Please stop trying to conflate Brexit with Scottish independence. They are not remotely similar.
From a recentish blog: From [http://www.simonvarwell.co.uk/scexits-not-brexit/]
With Brexit, nobody really knew what was being proposed. ... we still don’t. Sure, it’s either going to be May’s deal or a “no deal” Brexit, but that’s a question that is beyond I think the best political soothsayers, and even then the impacts of either are going to be dangerously unpredictable in a lot of ways.
Part of the problem was that there was minimal research and preparation done by those who advocated Brexit (or by those who called the referendum). Throughout the campaign and – more alarmingly – since the vote, we have seen the scary spectacle of different groups of people arguing for different kinds of Brexit, and all claiming some sort of mandate from the 52% who voted for whatever it is they voted for.
A soft Brexit, or hard? Norway, Switzerland or Canada? I have no idea, and neither did they. Yes, there were some commonalities – the idea of us being a member of the EU would of course end under all Brexit visions, and there was a fairly broad consensus across Brexiteers that anything that kept those nasty Poles out would be a good thing (albeit that bizarrely many supporters of leaving seemed to believe it would help to keep those nasty non-Europeans out too). But beyond that, nobody seemed to have a clear idea about how closely we would align with the EU’s rules or whether indeed we’d remain subject to them or not.
Contrast that with the plans for Scottish independence. The Scottish Government produced in 2013 the weighty tome “Scotland’s Future”, a 650-page book (and website) that outlined their plans for how an independent Scotland would be created and what it looked like. It covered pretty much every aspect of the independence process, responsibilities of the newly independent government, and relations with the rest of the UK and other countries in the world. It was a massive piece of work.
Yes, you can disagree with the contents of the book (indeed, 55% did so at the ballot box). Yes, you can dispute the viability or desirability of the proposals. Yes, you can call the Scottish Government optimistic, misguided, deluded or whatever. And let’s not forget that even many across the pro-independence movement took issue with parts of the book. But for the purposes of this blog post, the quality of the content of Scotland’s Future is not the point. The point is that the Scottish Government put the work in and came up with some clear ideas. While we can dispute how much the proposals would hold up in the negotiations with the UK or in the early years of independence, what is beyond dispute is the mandate it would have given the Scottish Government as they began those negotiations.
Plans can be good, or they can be bad. But plans are plans. And it’s fair to say that the Scottish Government had one, and those advocating Brexit did not.
Negotiations
Linked to that is one seemingly small detail but one which Brexit has proved to be incredibly important. And it’s one I’ve been thinking about often.
One of the most impressive aspects of the campaign for Scottish independence was the cross-party nature, with supporters of the SNP, Greens and small hard left parties lining up with those of no stated party and admittedly small numbers of supporters of the Unionist parties.
More than that, the Scottish Government envisaged what it described as “Team Scotland” being involved in the proposed eighteen-month negotiation period, which would be made up of negotiators from across the Scottish political spectrum. The idea was that politicians from all parties and none would be a part of the Scottish Government’s teams in the negotiations with the UK Government – those who had been fighting each other throughout the independence referendum would, on the day after a Yes vote, receive invitations to work together to get the best deal for Scotland.
While it was a great political gesture, it was also a very practical step. Imagine, to take just two examples, how valuable the perspectives of former chancellor and Better Together chair Alistair Darling or the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander might have been in the finance side of the negotiations. Yes, you might have chosen to criticise the competence of those two individuals, and yes they might have rejected the invitation. But the key point is that the Scottish Government stated all along that such a cross-party approach would have been their preference.
Contrast that with Brexit, where – in a change that is of monumental significance to the UK – the UK Government has refused to work with others, where the idea of a government of national unity has never been voiced by anyone other than fringe voices, and the Labour Party has committed itself to bringing down, rather than working with, the Conservatives. Whether you like Brexit or not, the sight of Westminster parties battling like ferrets in a sack has been unedifying, embarrassing given that the EU has been watching, and above all a missed opportunity. Add to that the disregard that the UK Government has shown to the Scottish or Welsh Governments’ views on Brexit, or indeed to the views of any other parts of society who have principled or constructive points to bring to the table.
There was, and remains, no sense that the UK wishes to leave in any manner that represents togetherness or consensus. And that, whether we end up leaving or not, will reap an ugly harvest politically and socially.