Game Changer

I wrote about this subject just the other day - the potential for the increasingly hostile  politics of English voters towards Europe - to impact on the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence.

See post dated 11 May 2013 - 'Double Standards'.

So, I was interested to to read the following article by Kevin McKenna in yesterday's Observer which raised man of the same points.

Particularly the contradictary behaviour of many UK politicians who demand more political freedom for the Westminster Parliament - while arguing that the same freedom over economic policy should be denied to the Scottish Parliament whether as part of the UK or as a fully  independent country.

In my view the political pressure for a future referendum on the UK's future relations Europe is now unstoppable - and any mainstream political party that seeks to deny the people their right to have a say - will be portrayed correctly as completely out of touch and undemocratic.

Now I would vote Yes - to stay in Europe - but it seems that a very different relationship with our European neighbours or coming out of the European Union altogether - is the settled will of the majority of English voters.

In which case does that mean that some like me with broadly pro-European outlook - should vote Yes to independence as the only way for Scotland to remain as a member of the EU?

Up till now the Better Together campaign has had an easy ride - highlighting all the 'what ifs' and imponderables of Scotland becoming and independent country - yet now a much higher risk political strategy is being forced on Westminster politicians by voters in England.  

Union with Ukip's England? Spare us

Nationalists should be making an equitable immigration policy a central policy plank

By Kevin McKenna

One by one, the few remaining ties that bind us with England are being loosened. For those of us who have cherished our shared heritage with our southern neighbours, the first two weeks in May have been dismal ones. The success of Ukip in the English local elections might have been inevitable, but even so, the procession of grotesques who staggered out of our television screens and into our living rooms the other week made you wrap your coat more tightly about yourself and steal a glance at the clock counting down the days to the referendum on Scottish independence. It seems the English people and their political classes are in thrall to a party that has only two policies: fear of immigrants and loathing for Europe and which is led by a chap who, it seems, has never stopped celebrating winning the Butlins 1983 Arthur Daley lookalike contest. How on earth did proud England ever let it come to this?

Not even David Cameron's most fervent supporters would claim that he has ever had a strong grip on the parliamentary Conservatives, but his attempts to appease the Worzel Gummidge faction on his party's right by allowing Ukip to set his agenda on membership of the EU have been abject. And, as the Queen's speech underlined, the spectre of Nigel Farage is also forcing Cameron to squeeze immigrants even further. At this rate, Britain will be herding all of our "bad" immigrants (Bulgarians, Romanians, Albanians and citizens of North African states) into caves and bothies.

The BBC's vox pop on the streets of Boston, Lincolnshire, following Ukip's local election surge made you wonder if Scots have a creator in common with these people, let alone values and heritage.

"Did you vote for Ukip?"

"Yes."

"Why?"

"Because of all those foreigners taking our jobs."

One after another they gathered and let out the despairing howl of beaten and self-pitying people everywhere: we're too lazy and pig ignorant to take jobs that we consider beneath us but we'll blame the aliens anyway.

It's easy to dismiss Ukip as one of those passing English curiosities, but watch how well they do in the 2014 European elections and count how many Tory activists vote for them.

Instead of criticising the English Tories for politicising the Queen's speech by including a reference to defending the union, Scottish nationalists should be rejoicing and making plans to award Farage the freedom of Scotland. The Ukip leader has handed Scottish nationalists a gilt-edged opportunity to ask their fellow Scots: "Do you really want to be in a union with a country whose citizens are gathering behind this man and his policies in ever-increasing numbers?"

Now is the time for the SNP to state unequivocally a fair and just immigration system will be one of the charisms of an independent Scotland. Our current first minister and his predecessor have proclaimed Scotland as a country that is outward-looking and will open its arms to welcome people from other countries, be they economic migrants or those fleeing oppression and torture.

Until now, Scottish politicians have been able to proclaim their liberal immigration credentials secure in the knowledge that, as it is a reserved matter, they didn't have to legislate for it. Thus our government has sought exemption (in vain) from the UK's immigration cap and criticised the prohibitive earning requirements for people seeking to live in Scotland. I don't doubt the sincerity of sentiments such as these, but until they are tested they will merely be well-meaning hand-wringing.

The SNP now has a game-changing opportunity to move Scotland spiritually, emotionally and ethically away from England by delivering an immigration policy that is as compassionate and open as England's is ugly and spiteful. This should be a cornerstone of its white paper due before the end of the year.

Westminster's immigration policy is based on the premise that England is already overcrowded. It is in a state of chaos because successive home secretaries, both Labour and Tory, have pandered to the white-van knuckle-draggers at all times. Ed Miliband accused David Cameron of trying to out-Farage Nigel Farage. Miliband, though, is a wretched and spineless politician. He was part of a Labour government that fundamentally, and unjustly, altered the status of refugees to the UK. In 2005, they announced that those granted refugee status under a UN Convention would receive five years' leave to remain rather than indefinite leave to remain. The confusion sown by this sop to England's swivel-eyed anti-immigrationists as the deadline to reapply approaches is total and utter.

There has been very little evidence thus far that the SNP and Yes Together have the balls to trust their instincts on the big questions. They created a new land speed record in distancing themselves from adopting a new Scottish currency and Alasdair Gray's thoughtful essay on the undermining of Scottish culture. At times, they are afraid of their own shadows.

In an independent Scotland, we would assume that we will have an enlightened asylum and human rights policy but what will that actually mean in situations that cannot be so neatly packaged? Where will we be on rights for emerging EU states such as Croatia, Serbia and Turkey; family reunion; work permits; entry visas and indefinite or temporary leave to remain.

In a fringe speech at last year's SNP conference, Maggie Lennon of the Bridges Programmes told delegates, including Fiona Hyslop, the culture and external affairs minister, to own this policy. "This is an issue that always has the potential to be manipulated by the media and to divide public opinion. To whom will you pander and will you have the stomach for brave policy initiatives?"

In the forthcoming referendum, Scots shouldn't be told how much they will get in an independent Scotland; rather, they should be asked how much they are willing to give. I would give a lot to be in a country that had a progressive and enlightened policy on immigration and integration.