Why the Brexit poll could become England’s accidental ballot on Scotland leaving the UK

THE term ‘mansplaining’ has developed on social media to describe the annoying habit we chaps have of explaining important matters to women in patronising and condescending fashion. (For my gentle lady readers, this means we talk down to you about complicated stuff like economics, film plots and, of course, feminism).

I’ve noticed a new strain: Englands-plaining. This (usually) takes the form of a certain stripe of English Tory setting out in detail why Scots are wrong to say they think something and why in fact they really think the opposite.

A classic of the genre was provided recently by Bernard Jenkin, the MP for Harwich and North Essex, on the issue of whether the UK leaving the EU might lead to the unintended consequence of Scottish independence.

There used to be a jokey ‘rule’ in Westminster circles that if you were struggling to come to a view on any given issue, you should find out Bernard Jenkin’s position and go the other way. The truth is that Mr Jenkin is a clever, thoughtful and pleasant man. But still, he doesn’t half talk nonsense sometimes.

In an article earlier this month, he sought to allay concern that Brexit would result in the top bit of the UK toddling off to do its own thing. ‘The most important thing to understand is that the idea of another referendum in Scotland is extremely unpopular,’ he wrote. ‘The 2014 referendum saw bitter division in workplaces, families, villages and communities across Scotland. The idea of opening up another Scottish political civil war is unappealing to most Scottish voters.’

Condescending

He pointed out that the SNP lost the 2014 referendum ‘for two main reasons which will loom even bigger in any second referendum: Scotland does not have its own currency, and its Government relies on a massive subsidy from England. The structural fiscal deficit is now much worse following the collapse of the oil price.’

Not only that but the problem facing the Nationalist leadership is that ‘most of the SNP’s 100,000 new members comprise the new Corbynista-type, anti-English radicals. They think “one more heave” will rid them of the English, but Salmond and Sturgeon have wiser heads on their shoulders.

‘SNP “threats” of another referendum are not real threats but attempts to placate the anti-English rage in their own party. If the SNP is stupid enough to force a second Scottish independence referendum on the back of Brexit, as a Scottish businessman close to the 2014 Better Together campaign recently told me, it would make an SNP independence referendum victory all the more impossible. And privately they know that.’

I don’t know who Mr Jenkin’s ‘Scottish businessman’ is – though I could take a stab at a few names – but I doubt the fellow spends much time in Bute House. Further, I’m half-tempted to believe that parts of the article were drafted by SNP spin doctors: ‘massive subsidy from England’, ‘anti-English radicals’ and ‘antiEnglish rage’ all come from the unreconstructed, pre-Holyrood playbook that helped ruin the Tory party’s reputation in Scotland and poison the idea of the Union. In short, Bernard, shoosh.

It’s not that everything Mr Jenkin says is wrong. It is true, of course, that few Scots want another independence referendum any time soon.

It is also true that the collapse of the oil price is hammering the economy and has been a catastrophe for Aberdeen and the many companies that depend upon it.

Scotland’s onshore GDP grew at only 0.1 per cent in the third quarter of 2015, compared with 0.4 per cent for the UK as a whole. This doesn’t include offshore North Sea activity, which would make the gap even wider.

But at the risk of ‘Scotsplaining’, the problem with Mr Jenkin and his fellow Brexiteers is that they are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

They presume – as did the Better Together campaign – that the future of the Union will be decided solely on base financial calculation: will I be better or worse off under independence?

I’m sure that was and will continue to be true for some voters but for many others the thought process was and is less binary.

Including me: my No vote was based on a cat’s cradle of arguments but heavily weighted towards my belief that the UK has a continuing and important role to play on the global stage and in its major institutions. It is certainly true that we are not what we once were but nor are we nothing.

In an era of Islamist terror and caliphatebuilding, as economic power shifts towards Asia and as Vladimir Putin continues to throw his bodybuilder shapes, there are perhaps no good decisions to be made – but they must still be made. Western solidarity remains central to both our military and economic security.

So my No was never about wrapping myself in a Union flag, whatever the ‘Britnat’ jibes of the cybernats, but about trying to behave responsibly and morally in a way that I thought took account of and cared about the requirements of the wider world.

How does this relate to the EU referendum? Well, I find it hard to believe Britain’s current status and influence would in any way be maintained, far less enhanced, by leaving. Rather, it would be a step towards becoming the kind of diminished, self-obsessed country I argued against in 2014.

Further, it’s sobering to consider how many of those arguing for Brexit acknowledge they would continue to do so even if it meant Scotland would depart the UK – people who regard this as a price worth paying to escape the clutches of the EU.

I have friends at the more moderate end of the Leave campaign willing to accept such an outcome, and it seems unlikely this position softens as one heads towards the movement’s extremities.

I can only assume they do not share my core view of what Britain should be: an engaged, realistic global power that works in concert with its geographical and ideological neighbours.

A nation that understands it owes its prominence to its unique history and that uses the levers still available to it to bring its experience and wisdom to bear.

A country that has the maturity to work from within supra-national institutions, putting in the hard yards that deliver the frustratingly slow change that inevitably comes with inter-dependency.

Diminished

I take it personally. I didn’t batter out tens of thousands of words in 2014 arguing against one set of theory-driven constitutional extremists only to accept defeat at the hands of another, especially one that gives the impression it is driven by many of the same motives, deploys similar arguments and uses the same grotesque language – yesterday, one Brexiteer even referred to pro-EU Tories as ‘Quislings’.

The Outers display a Salmond-esque ‘one bound and we’re free’ obsession that overrides any desire to maintain national unity. If the rest of us want to be part of it, fine; if we don’t, we can get stuffed.

I’m afraid Brexit would have consequences that don’t neatly fit Bernard Jenkin’s logical narrative.

If Scots are taken out of the EU against their will, due to an English majority, the decisions taken by voters north of the Border are unlikely to be based purely on hard economics.

The Scottish national debate has moved towards matters of accountability, control and relevance, and this would speak directly to them. Consider: as a UK-wide poll yesterday gave Leave a six-point lead, a second survey found a majority of Scots would support independence in the event of Brexit.

We may, in effect, be about to hold an accidental English referendum on Scottish independence. They are entitled to vote as they wish, of course, but then so are we all. Let’s be aware of the messages our choices send.