Not quite business as usual
Referendum threats create unwelcome investor uncertainty
Amonth on from my last column, there’s a new spring in the step of many Scots. February saw Scotland’s international rugby team rise to its highest ever position of fi h in the world rankings and that has li ed spirits and captured the zeitgeist.
Some other things have also moved forward. The public debate about ‘false facts’ in news and media seems to have run its course with no sign of a resolution to the problem. Rather, it seems accepted that it is here to stay and the public needs simply to wise up to the situation.
As it happens, fish farming has long experience of the phenomenon. Some well-known anti-farming activists and their symbiotic journalists have almost made a career of using dubious, discredited and irrelevant facts’ and misrepresentations. But farmers should get used to it, because it seems to be here to stay.
The a ermath of the US presidential election has continued to attract the attention of the UK press and media. President Trump has continued to startle and dismay.
Following his very statesmanlike speech to the joint session of Congress on February 28, there seems a growing feeling that ‘things are going to be alright’, and that the responsibilities and in uences of the O ce of President are melding the man to the job - at least at the time of going to press.
In the UK, a two-clause Bill to allow the signing of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and start the formal two-year period of Brexit’ negotiations with the EU is passing through Westminster.
It is on course to allow Brexit negotiations to begin before the summer. Present and former parliamentarians have seized the opportunity to proffer views for or against Brexit. However, no one is seriously proposing a rerun of the EU referendum vote so the direction of travel is firmly set.
The UK government’s objective is to establish the most unconstrained negotiating remit possible and to convey to EU partners that it is prepared for the negotiations to fail (that is, no deal is better than a bad deal).
Few UK businesses would wish to end up with a no deal’ outcome (and neither would exporters in the EU). However, everyone will understand the logic of Mrs May’s hard positioning in preparation for the negotiations to come.
To add to the complexity, Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, is threatening a second Scottish independence referendum during the course of the two-year period of Brexit negotiations.
Unless you are closely in tune with SNP thinking, the logic behind this proposal is unfathomable.
Initially, the case was made on the basis of outrage that Scotland’s 62 per cent vote to remain in the EU was being disregarded’.
However, the EU referendum was a UK-wide poll and you cannot ignore the democratic principle that the UK-wide majority view should prevail.
Subsequently, the case was presented as a response to the intransigence of the UK government in not accepting special status for Scotland, so it could be treated differently from the rest of the UK and seek to remain in the EU.
Then, most recently, the case has been presented as a response to a suspected (but strongly denied) move by the UK government to reclaim powers from the Scottish parliament. If all this seems a little frantic to you, you are not alone.
Whether you ultimately believe in Scotland’s secession from the UK or not, the suggested timing of the referendum appears very di cult to justify.
It will present voters with a series of wholly imponderable uncertainties about almost every aspect of Scotland’s future, including its relationship with the UK and with the EU.
It looks as if it may be putting party interests above the economic and social interests of the country, and the majority of voters seem unlikely to buy into that.
If there is a case for a further referendum, it would make more sense a er the outcome of the UK Brexit process is known.
The case for Scotland’s secession from the UK and possible accession to the EU could then be properly evaluated.
Meanwhile, the continuous referendum threats are creating unwelcome business and investor uncertainties to the detriment of the Scottish economy. They also potentially weaken the UK’s negotiating position in respect of Brexit, and that too is not in Scotland’s best interests.
Throughout Scotland, companies striving to carry on with ‘business as usual’ will wish to see the referendum situation quickly resolved. Then things might get back to something like normal.
The suggested timing appears very di cult to justify”