I SEEM to have a new hobby. It’s called “trying to explain what’s happened in the last two weeks in UK politics to overseas journalists”. The trouble is it’s like trying to describe the plot of a complex black comedy to someone who doesn’t get black comedy, except this is real life and we are all extras in a cursed play called Brexit. The cast has precious few heroes but a plethora of idiotic and often cowardly villains causing problems then running away.
The UK’s standing in the world has nosedived faster than the value of the Pound and the prevailing mood after Brexit seems to be one of Bregret. Cameron has resigned and the new PM will be one that won’t have been chosen by the electorate; ironic given one of the main reasons argued for Brexit was that EU lawmakers are unelected. As it happens, the EU lawmakers are all elected by proportional representation – a more democratic system than Westminster – and the UK has roughly 800 unelected Lords more than the EU has commissioners.
The lead candidate to become the next PM is Theresa May, supported by her parliamentary colleagues but not by party members throughout the country. Her main contender, the committed Brexiter Andrea Leadsom, claimed that as leader she would be “the new Margaret Thatcher”. While in Scotland that is enough to bar you from ever holding public office, apparently in the Tory Party it can catapult you from unknown to potential unelected PM in a couple of weeks.
Ironically, Theresa May – who actually is the new Margaret Thatcher – wants to be PM so that she can manage the process of leaving the EU. She says she was against Brexit but I suspect she failed to campaign effectively against it because, privately, she was in favour. That this makes her a good candidate for Conservative leader contrasts with the fact that Jeremy Corbyn is facing a leadership revolt for behaving in exactly the same way. At last there is a policy difference between Westminster Labour and Westminster Conservatives but I am dammed if I understand why.
Cameron is not the only one to retire from the field. Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage have joined him in abdicating responsibility for sorting out this unholy omnishambles that Brexit has unleashed. You would have thought that at least one of them would have had a plan. The press went berserk at Alex Salmond for not having a plan B for currency during the independence referendum, but no one even had a plan A this time around.
This is important, as the current economic instability has been caused not by Brexit itself but largely by the vacuum in political leadership at Westminster. If, two weeks ago, David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and George Osborne had stood together and said, “Here is the transition plan. Step by step, we have thought through every contingency. The transition to a new PM will be swift, and we will work together to make the best of this situation,” then the economic turmoil might have been blunted. Instead we have calls for a second EU referendum from many of the same people who said that, as they are one-off events, Scotland can’t have a second independence referendum.
Up steps Nicola Sturgeon, empowered by the fact that every Scottish council area voted to stay in the EU. She convinced the Scottish Parliament to back her trip to the EU to explore all options. This even led to an editorial in a Canadian newspaper calling for Sturgeon to become the UK prime minister – see what I mean about black comedy? That’s funny, no, no it’s not sad, it’s funny, get it?
However, even the FM can’t escape the all-engulfing irony in a post-Brexit world. Even as many in Westminster are calling for the EU referendum result to be ignored, as it was generated by lies and misleading statements, she still has to respect the result of the 2014 referendum – largely won through lies and misleading statements.
Scotland staying in the EU while also staying in the UK – the “reverse-Greenland” option – is so unlikely that the idea’s only purpose is to exhaust all avenues. This is a huge problem for Ruth Davidson, who managed to overtake Labour and become the second largest party in Scotland by making the Tories a single-issue party, promising to stand up for the UK no matter what. Only months later Davidson has found the UK disintegrating and self-destructing due to the actions of her own party. Maybe her next manifesto will promise to oppose the Westminster Conservatives?
When Spanish PM Mariano Rajoy made it clear that if we are part of the UK when it officially leaves the EU then we exit too, unionist newspapers scream that it’s “a blow to Sturgeon” when actually that’s what she really wants.
Scotland, it seems, is welcome in the EU, but only if we become an independent country before the UK leaves. Then we should be seen as the continuing state with no need to re-apply, so no veto on our slightly rejigged membership deal.
To be sure of this the UK Government must allow separate negotiations for Scotland. If they don’t, they trap Scotland in a Brexit we didn’t vote for and pretty much guarantee independence. If they do, Scotland will have a clear roadmap to independence within the EU, also pretty much guaranteeing independence. A phrase with the words “hard place” and “rock” comes to mind.
Almost nothing makes sense, but you do get the idea that the First Minster has spied an opportunity not only to justify indyref2 but to do it in a way that cajoles a large number of past No then Remain voters into the Yes camp.
Spare a thought for the Brexit voters, mostly in the rest of the UK, who wanted to take their country back, despite no one ever taking it from them in the first place. In about four or five years when the UK eventually has a new EU trade deal that keeps borders open, follows EU regulations, makes no difference to immigration and costs the same as EU membership without any grants, and with Scotland out of the UK, they will wonder what it wasall for.
A black comedy indeed. So the next time someone asks “How did this European debacle actually start in the first place?”, I am just going to say: “A bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich ‘cause he was hungry”.
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