WE were told, during our own referendum campaign not so long ago, that voting for independence would see us kicked out of the EU.
Today we face that prospect through no choice of our own. And we believe it is imperative to record an emphatic Remain vote in Scotland.
Firstly, because we believe in the EU and its aims. But also because it would be best for our small, outward-looking nation to forcefully distance ourselves from the squalid, unedifying, self-obsessed debate that has taken place in England over the past few months.
We used to be of the view, shared by many of our political leaders, that it would be harder to win a second independence referendum if the UK voted to leave the EU and Scotland voted to stay. It would throw up more variables, more questions to answer, further arguments to win.
EU membership in balance as poll shows vote too close to call
But events of the past few weeks, the UK’s lurch into jingoistic fervour, and the very real threat of a right-wing takeover led by the likes of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Nigel Farage, has given us pause. We have noted certain people and organisations – and there are some surprising names in there – who have said they would consider backing independence in the event of Brexit.
We are still of the mind that the easiest and best path to Scottish independence comes after the UK as a whole votes to Remain. And yet...
Whatever happens, though, one thing is certain. The best outcome for Scotland tomorrow morning is to wake up having emphatically voted to stay in the European Union. We’ve done well out of the EU: investment, trade, jobs, working conditions, and not least the stability that comes from peace. Scotland’s future in Europe is far better than being out of Europe.
We do wish the debate had focused on these issues. In the run-up to our own referendum, Scotland was buzzing with discussion. By asking the constitutional question, we were able to talk about the way things are, and they way things could be. Every pub, hairdresser, taxi, dinner table and staff room conversation was about Yes or No, and what was best for Scotland. Certainly, there were moments when that debate was not so civic, when it was less friendly, but for many of us, the over-riding memory of that time was of the engagement, the firing up of people who had never before taken an interest in politics.
But even at its worst, the independence referendum was nothing compared to what we have just suffered. This hasn’t been a debate on the constitution, or about Britain’s place in the world, or even about immigration. It’s been a contest for the Tory party leadership in which we’ve been forced participants.
We suspect that Boris Johnson doesn’t give much of a hoot about Europe. For him, it’s about becoming the next Prime Minister. The people of the UK have been treated like the waiter of a restaurant visited by the Bullingdon Club. We’re a prop in petty, needless battles; in an argument between rich, white, male Tories.
There have been two halves to this campaign: the economics and the immigration. Leave have not just lost the economic argument, they have been so roundly defeated that they’ve been left with little choice but to lie, and lie again. On the side of the Brexit bus driving Boris around the country (though never to Scotland) is written: “We send the EU £350 million a week, let’s fund our NHS instead. Vote Leave.”
This is just wrong. Everyone in the Leave camp knows it’s wrong. They have been told it’s wrong by independent experts, and their own supporters. And yet they still make the claim, repeating it often.
The figures misses the £74m rebate, deducted before the money is sent to Brussels. It neglects to include the £88m a week spent in the UK on things like regional aid and support for farmers or the £27m a week that supports research projects in UK universities and companies. The Leave campaign could quite easily have made the claim that we send £161m to Brussels; it would have still made their point. But they didn’t. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are trying to deliberately mislead the voters of Britain.
On immigration they have had more success in winning people round. That is because there are concerns and challenges presented by immigration, and more so in England than in Scotland. But the Leave campaign have managed to transform those concerns into anger and hate.
In the fight for the constituency of Smethwick in the 1964 election, Tory candidate Peter Griffiths was elected on the back of the slogan “If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour.”
“I would not condemn any man who said that,” he told The Times during his campaign. “I regard it as a manifestation of popular feeling.”
It is the “are you thinking what we’re thinking?” argument. They may not use the “n” word, but the Breaking Point poster of Nigel Farage is a direct descendent of Griffith’s tactics. And the official campaign have used the bogeyman of Turkey joining the EU – without once mentioning the UK’s (or indeed Cyprus’s) veto of such a possibility. One of the most frustrating aspects of this referendum has been the Leave campaign’s rush to dismiss any argument against them as
Project Fear while they themselves use the most outrageous scare stories to work voters up into a frenzy.
We hope the readers of The National will help us deliver an emphatic Remain vote today – it is what’s best for Scotland.
We can only do our bit. What happens next? Well, we’ll see.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here