The next union campaign is not going to be pretty.

This is a battle that the Tories really do not want to fight and the tone of their campaign will be tetchy, belligerent and aggressive. There certainly will be no ‘love bombing’ and inclusive ‘vows’ next time round. There will only be threats and the starkest of warnings. Their membership and MPs grow tired of ‘pandering’ to Scotland and the next campaign will therefore be a ‘no more Mr nice guy’ full frontal type affair.


Look at their tone since the Brexit vote. Scotland simply has to fall in line with what they determine for us because that is the ‘UK position’ and that should therefore be good enough for us. For the Tories Scotland’s interests increasingly mirror the UK’s and no differentiated arrangement will be tolerated.

This no accommodation or pandering will similarly inform the next independence referendum. The Tories approach to Scotland has increasingly been more of overlord than partner and that is how they will fight the next referendum campaign. Unencumbered from Labour influence the next union campaign will feel very much like a brutal Tory election campaign. ‘Family of nations’ will be more like behave like the grateful smaller sibling, or else….

And boy, will that junior sibling be in for it if it dares think about leaving the roost! The Tories without subtlety, and in the most dramatic terms, will warn of impeding impoverishment if we become independent. The days of old fashioned 2014 scaremongering will seem like distant halcyon days of considered debate. Dispensing with reason it will just be one impending catastrophe after another.

The Tories are sincerely weary of fighting this all over again and there will be a bit of ‘scorched earth’ put in place in what will be seen as the final settling of this debate. So threats will be raised about our devolved Parliament being curtailed. For so many Tories Holyrood is the beachhead for further constitutional wrangling and is therefore ripe for diminishing. Notice the emphasis on UK institutions and a reluctance to be clear about devolving powers not listed in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act

The invention of a ‘UK single market’ is also a stark warning that somehow, whatever it is they’re taking about, it will be closed to us if we become independent. Forget about the fact that the rest of the UK, Brexitised and isolated, will be desperate for a deal with anybody who will accommodate them. Expect to hear about this ‘UK single market’ to almost ad nauseam.


Because it will be Tory led the next campaign will also be much more ‘British’ nationalist than last time. There won’t be the ambivalence and discomfort that the last Labour led campaign had about British symbols. The Tories are true believers in the myths of the UK state and those ‘virtues’ will be punted for all their worth. Brexit has necessitated a review and promotion of British values and and this will be similarly deployed in a referendum campaign.

But more than anything the union case will be economic. We are about to learn all over again just how worthless they think we are and how singularly and uniquely incapable we apparently are of running our own affairs.

Just now they are caught in the bind about whether they will grant a further referendum. All their instincts are screaming ‘give them nothing’ but they are petrified of ruling one out because of the impact that will have on independence support.

So in the background the plans are being laid to fight a further referendum because they know that they must. Approaches are being tested and outriders are being dispatched to test the mood and see how much they can get away with.

If you thought that the union case in 2014 was a brutal scaremongering fest. Just wait till you see the next one….


  1. Ann Forbes

    Just wanted to make sure you know about this article /book !

    Home / News
    PUBLISHED: DECEMBER 06, 2016 12:26 PM
    Extracted from Brexit: What the Hell Happens Now? by Ian Dunt (Canbury Press, £7.99), available from Waterstones, independent bookshops or direct from the publishers with an Open Britain discount of 20%. At checkout use voucher code OPEN (valid until 15th December 2016)

    The Brexit cliff edge

    31 March 2019

    Big Ben strikes midnight and Britain is out of the European Union. The talks have fallen apart in mutual acrimony. The UK has not secured continued membership of the single market. It doesn’t even have access. It is out of the treaty that waives tax on imports and exports. It has no trade deals with Europe or anyone else. It is on its own.

    In the early morning, a lorry is loaded in Glasgow with radio equipment bound for the Czech Republic. When the lorry arrives at Calais, it is stopped by a customs official. Until today, Britain has enjoyed a seamless trading relationship with Europe. It means that European Union countries recognise UK standards and paperwork and vice-versa, allowing goods to be transported over borders without additional checks. Now the paperwork is worthless. Everything has to be checked.

    The lorry is stopped and detained. Inspectors come on board and take samples to send off for testing. Everything will have to be assessed, from the information on the packaging to the environmental impact of the components. This will take several days, during which the lorry is barred from entering the European market.

    Behind the Glasgow lorry, several other vehicles are taken to one side. By sunset, the bottleneck on the French side means that lorries can no longer drive onto Calais-bound ferries at Dover. They queue on the slow lane of the A2. Within a few days, the tailback stretches back to London.

    For exporters of animal products, like meat or eggs, the problems are more severe. They are only allowed into the EU through specially designated entry inspection posts, but it has been so long since the UK needed them for trade with Europe that none exist. British exports of salmon, beef, and lamb collapse overnight. In Westminster, ministers demand the inspection posts be established immediately, but they have limited leverage with their European partners. A key export industry starts to rot.

    The problems aren’t restricted to goods heading to the Continent. The EU has mutual recognition agreements with Australia, Canada, China, Israel, Japan, New Zealand and the United States, mimicking the bureaucracy-free trade on the Continent. British goods for the US had been verified by virtue of their EU accreditation. Now they also need to be checked. Shipments heading for America’s west coast are stopped at customs, detained and sent off for inspection.

    In the complex world of freight, with one shipment arriving as the other leaves, the effect is devastating. Brexit detonates like a bomb across the world’s trade networks.

    Thousands of large businesses start haemorrhaging cash, but the effect is not limited to goods going out – it hits those coming in, too. Laptop computers from China and Japan are stopped, alongside jeans from the US, French cheese and wine and chocolates from Belgium. Gaps start to appear on shop shelves.

    Other bureaucratic requirements re-emerge from the past like zombies. One of them is proof of ‘country of origin’. Products entering the European Customs Union, which waives import and export duty, must be checked to ensure that they are paying the right tariffs. This is incredibly detailed and laborious. Each stage in a global manufacturing process must be accounted for. Firms need to present paperwork detailing the origin of every component part of their products.

    Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs hires an army of inspectors to speed up the process, but they are trying to learn on the go. Many products don’t receive their papers in time and don’t make it to the border. They sit in the stockroom. In the first year alone, the country of origin requirement costs Britain £25 billion. By 2030 it has led to a 4.5% reduction in GDP.

    Products which do make it past border control have tariffs slapped on them. For decades they had been traded freely in the single market, but those days are over. Cars heading from Britain to Europe – almost half the vehicles made in the UK – are hit by a 10% tariff. Electronic goods are badly affected, as are warships and commercial liners. British-made cigarettes, most of which head to Europe, are hit by crippling 57% tariffs.

    Britain’s aerospace industry, the second largest in the world, is damaged. The rates of the tariff themselves are fairly modest, hovering between 2.7% and 7.7%, but they are being put not just on the finished product when it is sent to Europe. They are also applied to the components shipped from Europe to the UK to make the product. Shares in BAE Systems, Rolls Royce and Airbus plummet. These businesses’ costs have rocketed, and their product has shot up in price, without any of the additional revenue flowing to them.

    Multiple parts of the British economy, from space stations to cakes, suffer a sudden hit. Companies that still make tangible physical products in Britain – Unilever, Imperial and Penguin among them – are the first to feel the pain.

    The big banks in the City of London had been dreading this day. They did what they could to prepare, sacking thousands of middle and low income workers and moving their jobs to EU states. They are desperate to maintain their ‘passports’, a legal mechanism which allows them to sell financial products across Europe, but to do so they must prove to European regulators that they have a significant presence on the Continent. So they take the cheaper, back-office admin roles and move them. Anything else would be a waste of a crisis. This way they can kill two birds with one stone: minimising salary costs by transferring the jobs to countries with lower incomes and reducing the damage done by Brexit. They pack off a few high-level bankers and an executive or two to go with them.

    If they are lucky, firms transferred enough functions in time for the 31 March deadline. But others got caught up in another bottleneck – this time of financial authorities. The sleepy, understaffed regulators in Paris, Warsaw, Frankfurt and Luxembourg couldn’t handle the demand for recognition from City firms. Many companies cannot now sell financial products to customers on the mainland. They lose tens of millions of pounds of sales as customers drift off to competitors.

    The transfers cut the capacity of London’s financial services sector by 10%. Within a year, the City has lost 100,000 jobs and £12 billion in revenue.

    The pound plunges again. The price of British government bonds rises. Foreign direct investment falls further. The deficit begins to look unsustainable.

    Ironically, immigration starts to decline. Not just from Europe, where immigration controls have been introduced, but from across the world. The economy is tanking and Britain is no longer a country of opportunity.

    Years pass, but 2019 comes to be seen as the start of a significant downsizing in the power of the City. Financial services don’t have a heart attack. They bleed out.

    European regulators start making increased demands on the investment banks with branches in their cities. It starts with requests for more staff but soon includes additional requirements on risk management and capital investment. Firms have to divert more resources to the Continent, but gradually a political dimension develops too. If Europe is where the regulatory decisions are made, perhaps that is where they need to focus their efforts. What began as a technical requirement starts to change into a general financial migration. More and more functions are transferred to the Continent. Less and less money flows into the UK Treasury.

    Nissan’s car plant in Sunderland is able to survive due to a deal with the government, in which it was offered relief for any losses it would suffer from Brexit. A deal is also offered to BMW. The symbolic effect of Minis with Union Jack roofs being produced in the Czech Republic would have been too much for ministers to bear. Jaguar Land Rover considers the location of its assembly plants in Birmingham, Halewood and Solihull and its three research and development facilities around Warwick. It’s not so much the 10% increase in the price of cars, but future regulation that is the worry. Cars are changing. Driverless technology is turning what used to be a lump of metal around some tech into a tech product with a metal shell. Regulations established now will be with producers for years and they are being made in Brussels, not London. Jaguar Land Rover needs to be whispering into the right person’s ear, but British ministers no longer have a seat at the table.

    Other less prominent industries warn that they are about to go into a tailspin. Aerospace firms producing commercial and fighter planes in places like Yeovil, Bristol, Stevenage and Portsmouth start laying off workers.

    UK negotiators head to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) where Brexit campaigners have long insisted they can fall back onto standard-issue trading rules. But there are no rules governing what Britain has done. They go into a meeting with WTO legal advisers who are divided on how Britain should proceed.

    The UK has been trading under an EU umbrella for decades. Now it tries to extract its tariff and subsidy arrangements from the EU and lay them before the rest of the WTO. In response, the EU initiates a formal dispute. That starts an avalanche. WTO rules allow any country that feels it has been unfairly treated to trigger a dispute. Suddenly Britain’s fall-back insurance policy looks like a nightmare scenario, with 163 countries able to raise disputes against it on any aspect of its trading arrangements. Some disputes are legitimate. Others, like that made by Argentina, appear to be a way to leverage British vulnerability to regain control of the Falklands. Russia watches from the sidelines, calculating how it might benefit.

    Britain argues that it is still party to an EU arrangement preventing the sale of cheap Chinese steel in Europe. Once those floodgates open, the UK knows domestic steel will be unable to compete. China reacts furiously, demanding that Britain demonstrate domestic injury and unfair trade. But the UK doesn’t have an investigating authority capable of undertaking trade remedy investigations. It cannot fight back because it doesn’t have the regulatory infrastructure. Workers in factories like Port Talbot start to fear for their livelihoods.

    The WTO disputes mount up, all demanding high degrees of technical expertise and negotiating experience. British teams do their best, but they are beset by problems from every angle.

    In European cities across the Continent, British professionals find they are unable to practise because their qualifications are no longer recognised. Insurance firms, veterinary clinics, lawyers, medical professionals, architects and countless others find they have to shut down their company and return to the UK.

    No deal has been put in place for legal rulings, so countries across Europe stop recognising court decisions on divorce and child maintenance and other issues made in London. Unseen and mostly unreported, hundreds of single mothers in the UK go without payments from their former partners. A British man who divorced his wife and married again in Italy suddenly finds that the papers are no longer recognised. He is in a state of marital limbo. A hefty chunk of the work done by London’s once-thriving lawyers vanishes.

    Regulation fails. Britain did not have time to set up all the authorities required to manage industries ranging from patents to medicine. Pharmaceutical firms are thrown into chaos. British regulators are unable to take on the full workload of the European Medicines Agency, so cannot authorise the sale of anti-inflammatory pills, eczema lotions and other treatments to UK patients. British pharmaceutical development slumps into a state of regulatory bafflement.

    Regulations across society are in flux. Emergency provisions are made for Single European Sky — which ensures jets fly safely and efficiently — to maintain regulatory authority over UK airspace. But other areas fall into disrepair, causing uncertainty across production lines to complement the chaos in the trading networks.

    Against this backdrop, Britain seeks trade deals with its closest allies: Australia and the US. Both countries are wary of talking to the UK without knowing its final status with Europe or the WTO, but they agree to open initial negotiations.

    Ahead of talks, the UK prime minister and the US president hold a joint press conference. Theresa May says it shows countries are still keen to trade with the UK, while her American counterpart confirms the US commitment to the special relationship. Then the doors of the negotiating room close and the two leaders are replaced by grim-faced trade experts.

    Britain had a chronic shortage of negotiators during the EU talks and the situation has not improved. The ones facing the American team are those who are not required to fight the fires at the WTO. Many are civil servants who have had to read up on trade in the years since Brexit. They face highly specialised trade experts who have been doing this their entire careers.

    The public rhetoric disappears. It is replaced by hard-headed demands. US trade officials inform their British counterparts of the reality of the situation. The UK is in a position of unique and historic vulnerability. Investor confidence has dissolved. Its economy is facing its most significant shock since the Second World War. It has no time. It has no negotiating capacity. But Washington wants to help. It is prepared to rush a trade deal through Congress. It could take less than two years. But for this to be achievable, the UK needs to accept all of its demands. The Americans slide a piece of paper across the desk. The British team read the demands: they are horrendous. Consumer protections are reduced across the board, along with environmental regulations and safeguards for the NHS.

    UK civil servants have little option but to capitulate. The only way to protect what remains of the British economy is to sell off British sovereignty. The control wrestled from Brussels is now sold off to the highest bidder, behind closed doors, in a conference room in Washington.

    What was that?

    That was the worst case scenario. It is also Britain’s current destination.

    It does not need to happen, even now. These are not the consequences of Brexit itself. They are the consequences of a chaotic, hard Brexit. They are what happens when there is insufficient planning, insufficient thinking and a preference for emotion over reason.

    Britain can prevent this from happening. All it requires is an intelligent ministerial team, a workable timetable, hundreds of trade experts, a restrained political debate and economic calm.

    Britain currently has none of these things.

    How did we get here? How did one of the world’s most sophisticated political and economic powers find itself driving towards a cliff edge? How did the UK become so lost in rhetoric that this scenario would even be conceivable?

    At the core of Britain’s current dilemma is a refusal to engage with objective fact. The debate about Brexit was lost, almost as soon as it began, in a tribal and emotional dogfight which bore little relation to reality. That approach continued when the Conservative Party fell apart after the vote and was put back together by Theresa May.

    The leading figures in the ministerial team handling Brexit do not seem to understand the obstacles they must overcome, or the profound consequences of failure. They have misunderstood the EU, misunderstood Article 50, misunderstood the WTO, misunderstood the economy and misunderstood the legal framework in which they must now operate.

    This book is an attempt to address that. Based on extensive research and discussions with leading experts in politics, the law, markets and Europe, it maps the road ahead, with its many hazards and dangers. It is a short, readable guide to the biggest story of the decade.

    The first step towards preventing a catastrophe is understanding that one is looming.

    Extracted from Brexit: What the Hell Happens Now? by Ian Dunt (Canbury Press, £7.99), available from Waterstones, independent bookshops or direct from the publishers with an Open Britain discount of 20%. At checkout use voucher code OPEN (valid until 15th December 2016)

    Do you like this post?

    Donate Volunteer Campaign News
    Will you join this crucial campaign?

    First Name

    Last Name


    Send me email updates
    Post code

    I voted Remain
    I voted Leave
    I didn’t vote
    I want to volunteer
    By submitting this form you agree to receive communications from us, from which you can opt out at any time.
    Don’t publish this on the website

  2. J CLARK

    Yes Peter but we can do that too !!! ……..Time we took the gloves off in this “family of Nation” – so called by asking the questions so that people become aware …… !!! ……..such as :-                 ” Why was Scotland’s Oil Wealth Classified Secret by the Westminster Government for 30 Years from the Scots ”  ?????? AND KEEP ASKING !!! …….until ALL THE ELECTORATE KNOW !!! Brian Clark ……ex – Chair Dunfermline County SNP 75 – 77                    

  3. Jim Robin

    This is all very depressing. Are there ANY positives at all? And all this because (mostly) England does not wish to tolerate immigrants / refugees. I feel that there is nothing left to write on this subject … just bend over the desk, close your eyes and take it with fortitude … and hope it gets better … eventually. I am fearful that it will not though and that as a secondary consequence (secondary to the “UK” that is) it will have have a very negative impact on the rest of Europe. Let’s hope that other European countries see what happens to us and choose not to take the path that we have taken. I am a Scot and saw a lifeline in a second referendum but this missive is quite pessimistic about both its outcome and even if it will take place.

    1. Stuart

      “And all this because (mostly) England does not wish to tolerate immigrants / refugees”

      Have you ever ventured outside of Scotland Jim?

      Ever been to say Leicester, the first city in England where ethnic minorities will be soon be the majority?

      Then look at Scotland, virtually whiter than white, when it comes to its population.

      Ever thought there might be a reason why folk south of the border have had enough of “immigrants/refugees”?

      Because curiously, very few if any of them ever want to go to Scotland, they want to stay down south among the English.

      Where their friends and families are.

      Because if Scotland had mass immigration on the scale down south has, the blood n soil types in the SNP and Nationalist movement, (and don’t pretend they don’t exist) would be in apoplexy.

      After all ‘Settler Watch’, and ‘Siol na Gaidhael’, targeted people for having the wrong accents and being from another part of the country, south of the border.

      Heaven knows how they would react, if confronted with mass immigration from the commonwealth, on a scale the English for the most part, have handled successfully.

      Perhaps its you Jim, that need to get out a bit more, maybe you’ll grow up and stop being so parochial.

      But I forgot, you are a Nationalist, and parochialism, is what Nationalism is all about. *Waves Saltire*


  5. Michael jack

    You all seem to be forgetting that we only joined the European Union in the early seventies. I was brought up in the fifties and in the sixties I traveled extensively in Europe taking on work when I needed all on the back of my six month passport which you bought in the post office. I still have it. European,s came over here to work in Perthshire picking raspberries,the Irish potatoes and so on . We had no problems exporting to Europe. And yet all of a sudden according to this book the world is going to come crashing down on us. Europe is going to walk away from a market of 65 million people I don’t think so.

    1. Elaine Hindle

      EU has changed from the seventies and is not the same at all. The amount of regulations there are now that would prevent trading is completely different so you can’t compare what you did in the sixty’s with the current situation it just not the same at all.

      1. Michael Jack

        So why do you want to impose all these regulations on an independant Scotland when south of the border they can trade anyway they want.

  6. Henry Hooper

    Please please please…can the SNP be a bit more combative next time, e.g if the panel has 4 folk and three are unionist, don’t take part, a walk out of WM would garner much more media reporting than making unreported clever sensible logical sane points…and at the next Scottish questions when 23/25 are made by English MPs just walk out, this is acceptable IMHO..if you don’t respect yourselves don’t expect the Tories Westminster or our media to respect you…it’ll end up same as last time. If they are going to play dirty please don’t just sit there and take it and go on and on about positivity etc didn’t win it last time and won’t next time

  7. Kat hamilton

    Agree with you Henry…the tact taken last time by snp, on qt and other debates were far too more mr nice guy, give it to them both barrels blazing…fraid we don’t get to the heart of the matter. Keep the message straightforward and simple…Tory rule for next decade. Or chart our own path…who do you trust…And hit them where it hurts with hidden oil facts, Scotland being 3rd wealthiest place after London and se…fishing percentages, etc all this has to be more to the fore..I like John swinney, but afraid you need more of jeanne freeman, Alex, etc. with more oomph to counteract the lies and distortions…

  8. R

    Time to fight fire with fire. Am not alone in being sick to death of the SNP softly softly approach. Our voices are drowned out in the sea of unionist media, stand up for gods sake. Agree with other posts, if they make a mockery, walk out! Refuse to take part in union biased discussions, let them froth amongst themselves. Time for a new approach.

  9. andygm1

    No airy fairy stuff this time, it’s a knock down, drag out fight. I want to see the SNP and Yes campaigns directly challenging the Tories’ lies with targeted TV and billboard advertising and social media posts.


Comments are closed.