David (Lord) Cameron, once again the biggest bugbear of the Scottish nationalist political class, has exercised some belligerent “muscular unionism” by slapping down Humza Yousaf over the First Minister’s go-it-alone forays on the global stage.
But is the resultant furore little more than a storm in a teacup over a breach of diplomatic protocol – and hardly an ultra-egregious effort by the wicked Tories to undermine the devolution settlement of 1998 and show who’s boss in the post-Brexit landscape?
And more’s the point, isn’t an improvement in UK-EU relations – and an end to Global Britain braggadocio – over the coming years inevitable, desirable and in Scotland’s own interests? Anything that moves the UK closer to European policies and positions can, arguably, only help the independence cause.
******
Cameron, who brought us the Brexit vote disaster and then went off to trouser money by lobbying his former ministerial colleagues on behalf of Greensill Capital, chided Yousaf for meeting Turkish president Recep Tayyat Erdogan without a FCDO minder in tow and went on to warn he could shut down Scottish Government hubs in British Embassies if this carried on much longer.
For some nationalist protagonists this was typical Old Etonian/Bullingdon Club arrogance from an unelected peer – and on a par with moves to rule the Gender Recognition Reform bill ultra vires through a Section 35 Order or grab power over devolved policy areas via the post-Brexit Internal Market Act. But that’s a hyperbolic reaction as others pointed out:
Of course, the agreements here are non-binding protocols and this all amounts to game-playing. The bigger points are whether the Scottish Government should simply relocate to its own offices in those (nine) capitals where it has hubs, including Beijing and Washington, and whether it is developing a distinct foreign policy that undermines the UK’s (a reserved power).
Some sage words from our colleague Kirsty Hughes on independent foreign hubs: “The UK Government would demand information on, and attendance at meetings. That’s not necessarily unreasonable. There’s plenty of coordination from German regional offices to federal government and embassies for example,” she told The Herald. What’s more, she adds, they’re unaffordable right now.
Equally, apart from on Brexit, there’s little evidence the Scottish Government is seriously trying to damage UK foreign policy by developing its own. Yes, it is pushing for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza inter alia when the UK is not but it has no real voice here. The real core of its nascent foreign policy – see the recent 60-page report on An independent Scotland in the EU – is rejoining the EU and even that isn’t fully formed. Here, too, absent independence, it cannot deliver.
Nor can it repeal the Internal Market Act despite the recent vote by MSPs to do just that. This is part of what some academics call “proto-“ as opposed to “para-diplomacy.” The former is the use of ’soft power’ in external relations, including cultural links, while the latter is pre-figuring a fully-fledged foreign policy. These academics argue: “Rather than producing the results these governments want, namely to secure significant international support for secessionist claims, they are much more likely to lead to international isolation, with consequent economic, social and political costs.”
A European future for Scotland – and the UK
Back to Cameron. A few days ago the UK foreign secretary joined forces with his German counterpart, Annalena Baerbock, to call for a “sustainable ceasefire” in Gaza – one repeated (with nuances: “immediate and durable”) by their French colleague, Catherine Colonna. Leaving to one side Rishi Sunak’s ill-judged flirtation with Italy’s far right premier Georgia Meloni, the return of the Big Three to lead European foreign and security policy will increasingly be the order of the day.
Consider the geo-political landscape. There is a growing likelihood of a renewed term in the White House for Donald Trump, signalling a return to protectionist trade policies and, critically, a potential threat to the stability of Nato along with a pro-Putin tilt and abandonment of Ukraine. That alone poses a huge dilemma for the UK which, in recent years, has adopted a servile pro-US position in foreign affairs (all the while dressing this up as Global Britain). The Middle East war and the continuing military threat, including to Taiwan, posed by the Chinese will also propel the UK closer to the EU/Europe.
This greater closeness will obviously be stronger under a Labour government in Westminster. There’s no suggestion Starmer and Lammy will openly advocate Rejoin but “la force des choses” will propel them towards more frequent joint foreign policy steps with Brussels – just when the EU as such is adopting a greater role through the common foreign and security policy and, above all, defence. Assuming the Far Right advance can be contained at next June’s European elections, this process is likely to expand as the Russian war in Ukraine turns into huge offensive.
The phrase “substate” is demeaning but accurate – as pro-European Scots have learned bitterly in the post-Brexit years. That won’t change this side of independence – if let alone it ever comes. In the meantime, rather than actively seeking hurt and grievance, we should encourage our fellow Brits to rebuild and extend relations with Europe – and wholeheartedly join that effort.
Featured and secondary image of Humza Yousaf with the Jordanian ambassador and of Angus Roibertson via Scottish Government flickr photostream CC BY 2.0 DEED
See also on this site: Fraser Cameron, A very Scottish foreign policy; Colin Imrie, An independent Scottish foreign policy; Elsewhere: Ben Martill, Britain and Europe after Ukraine, RSE
Leave a Reply