The Scottish government has published a detailed policy paper setting out options for how Scotland could remain in the single market following Brexit. Jim Gallagher argues that the paper, which focuses on options that would involve Scotland remaining part of the UK, suggests that Nicola Sturgeon would rather avoid a second independence referendum. The First Minister may instead be edging towards a confederal solution that the majority of Scots might sign up for.
The publication of the Scottish government’s policy paper on Brexit, Scotland’s Place in Europe, may signal something of a change in tone from the SNP leadership. Reading it, one can only conclude that last thing Nicola Sturgeon wants is an independence referendum.
Certainly Sturgeon’s tone contrasts with the noises off from Alex Salmond, who has been energetically laying the groundwork for a rerun of 2014, or some of Scottish government Brexit minister Mike Russell’s earlier rhetoric. It is still possible to conclude from the paper and the logic of the SNP’s argument that, if they don’t get the concessions they hope, then they will be demanding another independence referendum. But the big message from the paper and its presentation is not bullying language about when a referendum might be called: it is that the SNP don’t think leaving the EU justifies repeating the independence poll at all. Instead they are setting out ways the UK can leave the EU without one. Can the UK stay in or near the single market, or at least can Scotland? If it can the UK leaves the EU, but the SNP won’t find themselves demanding ‘indyref2’.
Responses from Unionists
Opponents of independence can respond in different ways. It’s easy enough to mock. Many, supporters and opponents alike, will say it’s fear. Maybe fear of losing – two-thirds of voters don’t want yet another poll, and independence support is where it was in 2014. Around 400,000 nationalists seem to dislike the EU as much as the UK and might not vote to leave the UK just to join the EU again. So despite what Alex Salmond says, the prospects of another referendum are not hopeful for the SNP and a second defeat would surely be fatal to the cause.
Others will say it’s fear of winning: senior nationalists know they don’t have an economic plan. The takeaway message from the 2014 campaign was that the economics of independence were unsustainable. They have got much worse since, and Brexit adds a scary new dimension of uncertainty. Without a wholly new economic vision, all they have to offer is a plan everyone knows won’t work. Influential figures in the nationalist movement have been arguing this.
Others still prefer to see nationalists as Bertie Wooster saw aunts – ‘It is no use telling me that there are bad aunts and good aunts. At the core, they are all alike. Sooner or later, out pops the cloven hoof.’ They detect only maneuvering towards another referendum sometime in the next few years.
Searching for a sustainable solution?
There is perhaps some truth in all these responses. The SNP want to keep their options open and the contradictory messages are the result. But despite the noises off, it might be that in her own way Nicola Sturgeon is searching about for a sustainable solution for Scotland inside a post-Brexit UK. She hasn’t lost her faith, but independence is for another day.
Some on the pro-UK side of the argument want to encourage the cautious, pragmatic streak in the First Minister. It may help her avoid painting herself into the corner of a referendum she doesn’t really want. More important, it might just move Scottish constitutional debate away from the constant question of rerunning 2014 and onto looking for way in which most Scots can be content with the constitutional arrangements.
Certainly, as I have argued elsewhere Sturgeon is right to argue the UK should keep as close as possible to the EU single market. It is looking increasingly as if she might just get her way, at least to start with. As the Brexiteers in the UK cabinet continue to fantasise about the world of their imagination, pragmatists like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, are stepping forward. They understand the reality of deal-making with 27 increasingly impatient member states. They hear business calling out the economic self-harm from putting up barriers to the UK’s largest market. It has become clearer in the last ten days what is potentially on the cards: a transitional period, inside the Customs Union with single market access in some form. With it will inevitably come freedom of movement.
A special deal?
Sturgeon is also arguing for a special European deal for Scotland within the UK. Her idea is that Scotland should remain in the single market even if the UK leaves. Despite some detailed argument in the paper about the position of Liechtenstein and the Channel Islands, that specific proposition is simply not practical, for business or anyone else, as the Scottish government must realise. Their own advisors say so. The single market is a bundle of rules regulating goods and services. Where those rules apply both can be traded freely: where they end, they can’t, and there is a barrier to trade. Putting that barrier at Berwick would mean economic separation from the UK. England would be a different market from Scotland, and Scottish trade, and jobs, would inevitably suffer. UK trade matters much more for Scotland’s economy than EU trade.
That plan won’t work, and it would be a mistake for Sturgeon to make it a hard test for Theresa May to fail, because there are other ways to recognise Scotland’s difference that will work. Brexit inevitably makes Holyrood much more powerful. It will negotiate as an equal with Westminster on things like agriculture and fisheries. The internal balance of the UK will be shifted.
It can shift more. There is no reason to deny Holyrood the power to negotiate with Brussels too – on all devolved matters. Devolution means Scotland can make different choices over things that don’t have to be reserved to Westminster. Why shouldn’t it be able to agree, say, reciprocal health deals with European countries, or access to EU studentships for young people?
Similarly, if the UK ever does move to a system of work permits to control migration, permits to live and work north of the border could be issued in Edinburgh – and the same for Belfast, or London.
The Scottish government know these possibilities exist. Indeed they go out of their way in the paper to acknowledge them – and even to source them to Gordon Brown. Interestingly, by journalistic accounts, repeating referendum rhetoric has had a formulaic air to it. Their priority instead should be helping UK ministers understand that a special Scottish relationship with Europe is not just possible, but an opportunity to refashion the Scotland-UK relationship for the better. Those who want Scotland to stay in the UK should do the same. So far, Theresa May is in listening mode only.
Confederating the UK?
Changes like these will profoundly alter the nature of the UK, making it more differentiated, or, as I prefer, more confederal. In truth, that’s the constitutional deal the vast majority in Scotland actually want as surveys have repeatedly shown. More independence, but not complete separation; economic and social solidarity, but the scope to make quite different choices, even over things as important as European relationships. At heart, one wonders, do SNP leaders want this too? Their vision of independence last time round had more unions than the TUC – whether the monarchy, the currency or even some of the BBC. Nobody planned it this way, but Brexit makes that paradoxical phrase ‘independence inside the UK’ more plausible than it was in 2014.
So when the First Minister puts another referendum at the end of the queue of options, she disappoints her fundamentalist supporters. Hence the noises off. Maybe, like Theresa May, she’s gradually realising that what party zealots want and the country needs are not the same. So perhaps her opponents should not be mocking her political incoherence, but encouraging her to edge closer towards a solution the majority of Scots might sign up for.
A shorter version of this post was published in The Times previously (£). It first appeared at the UCL Constitution Unit blog.
Jim Gallagher is an Associate Member of Nuffield College, Oxford, visiting Professor of Government at Glasgow University and sits on the advisory board of Scotland in Union. He was Director-General, Devolution Strategy, at the Cabinet Office from 2007 to 2010. He tweets @ProfJimG.
I agree that a Confederation of the British Isles would be a good solution. But the political will for this would have to emerge from Westminster, and I see absolutely no sign of any inclination to consider it. On the contrary (and despite the ‘equal partners’ rhetoric), Scotland’s position within the UK remains a region which can be legislated for without consent. We have seen this during the debate over the Scotland Act 2016, in the UK Government’s argument in the Supreme Court during the Art. 50 case, and most recently in the Prime Minister’s statement that Britain will leave the EU – ‘as the UK’.
It is entirely wishful thinking to consider that Westminster will change its thinking on the strength of the paper put forward by the Scottish Government. Instead, it seems determined to call Nicola Sturgeon’s bluff and to drive her into calling a second referendum. It’s the same rash, antagonistic, unimaginative approach which the Government is taking over its future relations with Europe, and does not bode well for the Union in the short or the long term.
Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon decided a very long time ago on the policy of “gradualism”. In other words, Scottish independence would not be achieved by a Big Bang, instead there would be a gradual accumulation of powers for the Scottish Parliament until the British State was hollowed out from within resulting in independence.
As an example, a Scot can no longer read a UK newspaper (or indeed blog!) and get any information on what is going on in their own country as virtually all of the domestic issues are decided in the Scottish Parliament.
Over a few brief decades Scotland has gone from no devolution to having the most powerful devolved parliament in the world by some measures.
I think it is a triumph for this policy is to hear a distinguished Unionist like Prof Gallagher arguing that the Scottish Parliament needs still more major powers and that the Scottish Government should undertake international negotiations.
I really do think there is a rubicon where devolution goes so far that independence makes more sense. Of course that was the plan all along.
Funny…the author’s bio doesn’t mention that he sits on the board of Scotland in Union…he has a clear unionist agenda…this isn’t an article…it’s propaganda…maybe the LSE should mark it as such…or…remove it all together…
Hi Stewart. You’ll see we’ve added this information to his bio.
Hi…thanks for that…appreciated….would it be appropriate… however…to say a few words describing what that group stands for…given the European Union and all the confusion over Brexit…what union are they talking about?
Odd indeed that the blog doesn’t mention anywhere that the author is a board member of Scotland In Union, a hardline Loyalist group.
It is interesting that Jim Gallagher envisages no difficulty in allowing Holyrood to negotiate directly with Brussels. I understood that, despite some sympathetic noises from Brussels, they have stated that they are unable to speak formally with Holyrood precisely because it does not represent an independent nation.
Even more incredibly, he appears to be assuming that Brexit will lead to greater powers for Holyrood. This presupposes a great deal of goodwill from Westminster. There has been precious little evidence of that recently. I tend towards the view that Brexit will lead to yet another Scotland Act, in which any and all powers repatriated from the EU will be reserved.
I think you will find that support for Scottish independence is not confined to ‘zealots’ in the SNP. There is almost unanimous consensus that full independence is the goal. The debate is entirely around timing.
A confederal United Kingdom might have been a runner five years ago, but that train has now left the station. A Confederate States of Europe is still to play for.
Surprised that the piece completely fails to point out the fact that Mr Gallagher sits on the Advisory Board for Unionist pressure group “Scotland in Union”.
I would have thought that this pertinent point might just have affected Mr Gallagher’s stance and opinion a wee smidgen???
Jim really doesn’t like Nicola Sturgeon does he!
“Reading it, one can only conclude that last thing Nicola Sturgeon wants is an independence referendum”. So let me get this straight, the FM is reneging her and her partys raison d’etre?? Delusional at best!
Nothing is at odds with the SNP manifesto. The manifesto stated ‘Should have’. The SNP have been quite clear and precise, that they govern for all of Scotland, not just those tht voted for them. NS is doing what she should be doing, respecting the No vote/ No voters and doing so in such a manner that she can illustrate the incompetence and lies of the British state. Winning the trust of these No voters is clearly “work in progress”
Simply because circa 400,000 SNP voters were Leave voters does in in any way mean they would vote to remain the UK. The choice, one between two unions is easy to these and other voters. Being utterly powerless in the UK and having our economy continually run incompetently by WM or be a independent sovereign state with full representative democracy and every single tax raising and welfare power and be part of the worlds single market. I’m not too sure your assertion that there would be a “second defeat” Are you? I doubt it would be fatal either.
“A Referendum she really doesn’t want”?. Really? She wants it of course, but needs to be at the right time 2017 is certainly not the year to have another go and 2018 probably isn’t either. She wants a referendum alright (….that’s undeniably why her party exists) but probably has a strong preference for 2019 at the earliest. A that time the Scottish electorate will have witnessed/ experienced the following to its fullness; incompetent Brexit negotiations with a hard unsatisfactory conclusion (business leaves the city, tax rises etc etc) , the ugliness of English Nationalism detrimentally affects Scotland, incoming foreign investment dies off, recognition that the Labour party are dead and the Tories are in power for at least a generation with austerity on top of austerity. If a special deal is done for the city or to retain manufacturers like Nissan, watch out!
If there can be no border between NI and Eire post-brexit then there need not be one between Scotland and England in some “special deal”. If there’s a precedence, the it can be replicated, it just takes will. There isn’t of course, adding weight to facts that Scotland is utterly powerless and irrelevant. This will be termed a “blinder” in decades to come.
I would strongly suggest that the only settlement that will work will be full federalism (con) with Scotland having ALL powers except foreign affairs and defence. Less than that will never be enough. You know and I know that will never happen. The SNP want unions all right, Scotland is too small a country to be so…so these damn “separatists” are anything but separatists in reality – nothing at all like the “leavers”, the British Nationalists…these are the real separatists the DuK has.
Being in Scotland in Union I have to say it looks almost like you are accepting that the UK as it stands has seen its days. Things will never be the same again..there are only two choices and reading this article you know appear to appreciate that is the case. Why don’t you just state so in your article instead of using the term plausible. From the Establishment POV, yes its plausible, buts it’s completely unsupportable too. WM does not like to give up power. To anyone.
Postponing the next indyref isn’t disappointing her fundamentalist/ zealot supporters, I’d probably be classified as one by the likes of Jim and many other British Nationalist fanatics and I personally would like to have one in 2020, and contrary to your assertion, I am sure that is the case with the vast majority of independence supporters…just because our mainstream media relentlessly go on an on about it as being imminent does not make it more likely.
As for the accusation of “political incoherence” aimed at NS…that surely is readily identified as nonsense …she the ONLY politician since the last GE that has actually had completely coherent stance not just on her viewpoint as to the next indyref but of course on Brexit itself, given that the UK that No voters voted for doesn’t exist anymore
Some interesting comments here.
First of all, does devolving power simply whet the nationalist appetite for more? Perhaps, but whether it whets or satiates the ambitions of committed nationalists is not the point. The aim is, ideally, to arrive at an allocation of powers and responsibilities which satisfies the population as a whole (and works).
Second, do London and Brussels have any appetite for imaginative solutions? Well, we shall see, and I have to accept that we have not seen a lot yet. No doubt there will be those whose knee-jerk solution is to centralise things in London once they come back from Brussels. (it’s very striking that those who argue that power should be decentralised to them seldom want to decentralise it further: a failing which is very evident in Edinburgh these days, I have to say.) But wiser heads may prevail, offering the scope for a different relationship between devolved and central government. As for Brussels, at this stage all the UK can do is not get in the way of relations between Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast with the EU on devolved matters. Things can evolve thereafter.
Finally, the comments from a nationalist perspective. First I commend those who have engaged courteously with the issues. For the most part, however, their responses confirm those in the Unionist camp who take Bertie Wooster’s view – sooner or later the cloven hoof will pop out – and so there is no point in UK ministers engaging with the Scottish government to agree a stable constitutional settlement for Scotland. Nothing but independence will ever be acceptable. Nationalism, however, may be a broader church than that: and the SNP has two aims – independence, certainly, but also Scotland’s interest. A Scottish government might choose to prioritise the latter.
Henry: “So let me get this straight, the FM is reneging her and her partys raison d’etre??”
No – just accepting that “Indyref2” is not the way to achieve it. Forcing and then losing a second referendum could only weaken her position long-term – better (unless she actually expected to win it, which isn’t likely right now) to use the threat as leverage for further devolution concessions. Losing a re-run gets her nowhere at all, but getting some more powers is one step closer to de facto independence without any need to get the public’s consent, just Westminster’s. Winning it would be another matter, of course, but unless and until that’s an option, she needs another strategy.
From here, “independence” and EU membership are fundamentally incompatible: the reality is that she just wants Scotland run by Brussels instead of London. Some SNP/Yes voters share that vision, of course, but others oppose both: there is nothing incoherent about wanting Scotland out of both the UK and EU, any more than there was about wanting to stay in both (the official Labour position at the time).