We must not shy away from hard questions ahead of indyref2

Amidst all the sound and fury of the unveiling of Sue Gray’s report this week the 2-year anniversary of Brexit passed with little fanfare. 

But 31st January 2020 was quite a momentous day in Scotland with grassroots demonstrations across the country, including outside Holyrood, and a major speech from the First Minister setting out the next steps on the road to independence. 

The FM’s speech contained a number of important announcements. She renewed her commitment to securing a second referendum by means of a section 30 order but did not rule out the alternative of putting an indyref bill through Holyrood, without Westminster’s permission, and defending it in court if necessary. She said that she wanted the referendum to be held in 2020 but conceded it was more likely to be held after the Scottish parliament election in 2021. She outlined a plan to invite Scotland’s elected representatives – MSPs, MPs, the MEPs elected in the last UK EU elections in 2019 and council leaders – to come together to endorse a modern Claim of Right for Scotland through a new Constitutional Convention. And last but not least she promised a series of “New Scotland” policy papers to provide the detail on how Scotland could make the transition from a Yes vote to becoming an independent country. 

All of that generated quite a bit of its own sound and fury but I was of the view that there was much to welcome in the speech. No-one could have foreseen that less than 2 months later we would be entering a period of lockdown as a result of the worst health pandemic in living memory. And of course all that followed has knocked events off course. 

But now we are assured  that things are back on track, a referendum is planned for next year and a team of civil servants are working on those policy papers. Despite Ian Murray’s ludicrous intervention earlier this week that work is legitimate, and it should continue. The civil service is supposed to assist the elected government to delivers its manifesto promises. Ian Murray’s letter to Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary and chief UK civil servant, suggesting that this work was an abuse of tax-payers money was at face value profoundly undemocratic and in truth I suspect just mischief making. Nevertheless it was good to see other unionists such as Professor Adam Tomkins argue that Ian Murray was wrong and that the SNP Government must be allowed to pursue the goal of independence with help from civil servants. 

It's widely accepted now that a new prospectus is required for independence not just because of Brexit but also because of the significant change in the economic conditions as a result of the pandemic. The commitment to tackle the climate emergency also necessitates a different focus for Scotland’s economic future. 

One of the most important issues the civil service team will need to work on under the guidance of Scottish government ministers is the management of Scotland’s borders after independence which was the subject of a major new report published yesterday. The report is the work of two well respected  experts in the field, Katy Hayward, Professor of Political Sociology at Queens University Belfast and Nicola McEwen, Professor of Territorial Politics at the University of Edinburgh, both fellows at the leading think tank UK in a Changing Europe. 

They say it is not intended to be a comprehensive report, more of a first step in raising some of the issues that might come up if Scottish independence were to result in an EU border across Britain. However it covers a lot of important ground and has already been welcomed by experts in EU relations such as Dr Kirsty Hughes as “detailed and insightful”. 

The report is much more than just a discussion of tariffs and checks on goods as it also explores the challenges of the movement of people, services, capital and digital data across borders. Nor is it just about border management and control, it also touches on economics and the issue of how an independent Scotland might accede to the EU and manage the transition to full membership. 

As well as exploring the challenges for our trading relationship with England, the report alludes to the positive benefits of an independent Scotland’s membership of the EU and the ‘de-bordering’ that would be effected in our relations with Europe opening up the markets of the 31 countries in the EU single market. 

Another positive is that the authors are clear in their expectation that Scotland would secure an opt-out from the EU Schengen Agreement on a similar basis to Ireland. So no more scare stories about the difficulty of visiting your relatives down south or indeed going to live, study or work there as Scotland would remain in the Common Travel area which permits British and Irish citizens to move freely and live, work, study and access services across the islands of Britain and Ireland. 

The report concludes that if we want to instil confidence in the transition to independence then we need a detailed prospectus which confronts the challenges that Brexit has presented including managing the movement of goods, services and people across our borders. I could not agree more. When framing policy its unwise to shy away from the hard questions and to dismiss valid concerns. As we have seen with the Northern Irish protocol debacle and indeed in controversial matters closer to home  it only leads to more problems. It is inevitable that any new prospectus for independence will be pored over. There’s a heavy weight of responsibility on the Scottish Government  Ministers leading the work commenced by the new civil service team but as this new report shows there is a wealth of expertise to draw on. 

We should look forward with optimism to the unveiling of the policy papers and hope too that the constitutional convention idea will be revived but with a commitment to involve the grassroots of the Yes movement.