Silence over Brexit is not an option

NE of the immediate consequences of victory for the Leave campaign in the EU referendum was renewed calls for a second independence referendum.

Critics described Nicola Sturgeon as jumping on a bandwagon for suggesting the two issues might be linked. In June, Secretary of State for Scotland David Mundell accused her of opportunism.

Now he has developed that attack, accusing her of using Brexit to “look for a row” and promote independence, and calling her a prisoner of her party.

This seems a strange line to take, regardless of the individual’s stance on independence. It is not opportunism to continue to say what you have said all along.

There could not be a clearer example of Scotland voting one way and being forced to accept a different outcome than the EU referendum. If it is believed, as the SNP believes, that Scotland should control its own destiny and that our nation faces a democratic deficit, what clearer example could there be to develop these themes than in the Brexit debate? The SNP’s prescription to address that can itself be debated but it seems obtuse to deny the political consistency of Ms Sturgeon’s position.

Mr Mundell’s rhetoric does not appear helpful at a time when the approach to Brexit from the SNP has been relatively calm. Both Ms Sturgeon and her Brexit Minister, Michael Russell, have been measured in their approach, with Mr Russell careful not to rule out the possibility of a UK Brexit deal that would nevertheless be good for Scotland. However, we are still waiting to hear from the Scottish Government about what exactly Mr Russell will be looking for; the “nuances”, as Mr Mundell puts it.

The Scottish Parliament, like Westminster, will not have a vote on when and how the UK leaves the EU. But the High Court has ruled that the UK Government must publish the detailed reasoning and the legal advice that lies behind its view that such a vote is unnecessary.

The First Minister is quite right to say that the Scottish Government will keep a close eye on such legal developments.

Mr Mundell also claims existing structures need not restrict negotiators discussing a post-Brexit deal for the UK. There may be an advantage in starting afresh in that all options are on the table. His colleague, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox, argues that the UK can end up with trade with the EU that is at least as free as at present.

Yet this seems unrealistic and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi confirmed that line of thinking in comments that suggested European Union members will not allow the UK to secure a deal that gives it more freedoms than other non-EU countries. There may be a blank slate in theory but, in practic,e there are major challenges ahead.

The consequences of Brexit are immense for Scotland and for the UK, regardless of whether Scotland is part of the Union or not.

The Conservative Government, including Mr Mundell, would do well to concentrate on that, rather than attack political opponents for asking questions that are pertinent and pressing.