SNP Tactical Voting: Goldie Looking Chained
In Tory leader Annabel Goldie's conference speech yesterday there was the usual Nat-bashing talk of "the inward looking, insular Scotland that Alex Salmond is hell bent on creating". The sentiment could have been lifted from any conference speech the Scottish Tory leader has given in years gone by.
However, this narrative now sits rather awkwardly against the main story of the week so far, the party's divisions over how it would deal with a post-ratified European Union. In a recent Conservative Home poll, more than eight in ten Tory members wanted Cameron to call a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon even if it has been approved by the next General Election.
Only 3% believed Britain should play a full part in building an "ever closer union".
It begs the question - Why is a desire to see an independent Scotland as an equal partner within the EU "extreme", "an obsession", "narrow" and "damaging" (as Goldie claims) while the desire of the majority of her party colleagues to see the United Kingdom pulling away from the EU is presumably deemed to be none of these things?
I suspect David Cameron will continue to paper over the cracks of his party's split on Europe right up to the General Election and then he will end the lip-service, ultimately denying the Eurosceptic wing of his party the referendum they so crave, but until Cameron comes out clearly embracing the EU, Annabel Goldie stands on very shaky ground.
Not content with her leader's contradiction of "not ignoring Scotland" while shutting the First Minister out of a leaders' debate, Annabel Goldie seems to be facing both ways at once in siding with party members that do not wish to work as a full partner within the EU while deriding the perfectly hopeful and optimistic aspiration of Scotland breaking away from Britain's union and immersing itself in the European Union as an outward looking independent state.
However, this narrative now sits rather awkwardly against the main story of the week so far, the party's divisions over how it would deal with a post-ratified European Union. In a recent Conservative Home poll, more than eight in ten Tory members wanted Cameron to call a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon even if it has been approved by the next General Election.
Only 3% believed Britain should play a full part in building an "ever closer union".
It begs the question - Why is a desire to see an independent Scotland as an equal partner within the EU "extreme", "an obsession", "narrow" and "damaging" (as Goldie claims) while the desire of the majority of her party colleagues to see the United Kingdom pulling away from the EU is presumably deemed to be none of these things?
I suspect David Cameron will continue to paper over the cracks of his party's split on Europe right up to the General Election and then he will end the lip-service, ultimately denying the Eurosceptic wing of his party the referendum they so crave, but until Cameron comes out clearly embracing the EU, Annabel Goldie stands on very shaky ground.
Not content with her leader's contradiction of "not ignoring Scotland" while shutting the First Minister out of a leaders' debate, Annabel Goldie seems to be facing both ways at once in siding with party members that do not wish to work as a full partner within the EU while deriding the perfectly hopeful and optimistic aspiration of Scotland breaking away from Britain's union and immersing itself in the European Union as an outward looking independent state.
posted by Jeff at
13:20
8 Comments:
Best. Title. Pun. Yet.
Seconded.
Well I hope the average reader is a bit more clued up than myself, because I had to Google the title to 'get' it!!
As for the substance, it's a good point, and indeed the Goldie's/the Tories' stance is just as paradoxical as the SNP's 'independence in Europe'!!
It's always been beyond my comprehension that Tories who were so anti European union could be so pro British Union.
I'm not sure I buy the 300 years of tradition nonsense that is so often trotted out. 300 years or 30 years, if it's a problem being ruled from somewhere else, by some other than your own people, then, seems to me, it's a problem regardless of what the union is.
The common language is not much of an argument either. In this day and age we should be able to surmount that.
Some weeks ago I emailed Dan Hannan to ask him for his view on Scottish Independence, taking into account his opinion of Europe.
He has yet to reply.
If you read this Mr Hannan, feel free to reply on this forum.
I don't really see the SNP's 'independence in Europe' aim as paradoxical Stuart, though I can of course follow your logic.
Infact, I see the EU as the SNP's strongest selling point with regard to independence.
More MEPs, an elevated profile, a direct say on distinctly Scottish affairs when setting new regulations and countless opportunities to push Scottish business, culture and tourism direct with our European neighbours. This is not to mention a seat at gatherings like Copenhagen, Kyoto etc.
I don't think that amounts to a paradox as we can still enjoy all of the benefits of our cosy shared islands with England, Wales and NI just as we do currently.
Jeff, the EU is becoming unwieldy enough as it is, but another member would only add to this, although the point is perhaps that no one would really notice because Scotland's influence would be minimal - a little fish in a big pond.
As regards the independence/integration paradox, since all the Lisbon treaty talk is about ceding sovereignty to the EU then surely there's a fundamental parodox at work here vis-a-vis independence?
The SNP wants away from the shackles of Westminster but given the amount of legislation emanating from Brussels then that's an even bigger shackle, thus the paradox.
In the particular case of monetary policy, for example, the SNP often say that interest rates set in London are inappropriate for the whole of the UK, yet want to ultimately join the euro and thus see Frankfurt set rates for the whole EU?
Or has rhe SNP gone cold on the euro as well, and we'll now be keeping the pound as well as the Queen and the foreign embassies etc?
"Scotland's influence would be minimal - a little fish in a big pond."
On the contrary as already been pointed out Scotland’s influence would increase, and would be Scotland’s voice, not London’s. It is the small nations in the EU who are the most successful, due to their ability to respond quickly to crisis, without the yoke of layers of decision makers.
Here is what Daniel Hanna said, stating the bleeding obvious:
“Enclaves dominate the top of the list: Monaco, Liechtenstein, Brunei, Singapore, the UAE, the Channel Islands. It is easy to see why. Small countries require small bureaucracies, so there is less waste. This, in turn, reduces the need for taxation, and stimulates enterprise. Because the population tends to be homogenous, laws are less likely to have unintended consequences, and decisions are made more closely to the people they affect. If you disagree with your government’s position on, say, selling arms to China, you don’t organise a protest meeting: you have a quiet word with the foreign minister, whose daughter plays hockey with yours on Thursdays.”
There is nothing written in stone that says Scots will want to be in the EU. Many unionists jump for joy as they trumpet that Scotland will not be allowed into the EU as an independent nation, usually rounded of by, “so there.” Others say we will not be allowed out, “so there.” Then we hear that Shetland will want independence to take all the oil away from Scotland. “So there.” As each myth is debunked another one spins of the Rolodex. The SNP are variously described as “left wing loonies,” and out to the other extreme as “natz,” with all the nasty associations that little schoolboy word suggests. The ability of the likes of Gray and Scott and Goldie to face in every direction except Scotland’s is just sick making, their hypocrisy has condemned them to obscurity for decades. Macgrahi, Calman, the referendum, and now the EU. Treating the Scottish electorate with such naked contempt ensures that the independent express arrives sooner rather than later; unionist cringers may depart anytime they like, or stay and build the Scotland we all want.
KBW
Eh?
You say the small nations of the EU would be successful and you then cite Danial Hannan, who is clearly making an anti-EU point based almost wholly on non-EU countries?
And reading your post in the round, are you saying you want an independent Scotland outside the EU?
Clearly that's a plausible enough argument, but realistically speaking that seems an unlikely scenario even if Scotland did become independent, assuming of course that we could renegotiate membership post-independence and the possible legal barriers to Scottish membership aren't insurmountable. And it's certainly the case at the moment that SNP policy is to remain in Europe.
Thus assuming 'independence in Europe' for Scotland, there are clearly ways in which it could be more influential, but in other ways it wouldn't.
For example, in the Haggis Marketing Regulations debate Scotland would clearly carry some weight, but what about something like the Working Time Directive, what with the likes of the UK, France, Germany, Spain and a couple of dozen smaller countries all sticking their oar in?
If Scotland's particular needs are being ignored at the UK level at the moment, then surely it would be even worse in the EU context given the scenario outlined in the last paragraph?
For example, you say:
"It is the small nations in the EU who are the most successful, due to their ability to respond quickly to crisis, without the yoke of layers of decision makers."
How does that work, precisely?
For example, correct me if I'm wrong but I think Ireland's recession has been worse than it could have been because it's shackled to Frankfurt interest rates via the euro.
Post a Comment
<< Home