RURAL SCOTLAND AND INDEPENDENCE.

13dd652b0938b2bc791cde097f732b5c

It wasn’t all that long ago. They were the ‘SNP heartlands’ and we seemed unassailable. When I was first elected in 2001 the SNP at Westminster held 5 seats and all of them were from rural Scotland. From Kinross to Kinloss it was the North East shoulder of Scotland that returned SNP MPs and it was rural Scotland that sustained our Parliamentary footprint. In the nascent Scottish Parliament it was no different. In 1999 we won 7 constituency seats, all rural, the 6 constituencies we won in 97’s General election with the addition of Inverness. In fact if we were to look historically at where the SNP had won all their Westminster seats at General elections prior to the 2015 breakthrough, other than Dundee, they were all mainly rural. 

Fast forward to 2018 and the whole situation has flipped. The majority of the seats we hold are now in urban Scotland and the losses we sustained at last years General Election were in the seats that we used to rely on to give us our Parliamentary presence. 

What has happened in rural Scotland and what does this tell us about our prospects for securing independence? Because, let’s not forget, these rural seats were also the parts of Scotland that returned the biggest No votes in the 2014 independence referendum. Seats that stood alone in voting for independence supporting SNP politicians are now the seats we appear to have the greatest difficulty defending. 

Some say that rural Scotland is just returning to its natural Conservative ‘home’. Where rural Scotland did vote for the Conservatives in large parts of the last century it doesn’t explain why it was also the first part of Scotland to return independence supporting MPs? Maybe it’s even something to do with the ‘nationalist unionist’ narrative that people like David Torrance have recently written about. Before the SNP had fully emerged as a serious force Conservatives in large swathes of rural Scotland helped carry the torch for Scottishness, home rule and the preservation of much of our cultural iconography. Our Scottishness was very much under threat by a strong post war, all pervasive, unifying British identity and rural Conservatives in places like Perthshire and the North East were amongst the most curious defenders of our national symbols. It was only with the emergence of Thatcher that this part of Scottish Conservatism was effectively killed off. I often wonder if the logic of this ‘nationalist unionism’ had been properly pursued what sort of Scottish Conservative party might have emerged and where this interest in ‘nationalism’ might have taken it? The thing is rural Scotland is politically complex and is open to the idea of constitutional progress. We have prevailed in rural Scotland before and we can again. 

The other reason given for current rural disenchantment with independence is it is now seen as an urban concern. Most of the groups that emerged out of the independence referendum were left wing with a strong ideological and class base to their vision for a future independent Scotland. Where this played well in constituencies with a tradition of voting Labour there was perhaps an inevitable consequence in areas where small ‘c’ Conservatism is the predominant community and political value. For so much of rural Scotland observing the talk of a movement seeking to ‘transform’ our nation was maybe just a bit too much to take. 

But the urban/rural circle has been squared before and it can be squared again. There is also the example of the Highlands, the one part of rural Scotland that has mainly stuck with the SNP, and we need to know why we have prevailed there and lost elsewhere.

But more than anything we need a new independence case for rural Scotland. Opposition to independence has hardened in rural Scotland following the referendum experience but this means we just have to work all the harder to get it back on board again. It is about developing agendas that support and develop the rural agenda and explaining the opportunities independence can bring. We have to learn to speak to rural Scotland whilst listening and agreeing with them a bit more. And there are a lots of opportunities for debate. 

images

Food and drink is now our premier export and branding issues concern rural Scotland. Excellence in Scottish produce is one of our nation’s most important international calling cards and it is under threat from a Brexitised UK determined to pursue a one ‘UK’ approach to bilateral trade deals. Then there is the power grab. So many of the 24 powers that the UK wants to maintain in their desire to secure this UK ‘single market’ are in agriculture. This imposes a UK determined straight jacket on our farming sector and limits our ability to pursue our own priorities. 

Then there’s the obvious consequences of Brexit. Top amongst this is immigration and worries that there may not be a seasonal workforce to harvest the fields of rural Scotland. This extends to the rural hospitality sector where the bulk of hotel staff in large swathes of rural Scotland are from Eastern Europe. The ending of freedom of movement will have a bigger consequence in rural Scotland than anywhere else. There is also what happens when the £3 billion of EU farm subsidies comes to an end in 2022. The UK Government have wittered on about ‘rewarding efficiency’ but has produced no solid plan about what will happen. Scottish farming is more dependent on this EU support than any other part of the UK and is the most likely to be hurt with its withdrawal.

In the next few months I will be hosting a variety of meetings with rural businesses in my constituency and I will be listening very carefully to the issues that farming interests want to see pursued. My view is that rural Scotland is at a cross roads on a number of its preconceptions about Brexit and possible constitutional progress.

In the next case for independence we have to get to a One Scotland approach that unites every sector and part of Scotland. Where there are parts that need extra reassurance we have to offer it and understand the concerns. We must make sure that no part of Scotland is left behind in our quest for independence.

Advertisements

THE OPTIMUM CONDITIONS FOR INDYREF SUCCESS

PPKZJMuMOexasHo-1600x900-noPad

It now looks like a second referendum is set to dominate our Depute Leadership contest and I believe that is a good thing. We are at a critical juncture in how we proceed with a second referendum and it is something that we simply have to get right. The debate seems to centre round whether we should proceed with a referendum simply because we currently possess a mandate or whether we hold one when there is good evidence it can be won. 

I think everyone knows my view on this by now and it begins and ends with my firm belief that we simply can not countenance losing again. We are so close to securing our historic objective that to throw away a victory that we’ve so patiently and constructively worked for over the decades through impatience would be the worst type of defeat. I want to see evidence it can be won and I want it held at the time of our choosing when the optimum conditions are in place for success. 

People have asked what these conditions are and what evidence is required? It is a fair question which I will try and address.

Before I do I want to first go over what these ‘optimal conditions’ are not. 

Firstly, they are not when we are less than one year away from having lost over one third of our independence supporting MPs to candidates who had as their main campaigning message ‘No to a second referendum’. The SNP Government had only weeks previous to last year’s General Election placed independence centre stage by successfully securing support in Parliament to request a fresh section 30 order from the UK Government. Where there were other issues at play in last year’s General election an early referendum was by far the most dominant and we can not ignore the fact that the SNP lost half a million votes. 

‘Optimal conditions’ are not when a significant gap exists between support for independence and support for an ‘early’ independence referendum. Every test of public opinion has shown that this gap is real and we simply can not wish it away. Support for independence remains impressively at around the 45% we secured in 2014. I don’t know how we can otherwise conclude that there are a number of people who still support independence but who do not want an early referendum. Indeed, in my campaign last year I came across identified independence supporters who told me that they were voting Conservative to stop an early referendum.

‘Optimal conditions’ are also not when a majority of our fellow Scots continue to tell us they still oppose independence by a significant margin when public opinion is tested. Many have said that simply holding a new referendum will somehow secure a majority and just by initiating a renewed contest we will secure a victory. This ignores just how hard it is going to be to secure a majority. That last five precent we need to win over in a renewed referendum will be the hardest five percent we have ever had to convert. It is a five percent that is deeply dug in with over five years of intense debate about our country’s constitutional future.

That then brings me on to what we need to do to start to move towards ‘optimal conditions’. First, and most obviously, we need a new case to win over that last tough, entrenched, 5 percent. They are going to take a lot of shifting and we have to get on to their territory. Everyday issues such as currency, pensions and perceived deficits are the obvious issues we have to address but so are things that persuadable unionists care about. To win we are going to have to be creative. Things like the cultural connections and attachments that are valued across these isles and even things like British identity are going to have to be tackled and reviewed. It is also about returning to a One Scotland approach to independence. The places we lost in 2014 were in rural and affluent Scotland and we need to ask searching questions about whether appealing to one sector of our community we may be losing out to another. It means listening to persuadable unionists, understanding their agenda then winning them over. 

NSQ7GLH2_400x400

Then there is Brexit. We simply can not leave Yes leavers semi-detached from the Yes movement. Forget stay at home ‘over eager nationalists’ the people who stayed at home last year were Yes voters who voted to leave the European Union. Proceeding to another indyref with this unresolved will be like proceeding with one hand tied behind our back. Then there is recognising the opportunities around Brexit. Brexit will be an unmitigated disaster for our fellow Scots and when it properly hits our fellow Scots will want to review their constitutional options.  

The ‘optimum conditions’ then is when we have done all of this. When we can feel confident that we can go to the Scottish people with a new case for our country’s independence with the outstanding impediments to success addressed. It means seeing support for our country’s independence being the sustained choice when public opinion is tested. It is hitting the sweet spot when Brexit impacts and people actively want out of an isolated, desolated UK. It means seeing support for the SNP returning to the levels we achieved around the last referendum in electoral contests. It means evidence. If securing our independence was easy we would already be an independent country. This is going to be hard, hard work and no amount of just wishing it can be easily achieved because we want it is going to get us there. We owe it to future generations of Scots to win this and rescue our nation from a disastrous Brexit and a UK determined to erode our national Parliament. We simply have to have a nation of our own run by those of us who live and work here.

So, again, and again, and again – rinse and repeat, losing again is simply not an option.

HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT

border450.JPG-e1344986301884

Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): I wish I could say it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), but I cannot. The only thing I will say is that when it comes to a world view and political values, he and I are probably on the opposite sides of the spectrum. His intemperate remarks about Scottish independence do him no credit whatsoever. He wants to pull up the drawbridge and leave the European Union and other institutions, whereas we want to join the world and we welcome the fact that the world will welcome Scotland as an independent nation.

The Government’s stated aim with this Bill is to make the UK a more “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants. I give the Minister 10 out of 10 and say to him, “Well done and pat yourself on the back,” because the Government have most certainly achieved that with this Bill. They have just made the UK an even more intolerant place for the rest of us to live in.

This Government have also achieved something I never thought I would see in the 12 years I have been a Member of Parliament: an Immigration Bill that is even nastier and more pernicious than all those that have gone before. All these right-wing immigration Bills have to achieve is two simple things: kick as many people as possible out of the country and prevent as many people as possible from getting in in the first place. That is what every single immigration Bill we have had from right-wing Governments, whether they be Blairite or Conservative, has done: kick out as many people as possible and prevent as many people as possible from coming in.

Sometimes Governments have to be inventive. This Bill relies on some of the traditional routes, such as making appeals harder, enforcement more difficult and life more miserable for people living in this country who should not be here. However, it is also inventive, because it covers social services and health and tells landlords to become immigration officers. This Bill will turn race relations into a nightmare, bringing suspicion based on ethnicity into our social services and the housing market.

Like most right-wing parties, the Tories’ pre-conceived idea about immigration is that it is a bad thing that has to be dealt with and managed. To them it is a burden. Right-wing Conservatives such as those in this Government

22 Oct 2013 : Column 205

want to get the numbers down. That has been the case throughout history. Conservatives would probably have tried to stop the Normans and the Vikings coming here on their boats in the 9th and 10th centuries. Theirs is a world view of barriers and of preventing people from coming here.

We live in a globalised, interconnected world in which the transfer and movement of people have never been greater. We are standing in London, for goodness’ sake! This is one of the greatest cities, if not the greatest city, in the world. One third of the people who live and work in London come from outwith the United Kingdom. It is they who built this magnificent city.

We should listen to what the Mayor of London has to say about these issues. He wrote a fantastic article in The Daily Telegraphthe other day—I wish the Conservatives would read it—under the headline, “It’s mad to blame our housing crisis on ‘blooming foreigners’”. I would not put it that way, but the Mayor of London is spot on. He recognises the value of and contribution made by high-end and low-end migrants to London. I recommend that my many Conservative friends in the House take a look at what the London Mayor has to say about this issue, because they will get some sense from him, unlike the hon. Member for Peterborough.

Yes, this country has changed. My country, Scotland, is changing, too. We do not vote Conservative. We approach these issues differently. Debates such as this show that we are pulling apart politically. We would not have such a debate in Scotland; we would not discuss such themes. We are drifting apart as a political culture.

This place is living in the early days of UKIP UK. That is where we are in this country. It started a little while ago, but it really came through with UKIP’s success in the local elections. That changed everything. We now live in UKIP UK. The party does not have one member in this House, but it is pulling all the Conservative party’s strings and dominating political debate. Everything is predicated on UKIP and Nigel Farage.

UKIP’s victory was closely followed by the hate vans and the ridiculous texts trying to get people to go home. I secured a debate on the hate vans last week. Perhaps I should get a bit of credit for getting rid of the appalling things. It took ages for the Minister to respond to me about them, but a week after the debate, we have got rid of the hate vans. That is a result.

Even this Conservative Government realise how ridiculous it was to drag a billboard around the streets of London, ranting at people to go home, with a telephone number and a text number. That is what they were reduced to. It could not get more ridiculous. What would have been next? The Minister was one of the few people in the Home Office who was prepared to defend the hate vans. He was in the studios all last week saying that, with a bit of refinement around the edges, they might be okay. He was prepared to put son-of-hate-vans on the streets. Thank goodness that has been ruled out by the Home Secretary. Let us be sure that it does not happen.

Are the Opposition opposing the Bill? I do not know. They do not like aspects of it, but they are compromised. If they are to win the next election, they have to win votes in the south. That brings us back to UKIP UK. They are aware that immigration is a hot issue in seats

22 Oct 2013 : Column 206

that they have to win, so they are having to be very careful about what they say. The Conservatives are right to point the finger at them because they are not doing a thing, but they should not let the Conservatives bully them. The Conservatives are saying that the seven to nine years of high immigration when Labour was in government were a waste. One of the best things that Labour did was to get people into this country. It built cities such as London and rejuvenated cities such as Manchester and Leeds. Labour Members should not let the Conservatives bully them into thinking that they did the wrong thing on immigration.

Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab): I would appreciate some clarity on the SNP’s position. I presume that the UK Government will need help from the Scottish Government on the landlord checks and on the NHS proposals, as those areas are largely devolved. What is the SNP line on that?

Pete Wishart: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for reminding me to talk about Scotland. There are proposals that relate to devolved services that we are in control of. We do not like them—we do not like them at all. We are in charge of the health service in Scotland. We would need to be convinced that these measures were in the best interests of Scotland before we would go through with them. Scotland is a different country. The hon. Lady knows that, and I think she would agree that we would not do these things.

Dr Huppert: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his debate last week. I agree with him on that issue. I also share his concerns about landlords. Is he as pleased as I am that there will be only one pilot in one location and that the policy will not be rolled out without a vote? Does he take some comfort from that, even though he might not be totally reassured?

Pete Wishart: I take a little comfort from that, but not a great deal. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is thinking, but I am sure that he will not vote for this nonsense tonight. I know what he has said. I can see all the Liberals sitting there thinking, “Uh-uh! This is not a liberal Bill.” It is one of the most illiberal Bills that we have seen from this Government. It will be an absolute disgrace if even one Liberal goes through the Aye Lobby tonight. When I sat on the Opposition Benches with them, I heard them rant against new Labour immigration Bills. This Bill is 10 times worse than anything new Labour concocted.

Scotland has had the “go home” project. The UK Border Agency office in Glasgow was telling people to go home before they had even sat down. Now that we have got rid of the appalling hate vans, I want the Minister to guarantee that we will not have “go home” messages at UKBA offices. We do not want that in Scotland. We do not have UKIP in Scotland. Nigel Farage had to get a police escort out of Edinburgh. We hate UKIP to the bottom of our ballot boxes. It has not secured one deposit in Scotland. We do not want to take part in the appalling race to the bottom that the Conservatives are engaged in with UKIP—a race to the bottom that they can never win. They will never out-UKIP UKIP. It is the master of right-wing gimmickry. If the Conservatives enter a race with UKIP, they will only get beaten. I think that the Minister knows that.

22 Oct 2013 : Column 207

This matter is important for Scotland. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) is right about that. We have our own demographic issues and population requirements. I will tell Members the difference between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. When the Scottish Government received the latest population figures, they put out a press release welcoming the rise in the Scottish population. Could you ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, imagine a UK Government welcoming a rise in population? That is what distinguishes us as a Government from them—we welcome the contribution of immigration. We have our own population requirements, but we are stuck and burdened with a set of immigration policies that are almost the exact opposite of what we require. That is why we must wrest control of our own immigration requirements.

Our population has gone up and that is good, but there are concerns that it might still fall. Even 10 years ago, we were worried that our population might fall below the 5 million mark. Thankfully, that did not happen. The health provisions will cut across our responsibility for devolved services, and we will have to look at them carefully before we do anything.

There is one thing I want to say about immigration, because we do not like any of this stuff—it is just rubbish. The UK Government’s immigration policy is having an impact on Scotland’s great universities. We have three universities in the top 200 universities in the world. We have fantastic world-class universities and this Government are hurting them. Just stop it. We want to ensure that we get the best possible students to our universities. All this rubbish that the Government are proposing puts more and more people off. We have to compete with other English-speaking nations around the world to ensure that our universities stay world class. We just wish the UK Government would get out.

This issue is simple. Let us admit that Government Members seem to be going in one direction—the emerging UKIP UK has its own set of values, culture and political direction—and in Scotland we are going another way. We do not like this stuff. We do not vote Conservative and we hate UKIP, so we are not going to go in that direction. Here is a novel solution: why do they not do their own thing and we do our own thing? It is called independence and it works for most countries. Next year, thank goodness, we will achieve it.

SCOTTISH FISHING HAS ALWAYS BEEN ‘EXPENDABLE’ FOR THE TORIES

TELEMMGLPICT000128230317_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqY4-XNG_7v-V2jIZ3ghNYKCW0qTysEG4yZuBUdXGakjA

This has not been a good couple of weeks for the Scottish Tories. Totally embarrassed and overexposed on fishing, as well as being isolated in trying to defend the Repeal Bill’s power grab, by diminishing the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

I lost a lot of good friends and colleagues in what we can now only call Tory lies on fishing. These Tory candidates cynically responded to Scottish fishing concerns about the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), by promising that they would be out of the CFP the day we left the EU. We now know, of course, that we will still be in the CFP on that day, but worse than that we will still be in the CFP without a vote or a say, with the rest of the EU 27 deciding how fishing stocks will be managed in UK waters. You could not get a worse possible position to be in and Scottish fishing communities are rightly furious. The Scottish Tories, in trying to get out of this hole, even attempted to reset and redefine the ‘red line’ they drew only a few days before to the date that the transition period will come to an end.

But just as we saw this week’s betrayal in all its glory, we started to see the seeds of the next one. European nations jealously guard their access to UK fishing waters and they have already said that they will demand continuing access to UK waters when we leave the EU. Already, they are starting to say that any final deal must include continued access. Fishing contributes very little to the UK economy, but sectors like The City and car manufacturing greatly do by comparison. Fishing was expendable in the past, it is being betrayed in the present and it will be sold out in the future.

Why Scottish fishermen ever thought they could rely on the Tories is simply baffling.

But what about these ‘brave’ Scottish Tory MPs who say that they will vote against the final deal if fishing is sold out? Don’t make me laugh! This supine and craven bunch have never even seen the inside of a lobby opposed to their Government.

They even supported their Government in removing free school meals to English school children, even though their vote did not count because of the English Votes for English Laws procedure. So determined were they to demonstrate their support for their Government, they turned up in person to have their votes discounted. For all their huffing and puffing they do exactly what they are told by their Westminster masters.

But you will just take us back into the EU, hence the CFP, they sequel. Yes, our intention is to re-join the EU, but we will seek to scrap or fundamentally reform the CFP to suit Scottish interests. With a seat at the top table we will put Scottish fishing interests first. We certainly do not start with the assumption that fishing is ‘expendable’ and we will secure the best deal possible for Scottish fisheries.

The stark choice for Scottish fishermen is an independent Scotland at the top table, negotiating on behalf of the sector or a Brexitised UK Government with its history of betrayal negotiating a Brexit deal with fisheries reduced to a bargaining chip for bigger UK priorities.

Scottish fishing should have a bright and secure future and once it is in the hands of a government that actually cares about the sector and its priorities then change will be made.

WE MUST CONDUCT OUR DEBATE WITH RESPECT

_86576131_flagafpWell that’s been quite a couple of days…. In the last few days I’ve been called a ‘poster boy’ for the ultra unionist group Scotland in Union, I’ve had my commitment to Scottish independence questioned, my ‘lifestyle’ has been disapproved of, I’m apparently ‘settling down’ in Westminster and I’ve even been called an ‘Etonian boot licker’. None of this came from political opponents – all of this is from people who claim to support Scottish independence on Twitter.

Now, I’m a reasonably robust political character, hardened by almost 17 years in Parliament and used to the occasional scrap on Twitter. I was one of 6 MPs who had to put the case for the last referendum in the most hostile environment imaginable when we had to face down 640 unionist MPs at Westminster. I won my seat against all the odds last year when the Tories told me that it was a 99% certainty that they would take it. I am not easily thrown of my stride by criticism or attacks but I was genuinely surprised by the vehemence of people I presumed were political comrades. It would be easy to dismiss this as ‘just twitter’ but I know that environment reasonably well and I have to conclude we might have an issue and difficulty in our movement.

My ‘crime’ was to simply express my view that we must be as pragmatic as possible in calling a second referendum on independence. I referred to my experience in the most canvassed constituency in Scotland and I asked legitimate questions about the gap between support for independence and support for ‘an early referendum’. I asked how we may re-engage yes leavers and I, again, put the need for a new case to persuade those amongst our fellow Scots who remain unconvinced about the case for independence. My conclusion was that we simply can not afford to lose another referendum.

People then seemed to somehow presume that by suggesting a pragmatic approach I was ‘calling off’ a second referendum. That I wouldn’t use a ‘hard earned’ mandate that I was being ‘defeatist’ and ‘depressing’ the Yes movement. The thing is I didn’t say anything about when a referendum should be held, I simply put forward my view that it should be held when there was good evidence it could be won. Even the most enthusiastic proponent of an imminent referendum would concede that ‘if’ consecutive opinion polls showed support for independence plummeting to below 30% a degree of caution should be exercised?

Social-Media-and-Politics-Voting-with-Twitter

This unleashed the most extraordinary response on Twitter (and I have to say exclusively on Twitter) and led me to question how we can proceed with debates such as this – because believe me, we need these debates. Positions have to be challenged and analysed. Evidence has to be presented and judgements have to be made. Shouting people down, name calling and misrepresenting people’s views will not help anybody. If this happens people with legitimate views will be silenced and discouraged in coming forward with their own views. No one in our movement has all the answers and at this juncture in the fight for our nation’s independence we need as much input and ideas as possible.

I withdrew from the Deputy Leadership because I got a little bit of a flavour of this when I was working up a few ideas whilst considering standing. I was concerned that the debate might descend into what I have just experienced and I didn’t want our contest dominated with all of this. I will certainly not be deterred from forcefully speaking my mind and I will not be silenced. I will continue to put forward what I think is right for my country and right for the case in securing our nation’s independence.

I will say this once again. The only thing that matters to me is my country securing its independence and I believe losing again is simply unthinkable. So let’s unite, lets welcome all views with respect, and let’s get out and win…….

PRAGMATISM MUST UNDERPIN OUR APPROACH TO A 2nd REFERENDUM

370295_Scottish-flag

There is only one thing that determines my approach to a second independence referendum and that is winning it. Losing again is simply unthinkable and we have to ensure that we are as pragmatic as possible in ensuring that next time we get over the line. That means we have to have a new case that is sufficiently persuasive to convince those amongst our fellow Scots who voted No last time and we must ensure that it is held under the optimum conditions for success.

The consequences of getting this wrong could damage our movement irredeemably. There is no guarantee that the movement would bounce back the way it did following the 2014 referendum. The lesson from Quebec is that a defeated second referendum could set back the cause of independence by decades. Closer to home we also have our own experience in the first Scottish ‘Assembly’ referendum in the 70’s which led to the subsequent near wipe out of the SNP and set the creation of a Scottish Parliament back 18 years. Losing again simply should not be an option.

There are those who say that a referendum should be held just because we have a mandate and we can. That we should proceed regardless of any solid evidence that it can be won. This is usually accompanied by a firm belief that simply holding a referendum would somehow encourage a majority in favour. I’m afraid that this is not a view that I necessarily share. Last time for most people independence was an abstract idea they hadn’t really considered and on which people were still to make up their minds. Now it is the most hotly debated issue in our national political life. People now have strong views about independence and running the same campaign again is only likely to produce the same result. That is why we need a persuasive new case to overcome deeply held convictions and we have to address the structural issues that continue to be an impediment to securing majority support. My view on mandates is also straight forward and that is if we can’t win a majority to hold a referendum there is very little chance we would win the referendum itself.

Then there is the actual evidence of what happened only 9 months ago. In the General Election we did a lot of canvassing and voter contact in Perth and North Perthshire. In fact we probably did twice as much canvassing as the second placed constituency in the SNP canvassing league. We therefore were able to determine a pretty reliable picture on what was perplexing and consuming the people who actually vote in our little corner of Scotland. The main campaign we were up against was the one that asked people to vote for the Conservative candidate to oppose a second referendum. It was a simple and crude appeal that seemed to chime with large numbers of my constituents who were just weary of big constitutional choices and wanted a break from having to consider them in the near future. It saw my majority fall from about 10,000 to 21.

It was not unusual for people to tell me that they had voted for me in previous elections but were now voting Conservative to stop an early independence referendum. There were also SNP voters who I found difficult to motivate because they had voted for Brexit and were unhappy in what they saw as our haste to rejoin the European Union as an independent nation. I never encountered anybody who told me that they were considering withholding their support for the Scottish National Party because they felt that the SNP were being hesitant about proceeding with a second referendum. If anything the exact opposite was the case. I don’t know how typical we were of other constituencies in Scotland but the campaign we were up against was almost identical to other unionist campaigns in the seats we lost in June last year.

images

There is good news though, and that is support for independence is steady with evidence of it rising. The latest STV poll shows support for independence at 48% and it may be that the ‘Brexit effect’ is starting to take hold. However, support for an early second independence referendum lies significantly below support for independence itself and we have to fully understand why that is the case and ensure that the reasons for this ‘gap’ are addressed. Our experience in Perthshire certainly suggests that this ‘indy-gap’ is real and we need to know if it could have an influence on our support if a referendum is called prematurely.

We also have to remind ourselves that even with the encouraging opinion polls we still do not enjoy majority support amongst our fellow Scots. We also have the ‘Yes leavers’ to consider. It is this group more than any other who stayed at home last year and until their issues are addressed they will remain semi-detached from our movement.

In saying all this it is still possible that an early referendum could take place and can be won. Support for independence is picking up and it will continue to rise as dissatisfaction with the UK continues to grow. Then there’s always Brexit. Brexit is the single biggest disruptive political event we have confronted and its chaotic and haphazard impact on political life is difficult to predict. Brexit can ruinously implode anytime leaving us with an early opportunity to strike and present the constitutional options available to our fellow Scots. This is why pragmatism has to underpin our approach to a timing of the next referendum.

Holding a second referendum only to lose it because the Scottish people weren’t ready would be the worst possible national tragedy. Holding a referendum and losing when we could have won if we were just a bit more pragmatic about the timing would be even worse than that.

 

 

THE UK SUPERSTATE

35B84A5200000578-3662050-The_price_of_inclusion_Participating_in_the_single_market_is_see-a-13_1467113768816

One of the greatest political inventions of recent times has been that of the ‘UK single market’. This bizarre political invention has conveniently emerged just as we are leaving the European Union and is intended to suggest that we in the UK have some sort arrangement that is of an equivalence to the European Union single market.

Even though we hadn’t heard of it before, this UK single market is of such importance that it must not in the slightest bit be ‘threatened’ lest some apocalyptic visitation be inflicted on all those who inhabit these isles. Everything that we now do must ‘respect’ this UK single market and no deviation is to be tolerated. All future arrangements must be determined by its ‘singular’ operation. How we weren’t fully familiar with something so important until a few months ago will be left to economists to mull over for decades to come.

The thing is, of course, is there is no such thing as ‘the UK single market’ and its invention is purely political. There is a ‘singularity’ to the UK economy just as there is for every other nation state and our ‘market’ arrangements are not dissimilar to any other country that operates a complex market economy. Try finding any reference to the UK single market for yourself. Type in ‘the UK single market’ into google and see what you find. It is not listed in any Government department. It has no Minister responsible. There is no guide to how it operates, no legislation, no rules, no history, no detail of how it was assembled or how it can be amended or improved. There is no more a UK single market than there is a Scottish single market or a Perthshire one.

There are of course single markets and they are generally good things. The most notable one is the one that we are about to leave. The European Single Market has served us well for decades, is easily understood and leaving it is going to cost our fellow Scots billions in thwarted economic growth and household income. A single market is when nation states come together and allow for the free movement from one member country to another of goods, people, services and capital. Single markets remove barriers to trade and harmonise national rules at an agreed collective centre. As an independent nation we would probably require a single market with the rest of the UK to ensure that the trading arrangements we currently enjoy continue without the harming of each others economy. The current ‘singular’ UK state may be lots of things but it is not a single market in any understood or conventional sense.

So why has this emerged just now and what purpose does its invention serve? Well, it has nothing to do with the free movement of goods or anything else across the UK but everything to do with homogenising returning EU powers across the UK and blunting the demands of devolved institutions to rightly call for the return of powers in devolved areas. It is the means and the pretext to appropriate these powers and suggest it is for the ‘singular’ good. It is about amassing responsibilities at the centre and dispensing with having to agree and negotiate the exercise of returning powers with devolved legislatures. It is as dishonest as it is cynical as it is self defeating.

9970_1

It is not so much a UK single market we should concern ourselves with but it is (in the language of the Brexiteers) the creation of a new ‘UK superstate’. For Scotland we are swapping a benign arrangement as a member of the European Union for a post Brexit superstate that would exercise the authority of the European Union but with supercharged cluelessness and confusion. This is a developing UK superstate that is accumulating powers at the centre and dictating to the ‘satellite’ legislatures what they can and can not do. What we are securing is the most perverse caricature of ‘Brussels’ and it is happening here and to us now. It should come as no surprise that this assault on devolution is progressing right at the time when this ‘superstate’ is beginning to self define and assert itself.

Devolution is under assault and a UK out of the European Union is reinventing itself as a new superstate intent on imposing its will on the devolved legislatures of the UK. Devolution worked under EU membership. It is unlikely to survive intact in a Brexitised UK.