Common Weal’s White Paper 1

Last Saturday along with around 800 others I attended the Scottish Independence Convention’s conference on preparing for the next indy referendum. A lot of very interesting and challenging points were raised and I thank SIC for organising the event. Thanks are also due to the indy live team and a special thank you goes to Shona McAlpine who seemed to single handedly be responsible for the event, which she did with charm and efficiency. I don’t want to say anything about the event itself as Thomas Widman has already written about this and I concur with all his points.

What I want to do here is move things on a bit by looking at the draft White Paper produced by Common Weal. This is a positive initiative which deserves a wide audience and constructive criticism. My first thought on reading the paper is that there appears to be very little in the way of international comparisons. This is rather strange as since 1990 we have witnessed the emergence of 12 newly independent states in Europe alone. More if you consider the Caucausian republics as part of Europe. There is therefore a considerable body of evidence and precedent about building a new state. The White Paper as it stands seems to have ignored this.

This lack of international experience is most evident in the first section, which is entitled Interim Governance Period. According to the White Paper, Scotland will need up to three years of interim governance before becoming independent. No reason is given for this long period. It cannot be based on the experience of other European countries, none of which needed anything like a three year waiting period. Most managed to become independent with hardly any waiting period at all. For example, Slovenia held a referendum on 23rd December 1990 and declared independence on 25th June 1991. Montenegro needed even less time. The referendum was held on 21st May 2006 and independence was declared on 3rd June of the same year. Some countries moved to independence without a referendum. Slovakia for example passed an act of independence in their parliament on 17th July 1992. There followed five months of negotiations which ended with the dissolution of Czechoslovakia on 31st December 1992. Slovakia then became formally independent on 1st January 1993.

There are two points from the above that are relevant here. The first is that it appears that no other country has needed anything like an extensive interim period prior to independence. Certainly nothing like three years. This does not mean that Scotland does not need such an extensive interim period. What it does mean though is that if you are advocating this interim period, you ought to proved some kind of coherent reason for it. Not just plough on regardless. The second point is that in the examples above, independence came without the full conclusions of negotiations. In some cases independence came before negotiations had even started.

This leads on to the specifics of the proposals in the White Paper. Even if, as I would argue, an extended interim period is not needed, there will still be a need for negotiations and a transition. The White Paper proposes a National Commission(NC) for the creation of a Scottish State. There is merit in this idea. However where I take issue with the White Paper is its proposal that the NC be governed by a Council, separate from the government. Not at all sure why we would need this Council. It would be in effect an additional, parallel government. This would be cumbersome, burocratic, undemocratic and likely to be confusing to the public.

The White Paper charges the NC with five specific tasks. These are:

  1. design the institutions of an independent Scotland
  2. implement these institutions
  3. negotiate the terms of separation from UK
  4. develop a constitution
  5. set a date for independence

These are in essence what needs to be done. However it is not at all clear why they all need to be done after a referendum and before a declaration of independence. Tasks 1, 4 and 5 can all be done well before the next referendum, never mind independence day. They may not all be completed, but most of the work can be done before another referendum. This is particularly the case with the first task. Again the experience of other countries will come in handy here.  Developing a constitution can be started this year. I am in favour of this, as developing a constitution could be a positive way of engaging members of the public.

The other two tasks clearly cannot be completed or even undertaken before the next referendum.  However much work on the third task can be begun now. It would in fact be very helpful if the parameters of the separation deal were established sooner rather than later. Again the experience of other countries will provide evidence on how these negotiations can be conducted and what they will cover. We can also state in advance the principles that we would want to underpin the negotiations.

Much of the work which the White Paper seeks to entrust to this NC after a referendum is already underway. Some of it by Common Weal itself. Which makes it all the more surprising why the White Paper is so wedded to this Interim governance period. What we do need more of is to look at the experience of other newly independent countries and learn from them. Something the White Paper does not seem to have done.

 

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Independence, Politics, Scotland, Uncategorized

Trump – a Pyrrhic victory?

Though Trump won a convincing victory in the Electoral College, nevertheless he did lose the popular vote. This will not in any way prevent him becoming President. However it may well make life for him as President a lot less smooth than many are assuming.

The votes show that there was no popular swing towards Trump. He barely won the same number of votes as Romney, four years ago. He won the electoral college because Clinton failed to mobilise the core Democrat voters in a few key states – Wisconsin, North Carolina etc. These voters did not swing to Trump, by and large they just didn’t vote.

With no popular mandate for his programme, Trump has potentially a lot to worry about, even with the support of a Republican majority in both houses. If Trump wants to win re-election in 2020, he knows that he faces a tough job. The Democrats are unlikely to pick such a divisive candidate again. Their next campaign will not ignore their core voters again. The Democrats have won the popular vote in six of the last Presidential elections. Barring some unexpected 9/11 event, Trump faces an uphill struggle to win again.

With the Republicans in control of just about everything, Trump will have no one to blame but either himself or the Republican Party if he fails to deliver on his key promises. Since he is not a stupid person, he will have realised this already. Which may in part explain why he has already begun to soften his language and start to talk about compromises. Even Obamacare may survive. However the key will as ever be the economy. To have any chance of re-election Trump needs to deliver on his promises of massive infrastructure spending and raise the incomes of working Americans. The worrying question for Trump is, can he get his own party to support this?

Most Republicans seem to live in a zombie land of voodoo economics, where you can cut taxes for the rich and bring down the deficit. The Republican base is also very hung up on some key issues – immigration, gay marriage, abortion for example. It is not clear that Trump can deliver on all or even any of these. Remember the Republicans are well short of the 60 votes they need in the Senate.

All this leaves the Democrats with a strong hand. The majority of the country supports them. America has not suddenly become a racist, misogynist country. At least it is no more racist or misogynist than last week.

In just two years time there will be another election for the House and for a third of the Senate. This offers the Democrats a crucial opportunity to wrest the initiative back from the Republicans. The post election statements of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren indicate the way forward. Can they and their supporters seize control of the party from the current Democrat establishment? Interesting times!

1 Comment

Filed under Politics

President Trump – initial thoughts

Well, not many people saw this one coming. Pollsters and pundits have a lot to answer for. Still the American people have spoken and congratulations to Mr Trump. It may be that for Trump winning the election turns out to be the easiest part. His Presidency may be a lot more challenging than many, including the man himself, imagine.

Trump’s success of course has as its counterpart the failure of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. Though Clinton it seems has, very narrowly, won the popular vote, this is of no consolation or importance. In the USA the Presidency is decided by the Electoral College. Everyone knows this, including Clinton and the Democrat leadership. They failed, end of.

Not only did the Democrats fail to win the Presidency, they even failed to win back control of the Senate. It takes some degree of political incompetence to achieve this. Remember Clinton was running as the successor to one of the most respected and popular Presidents of all time. Obama still has very high ratings among Americans. Her opponent was one of the most unfit candidates of all time. Unpopular and even derided by many in his own party. This election should have been a shoo-in for the Democrats. One can only conclude that Clinton herself was the main reason she and Democrats generally did so badly.

Right from the beginning of the primary campaigns it was clear that Hilary Clinton was the wrong choice for Democrats. She just carries too much baggage. Some of it good, but much of it bad. She has always been a very divisive person in America. She is also very obviously a key paid up member of the Washington insider establishment. At a time when this establishment everywhere is under unprecedented challenge from outsiders, it simply made no sense to choose Clinton as the candidate.

Trump of course played on all this and presented himself not just as the outsider, but one who would bring change, particularly for those who have lost out economically over the past decade or so.  As President, Trump now has to deliver on all his promises. A pretty incoherent mishmash of promises it must be said. Massive tax cuts, massive investment in infrastructure –  to be paid for how?  How will President Trump keep his promises on immigration and what will/can he do about the millions of illegal immigrants already living in the country? A big issue for Trump was free trade deals – it would seem that he does not like them, regarding them as the reason for the decline of American manufacturing. Will he really impose swingeing tariffs on goods from China and Mexico?  Can he do this and keep America in the WTO? If he tries how will China respond?

Moving away from the economy, Trump is no friend of measures to combat climate change and has threatened to abrogate the recent Paris agreements on combatting this threat to the planet. Let us not even begin to try and make sense of Trump’s pronouncements on foreign affairs. Perhaps his friend Vladimir Putin will help him out here.

As was said in another context, lots and lots of unanswered questions. Unfortunately for the rest of us, Trump’s choices will affect not just America, but the world as a whole. Unfortunately for President Trump he will have no one to blame if he gets any of these decisions wrong. The Republicans are now in control of both houses of Congress and able to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. So from now on the buck well and truly stops with them.

As the Chinese saying has it, be careful what you wish for. If Trump as President is the great deliverer he claims to be, then he and the Republicans can look forward to eight or more years of untrammelled power. However, it is not clear that everyone on the Republican side is fully on board all of Trump’s grandiose plans. If things turn out to be more complicated and messy than Trump’s rosy vision of the future, then politics could become very interesting indeed. Republicans in Congress blaming Trump and Trump trying to blame everybody. This election could be the high point for Republicans. Assuming the Democrats have the wit and determination to quickly put together a credible alternative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Politics

Port Oot, Starbuird Hame

Pretty much sums up my reactions to Cat Boyds’ article. I am part of RIC and was one of those out knocking on doors. Like the author of this post though I feel Cat is making up straw me simply to indulge in a bit of SNP bashing. Not the way forward.

A Wilderness of Peace

radicalcat

So this caused a wee bit of a tizzy on Twitter last night. A fair amount of folk were taken aback by it, and you can see why: independence campaigners are no more or less harder-working by their class or upbringing, and might well resent the implication that only those “less posh” do all the hard work. It could also rub those independence supporters who think of themselves as working class the wrong way, if they don’t actively support or work for RIC. I thought I’d wait until I had a read of it before commenting on the piece itself – pull quotes can often read very differently out of context.

The “posher nationalists” quote itself didn’t bother me, mostly because I’ve been accused of being posh for most of my life. But the piece does talk a lot about class politics.

View original post 2,169 more words

Leave a comment

October 4, 2016 · 10:03 pm

Indyref 2 – keep it simple

As minds begin to focus on a possible second independence referendum, lots of voices are calling for us to learn the lessons from the last one. Not enough analysis has been done, some claim, to find out what went wrong in 2014. For what it is worth I am not sure that much went wrong and that moving the Yes vote from around 30 % to 45% would seem to indicate that we got a lot right.

There is also the danger that revisiting the past condemns you to fighting last year’s battles, when what you need to do is prepare for the next one. Indyref 2 will be very different from indyref 1. At least we should aim to make it very different.

For me, this means above all we must work to ensure that the key message is as simple as possible. We must at all costs avoid getting dragged down into the “so many (unanswered) questions about independence approach”. Dundee University even ran a programme of events entitled 5 million questions. Interesting to note that they did not attempt anything similar, say 65 million questions, with Brexit.

There are not that many questions, answered or unanswered about independence. The questions that do get asked, on the economy, pensions etc, are the stuff of daily politics in all countries, and have nothing per se, to do with independence.

The key message we must repeat, again and again and again, is that independence is  a question of democracy. The question is who gets to decide on the future of Scotland? Our answer is – the people who live in Scotland. That’s it. Pure and simple. Even our opponents recognise this is the strongest argument in favour of independence. Which is why they try to move the debate on to other matters. Something we must strenuously avoid.

Now I am pretty solidly convinced that a large majority of our fellow citizens already agree with this. They do want decisions about Scotland to be taken by the people who live here. Unfortunately a significant number remain unconvinced of the underlying strength of the Scottish economy. Which is not altogether surprising, when all the UK parties, and almost all of the media are constantly repeating that Scotland is too wee and too poor to be successful as an independent country.

Before indyref 2 we need to have changed this perception. It should not be too difficult. After all Scotland has all the fundamentals to be a sustainable and successful economy. But we need to find a way to convey this in simple, non technical terms. I tend to fall back on comparisons with other similar sized independent countries. Denmark for example is perhaps the closet country in terms of size, population and geographic location. When Unionists say that Scotland is too poor, we should always turn this round. We should constantly ask Unionists to provide the evidence as to why Scotland is not as economically sound and robust as Denmark? What is it that Denmark has that Scotland lacks? We need to move from the defensive and always try and force Unionists into justifying with evidence their claims.

In a nutshell this is my recommendation for preparing for indyref 2 – Keep it simple. Independence is about democracy and not about specific policies. Scotland has the resources, natural and human to be a successful economy. Force Unionists to provide evidence of the contrary.

1 Comment

Filed under Independence, Scotland

Scottish independence – a pragmatic choice?

The possibility that there might be another indy referendum sometime in the not too distant future has brought out again some of the arguments for independence.  In particular the prospect that to secure victory in the next referendum we will need to broaden our support to include more of the middle class has upset a few folk. That some financial industry types are beginning to talk up the prospect of Scottish independence seems to have really frightened a few more.

The reason for this is that for many, particularly on the left of the political spectrum, independence is seen as primarily, or often, solely as a pragmatic choice. At this moment in time independence offers the real prospect of advancing the interests of the working class and/or making Scotland a fairer and more equal society. But what if this were to change and these new middle class converts to independence were to dominate politics in an independent Scotland?

It is an interesting question, though I fail to see what it has to do with independence. No matter where you live if you want to build a fairer, more progressive economy and society you have to campaign for it and to persuade a majority of your fellow citizens to vote for parties committed to these policies.

Independence doesn’t change this. What it does change is the people you have to persuade and convince. With independence this becomes the people who live in Scotland. This is the whole point of independence, for any country. It is not and can never be about particular policies.

It does seem to me to be a bit strange to argue that the people of Scotland should be given the power to decide policies, but only for the next few years. If after, say ten/fifteen years the people of Scotland have failed to live up to my expectations I will – what? Campaign for Scotland to rejoin the UK? Campaign for Scotland to join Denmark or whatever other country is deemed to be at that particular moment suitably left wing/progressive?

The choice of voting for independence should never be a thing of the moment, a purely pragmatic decision. Independence is a choice for the long term, if not for ever. I wrote about this way back in 2012, which you can read here, and my conclusion then still stands today.

Scotland the country, Scotland the land has existed for centuries with its own distinctive customs and laws. It is on the basis of its continuing existence as a distinct entity – a state – that I support Scottish Independence. Let it be us – the people of Scotland, wherever we come from – who decide our future.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Independence, Scotland, Uncategorized

The Single Market includes the free movement of people

As people scurry about trying to figure out just what Brexit might mean in reality, much of the focus has centred on the Single Market and the free movement of people. Most Remainers and probably a majority of Leavers seem to want the UK to stay in the Single Market. This makes a great deal of sense, as the EU will remain our largest trading partner. However the Single Market has never been just a free trade area, contrary to the myths propagated by eurosceptics. From its beginning in the 1950s, the Single Market (formerly known as the Common Market) has had at its heart the commitment to the Four Freedoms – the free movement of goods, services, money and people. This is what every country signed up to when they joined the EU. Even those countries, such as Norway, which are not in the EU, but are in the Single Market have to sign up for all of the four pillars, including the free movement of people.

Yet this did not stop many in the Leave campaign from claiming that with Brexit the UK could stay in the Single Market, yet somehow opt out of the free movement of people. Now, post referendum we have almost a bandwagon of people on the left joining in. The latest to do so includes Stephen Kinnock and Seema Malhotra from the Labour party. In an article for the New Statesmen they argue that somehow the UK can impose controls on immigration for EU states, yet remain in the Single Market.

It is rather disappointing that so many people from the left are so quick and willing to advocate limiting the free movement of people from the rest of the EU. So much for the great internationalist traditions of Labour.  It seems Labour will stoop as low as it can to appease voters in its former heartlands.  Nothing of benefit tends to come from appeasement. The undoubted hardships for many across the UK do not come from immigrants, but from the failures of successive UK governments, including Labour governments.  But this not something most Labour party members are willing to discuss. Much easier to just blame immigrants and the EU.

However at this moment the key question is whether restrictions on the free movement of people is even remotely possible. I would suggest it is not. This for the simple reason that the Single Market is a package and the moment you start to demand exceptions the whole thing will very quickly collapse.

The UK wants to keep three of the four pillars of the Single Market – the free movement of goods, services and money – but to establish restrictions on the other pillar, the free movement of people. Which is fine and dandy for the UK and any other member state that has similar concerns. But what about the other member states?

Let us take the free movement of services. For most commentators this seems to equate to protecting the financial sector and the City of London in particular. As Stephen Kinnock and Seem Malhotra put it: The UK should protect its financial services industry, including passporting rights, vital to our national prosperity. Leave aside for the moment just why the Labour party should have suddenly become the saviours and protectors of financial services. Instead ask, why would all the other 27 member states agree to this? If exceptions are to be made to the four  pillars, why not to the free movement of services? What if Germany and France for example were to demand restrictions on passporting rights? Or what if some member states wanted the right to impose restrictions on the free movement of goods or money?

I other words once you start demanding concessions on one pillar of the Single Market, you are effectively calling for the end of the Single Market. If the UK can demand and get concessions on what it wants, there will no argument for denying this right to all the other member states. If the Single Market is beneficial to the UK, which I believe it is, then you accept all its terms and conditions. You cannot expect to pick and choose and not expect others to do the same. As Angela Merkel has made clear the UK will not get to cherry pick the bits of the Single Market it likes.

The UK once again seems to be reduced to pleading for special treatment. At the same time ignoring the concerns of the other 27 member states. We should be given everything we want and they rest should just sign on the dotted line. This line of thinking seems to ignore that the EU has repeatedly made concessions to the UK. The opt outs on Schengen and the euro for example. David Cameron also managed to get some, admittedly minor, concessions for the recent referendum. All to no avail, a majority in England and Wales still voted to leave. So what incentive do the other 27 member state for offering further concessions? Appeasement does not seem to work. It is time to get real about this. Talk of ending free movement of people yet staying in the Single Market is just that – all talk and no substance.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Economics, European Union, Uncategorized

No justification for an early election

All Hail Theresa May, our soon to be new Prime Minister. Last one standing gets the job, no election needed. This is a shame for the members of the Conservative party. An election would also have added much needed mirth for the rest of us throughout the summer as May and Leadsom battled it out between them. However this is a purely internal Tory party matter. They have the right to elect their leader any way they like.

Of course there is the small matter that the leader of the Conservative party is also right now the Prime Minister of the UK. As such there have been some loud calls for an early general election, mostly from the usual suspects, i.e. the opposition parties. However there does not to my mind exist any justifiable reasons for another general election. Not on constitutional grounds, nor on precedent, nor on political grounds.

As regards the constitution, or what passes for one in our non constitutional democracy, we do not directly elect a PM. Only the voters in his or her constituency can actually for for him or her. In a parliamentary democracy we vote for parties and can only do so in our own constituency. 99.9% of voters never, ever, get the chance to directly vote for a Prime Minister. At the last election, if you wanted David Cameron as PM, you had to vote conservative, while if you wanted to vote conservative, you had to do so knowing that David Cameron would almost certainly be the PM. Choice there was none. The same applied to potential Labour party voters. Those who voted for other parties knew that none of their candidates was likely to become PM. So, it seems to me that Theresa May has as much democratic credentials as all other PMs.

Precedent, which is an important part of our non constitutional democracy, also confirms that Theresa May does not require an early election. None of the changes in PM between elections has resulted in an immediate election. At least not in the last 100 years or so. Gordon Brown, John Major, Jim Callaghan et al succeeded to the post of PM without an immediate election. The same has happened in Scotland, Northern Ireland and I am sure, in Wales. There have been three changes in First Minister in Scotland in less than 20 years and none of them felt obliged, or were seriously pressured into calling an early election. So, again, precedent favours Theresa May.

As regards the politics, this too does not warrant another election. What political purpose would an early election have?  The government has not lost a vote of confidence and still has a working majority at Westminster. The Brexit vote is hardly a reason for another election. Though parliament is notionally sovereign and the referendum was technically advisory and not binding, it would be difficult for parliament to just override the result.  Whilst anything is possible, it does not seem to me to be terribly wise for politicians to seek to ignore the result. As Theresa May says, Brexit means Brexit.

This however is where it all gets very interesting politically. Despite Theresa May’s repetitions, nobody, including May herself, knows just what Brexit means. The fine details of Brexiting will provide much scope for argument, disagreements, anger, bitterness, insults and just possibly, some serious negotiations. Once these negotiations or non negotiations get properly started anything become possible. Including an early election. If the government cannot get its preferred position through parliament then it would have no option but to lose a vote of confidence and call for another election. The Tories got us into this mess. It is up to them to get us out of it. Or fail in the process. We may get another election before 2020, but not immediately. Let’s give Theresa May and her merry band as much rope as they need to hang themselves.

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under European Union, UK

Switzerland and Brexit

All eyes have rightly focussed on the recent Brexit vote and what it will mean in practice, in particular for the UK’s continued membership of the Single Market.  The key to this is most likely to be the free movement of people. Since its inception in the 1950s, the free movement of people has been one of the cornerstones of the Single Market, and its predecessor, the Common Market.

What is important to note is that a country does not have to be a member of the EU to be in the Single Market. You just have to sign up to the four key conditions: the free movement of goods, services, capital and people. You also have to pay a fee. This is the case with both Iceland and Norway, who are full members of the Single Market.

Switzerland is slightly different, in that it is not a full member of the Single Market, but has full access to specific sectors, but not the financial sector for example. Switzerland’s relationship with the EU is covered by a series of Bilateral Agreements and these include the free movement of people. However in February 2014, the Swiss voted in a referendum, by 50.3% to impose quotas on migration from the EU. The referendum gave the Swiss government three years to meet this requirement. That is until February 9th, 2017. For this to happen a new agreement with the EU needs to be reached very soon, for Switzerland to have the time to pass the necessary legal changes in time to meet this February 2017 deadline.

This is why what happens with Switzerland is potentially crucial to the UK’s hopes of remaining in the Single Market without the free movement of people. The omens are not good.  After two and a half years of negotiations no meeting of minds, let alone a new agreement had been reached. The most that might have been agreed with Switzerland would have been something similar to the emergency brake on immigration, that David Cameron managed to negotiate with the EU. However after the Brexit vote that is no longer on offer. And having been rejected by the UK, it is very unlikely that the EU would be interested in offering a similar deal to Switzerland.

Switzerland is already suffering the consequences of the 2014 vote, as it is no longer part of the Erasmus programme, and the EU has stalled on any further bilateral agreements. No new deal is in the pipeline and the reality is that without a new deal, all the Bilateral Agreements will come to a shuddering end in February 2017. This is due to the inclusion of a so called guillotine clause. If any part of the agreements is abrogated, the whole thing ends.

Switzerland is beginning to seriously run out of time. The Brexit vote ended the emergency break option. This leaves Switzerland between a rock and a hard place. Either it tries to hold another referendum, perhaps on keeping the Bilateral Agreements, including the free movement of people, or it prepares for life outwith the Single Market.

The Swiss experience does not offer much hope for those Leavers who assumed that the UK could get its cake and eat it. If there is to be a deal on ending or limiting the free movement of people it will now have to be offered to both Switzerland and the UK. As the previous offer – an emergency brake – has been rejected by the UK, it is not clear that there will be much stomach in the other 27 member states for any further concessions. Any limit to this foundational principle effectively ends the EU. As any offer would have to applicable to the other 27 member states.

The blindness of the Leave campaign as to what was happening in Switzerland is yet another example of how irresponsible the whole campaign was. Unfortunately it is the rest of us who will have to suffer the consequences. Unless you live in Scotland, where independence offers a way out of this mess.

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under Europe, European Union, Politics, UK

Without Boris – some clarity, but more questions

Well, who saw that one coming? The rise and fall of Boris in just over a couple days. Boris must have an awful lot of enemies, both within and without the party for this to happen so quickly. From the words of Michael Gove and his wife, it seems that Boris was not reliably Brexit enough. After all Boris was always a bit of a reluctant Leaver, and his vision of a post Brexit UK sounded too close to the current position for many. Too many as it turned out.

The key divide, post Brexit, it seems to me, is between those who will reluctantly accept the result of the referendum, provided the UK stays in the Single Market, and those who want completely out. Without Boris it looks like the outers have won. All the four remaining candidates for the Tory leadership are committed to taking the UK out of the EU. Even Theresa May seems to have come down on the side of leaving the EU completely. The sticking point for her appears to have been the need to control immigration from the EU. Something that is incompatible with the Single Market.

This is potentially momentous. It does clear this aspect up quite considerably. The negotiations with the EU should be simpler, if not easier, and over sooner rather than later. Some arrangement will be needed to ensure access to the Single Market for goods, but it will be almost impossible to get more, access for services for example, without accepting the free movement of people. Which all the candidates have more or less ruled out.

This has made life a whole lot trickier for lots of people, including Scotland’s attempts to remain in the Single Market, let alone the EU. But not just Scotland, the two Irelands and even tiny Gibraltar will feel the impact of the UK leaving the Single Market.

In the case of Scotland this will both clarify and complicate matters. Staying in the Single Market, but leaving the EU, while not optimum, would nevertheless be an acceptable outcome for many. You get most of the benefits, trade and the free movement of people, which most Remainers value highly. It also and most importantly means that there will be no land border between Scotland and England in terms of trade. The downside for those in favour of independence is that this option might well make independence less appealing to some of those No voters who are reconsidering their position.

If, on the other hand, as now seems likely, the UK leaves the Single Market, this makes the choice very binary. The only way for Scotland to remain, not just in the EU, but in the Single Market, would be to become independent. However, with the rest of UK no longer in the Single Market, the trade and other links with rUK would become crucial. England will almost certainly remain Scotland’s most important trading partner. Can we ensure open access to England if Scotland remains in the EU? The question of a hard land border rears its ugly head again. Even those most in favour of remaining in the EU might baulk at independence if it meant restricted access to England.

However these questions are just as important for the republic of Ireland, perhaps even more so. Ireland has always been closely tied to the UK. Ireland has effectively been part of the British Single Market for decades. The Common Travel area ensures hassle free travel across the British Isles. Ireland only joined the UK when the UK did, and may never have done so, if the UK had not. Now of course as an established member of the EU, Ireland will face some very difficult choices if the UK does leave the Single Market. Can the Common Travel Area survive? Will there have to be a hard land border between Northern Ireland and the republic?

Paradoxically, this could help Scotland. If Ireland manages to successfully adapt to the UK leaving the Single Market, while remaining in the EU, then there is no reason why Scotland could not also do so.

The withdrawal of Boris will also impact on the Tory party itself. It is most strange that the Tory party does not have even the option of electing a leader who is in favour of remaining in the Single Market. Remember, most of the cabinet were in favour of at the very least remaining in the Single Market. While some have clearly changed their mind on this, can the same be said for all Tory MPs? This must be dreadful for the likes of Ken Clarke, John Major et al. While they are the old guard, presumably some of the current crop of Tory MPs share their view that leaving the Single Market will be disastrous for the UK. After all around 40% of Tory voters voted Remain. if, even 30% of Tory MPs are opposed to leaving the Single Market, it may prove impossible for the new PM to get this through Parliament. Whilst most people, at least in England and Wales, accept that the UK has to leave the EU, it is less clear how many people will be prepared to accept leaving the Single Market. As the Chinese saying has it, we live in interesting times, and they only look like getting even more interesting!

2 Comments

Filed under European Union, Politics, Scotland, UK