Friday, February 15, 2013

Cameron's legal expert endorses independence timetable. Are the Unionists trying to lose?


     Is there a nationalist mole in Whitehall, an evil genius undermining the case for the Union?    On Monday, the UK Coalition published its legal advice on the status of Scotland after independence.  Scotland would be a new state, the government lawyers concluded,  after also identifying the religious leanings of the Pope.  There would be a lot of renegotiation to do, which is great for the legal profession, who stand to make a fortune disentangling the strands of union. 

   Better Together pronounced the death knell of independence.  "This shreds to pieces" declared a UK Coalition spokesman, "Alex Salmond's fantasy that Scotland would be waved through into every international institution on a 'no questions asked' basis".  The fantasy being the SNP's 18 month timetable for transition to independence published last week.  But the UK Coalition's own legal adviser, Prof. James Crawford of Cambridge University, seems to be living in fantasy land also, because on Tuesday, the co-author of the Coalition's legal advice,  admitted on BBC Radio that Scotland already fulfilled the requirements and the Scottish government's timetable for EU renegotiation was “realistic”. The headlines about Scotland having to negotiate 14,000 separate treaties also turned out to be the usual concoction of speculative half-truths. They could all be wrapped up in around 18 months.  So much for this weeks' scare.  




The claim that Scotland would not be allowed to use the pound after independence, is similarly shaky. There are many reasons for not supporting independence, but the idea that the Bank of England would refuse to allow Scotland to use the common currency both countries have been using for three hundred years, is not one of them. As the Scottish government's Fiscal Commission pointed out this week, forcing Scotland to use a different currency after independence would involve so much hassle for UK companies, the Bank of England and the high street banks that no one in their right minds would seriously consider it.

There is a theoretical possibility of course, that the UK government could be so malign and childish as to behave this way. But how does it help the Unionist case to suggest it? It's like the claim this week that Scotland had been “extinguished” by the 1707 Acts of Union, which was endorsed by the Tory minister, and Better Together spokesman, David Mundell. Apart from being nonsense, this made it sound as if the Unionists wanted to wipe Scotland off the map. Yet, Winston Churchill himself always argued that Scotland was a nation, a partner in the Union. What possible purpose could be served by suggesting, against all history, that Scotland was a colonial dependency with no constitutional existence. 

It is the same with Europe. No one seriously believes that the European Union would try to prevent Scotland remaining in the EU after twenty years of having being subject to European law. What possible reason could Brussels have to behave so irrationally? Why risk losing a country like Scotland with prodigious energy reserves? The EU has spent decades trying to persuade Norway and Iceland to join, for heaven's sake. .

Why do the Unionists persevere with these attacks? Perhaps because they get a ready response in the press in Scotland. Professor Crawford's warnings about the legal difficulties of becoming independent, contained in a UK government position paper, received front page treatment on Monday, but his admission on Tuesday that he agreed with Alex Salmond did not. Measured on column inches, therefore, Better Together is streets ahead. But the real debate is only just beginning. Not only do a lot of Scots not believe these scares, the under 24's don't even read about them, because they are turning away from the conventional media.

There are far better reasons for opposing independence than the timetable for EU membership anyway. I could think of a dozen positive arguments for remaining in the UK. As neighbours on this small island, Scotland and England are always going to have to collaborate on a whole range of issues, from the national grid and the roads network to defence and foreign aid. If Scots are affected by decisions taken in Westminster, in the new improved UK, why should Scotland not want to be represented there, just as it is represented in the European Parliament?

No, you should always treat opinion polls with caution, because they only offer a snapshot of public attitudes. But nor should their message be ignored. The Unionists are persevering with a negative and punitive approach that has failed to damage Alex Salmond in successive Scottish parliamentary elections, and is not being listened to by many young voters in the referendum campaign. Time to rethink.

Opinion polls should be taken and not inhaled, but this week's Mori poll showing a doubling of support for independence among under 24s is intriguing. This is the group that the Yes campaign has been stalking with its social media and networking techniques. Young people tend not to read newspapers and tend to get much of their information from Facebook and Twitter (often plagiarised of course from the press). They rely more on word of mouth than messages from above. They are also the Holyrood generation, who have grown up with the Scottish Parliament part of their psychological landscape and have lived much of their adult lives under a Nationalist government.

Mind you, the under 24s are also the people least likely to vote in elections. Which is why the No campaign doesn't seem particularly worried by the Mori/Times poll, even if it is accurate. They are pleased by the strong support for the Union among other age groups and particularly among women. 61% of women say No, according to Mori and 55% of all age groups would vote No, against 34% who would vote Yes. There is a gender gap opening over independence. The better off are also less likely to vote Yes - so it looks like the Nationalists need to do some missionary work among middle aged women's groups in Bearsden and Milngavie.

It's been a good week for statements of the bleedin' obvious, so let's just point out again that this is one poll, and the only one that matters is still 20 months away. In some ways, what is more interesting the continuing popularity of the SNP government in Holyrood. That Alex Salmond retains a positive approval rating of +7 after having been in office for nearly six years is remarkable.  David Cameron, by contrast, has a negative rating of minus 40. Also, the number of Scots who say they would vote SNP for Holyrood is at much the same level as in the 2011 election. Which means that,on these figures,  if an election were held tomorrow, Alex Salmond could be back as First Minister with another landslide. That's astonishing, after six months in which he's been been generating such negative headlines in the press over things like the legal advice on EU membership.

Perhaps there's a message buried here for the No campaign and Labour. Their campaigning has focussed relentlessly on Alex Salmond's alleged untrustworthiness, and on a series of 'process' issues like the mechanics of EU membership after Scottish independence. Going for the man and accusing him of being a “liar”, as Johann Lamont has been doing, is always liable to backfire unless you can actually prove that he has been. Similarly, raising fears about Scotland being thrown out of the EU only works if there is some foundation to them. 


4 comments:

Campbell said...

I think the UK govt believe Scots will vote yes and is already positioning itself for negotiations. The likes of Moore are being hung out to dry.

Peter A Bell said...

If you can think of "a dozen positive arguments for remaining in the UK", Iain, then you are doing more than twelve times better than the entire British nationalist campaign.

Michael Follon said...

Something I have found irritating about the media, both press and television, is the assumptions made regarding Scottish independence without reference to the totality of actual historical fact. As far as I am aware there has been no examination of what specifically resulted in the Treaty of Union in 1707 - no mention of the Alien Act in 1705.

No questions about the supposed sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament - it has only been presumed to be so because of its location within the jurisdiction of English law.

No detailed historical examination of what Scottish independence would mean for the United Kingdom.

'In contrast, Lane says, Scotland cannot break away like Ireland as it was 'one of the basic building blocks of "the United Kingdom of Great Britain"' (Lane 1991: 146). Without Scotland there is no 'Great Britain' and without Great Britain there is no 'United Kingdom'.'

SOURCE: 'SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE: A Practical Guide' by Jo Eric Murkens with Peter Jones and Michael Keating, p. 109, ISBN 0-7486-1699-3.

'But the theories of English constitutional lawyers prevailed, and the union has proved to have no more sanctity than any other statute. From time to time attempts have been made to appeal to the terms of union, but always without success.'

SOURCE: 'Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation' by Gordon Donaldson, p. 58, ISBN 0 7153 6904 0.


Scottish saying-

Facts are chiels that winna ding. (Facts cannot lie.)

cynicalHighlander said...

@Michael Follon

Something I have found irritating about the media, both press and television, is the assumptions made regarding Scottish independence without reference to the totality of actual historical fact. As far as I am aware there has been no examination of what specifically resulted in the Treaty of Union in 1707 - no mention of the Alien Act in 1705

The media is embedded into the establishment and as such they cannot deviate far from those views which is why we live in a disunited kingdom as any dissenting voice, until now (maybe), has been discarded as extreme or sceptic and irrelevant.

Is The Treaty of Union Already Dead?