No-deal Brexit could lead to Scottish independence
Political crises are relative. Without diminishing the seriousness of the allegations against the Trudeau government in the Jody Wilson-Raybould affair, the consequences are unlikely to be felt by the vast majority of Canadians.
The Brexit impasse in the United Kingdom, on the other hand, is a crisis worthy of the name.
Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister of Scotland, was in Ottawa on a brief trade mission last week and was frank about the potential ramifications for ordinary people if the U.K. leaves the European Union next month without a divorce deal.
“There is a danger people will start to panic and that (could) lead to certain behavioural impacts,” she said in an interview. “I don’t want to overstate or be dramatic. But food shortages are not something that can be easily dismissed. If you think about it, it (would be) harder and take longer to import goods into the U.K. These things have implications that could be felt quite quickly.”
On Monday, the U.K. health minister, Stephen Hammond, said the National Health Service is stockpiling vaccines, medicines and body bags in case Britain leaves Europe without a deal.
Sturgeon, who leads the Scottish National Party that favours independence, is calling for Prime Minister Theresa May to extend the deadline beyond March 29 to ensure that doesn’t happen.
She said there is widespread anger in Scotland — “a sense of democratic injustice” — that the country is on the verge of being dragged out of the EU even though 62 per cent of Scottish voters opted to remain in the political and economic union. (The result across the U.K. was 48 per cent Remain, 52 per cent Leave.)
The indignation is compounded by the result of the 2014 independence referendum in Scotland, where many voters decided to vote “No” to a sovereign Scotland on the basis that remaining in the U.K. would keep the country in Europe.
“Just four or so years ago, we were being told we had to reject independence to protect our place in Europe. Now, because we’re not independent, we’re facing the prospect of being taken out against our will. I know a lot of people, people who voted ‘No’ in 2014 who would vote ‘Yes’ if there is another referendum,” said Sturgeon.
Her party won the most seats in the Scottish Parliament in 2016 on a mandate to hold another independence referendum. To this point, it has not pushed the U.K. government to grant one, presumably because opinion polls do not show a clear majority of people in favour of going it alone. (The last public poll showed support for independence is very close to the 45 per cent who voted ‘Yes’ in the 2014 referendum.)
Nevertheless, Sturgeon is confident it would be different this time. “While you can never be complacent about any electoral contest, I am as convinced as it is possible to be that, if Scotland is given the opportunity to choose again, it will choose independence,” she said.
A lawyer from Glasgow who was elected as first minister in 2014, she has been a member of the devolved Scottish parliament since its inception in 1999. Her brand of progressive politics is very much in sync with Justin Trudeau’s, even though the two have never met. (All Canadian prime ministers have been persuaded not to dabble with a separatist party from a subnational level of government, lest it inspire Quebec sovereigntists and irritate the British government. Sturgeon said she sees a solution: “I have ambitions for Scotland not to be a subnational government.”)
She acknowledged another independence referendum is coming but said there needs to be more transparency around Brexit for voters weary of uncertainty.
“If you look at what might happen between now and March 29, we could leave with a deal, we could leave with no deal, we might not leave at all, we could be looking at a second European referendum or a U.K. general election. There needs to be a bit of clarity around that,” she said.
Could her government wait until after the next Scottish election in 2021 before pressing the British parliament to grant another referendum?
“I wouldn’t say that at all. By definition, I haven’t come to a view on timing, so by definition I can’t really answer. But don’t forget the government I lead was elected on a very clear mandate to have another independence referendum in the circumstances that Scotland was to be taken out of the EU against our will. So I wouldn’t assume that it will be necessarily be after the next Scottish election,” she said.
Whenever it comes, she will face the same problems her predecessor, Alex Salmond, confronted in 2014 — a budget deficit that remains stubbornly high because Scotland’s revenues do not cover its spending.
Sturgeon said the next time around, the “No” campaign will not be able to “pull the wool over people’s eyes, as they tried to do in 2014.”
Yet the most recent expenditure and revenue figures for 2017-18 show that Scotland had a deficit of nearly $23 billion — 7.9 per cent of GDP (compared to 1.9 per cent for the U.K. as a whole).
A recovering oil price has boosted North Sea revenues and the country has strong finance, food and drink and renewable energy sectors (the focus of Sturgeon’s visit to Canada was to promote Scotland’s excellent cheese, beef, shellfish, beer, gin and Scotch).
But an independent Scotland would have to make major strides in growth and productivity if it were to maintain current spending and tax levels.
Not surprisingly, the nationalist leader has a pithy riposte.
“There’s something wrong if a country as prosperous as Scotland is in that position. My argument would be that that is not an argument for the status quo, it’s an argument for change, to give us the ability to shape and grow our economy more effectively,” she said.
If her worst fears about Brexit comes to pass, she may soon be able to test the theory as leader of a new, sovereign nation.
THAT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR THE STATUS QUO.