The Liberal Democrats, despite holding what I have no doubt is genuine anger, have had a good weekend.Â
David Cameron has naively harrumphed the UK out of Europe and Ed Miliband is stuck just outside Brussels waiting for a bandwagon to jump on. All the while Nick Clegg and Vince Cable have argued vociferously and pleasingly unapologetically in favour of the EU, not to mention Paddy Ashdown writing passionately in the Observer (and Will Hutton too, if he counts as a Lib Dem these days?).Â
They have, whisper it, looked voteworthy for the first time since the tuition fee volte-face (or should that be vote-farce?), a party that is ready to step away from being the coalition’s punching bag and, bloodied but blooded, argue for what it believes in again rather than apologise for the miserable little compromises that it has made in the past.
And what of Salmond and the SNP? Well, the non-appearance of anyone from the party’s camp on The Politics Show at the weekend spoke volumes really. When the SNP has nothing to say on a subject it tends to mean that it is on the back foot. The party policy is to join the Euro at some point in the future and assume that the UK’s position inside the EU will guarantee Scottish entry. Both policies are not quite in tatters but they are more than fraying at the seams as they drown in a sea of confusion. Even the mighty David Torrance, writing in The Scotsman today, could only ask more questions than he could answer.Â
It won’t be enough for the SNP to tease the Scottish public with different European and currency options this side of the referendum though. The Saltire will have to be nailed to the European flag or not and, I’d suggest, that it still absolutely should be. ‘Scotland in Europe’ only carries a little less weight than it did a decade ago.
It’s easy to postulate that Scotland is more pro-EU than the po-faced Middle Englanders who still defend a Britain that died long ago, while making crass jokes about the French and Germans. It’s harder to find polling evidence that backs that up.Â
Either way, if rUK is pulling one way then there is a clear benefit to the SNP if it can pull another and take a majority of Scots with it. There’s not even necessarily anything wrong with taking principle out of it. Anything that leaves Scottish Labour in the now familiar territory of trying to oppose the UK Tories and the SNP who are at opposite ends of a spectrum should reap dividends in the battle of who speaks for Scotland.
Not that there’s anything wrong with the principle of being pro-EU. Far from it.
The Scottish Government may have no time for the EU fisheries policy, it may have no time for the Common Agricultural Policy, it may not be interested in eye-watering EU membership fees and it may well ultimately shun joining the Euro and even the EU (that hasn’t had its accounts signed off in donkeys years), but I would wager that it would always want to have a seat at the table with a little saltire on it, be open-minded enough to make the best of the bad deals out there through being in the room, be keen to champion Scotland as open for business and I’d wager that it would want to be as close as possible to the countries that it’ll seek to sell its £2bn/year of renewable energy to.Â
The bottom line is, shared problems require shared solutions and, though far from perfect, a European union remains the ideal model for finding optimal solutions to those problems while a shared currency remains the optimal means by which to ensure equality and fairness for workers across the continent. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Furthermore, and this is where we come back to the Lib Dems, the SNP has no space on its left flank to allow Willie Rennie and his Scottish Liberal Democrats to be seen as Scotland’s pro-European party.Â
However, if the former continues to shun media invites and the latter continues making passionate arguments in favour of the EU, what is one to do?
#1 by Saoirse on December 12, 2011 - 9:10 am
Cameron’s “heroic bulldog†use of a veto that some didn’t actually manage to stop anything is a gift to the SNP.
The unionist parties can no longer claim Scotland would lose influence in Europe when Westminster now has less clout than Liechtenstein
#2 by JPJ2 on December 12, 2011 - 9:29 am
I am sure Salmond will find a still warmer welcome from our other 25 European neighbours who are clearly fed up with the Tory intransigence in Europe.
Anyone still daft enough to think that the path for Scotland to remain part of the EU and becoming a full member will be a difficult one after Cameron’s tantrum are simply wrong.
Incidentally, so far as I can see, all the UK parties as well as the SNP, have the same policy on the euro-retain the £ until the time is right to join (subject to a referendum in the case of the SNP-who knows what LIb/Lab/Con would actually do given their past behaviour)
By now you have no doubt seen Salmond’s questions to Cameron about Cameron’s tantrum. One thing we can be sure of is that no thought of the interests of Scotland will have crossed Cameron’s mind.
#3 by Jeff on December 12, 2011 - 10:18 am
I agree. If the EU’s new position is to annoy Cameron, then welcoming Scotland into the EU fold must be high on the priority list. Anyway, the EU is (mostly) full of grown-ups. It is inconceivable that if Scotland wanted to join the EU then it wouldn’t be allowed. All this ‘Spain might veto to stop Catalans getting any funny ideas’ is just fanciful nonsense.
#4 by Fraser Wight on December 12, 2011 - 5:46 pm
Based on the fact hes well liked by EU leaders, and advised them on the course of action BEFORE the crisis that would have averted it becoming so bad (in terms of recapitalisation of banks); that they wanted him involved in positions before; that he showed great leadership at least in getting countries around a table and getting agreements (all within democratic rules) and even managed to talk the French and Germans out of a position which was equally unpopular with other European countries…
…their going to give Gordon Brown a job…
Now thats a strategic move!
#5 by FormerChampagneSocialist on December 12, 2011 - 9:32 am
The optimum position for Scotland is the same as the Norwegians have achieved – EFTA membership, ensuring full single market access but not giving away our fish. For some reason beyond my ken, no party advocates this.
#6 by Jeff on December 12, 2011 - 10:16 am
Sounds alright to me. Sling a Scottish pound in there and a referendum on EU membership and that’s spot on for me.
#7 by Aidan on December 12, 2011 - 10:34 am
Access to the single market at a reasonably high money-cost and no influence over how that market operates? Doesn’t sound so great…
#8 by Jeff on December 12, 2011 - 11:08 am
Why would there be no influence over how that market operates? Scotland’s not ever going to boss the European table but if it at least has a chair and gets a say then it’s voice can be heard. I don’t see how walking away from Europe gives us more influence at any rate.
You’re right that a value for money consideration has to be made (I think I read somewhere that EU membership would cost Scotland £800m a year?) but the upsides of being in the EU have been too breezily pushed to one side of late so thank goodness for the Lib Dems who are willing and able to speak up.
#9 by Aidan on December 12, 2011 - 11:26 am
We don’t get a seat at the table if we’re in EFTA.
#10 by Jeff on December 12, 2011 - 11:34 am
We do if we’re in the EU though (my preferred position) and if we give Scots a referendum on the question, post-independence, then you can’t really say fairer than that. If Scots are happy with just EFTA then that will hopefully be clear from a plebiscite too. At the end of the day, it’s not something any one party can unilaterally decide on behalf of the public, but the SNP nonetheless needs to sell a specific vision if it has any chance of returning a Yes vote.
#11 by Ken on December 12, 2011 - 11:38 am
Except, with the EU you do get a voice in the drafting of legislation – with EFTA you don’t. To most then, EFTA would be a worse position to be in. (You said being in EFTA “sounds alright to me”.)
#12 by Jeff on December 12, 2011 - 11:47 am
Yes, “alright” is a far cry from ideal though, it wasn’t my original suggestion. I thought it was clear that my preference is to have a referendum on EU membership and that Scots would vote Yes to that.
So yes, sounds like I agree with you Ken. Best to be in the room helping shape decisions than being on the outside hoping that you won’t be adversely impacted.
#13 by dcomerf on December 12, 2011 - 9:44 am
I’m interested in the supposed popular mandate that the tories are claiming for their isolationist stance:
Yes, ask some random punter (9/10th English) whether they’d like the UK government to stand up for Britain against faceless Eurocrats, and obviously you’ll get an affirmative answer;
However, ask the same punters whether they’d like to see a transaction tax on international finance, and I think the answer would also be yes.
I think the LD leadership has missed a trick by not playing this alternative populist card. Likewise I was slightly disappointed with Stewart Hosie being equivocal on GMS this morning as to the desireability of the Tobin tax. The SNP absolutely should be pushing the line that the Tories, in “standing up for Britain”, are defending the indefensible rent seeking behaviour of the City of London, that is contrary to the wider interests of Britain and Scotland.
#14 by BM on December 12, 2011 - 10:10 am
Actually, there is a clear majority (ca 60%) against a financial transaction tax, with only ca 20% in favour.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/4429
#15 by Jeff on December 12, 2011 - 10:15 am
I’ve not seen any claims that the Tories have a popular mandate for their actions but I’ve not read much about the EU this weekend. What I find unfortunate is that, if the Tories believe they have such a strong anti-EU section of the public behind them, why don’t they respect that view and hold a referendum on even being in the EU or not? Is this another example of big Government knows best? It doesn’t sound very conservative to me.
I’m not convinced that a transaction tax would win a Yes vote in any referendum (not that such a referendum is at all likely). Cameron’s argument that most financial transactions take place in London and we’d suffer disproportionately at a time when we need to free up markets rather than tie them down would be a persuasive one. I am personally in favour, but I’ve always thought I was in a minority on that one.
But yes, definitely agree on the Lib Dems, and the SNP, needing to push this more. To be fair, the LDs have pushed it much more than the Nats recently.
#16 by douglas clark on December 12, 2011 - 10:11 am
dcomerf,
I completely agree with that. The UK state has been defensive of it’s single square mile of ultra capitalists, no matter what the government, nor the consequences.
We need shot of them.
#17 by Ken on December 12, 2011 - 10:12 am
@JPJ2 – “Anyone still daft enough to think that the path for Scotland to remain part of the EU and becoming a full member will be a difficult one after Cameron’s tantrum are simply wrong.”
If the UK leaves before an independence ref. then Scotland would have to apply like any other candidate state. Secondly, though the dynamic may have changed re London’s relationship with Brussels, that doesn’t mean the 5 EU members who refuse to recognise Kosovo, will welcome a separatist state. The current position shouldn’t change Scotland’s current lobbying efforts amongst the Brussels REPER’s in any event.
(It could be different if the UK does leave but the timing is done so that Scotland becomes independent at the same time and can claim the ‘successor’ rights.)
@FormerChampagneSocialist – “For some reason beyond my ken, no party advocates this.”
It’s a surprise to you that no party advocates being a member of a free trade area, having to adopt most of the EU legislation stemming from that, but has no say in how it’s crafted, or at best, limited rights below those of actual EU members?
#18 by itsyourself on December 12, 2011 - 10:16 am
This has a long road to run yet. The SNP is right to wait a bit, the air is not clear and instant reaction is not needed. Sometimes waiting is a sign of strength. Manufacturing industry has been dumped along with the 90% of the UK economy. The single market is gone, a truly dreadful outcome. When that hits home to the public expect a severe reaction.
#19 by Tormod on December 12, 2011 - 11:11 am
I think the veto decision has still to settle down, as it has consequences that will be far reaching.
The UK now will have ZERO influence on any new proposals, so this new inter-governmental agreement will obviously have an effect in the UK.
Do I want tighter control on market trading and derivatives YES.
Was the financial tsunami caused by reckless risk taking in major part by these activities YES.
In the US did the relaxation of Glass-Steagall and the ratio of leverage previous regulated allow merchant banks and traders a free reign YES.
Did this increase the risk to financial systems, obviously YES.
Does this politically damage the SNP and Scottish Independence NO.
Would the EU tell an a pro europe independent Scotia to bugger off? NO.
Also the SNP view on the currency is the same as the libdems support the EURO but only join when the time is right.
#20 by Tormod on December 12, 2011 - 11:16 am
As I was busy all weekend, especially on Sunday I missed the politics show, I imagine AS was drafting a response when he got back from China after discussions within his team.
And blow me down and call me a bawbag he has written a letter to the PM, which has got the Dundee tory batman Cochers all angry and using even for him is intemperate language.
#21 by Michael S on December 12, 2011 - 11:18 am
A couple of thoughts on an independent Scotland’s possibilities in Europe. Firstly, it looks likely that the “new EU” will include closer scrutiny of national balance books. This could be a double edged sword, but the potential benefit is some degree of protection from financial instability. Secondly, tighter regulation of the financial services sector will also cut both ways. Whilst it may be unpopular with some of Edinburgh’s significant financial services sector, it may provide a degree of oversight which a Scottish government dwarfed by banking giants would find it hard to provide.
#22 by Tormod on December 12, 2011 - 11:20 am
There is an excellent book that I read 2 years ago called Guns, traders and money by Satyajit Das.
He was at the heart of derivatives for many years and explains and gives examples of what can and did go wrong.
I wonder if the big brains in the treasury, fsa, BOE did?
#23 by Indy on December 12, 2011 - 11:22 am
In my opinion nobody who is even really closely imvolved in this has a clue what is really going on right now, nobody can really predict any of the consequences. So it would be a bit mad of the SNP to start taking positions. The EU has a genius for papering over the cracks and just keeping on going and that may happen here. On the other hand it could be David Cameron really has gone too far and the UK is going to be isolated permanently. But no-one knows yet. I don’t think we can say the single market is gone. Not yet. But that could be the case.
If we were independent, the Scottish Government would not be rushing to conclusions or adopting ad hoc positions, they would be consulting the people and parliament about next steps and those next steps would be taken in the national interest. But until there is a bit more clarity about the situation how can we know what our national interest really is?
I think the Tobin tax is a red herring by the way – that was not in the treaty. The UK could have vetoed that as a specific measure if it was suggested. But as far as I can tell by vetoing the treaty itself, the UK has created a very difficult situation for the EU if they will now have to find a way to conduct intergovernmental action without the automatic right to use the EU’s institutions, leaving decisions taken vulnerable to legal challenge.
That may be the UK Govt taking a step too far for the rest of the EU.
As for the Lib Dems greeting in the press. Who cares frankly? Fine words butter no parsnips and all that. What are they going to actually do about the situation? Most of us suspect the answer to that question is nothing.
#24 by Allan on December 12, 2011 - 7:31 pm
Indy, as far as I’m aware, the straw that broke the camel’s back wasn’t the Tobin Tax, but the imposition of regulations on the banks and city companies. As Sarkosy put it, the failure of the banking sector brought us here…
#25 by Indy on December 13, 2011 - 6:56 am
Absolutely. The Tobin tax is being used retrospectively as an excuse.
#26 by Craig on December 12, 2011 - 12:11 pm
It is not question of if the Euro will dissolve – it is a question of when.
The situation is being presented in the media as 26 countries accepting the new agreement (a new treaty was never on the table for all sorts of Markozy reasons) v the UK alone rejecting it. But that isn’t correct. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Sweden have only stated that they will take the agreement back to their Parliaments. Bear in mind that several of the Eastern European nations are fiercely protective of their hard-won independence.
Even within the Euro17 there are indications of rank breaking – how Ireland and Finland to name two will accept these changes (Ireland will not support a FTT if the UK doesn’t) isn’t clear.
Beyond that the changes are sticking plaster on an arterial bleed. They shortly be shown to be no more effective than any of the previous submits where they announced “finance in our time”. The proposals to limit the size of deficits and debts and to penalise nations who break them already exist in the Eurozone – they were simply ignored (even by Germany).
I can’t see why any party seriously advocating independence for Scotland can accept handing over control not just of monetary policy but also fiscal policy to the EU. Incidentally any Scottish Government should be extremely reluctant to accept a Financial Transaction Tax when the economy of Edinburgh (and to a lesser extent Glasgow) is highly dependent on the financial sector including important back office functions. The tax revenue this generates for Scotland (if it was allocated to Scotland anyway) is up there with oil tax income.
In reality, the FTT is simply a way for Europe to get “Anglo-saxon” bankers to pay for their problems (it will raise very little on the continent itself). Nevermind that German banks were even more affected by losses from Mortgage Backed Securities and the subprime crisis in America or the structural problems that brought down Greece, Ireland, Spain and Italy in particular that have bugger all to do with the financial crisis and everything to do with how the Euro was established in the first place.
We are not yet out of the single market (especially if the European Monetary Union dissolves). Most of our trade with Europe (in which we import considerably more than we export by the way) is covered by WTO rules. Considering the Eurozone will more likely experience a recession next year and probably see extremely anemic growth in the next decade at the very best, pinning our recovery hopes on them would not be clever – we need our exporters targeting the BRICs and shortly Africa.
From a particularly Scottish perspective, assuming that renewable energy ever delivers the promises they suggest – we hardly need to be in the EU, not when countries like Germany will be crying out for energy to replace their shutdown nuclear reactors. Norway exports most of is O&G to Europe on long term contracts while the Russian bear calls the tune if Europe wants access to gas. The only question will be whether Poland gets there first with their enormous shale gas supplies (why care about the somewhat unproven environmental issues when the reward is becoming the new Norway and sticking two fingers up at Russia?)
The SNP need to seriously reconsider their position on Europe – the situation by 2014-15 or whenever they hold the referendum will almost certainly be radically different and not in a good way to be honest. More thought also needs to go into the currency question – it is far from realistic to say that we can simply stay in the Sterling or form a Scottish Pound without the serious risks of strangling economic growth or causing dramatic drops in living standards, not even taking into account the very problems we’re seeing in the Eurozone right now.
#27 by vavatch on December 12, 2011 - 12:19 pm
This article is all about the EU and how it is somehow the Right Thing to support it, and thus critical of the UK government’s stance.
But it doesn’t mention the actual contents of the proposed EU agreement, or explain why we should be in favour of it.
The proposed treaty enshrines, for all time, hardcore austerity as the economic policy of all EU states. States won’t be allowed to have structural deficits higher than 0.5%! For reference, the UK’s is currently at 4% – and that is regarded as severe austerity by most here.
It is not explained why we should be so enthusastic about austerity being legally imposed across the EU – and a far, far harsher austerity regime than we have in the UK – but we should be against a milder variant of austerity at home.
I can only conclude that this is because certain commentators believe that the “EU” should be unreflectively supported, nomatter what bad policies it is proposing. This is very revealing and suggests that they should perhaps be ignored on this topic – it means they haven’t really considered what the treaty entails. They jsut think “Europe” must be supported, even if “Europe” has collectively decided to jump off a cliff.
To add to this emotional appeal, the author pulls the “Don’t like the EU? You must be an outmoded lover of a lost Imperial Britain” argument – while complaining about glib characterisations of french and germans. Um, what? No.
We have Cameron (calling for increased bank capitalisation requirements, a fact that will cost the city lots of money if implemented) being painted as in the city’s pocket, while the fFench and Germans (calling for lower bank capitalisation requirements) are somehow regulating the financial industry. Wut??
There’s no point in the UK agreeing to what is clearly a very bad – indeed, lunatic – agreement for Europe. And lets not get into the tobin tax (which may be good, or bad for the city, but most probably won’t make much difference overall, and certainly won’t achieve any kind of “regulation” of finance in Europe, unless you count all of it relocating abroad a success for oversight.)
#28 by Jeff on December 12, 2011 - 1:15 pm
Here is the exact wording of the statement in question:
The rules governing the Excessive Deficit Procedure (Article 126 of the TFEU) will be
reinforced for euro area Member States. As soon as a Member State is recognised to be in
breach of the 3% ceiling by the Commission, there will be automatic consequences unless a
qualified majority of euro area Member States is opposed. Steps and sanctions proposed or
recommended by the Commission will be adopted unless a qualified majority of the euro area
Member States is opposed. The specification of the debt criterion in terms of a numerical
benchmark for debt reduction (1/20 rule) for Member States with a government debt in excess
of 60% needs to be enshrined in the new provisions.
I don’t see how this 3% rule would have affected the UK given it is not a “euro area Member State” and as for the 0.5% rule (you’re getting your structural deficits and annual budgets mixed up by the way), I can’t enivsage this Tory/Lib Dem Government ever breaching the condition that “the annual structural deficit does not exceed 0.5% of nominal GDP”.
Britain can’t wash its hands of Europe’s problems when economies are so closely integrated and a shared solution is necessary. No one country can solve this on their own and compare and contrast Gordon Brown’s city-hopping to find a deal in 2008 with David Cameron throwing his toys out of the pram. Let’s remember that it was some sort of Tobin Tax that Cameron drew a red line over, not the above. It’s clear to see where his allegiances lie when any such tax would only impact a tiny minority of the City of London (and those with the deepest of pockets too).
Quite simply, we should get onboard or get out of the way.
And also, if this deal is so “lunatic”, why do you think 26 countries have signed up to it and only one has not?
#29 by vavatch on December 12, 2011 - 2:29 pm
Would you jump off a cliff if everybody else is? That seems to be the entirety of the argument!
Are you really saying that hardcore austerity is a great idea in Europe but not here in the UK?
You keep reminding us that the success of the eurozone will very much affect us here, if we like it or not. If the eurozone adopts hardcore austerity for all time, it is condemning itself to at least 10 years of sluggish economic performance. If it relaxes requirements on its banks, it is only kicking the can down the road and not doing anything to solve the problems that have got them there. This affects the UK very much.
Now, the “we should be in Europe, wielding influence” argument only works if you agree with the general direction the EU is taking, and you want to steer it slightly and tweak the direction. If the UK believed in this euro-austerity – much more severe than our own – then by all means we should be heavily involved in promoting it.
But we don’t. We want to go in an entirely different direction. Therefore no realistic compromise is possible. And we have “got out of the way” as a result – like getting out of the way of a ticking bomb, this is no bad thing.
Better than the alternative: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/18/ireland-budget-germany-leak
#30 by Allan on December 12, 2011 - 7:36 pm
As above, it wasn’t the Tobin Tax that killed it, it was regulation of the City & banks that was Cameron’s red line issue. Of course Cameron’s allegiances lie with his paymasters in the City…
#31 by Doug Daniel on December 12, 2011 - 1:05 pm
As Tormod has already pointed out, Salmond has been busy drafting a letter to Cameron, which in my mind explains the media silence over the weekend from the Scottish Government – after all, the potential ramifications of this decision call for the actions of the First Minister, not an underling. Just because the broadcast media thinks Sunday is Politics Day doesn’t mean the Scottish Government should be kowtowing to that.
I think Salmond has been quite correct to highlight the fact that none of the devolved administrations were consulted before the veto was used. This whole debacle serves to increase the List Of Reasons Scotland Should Be Independent by one, and show up the absurdity of the “uncertainty about the referendum is damaging Scotland” line. It’s telling that a fair few unionists have been trying to deflect attention from what is so blatantly another blow to the lesser-spotted “positive case for the union” by following the line put out by a Westminster spokesman (who either has cajones the size of watermelons or a poker face Lady Gaga would be proud of):
“This does seem to be an opportunistic attempt to deflect attention from some serious questions the Scottish government has been asked about its currency, fiscal and monetary proposals for an independent Scotland and has so far failed to answer.”
Wow. Seriously? That’s the line they’re taking? Cameron has potentially fatally fudged the UK’s position within the EU, and those of us who are voicing concern about it are merely trying to deflect attention from some daft questions which have already been answered? There are but two words one can use in response to the Westminster position:
GOOD ‘EEN!
#32 by Doug Daniel on December 12, 2011 - 1:05 pm
Oh, I forgot to say anything about the Lib Dems. How did that happen…?
#33 by Jeff on December 12, 2011 - 1:17 pm
I think Salmond’s letter is excellent and, fair enough, if they were halfway through drafting it and got a call to be on a Politics Show (that hardly anyone watches anyway), then keeping going with the letter is probably the right thing to do.
#34 by Doug Daniel on December 12, 2011 - 1:28 pm
Aye. Still, I won’t pretend I didn’t think it a little odd at the time. They could perhaps have said to the BBC “sorry, we’re in the middle of drafting a letter to the PM, best that we don’t do this just now”. Then again, it’s hardly beyond the realms of the imagination that they did exactly that, but the BBC still chose to make it sound like the SNP just didn’t want to discuss it, rather than clarify the reason, or to just not mention it at all.
I also noted that they went to the effort of highlighting the SNP’s absence, but then had a discussion that didn’t involve politicians from any other party either. That struck me as doubly odd…
(Loved Prof Tom Devine’s wee history of Scotland’s relationship with Europe down the ages, incidentally. I think people sometimes forget – or don’t know in the first place – that France used to be our great friend, and that the Scottish Enlightenment was very much European in nature.)
#35 by Iain Menzies on December 12, 2011 - 2:34 pm
Devine’s ramble across history was totally pointless and willfully misleading. He himself said that after the union, Scotland become much more atlanticist. Tho he couch it in terms of Empire.
Scotland today is much more successful economically than it was pre 1707 and on that basis alone the idea of basing a scottish diplomatic outlook is at best nuts, and thats before we get to the little matter of ignoring most of scotlands modern history.
Incidentally, isnt England Scotlands largest trading partner? So by the pro-eu logic shouldnt scotland stay in the UK rather than isolating ourselves?
#36 by Tormod on December 12, 2011 - 3:53 pm
Wow really so Scotland has a better economy than 1707 I am astounded!
Sorry pushing he sarchie switch OFF, Scotland pre union had a great deal of trade with europe, those markets died a death after the union so of course Scots had to trade within their new partnership i.e. the empire etc.
So what is your logic, we shouldn’t be pals and trade with our old friends in europe as it will piss off the Westminster political village?
Look east young man not west.
#37 by Craig Gallagher on December 14, 2011 - 8:01 am
Actually, many of the markets died a death much earlier due to the English Navigation Acts of 1660. These prevented any goods from the English Empire from entering Scottish ports and sharply reduced the ability of Scottish merchants to trade luxury goods with continental Europe (in particular, the French wine which had been the cornerstone of the Auld Alliance).
The Scots rebounded via the carrying trade and Atlantic projects such as the New Jersey plantations and the Darién expedition, but in general it did help the Scottish economy to be a part of the United Kingdom. Remember, though, that was only because they were no longer subject to England’s protectionist trade racket and instead were part of it, not necessarily because of any dearth of creativity or economic variety in pre-Union Scotland. That traditionalist line is under heavy and sustained barrage in the modern historiography.
#38 by Dr William Reynolds on December 12, 2011 - 4:17 pm
I think Jeff that if you check with Moridura today,you will find that Alec Salmond has commented on Camerons attitude towards the EU.Moridura lists six questions,asked by Alec Salmond that are spot on.Thus your assumption that the SNP have nothing to say about the current situation around the euro zone is not supported by the evidence.Check it out
#39 by Dr William Reynolds on December 12, 2011 - 4:25 pm
Okay I can see from having read the comments that others have challenged Jeff’s assumption that the SNP had nothing to say.
To move on,I am confused about the assumption that the euro is in trouble.It is very strong against the pound and other currencies,much stronger than it used to be before the global downturn.Of course some countries in the euro zone have economic problems,but so do otheres outside of the euro zone.Would someone care to explain what is actually going on.
#40 by theshooglypeg on December 12, 2011 - 8:48 pm
“David Cameron has naively harrumphed the UK out of Europe”. That is the ONLY phrase I am going to use to describe this situation from now on.
#41 by Barbarian on December 12, 2011 - 8:52 pm
I think you will find outside of the political bubble we live in, most people caegorically do not want closer ties with Europe.
Has anyone really paid attention to the proposal? I’ve read the actual document several times. And I know why Salmond is angry, notwithstanding his reasonable question as to why the devolved governments were not consulted.
Signing up means some unelected bureaucrat will decide if the UK budget is acceptable. And if there are cuts, Salmond can blame Cameron for signing up.
However, I think the SNP have made a crucial mistake by declaring their love for Europe, and it could come and bite them on the political backside very hard. If the Euro crashes, which seems likely, the UK will feel the impact whether we are in or out of the treaty. And the crash will probably cause all sorts of problems, which the SNP want to be part of!
I think they would have been better to keep back from Europe and state they will consider closer ties after a period of reflection.
Bottom line: why do the SNP want to leave one corrupt union only to join up with one that is far worse and an even bigger basket case?
If Scotland is to be so successful independent then why must we join with Europe?
One thing is for certain, if the situation in Europe descends into chaos over the next three years the SNP will find it very, very difficult to promote their European argument.
#42 by Indy on December 13, 2011 - 7:00 am
If the euro crashes the pound will also crash.
#43 by Ken on December 13, 2011 - 11:28 am
Exactly. A lot of people (maybe it’s just sections of the media) appear to forget that if the euro fails, and by extension the EU, that will have fairly immediate implications on everyone else – including the UK.
The estimated initial cost of a failure is wiping £10 trillion off the value of the European economy – a fall of 50% of European GDP – pretty much putting living standards on a level of those in Latin America.
I thought David Rennie’s article in the Economist summed it quite well:
” If we do end up leaving the EU for the sake of the City of London (a big if) it would be ironic if some of those same banks and hedge funds then turned around and announced they were leaving Britain anyway because euro-zone rules made it impossible to work in London, and so they were off to a combination of Paris, Frankfurt, Zug and Singapore. So sorry old boy, nothing personal.”
#44 by Dr William Reynolds on December 13, 2011 - 9:37 am
Barbarian makes some cogent points.I still tend to favour (an independent)Scotland having EU membership but am cautious about whether the direction that some would like to take,is in the best interests of Scotland.The SNPs interest in Scotlands EU membership is probably based on their internationalism and desire that Scotland can speak for itself in the international communities.However,the SNP does recognise that there is a need to consult the people through referendum.It is quite possible that when that time comes,voters will reject the direction in which the EU is travelling.
I think the poll shown in Newsnet Scotland today does show that mamy people outside the political bubble are concerned about Camerons behaviour.and whoe’s interests he is standing up for.However,that does not necessarily mean that they are not sceptical about the future diection of the EU.
#45 by Craig Kelly on December 13, 2011 - 11:41 am
Agreed, Barbarian does make some excellent points. The notion that we seek independence to then hand over large parts of our sovereignty at the first opportunity we get, has always jarred with me. I understand the economic imperatives, but I wonder how much Norway really suffers from only holding EFTA membership.
There was an interesting article on the BBC about Scotland realigning its focus towards the Nordic countries post-independence: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16050269
With that in mind, I again wonder if the SNP’s unconditional love for the EU might be out of line with this proposed focus. Norway has done very well from EFTA alone, and there is little love for the EU in Sweden.
My point is this: we all like to think of Scandinavia being the land of social democracy and equality – which is fine, just don’t ask any Swedes about beggars, ‘this is because of the EU’, is a common response. And we also all like to think of the Scots as being more enlightened than our English counterparts, understanding the great benefits of the EU. I remain to be convinced.
As Barbarian says, sticking by a pro-EU stance without any inner dialogue or self-reflection is a dangerous road to tread. The SNP should walk carefully.
#46 by Barbarian on December 13, 2011 - 8:36 pm
I see Chris Huhne is saying that the UK shouldn’t be playing “Billy No Mates” with Europe.
Well, being a Lib Dem he can understand!
On my previous post: I’m not against being part of Europe, but absolutely not in the present state. If the Euro collapses bringing the Pound down is it not better to be outside the EU Treaty so we can focus on ourselves, or do we end up bailing out everyone else with the oil money?
At least in the present situation, unpleasant as it may be, it’s only Westminster getting the money, rather than to Paris, Berlin, Brussels, Rome, Athens…….
Let’s get this mess sorted out first THEN look at what is happening. Get away from the “anything but Westminster” mindset for five minutes.
#47 by Stuart Winton on December 14, 2011 - 5:51 am
At the moment it’s looking good both for Cameron’s Eurosceptics and Salmond’s Europhiles and Anglo-pho…er sceptics, and it’s an easy flipper clap for the performing seals in both parties.
But to think that it’s just the UK against the other 26 EU members- with Scotland poised to join the latter- is ludicrously simplistic.
The UK is hardly going to simply cease to be in the EU anytime soon, the others are hardly going to merely go forward as a unitary whole, saving the eurozone economies and the grand plan as they go, and the whole thing will be forgotten about in a couple of months.
And the SNP isn’t simply going to be walking into a nascent United States of Europe.
It’ll all be a whole lot messier and protracted than that, and the continued uncertainty won’t help Alex Salmond sell an ‘independence in Europe’ stance, particuarly in view of the significantly greater degree of economic and political union that seems to predicate the whole European project staying together.
Things will get a lot messier in Europe before they get better, and thus helps rationalise the delay in the indepedence referendum from the SNP’s perspective, but whether conditions will be any more favourable for them in three years or so is anyone’s guess.
Unfortunately for everyone concerned – the UK, the rest of the EU and Scotland – their electorates still have to be considered, and to the extent that they won’t simply dutifully line up along the lines of Cameron v (EU and Salmond) then that’s where the current simplistic dichotomy starts to unravel.
#48 by Craig Gallagher on December 14, 2011 - 8:20 am
This is one of those posts where I wish I’d written in. Spot on, except perhaps for the last paragraphs. As much as it pains me to say it, I think you’re being hopelessly optimistic to imagine that the electorates will be considered at all. The EU is well versed at just repeatedly holding referenda until it gets the response it wants, or riding roughshod over even holding one at all.
#49 by Stuart Winton on December 15, 2011 - 2:19 am
Thanks, Craig, and I agree and disagree with the latter points you make.
For example, if the EU and/or the euro implode in the next couple of years then Alex Salmond will know he’ll have to play a different tune to the “Scotland at the heart of Europe” one that he’s been playing in recent days – depending on what precisely is left of the EU by then – if he wants to win a referendum.
By the same token, if British voters fundamentally go against Cameron’s stance then chances are he’ll try to amend his position if it looks like it could cost him the next election, and of course how things develop with the Lib Dems in the meantime will be very important in this regard.
Ditto the other 26, and even if they don’t formally consult their voters in the meantime then they will have to take due cognisance of public opinion with a view to future elections. I can’t believe all 26 electorates will dutifully fall in line with their currently elected governments to the extent that they can be completely ignored, although as you allude the extent to which and method by which they take account of public opinion will vary from country to country.
Of course, it all depends on what course the economics and diplomatic negotiations take, but it’ll all make the likes of the Nice, Maastricht and euro treaties and negotiations seem like a walk in the park.
#50 by Allan on December 14, 2011 - 8:11 pm
Not so much the electorate’s Stuart, but several of the parties that signed up on Friday did so on the proviso that it was with the backing of their parlaments. There have been rumblings already that several parliaments may not pass this treaty/treaty amendment. There are also rumblings from Ireland that this may be subjected to a referendum.
#51 by Mike on December 14, 2011 - 7:16 am
But what about the Lib Dems?
Jeffs main point seemed to be that they’d had a great week and there was a danger of the SNP being outflanked to the left by the Liberals. That’s the bit that confused me.