A SUPERCHARGED vow to beef up the Scottish Parliament’s powers beyond their current level could shape the debate ahead of a second referendum on Scottish independence, according to a leading academic.
And Charlie Jeffery, senior vice-principal and professor of politics at the University of Edinburgh, said a fresh independence campaign is likely to emulate the tactics used by the Leave side in the EU referendum, stressing a “take back control” message.
Jeffery’s comments were published to coincide with the launch of new independent Scottish EU think tank, the Scottish Centre on European Relations (SCER).
He argued the Yes side in Scotland “will have noted what worked in the Brexit referendum”.
“The Leave campaign was not exactly strong on carefully-calibrated cost-benefit analysis. It went for the gut: ‘let’s take back control’,” he said. “Its case focused on legitimacy, what felt right and wrong, not what could be demonstrated by reasoned argument or, heaven forbid, ‘expertise’.
“So expect more of a Scottish version of ‘taking back control’ and less of the attempt to map out all the details of what independence might mean that we saw in the 2014 independence White Paper. All those details were hooks for challenge: What currency? How big would oil revenues be? How would EU membership be secured?
“Already we can see hints of a different approach: a willingness to concede that the economic challenges of independence would be difficult, or that full EU membership for Scotland might need to be a medium-term goal.
“Expect an approach which says we don’t have all the answers, things will be uncertain, but that we in Scotland should be the ones finding answers and dealing with uncertainty, not them in Westminster and Whitehall.”
Jeffery said a “super vow” to strengthen the Scottish Parliament was something the Parliament itself had proposed in its paper last December on Scotland’s place in Europe.
“Full repatriation of powers from the EU to the Scottish Parliament; additional powers in areas like immigration; and a right to act externally in the exercise of those powers,” he said. “This would be a Scotland in the UK, but with scope to shape a distinctive relationship with the EU.”
But he added that such a move was “doubtful”, given that the ideas in Scotland’s Place in Europe appear to have been rejected without discussion.
“Theresa May’s response to Brexit seems focused on assuaging the concerns of voters in England whose gut feelings about the EU and concerns about immigration are matched only by their sense that Scotland already gets too good a deal within the UK,” continued Jeffery.
The SCER said it aims to provide high-quality research and analysis of European Union developments and challenges, with a particular focus on Scotland.
It will be chaired by David Wilson, executive director of the International Public Policy Institute at the University of Strathclyde, with Dr Kirsty Hughes, who has worked with European think tanks including Chatham House, Friends of Europe and the Centre for European Policy Studies, as director.
Writing about the 60th birthday of the EU, Hughes said it has many achievements to celebrate, adding: “But it is also in the midst of its most difficult, cumulative set of challenges it has faced in its six decades. The EU needs a new, bold strategic approach but it does not have the political leadership, solidarity or confidence to create such an approach.”
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