In the aftermath of David Cameron’s speech on Europe, there is no avoiding considering the impact that a ~2016/2017 EU referendum may have on the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.
It is interesting to first note that the Prime Minister intends to fix the UK’s relationship with the EU before we take to the polls whereas with the independence referendum any improvement to the current arrangement was kicked out to after 2014 and promised as ‘jam tomorrow’. Read into that what you will.
There is an argument that this Europe referendum will muddy the independence waters and mentally bind people into the UK’s future. For example, even SNP MP Pete Wishart was talking about how “we” would be having this referendum in 2017, clearly subconsciuously visualising taking part in it. An EU referendum ahead of us and an Olympics just behind us. It’ll continue to be difficult for Yes Scotland to stop Brits feeling British. That in itself shouldn’t stop people from voting Yes but, realistically, it will.
A separate argument is that David Cameron is risking the unionist side’s strongest card in the independence referendum, namely the UK’s influence across the continent and wider world. Barack Obama is keen for the UK to stay inside the EU, Angela Merkel has already voiced her objections to the speech delivered today and Carl Bildt (Sweden’s foreign minister) warned Cameron against a “28-speed Europe”, reminding the PM of the need for each members to progress together. Further frustration with the UK’s lamentable attitude could lead to overtures towards an independent Scotland and the undermining of Cameron’s current position of one of the ‘big 3 in Europe’ as a result.
A neutered British bulldog would make EU round tables much more palatable for continental countries post-2014. Scotland would just be happy to be there, nodding matters through and wagging its tail excitedly, not that that is necessarily a bad thing.
Further to this, the considerable anti-EU bloc in England may judge that they would have a great chance of success in the 2017 referendum if Scotland didn’t get to take part in it. Donations and resources going into the Better Together campaign could dry up if this philosophy takes hold. If the choice for UKIP sympathisers (of which there are clearly many) was between leaving the EU or keeping the UK together, a fair few would opt for the former.
Personally for me, one of the most interesting aspects of Cameron’s speech, and highlighted at today’s PMQs, was the absence of any real vision from Ed Miliband. The Labour leader seems stuck between a largely Eurosceptic public and the need to differentiate from the position that the Prime Minister is taking. This is unfortunate for Ed as (1) he would not seek to take the UK out of EU save for the most remarkable of circumstances and (2) if we were in the run up to a general election, Ed would be promising precisely what Cameron is. Labour and the Tories read the same polls, they operate in the same narrow centre ground and the difference between their respective party Governments is not very much.
The choice in 2014 is becoming clearer, you can either vote for an independent Scotland that will likely seek to be a proactive and enthusiastic European team player or you can vote to be part of a UK which remains on the backfoot regarding all things EU, if it even remains a member at all.
#1 by Grahamski on January 23, 2013 - 2:09 pm
A fascinating time.
The interesting thing is that antipathy towards the EU is the majority attitude across the UK, with recent polling suggesting that Scots were only a couple of percentage points less Euro-sceptic than their southern neighbours.
The idea that Scots will vote yes to stay in the EU (as some in the SNP seem to believe) seems to be founded on the same kind of mythology which believed the Scots to be more progressive and led to the disastrous penny for Scotland campaign.
#2 by BM on January 23, 2013 - 2:55 pm
By making this speech, the Scottish referendum becomes more and more about policy/vision. Do you want to live in a Scotland in the EU or out of the EU? Do you want to live in a Scotland with free higher education or with 9000 pound a year fees? Essentially, he’s made it into a referendum on Tory/Neo-Liberal policy versus the social democracy. That’s going to be a tough one for Cameron to win.
#3 by Topher Dawson on January 23, 2013 - 5:39 pm
I’m all for people voting Yes to independence but if England votes to leave the EU that will leave us with two frontiers to cross between here and Europe, never mind the paperwork.
Are any other EU members in the position of being separated from the rest of the EU by a non-member country? I can’t think of any offhand.
#4 by Richard on January 24, 2013 - 2:14 am
That does seem a rather bizarre argument; especially when there are direct ferries and flights to the continent. I don’t think many people in Scotland nowadays who want to go to the continent would go through England, as there is no need.
Having said that, the parallel which springs to mind would be when I took the train from Milan to Düsseldorf (both in the EU) which passed through Switzerland (not in the EU). There was a quick passport inspection as we passed through, but it was no more hassle than having one’s train ticket inspected by the conductor.
#5 by Welshguy on January 23, 2013 - 6:16 pm
“Are any other EU members in the position of being separated from the rest of the EU by a non-member country?”
Greece was up until Romania and Bulgaria joined. Cyprus could arguably be described as being so, depending on how you define boundaries and separation.
#6 by Penderyn on January 23, 2013 - 6:29 pm
Finland
#7 by Jeff on January 23, 2013 - 6:58 pm
Finland borders Sweden. Good effort though.
#8 by Indy on January 23, 2013 - 7:13 pm
I think I may be alone in thinking David Cameron’s speech was actually pretty good in terms of hitting the right notes for his target audience, middle England. If he can continue to frame the debate in that way I think it can be a big positive for the Tories.
Everyone is so focussed on slagging him off for conceding to UKIP that they seem to be overlooking the fact that support for UKIP is going up for a reason, because more and more English people are starting to seriously question the EU. I think the way David Cameron framed that was very well put, I think it will resonate with a lot of English people. And it is part of politics to make a virtue out of necessity.
Of course the EU is not the top issue for most voters – that’s jobs and the economy – and neither do I think the UK will actually end up leaving the EU. It’s all about the next UK election. If Labour was able to provide a strong alternative on the economy then that would improve their chances and certainly over-ride the EU issue for most. But they aren’t doing that. Nor is it at all clear where they stand on Europe. They appear very weak. I just can’t see Ed Milliband ever being Prime Minister frankly.
I realise this is slightly off topic but I have found it interesting that so many people seem to think Cameron has made a mistake. I just don’t think he has. He has neutralised to a large extent the UKIP threat and put Labour in a very difficult position, as well as setting out a vision of what he calls Britain’s relationship with Europe (but which is really England’s relationship with Europe) very well. Not bad for one day’s work.
As for the impact here – as well as undermining all the referendum uncertainty/independence could mean us getting kicked out the EU stuff I suspect it will increasingly become a serious bone of contention between the Better Together partners. That was always going to happen as we got closer to the election but it may happen faster now.
A very interesting development.
#9 by Cruachan on January 23, 2013 - 7:25 pm
Quite a big day and a real fork in the road for “Britain” and for Europe.
It seems to me that this is a fairly clear signal that Cameron and the Conservatives are already preparing for (and in their hearts, wishing for) a post-Scottish Independence future. An EU withdrawal really would be the start of an English National Party in all but name.
The choice for pro-EU Scottish voters is clear, only a YES in 2014 can deliver a continuing and engaged relationship with Europe.
Another day closer today I reckon.
VOTE YES 2014.
#10 by Don Francisco on January 23, 2013 - 7:51 pm
If I was the Yes campaign, I’d make hay out of this. One of the primary weaknesses of the Yes campaign is no answer on the EU – yes they want to be in but no guarantees it would happen. A vote for union could potentially a vote to leave the EU anyway. I wonder how many unionists would feel comfortable with that – I know I wouldn’t.
#11 by Iain Menzies on January 23, 2013 - 7:52 pm
The difference between voting on EU membership, and the indy ref isnt one of when the negotiations are, rather is about the chances of a yes (or out) vote.
Polls have for a good long while shown the UK (inc Scot.) to be Eurosceptic and getting more so.
Also the majority of people dont want to leave the EU (myself included) but nor do they want to stay in the EU as is. Unless im mistaken no party that with Yes Scotland is in favour of the EU status quo.
The impact this will have on Scotland is not, i think, as to if England et al is set to leave the EU then Scots will be more likly to vote for indy. What will matter is how Europe reacts to Cameron. PLenty of scots might dislike Cameron, and/or not believe what he has said. But i would expect most scots (even if only just) would agree with his position, ie in the EU but a different less centralisied EU. If it looks like Cameron can get to somewhere near there, And the word from Berlin is that Merkel at least is willing to find some middle ground, then its easy to show how being in the UK helps scotland if say the CFP is reformed/scrapped. The question then is, if the leader of the second largest economy in the EU and of the second of third most populous state cant change the deal…the what hope would Salmond have?
#12 by Chris on January 23, 2013 - 8:30 pm
I think this muddies the water on independence rather than being a game changer – sounds like wishful thinking from either journalists desperate for a story or hope-against-hope of a grounded Yes campaign.
It’s actually a major screw up facing the Independence Yes campaign. Would we contemplate being in the EU when the UK isn’t? Or do we admit that we really need to be where the rest of the UK is.
It makes the SNP’s currency position even more odd. Would we keep the £, stay in the EU and contemplate the UK leaving the EU?
It is a seriously poor and partisan decision on Cameron’s part. If I was one of the 700 Honda workers laid off in Swindon last week I’d be pulling my hair out. Why on earth would Honda invest in a UK whose relationship with the EU is uncertain.
#13 by Gavin Hamilton on January 24, 2013 - 12:11 pm
Absolutely spot on in my opinion.
The potential consequences of an independent Scotland inside the EU while a separate England & Wales is outside the EU deserves consideration.
Having our nearest neighbour and biggest market outside the EU seems a terrible proposition.
This is now a central question and I think this elephant in the room weakens the yes case.
#14 by Craig Gallagher on January 24, 2013 - 2:44 pm
It’s certainly a problem, but I assure you it’s better than being entirely outside the EU ourselves. The UK/Ireland is already a common market and there’s no reason that needs to change in the aftermath of independence. A sterling zone isn’t dependent on EU membership, it would be a completely different arrangement which may overlap but won’t necessarily intermarry with EU regulations.
Except perhaps if England pursues a radical Right to Work agenda, slashing worker’s rights almost to zero and driving down wages, in which case we would be thankful to be within the EU and have another common market to turn to for our exports.
#15 by Braco on January 26, 2013 - 10:26 am
Yes I think you’re both right there. Much better to just keep giving our stuff away to ‘our biggest market’ and pretend that gives us some sort of control. So much easier than mutually advantageous trade negotiations between democratically controlled nation states.
#16 by Indy on January 24, 2013 - 9:56 pm
The UK is not really going to leave the EU unless something goes horribly wrong.This is all about electioneering. If you were one of the 700 Honda workers laid off in Swindon last week you would be unlikely to vote Tory anyway so they don’t care about you.
They will have done their maths.Remember it is first past the post election.It’s all going to come down to the marginal seats. For Labour to win they will need to take seats back from the Tories. That is why this is very difficult for them.
#17 by Allan on January 23, 2013 - 9:30 pm
Two points.
Firstly, Better Together’s trump card really shouldn’t be the influence of Scot’s on the world stage, there really should be more bread & butter issues (and probably will be) that will help to ensure a “No” vote. That they have gone big on Scotland’s influence through the UK has reallly suffered a blow today. Except that Salmond’s policy of back door entry to the EU will mean that nothing will really change. The true game changer will be if Salmond or Sturgeon changes tack and puts entry to the EU subject to our own referendum. If/when that happens, there will be no muddying of the waters.
As for Cameron. I suspect that he overestimates the threat of UKIP. He thinks that UKIP will be a threat to his party winning a majority at the next Westminster Election. At the moment, they are not as big a threat as Cameron thinks they are. If they start winning by-elections, we can re-apprase that opinion. Not that this decision has nothing to do with the Scottish referendum, maybe he thinks that he can sway eurosceptic Scots. After all as we have discussed Salmond is not exactly trouble free on the EU front.
You are right about Milliband the younger though. Second referendum announcement in two years he has blundered and fudged his way through. It’s not as if we couldn’t see this one coming either…
#18 by alister7 on January 23, 2013 - 11:43 pm
This would only apply to travelling by land and ferry. If the rUK does leave the EU, then presumably the Republic of Ireland would be in the same position. Though I imagine most people from Ireland who visit the mainland of Europe do so by flying. It would probably be the same with and independent Scotland.
Pingback: You wait years for a referendum, and then… | Patrick Harvie
#19 by JPJ2 on January 24, 2013 - 8:37 am
The significance of this move by Cameron is that it will increase support for the Tories.
Increased support for the Tories means increased concern in Scotland that the 2015 Westminster General Election will be won by the Tories.
If such a belief takes hold that will produce a sharp swing in faour of Scottish independence.
#20 by Craig on January 24, 2013 - 3:44 pm
A couple of points:
1) Allan: UKIP not a threat until they win seats
It isn’t seats the Tories are worried about UKIP gaining (UKIP support isn’t really concentrated enough to achieve that); it’s losing Tory votes and giving the seat to the opposition. At the last General Election there were around 20 seats where the UKIP share was greater than the margin between the first placed party and the Tories. While not all UKIP voters would have voted Tory otherwise, it’s fair to say that many might’ve. So to some in the Tory party, UKIP have already cost them a majority in this Parliament.
2) Swedish Foreign Minister: “28 speed Europe”
(Presumably counting Iceland there)
The whole reason the Eurozone is in crisis is because they tried to pretend there was a “1 Speed Eurozone”. The reality was that there wasn’t – Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Ireland were all at different speeds. Greece wasn’t even on the same planet!
As long as we have national sovereignty, national interests and national parliaments, there will always be a 28-speed Europe. Attempting to override that through the European institutions is undemocratic and lacks legitimacy, which brings me to the next point:
3) Jeff: “proactive and enthusiastic European team player”
A player in what team?
One of the faults of the current EU debates, both in Scotland and across Britain, is that we’re so focused on a “status quo” that, in a few short years, won’t exist – whatever Scotland or Britain votes. The Europe in 2016/2017 will be very different to the Europe of 2013 yet we mostly pretend otherwise.
Look at what is happening on the continent. The southern economies want joint liability, looser economic policy and fiscal transfers. The northern economies (Germany is not alone in this) oppose all of that but it is still being forced upon them. The price they’re demanding is a high one: federalism at the EU level.
Currently there are protests of the streets of Athens, Madrid and Rome because enforced austerity is the price of bailouts. How will the people on those streets react when Germany effectively sets out their budgets through the European Parliament? For the only way this solution can work is if the EU centre becomes the dominant force in the European economy, with all pretences of national sovereignty abandoned. Not even France will be exempt – there will be no partnership, there will only be Germany.
Continuing down this path poses a grave danger to Scotland and Britain. Firstly, because this solution is ultimately the same as every other sorry solution proposed in Europe since the crisis began – namely, in trying to patch things up in the short term, even more trouble is being created in the long term. Put simply, federalism is the medicine that will eventually kill the patient. There is no European democracy and any attempts to impose one will tear Europe apart. When this inevitably happens, it will be a moot point whether we are “Scottish” or “British, “In” or “Out”, “Associate” or “Proactive” because the economic fallout will be catastrophic.
In the shorter term, federalism poses a problem – if Scotland and Britain are not federal members, what then are we exactly? How do we protect our access to the Single Market, which is THE most important aspect of Europe and one that must be protected above all, something all too often forgotten on both sides of the debate? How does Scotland be a “proactive player” from outside the federal union? Nobody seriously suggests we actually want to be inside the federal union. All of these questions go answered while political supporters bang on about “sorting out human rights interference” or “being a enthusiastic member” – the old status quo.
At the moment, too many people on both sides are happy to toady up to the federalists. There are the “give us what we want and you can do whatever you like, your funeral” on one side, and the “we are proactive members, yes, yes, YES!” on the other side. But the the importance of this issue goes far beyond political positioning at Westminster or Holyrood – we’re talking about the very survival of Europe here.
For a while I thought Cameron was one of them but actually his speech suggests he might just get it. It’s possible – we’ve done it before – it simply depends on us remembering that we are Scottish/British and European. We have to cooperate with European allies in defence of liberalism and free trade. Threatening to take our ball home or asking “how high?” will ruin us all the same.
We need to negotiate. Not to redefine Britain’s relationship with Europe but to redefine the very concept of Europe itself. We should be out there preventing federalism because our economic interests are aligned with Europe’s. There is an alternative vision of Europe – one where sovereignty and thus liability is firmly at the national level, where we do not pretend austerity will fix insolvent nations nor that these nations cannot be allowed to leave the Eurozone but it needs us to fight for it.
We have to save Europe from itself, because we need Europe, because we are Europe.
#21 by Tom Cresswell on January 24, 2013 - 7:13 pm
I know its a minor point, and an even smaller minority opinion, but has he not just proposed a referendum where we’re not allowed to vote for the status quo?
I get it, I’ve only met a handful of other people in my life who think that being integrated with the EU is a good thing and the whole idea of repatriation of powers is ridiculous (any opt outs would result in the UK competing on an inequal playing field with everyone else – if we opt out of CAP, British farmers will be crushed by continental competitors; opting out of Working Time Directives will just disadvantage British workers etc.).
Furthermore, I can’t imagine everyone who supports being in the EU but reformed would be happy with a reform package negotiated by Cameron, who yesterday said many times that he would speak to businesses to ask what powers they would want repatriated, but never mentioned anyone else whose views he’d even consider (charities, workers, councils?). Is there no consideration that people may disagree with his negotiations (presuming he even gets anything, obviously).
Just imagine if during the AV referendum we were given a choice of AV or STV, but not FPTP since we’re definitely getting rid of that. Or if in 2014 we had either Independence or Devo Max, but the status quo isn’t an option. I’m sure the Conservatives would have been infuriated with those options. If you’re going to have a referendum and ask “what sort of change do you want”, ‘no change’ should be an option.