for independence above 50%. People in Scotland have the right to decide their own future – rather than being subjected to Westminster governments that they don’t vote for, who act against their interests.
“Scotland has the right to escape the Brexit mess caused by the Tories, and choose a better future as an equal, independent nation in Europe.”
READ MORE: The Union Unit has shown itself to be useless – but beware its dirty tricks
Fletcher wrote that he is not a fan of the SNP but that Brexit is forcing Scots “to choose between England and Europe, and they are opting for the latter”.
Johnson has repeatedly insisted that Scots don't want a new vote on independence but Fletcher said it would be unwise for him to refuse as the Union would “become a Union of coercion, not consent” because he doesn’t want to be the PM who lost Scotland.
He added: “The ‘Scottish issue’ would at best become a running sore, plaguing future British governments just as ‘Europe’ has plagued past ones. At worse the Scots would find a way to make themselves ungovernable.
"Nationalism is a powerful beast: the more it is suppressed, the more virulent it becomes."
"It would be rank hypocrisy [for Johnson] to champion the repatriation of sovereignty from Brussels to the UK, as he did in the EU referendum, but to deny Scotland the chance to vote on the restoration of sovereignty from Westminster to Edinburgh (the SNP looks certain to win an overwhelming mandate for demanding a second referendum in May’s Scottish parliament elections)."
Fletcher also pointed out that Scotland has been moving away from support for the Tories for the past 75 years, meaning that for 40 years Scots have been governed by a party in London they did not vote for.
"So have many English voters, of course, but they do not comprise a separate country," Fletcher said.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson draws up five-step plan to 'save the Union' from collapse
Fletcher referred to the 20 opinion polls that have shown a majority support for Yes, adding that Scots "find themselves part of a UK that has undergone a profound economic, political, diplomatic and cultural transformation; a UK whose traditional values of openness, tolerance and international cooperation have been replaced by something very different; a UK whose dominant member, England, now rides roughshod over the rest".
He said Johnson shows hypocrisy in asking the SNP to explain in detail how an independent Scotland would function, especially as the oil price has plummeted. "Just as the Leave campaign masterfully avoided setting out a detailed post-Brexit scenario for Remainers to attack," Fletcher added.
He continued: "Johnson also knows that a Scottish divorce from the rest of the UK would be horrendously complex, and would probably involve the creation of a hard border with England. But he bulldozed through a Brexit that involved a hideously complex divorce from the EU and a new border in the Irish Sea."
Fletcher concluded: "In short, the Prime Minister is in a terrible bind. Brexit has spiked his own best arguments. The Scots intensely dislike him, so he is damned if he ventures north and damned if he doesn’t. And in the wake of Brexit they are unlikely to be bought off with yet more financial bungs or constitutional fixes.
"Sad to say, the Prime Minister’s best hope of saving the Union is that the SNP’s warring factions, the Salmondites and Sturgeonistas, tear themselves apart."
It comes as No 10 claimed Johnson is the “voice of the majority of the Scottish people” who rejected independence.
READ MORE: No 10 claims Boris Johnson is voice of Scots who rejected independence in 2014
The comments came amid turmoil in the No 10 Union unit, with the group's only Scot, former Ochil and South Perthshire MP Luke Graham, ousted from his leadership role after a "brutal" dispute over indyref2.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman confirmed Graham has “left his No 10 position” just two days after Johnson’s press secretary Allegra Stratton said he was a “very valued member of staff”.
“The No 10 Union unit will continue to support the Prime Minister in his capacity as the Minister for the Union,” the spokesman said.
“We don’t comment on details of personnel matters but the Union is an incredibly important focus of the Prime Minister and the No 10 Union unit will continue to support him on that.”
READ MORE: Only Scot on Boris Johnson's Union Unit is sacked over indyref2 dispute
The Financial Times reported that Graham clashed with Oliver Lewis – a veteran of the Vote Leave Brexit campaign – on Friday, the day after the Prime Minister returned from a visit to Scotland.
Lewis, known in No 10 as "Sonic", is to take over what Government officials described as a “beefed-up union unit”.
Lewis was a key Tory figure in last year’s Brexit trade negotiations and is believed by the Tories to have campaigning credentials, but he is not known for any particular expertise in Scottish politics. He threatened to resign over the departure of Dominic Cummings in November, but was persuaded by the Prime Minister to stay in Downing Street.
The SNP said the move was a “Vote Leave takeover” which would drive up support for independence.
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