I’m a pro-EU Scot, and I just voted for Brexit.
In the week leading up to the June 23 historic referendum on the UK’s EU membership, the Leave campaign took a surprise lead. Not only is its advantage surprising to me, but I’m also no longer filled with horror at the prospect. Two weeks ago I could see no other option but a Remain vote, yet only a few days ago I posted my ballot with the opposite box ticked. You see, I want Scotland to be a member of the European Union. Not the UK.
What has changed is that I no longer view a Brexit as the end of the story. A problem with referenda in general is the binary choice, which, just like the two party system in the US, is tragically perfect for allowing partisan bickering and assumptions.
The arguments have generally been portrayed as a battle of right versus left, internationalism vs nationalism, but Paul Mason, author of Postcapitalism, was hardly waving a Union Jack when he argued on Question Time that a Brexit may be appropriate.
The one issue that gave him pause was the fallout in terms of spin, not in terms of political reality, and I couldn’t agree more. Which brings me to the topic that changed my mind: the lack of respect for voters in individual Home Nations.
At one point I was convinced by the SNP line that Scotland had to return a strong Remain vote in order to avoid being pulled out against the will of the country’s voters. When the ballot came in the post, however, I extended this line of thinking. If voters in England were forced to Remain in the EU against their collective will, surely that would be just a reprehensible as Scotland being dragged out?
I can almost see a jubilant David Cameron, wiping his brow, legacy protected, thanking ‘Britain’ for choosing to stay, all the while completely whitewashing the democratic will of those in England or Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland are polling very strongly for Remain).
On the other hand, as a believer in Scottish independence, I’m well aware that my Leave vote will be lost, north of the border at least, in a sea of Remain votes. Here’s the controversial part: If Scotland and Northern Ireland’s will is balanced out by the will in England and Wales; if the vote is 50:50; if my vote tips the balance; it will be the ultimate slap in the face, the wake up call to hundreds of thousands of people of the absolutely necessity of independence.
#Indyref2 and a’ that
Scotland didn’t want this referendum. UKIP polled at less than 2% here in the 2015 General Election. We’re having it because UKIP polled at 15% in England, in response to an immigration situation that it is entirely inappropriate to absorb into a ‘British’ or UK situation. One-size-fits-all-policies do not work when there are such distinct political needs, nation by nation.
Now, I understand why the SNP can’t advocate such a dangerous position. They were crucified for helping vote down James Callaghan’s government in 1979, despite the widespread sense of betrayal after a Scottish Assembly was not delivered. The problem is when you stand back and let the machinations of the unbalanced, borderline-colonial UK system take hold, with a simple retort to voters of ‘do you get it now?’, you are seen as enablers.
So the SNP have their political reality to deal with, to be constant resisters, never enablers, when it comes to Conservative ideas. However, let’s look at the EU. It is an organisation that wants to expand to include nations such as Albania and Turkey (eventually). Remember that Spanish leader Mariano Rajoy played a large role in raising fears, ironically, about Scotland’s EU membership in the event of independence (largely in response to his issue with Catalonian demands for the same).
Which scenario do you think would make EU leaders, in an expansionist group, more likely to support Scottish independence and EU membership? A Remain vote, then a Scottish indyref, destabilising the EU status that had only been guaranteed in 2016, or a Leave vote, where you act pragmatically to allow Scotland back into the fold, and prevent an EU-wide collapse?
On a final note, I believe the flux created by a Leave vote among those carrying out negotiations would be enough to level the playing field, in terms of the underhand tactics between the structures of the Scottish and British governments. I do not have enough faith in the impartiality of civil servants to believe that Alistair Darling’s multiple meetings with Jeremy Heywood, the UK’s most senior civil servant, prior to the ‘no currency union’ stance, were just a coincidence.
The bizarre Guardian revelation that the Queen’s ‘think very carefully about the future’ statement on independence was written by Heywood is further confirmation, to my mind at least, that any further moves towards independence, including a Leave vote, will be thoroughly opposed by the British state. A peaceful destabilisation could provide the space a pro-indy case needs.
A Leave vote is about more than short term issues like roaming charges, cheaper flights or a vague, easily exploitable sense of ‘togetherness’. It may well determine whether Scotland’s place within the EU is our business, or somebody else’s.
Leave a Reply